Tuesday, 22 August 2023 (continued on Thursday, 24 August 2023) PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS Tim van de Molen—Privileges TIM VAN DE MOLEN (National—Waikato): Point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek leave to make a personal statement. SPEAKER: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There appears to be none. TIM VAN DE MOLEN: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Today, the Privileges Committee has presented its report into the question of privilege concerning my conduct towards the chairperson of the Transport and Infrastructure Committee. The Privileges Committee has found my actions to be a contempt of Parliament, and when Parliament sits next week, I will be censured. Members of Parliament and parliamentary staff should be able to carry out their duties in a stable environment. The report from the Privileges Committee makes it clear that my conduct after the select committee on 29 June had an impact on others that I had not appreciated. Although I have a different recollection of some aspects of the incident, I completely accept the findings of the committee. I apologise to all those who were in the room but specifically to Mr Halbert, who was most impacted by my conduct. I am horrified at the thought of my conduct having been perceived as threatening. This is not at all in my nature, and I've enjoyed working constructively with MPs from across the House. Obviously, in this instance, I have fallen short of my own expectations and the expectations of the House. No one should feel threatened in their workplace, and it was certainly not my intent to threaten Mr Halbert. Regardless, my conduct was not appropriate, and it should not have happened. I would also like to apologise specifically to the select committee staff, who do a wonderful job for us all. I'd like to thank the many MPs that have offered their support through this process. And, finally, I would also like to extend an apology to all members of this House for the impact my actions may have on the perception of parliamentarians and of this House. ORAL QUESTIONS QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS Question No. 1—Energy and Resources 1. GLEN BENNETT (Labour—New Plymouth) to the Minister of Energy and Resources: How is the Government partnering with businesses to reduce their emissions? Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister of Energy and Resources): Recently, I announced the Government is partnering with a further 17 businesses to accelerate decarbonisation projects, which will cut their use of fossil fuels, reduce emissions, and protect and create highly skilled jobs in New Zealand. Through round five of the Government Investment in Decarbonising Industry fund, or GIDI, these Government-backed projects are estimated to reduce carbon emissions by 67,300 tonnes per year—the equivalent to taking approximately 25,000 cars off the road. Glen Bennett: What are some examples of the projects supported through GIDI round five? Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: Through round five, the Government is partnering with Open Country Dairy Awarua on a significant project to install a large, high-pressure electrode boiler and three high-temperature heat pumps. This alone will contribute over half of the emissions reductions in round five. We're also partnering with Rainbow Park Nurseries in Auckland, which will be the first in the country to use highly efficient heat pump technology to warm the water that runs through the glasshouses. Rainbow Park have said that funding brought forward their green upgrade by at least four or five years, delivering emissions reductions sooner and when New Zealand needs them. Glen Bennett: Have any of the projects funded through the Government's partnership been completed? Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: Twenty-six projects funded through the Government's partnership with businesses have been completed. These include new equipment for energy efficiency and carbon reduction at the Whakatane paperboard mill, an electrode boiler at Meadow Mushrooms in Christchurch, and a biomass boiler at Napier Pine. These projects accelerate emissions reductions while protecting and creating jobs here in New Zealand. Glen Bennett: How will the Government's partnerships with business contribute to New Zealand's emissions goals? Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: Across GIDI, we've now partnered with 56 businesses on 83 projects to accelerate the decarbonisation of industrial process heat. Once operational, all projects are estimated to result in annual emissions reductions of up to 1.6 million tonnes of carbon dioxide. That is the equivalent of taking approximately 590,000 cars off the road. Anyone who purports to cut this scheme needs to tell us how they're going to make up for that. Glen Bennett: What investments is the Government making to support decarbonisation in New Plymouth? Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: Oh, an excellent question. The Government is investing in two decarbonisation projects at Taranaki Hospital. These projects will replace the hospital's fossil gas boiler with a low-emissions alternative and improve the energy efficiency of the hospital, elevating it to green star building status. Once complete, these projects are estimated to reduce the carbon emissions at the hospital by 10,340 tonnes over 10 years. In addition, the Government is partnering with businesses to deliver 21 chargers to the Taranaki region to support the transition to a low-emissions transport system. These projects will help reduce transport emissions and improve the reliability of electric vehicle transport infrastructure in New Plymouth. Question No. 2—Finance 2. NICOLA WILLIS (Deputy Leader—National) to the Minister of Finance: Does he stand by all his statements related to Government tax and spending decisions? Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): Yes, acknowledging the context in which they were made. Nicola Willis: Does he believe he has honoured his commitment not to implement any new taxes this term, and how does he reconcile that with having turned the brightline test into a virtual capital gains tax, having introduced an app tax, new tenant taxes, tried to introduce a wealth tax at the Budget, a KiwiSaver tax, and a jobs tax? Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: As I've noted before to the member, I have been—if we're going to apply the word "tax" to every single policy or action, I would apply the "waffle tax" to her leader as an example of that. I stand by the programme of work that we have undertaken. We have undertaken initiatives to make our tax system fairer whilst balancing the need to provide good quality public services. Nicola Willis: Does he think he was honouring his commitment not to implement any new taxes this term when he asked officials from across Government to develop a wealth tax for introduction in this year's Budget? Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: As has been discussed extensively in this House, that would not have come into force until after the election, and the public, had it been taken up, would have had an opportunity to decide whether they wanted it or not. In the event it was not taken up, by Cabinet decision. Nicola Willis: Does he stand by his statement that he was "too definitive" when he ruled out extending the brightline test prior to the election, and can he confirm that if someone today lives outside of their family home for 12 months, for any reason—illness, secondment, bereavement—then they will be subject to a capital gains tax if they sell their home within a 10-year period? Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: In answer to the first part of the question, yes. In answer to the second part of the question, the rule that the member is highlighting is the rule that the National Party brought in. I will quote from when they bought it in: "The owner must have resided in their 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." This is what National brought in. Nicola Willis: Why is the finance Minister trying to blame National for the effect of a brightline test that he extended to 10 years, and a definition of the main home which means that families who live outside their home will now be subject to a capital gains tax? Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Because the National Party brought that rule in. The National Party brought in the brightline test; the rule hasn't changed in that respect. Nicola Willis: Would the Minister also like to blame National for his extensive reflection on the need for a wealth tax, for his reflection on the need for a KiwiSaver tax that would wipe tens of billions of dollars off New Zealanders' KiwiSaver accounts, for his decision to increase tenant taxes without a mandate from the electorate, or is it actually his responsibility that those decisions were made? Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Over the course of the last six years we've worked extremely hard to support New Zealanders through very tough times, including the COVID pandemic and including the period of time now where cost of living pressures are so high. We've done that in the context of inheriting a situation where New Zealand public services had been consistently run down. So, yes, we had to invest heavily in health to make sure we paid our nurses properly, to make sure we recruited health staff. We had to invest heavily in education to make sure we didn't have kids learning in halls and in corridors outside classrooms, and to make sure that teachers are here and that they're paid properly. We had to invest extensively to make sure that we got away from the National Party policy of selling off public and State housing and instead building 13,000 public houses. So, yes, there will always be an element of what we are doing where we have to look back and say, "We are cleaning up the National Government's messes." Hon Damien O'Connor: Has the Minister reflected on or done any analysis on what would happen if there was an increase in the GST across this country? Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: As the member well knows, that is not something that the Government has increased, and previous Governments who didn't do that reflection before they went into office and then just did it straight after without telling New Zealanders certainly have something to reflect on. Nicola Willis: How can New Zealanders trust any commitment he makes on tax when it may be that he takes a detour down the road to Damascus at any juncture? Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Mr Speaker—I just didn't know that had finished. This Government stands proudly on the record we have had of supporting New Zealanders through tough times, making sure we look after the most vulnerable in our community, making sure that we have quality public services available, and making sure that what we do adds up. The member has a set of unfunded promises that don't add up and place her firmly in the Bermuda fiscal Triangle that Paul Goldsmith created for her. Question No. 3—Health 3. SARAH PALLETT (Labour—Ilam) to the Minister of Health: What is the Government doing to reduce youth vaping? Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Minister of Health): Earlier this week, I confirmed a number of new regulations aimed at reducing youth vaping, including proximity restrictions and limiting flavour descriptions. These new regulations build on the previous protections we introduced, including banning sales to under-18s and prohibiting vape advertising and sponsorship. The impact of these regulations will continue to be monitored. Nothing is off the table in terms of what we need to do to make sure we see a reduction in youth vaping while retaining sufficient tools for smoking cessation. Sarah Pallett: What change is the Government making to reduce the appeal of vaping to children? Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: While some vape flavours are described generically, others are described in ways that appear to be designed to specifically appeal to young people. Studies have found that flavours are important for initiation and continuation of vaping among young people. That's why we have changed regulations so that vape products and their packaging will only be able to have generic descriptions that accurately describe the types of flavours. Sarah Pallett: What change is the Government making to make vapes less accessible to children? Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: We want vapes as far from the minds and reach of children and young people as possible. That's why any locations within 300 metres of schools and marae will be off limits for new specialist vape shops. Limiting the proximity of specialist vape shops in this way is intended to make vapes less visible and accessible to young people. Sarah Pallett: Why is the Government working to reduce youth vaping? Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: Many of the regulatory controls are there to protect young people from vaping. Youth vaping has grown, despite the laws we've brought in to prohibit sales to under-18s. Alongside our efforts to reduce tobacco smoking, we want to ensure vaping products are safe, regulated, and are only being used for cessation purposes, as was intended. I'm committed to protecting our tamariki from the risks associated with smoking and vaping products. Question No. 4—Justice 4. Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National) to the Minister of Justice: Does she still believe that the Government has the right priorities in justice? Hon DAVID PARKER (Attorney-General) on behalf of the Minister of Justice: Yes, including cracking down on gangs whilst also supporting victims of crime. We've banned semi-automatics and we've toughened legislation on the proceeds of crime but we've also passed sexual violence legislation and improved victim assistance schemes and funding for Victim Support. Hon Paul Goldsmith: Why, when apparently cracking down on gangs, does her Government persist with the goal of reducing the prison population by 30 percent, irrespective of the level of serious crime in our communities? Hon DAVID PARKER: The proportion of prisoners in prison who are gang affiliates has increased, as has the number of gang affiliates on other forms of sentence. On both occasions, this is in part because the police are cracking down so successfully against gangs, seizing proceeds of crime, firearms, and bringing the full weight of the law against them for their offending. Hon Paul Goldsmith: How does she reconcile her statement to Newshub: "if there is a line and someone crosses [it,] they are held accountable and they suffer the consequences of committing that crime." with her Government's stated goal of reducing the prison population by 30 percent, regardless of the level of serious crime in our community? Hon DAVID PARKER: I think the answer that I gave earlier addresses that question. There is no doubt that the police have been given more resources to crack down on gangs. They have a serious offending unit that cracks down on gangs and other organised crime. It has resulted in thousands of offences being charged, with those people ending up in prison in the main and sometimes on home detention, as well as the confiscation of many firearms and the proceeds of crime. Hon Paul Goldsmith: Doesn't the Government's prison reduction focus send the message that the Government is less interested on accountability and consequences for crime than it is on achieving its goal of a 30 percent reduction in the number of prisoners? Hon DAVID PARKER: On this side of the House, we actually leave sentences to the courts. We don't interfere in that process. I would note that in respect of another party's announcement recently, the Auckland District Law Society said that if that happened, then this would be limiting judicial discretion in a way that would be an overreach of parliamentary power and that it would be illogical. Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Has the Minister received any reports of a member of this House interfering in the police prosecution by contacting prosecution witnesses? Hon DAVID PARKER: Well, if that was correct, it could be a very serious issue, but I have no particular information on that matter. If the member wants a more particular answer, that could be put down in a primary question. Hon Paul Goldsmith: Is she concerned that the impression that some people may have gathered that the Government is less interested in the consequences of crime has flowed through to the situation where Woolworths is spending $45 million buying new trolleys to stop people running out of stores without paying—something that means law-abiding Kiwis have to pay more for their fruit and vegetables and groceries? Hon DAVID PARKER: It might be that that member, like some of his colleagues, never goes to supermarkets, because I know, having been to supermarkets over many decades, that it's many decades ago that they introduced the same technology to stop those trolleys being taken from the car park. Hon Meka Whaitiri: To the Minister, in your opinion, is it appropriate for a member of this House to interfere in a police prosecution by contacting prosecution witnesses? Hon DAVID PARKER: Oh, that's a very easy question to answer. That would be entirely inappropriate, and I would be surprised if that ever occurred. Question No. 5—Finance 5. CHLÖE SWARBRICK (Green—Auckland Central) to the Minister of Finance: Does he stand by his statement that "in the economic circumstances that we are in at this time, we do not believe that major tax changes are appropriate"; if so, when would economic circumstances be appropriate for taxing wealth or capital gains? Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): In answer to the first part of the question, I stand by my statement in its full and proper context. In answer to the second part of the question, the member is asking about a hypothetical situation, but I would refer her to the rest of my answer to her question on 17 May 2023, where I went on to say we have made the tax reform that we promised to make at the 2020 election. Future policies are for political parties to make. Chlöe Swarbrick: What could be a more appropriate time to tax wealth or capital gains when the Government's own research shows that the wealthiest 311 families in this country pay an effective tax rate less than half of that of the average New Zealander? Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Clearly, the Cabinet decision is that the particularly volatile and uncertain economic environment that we're living in now is not the appropriate time to make those major tax changes. I would note that since that statement was made in May, we have seen further volatility globally, particularly with respect to what's happening in China and, indeed, across other parts of the world, and so that part of that statement certainly stands. Chlöe Swarbrick: Is it not the right time to create a fairer and more equitable tax system when 55 percent of New Zealanders report being in a financially difficult position, compared to the wealthiest 311 families who own $85 billion in wealth, more than the bottom 2.5 million New Zealanders combined? Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Well, as I've said on a number of occasions in this House, this is a particularly challenging time for many New Zealand households and, indeed, many New Zealand businesses. That's the reason why the Government has stepped up with significant support over a long period of time to low and middle income New Zealanders, and we will continue to try to find the opportunities to do that. Chlöe Swarbrick: Is it the right time to tax wealth when Aotearoa's tax system is ranked 136th in the world for reducing inequality? Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Well, I haven't seen that particular statistic, but I have seen statistics that rank within the OECD around things like the tax wedge, that New Zealand actually compares relatively favourably on. During this term of Government, we've sought to make the tax system fairer by increasing the top rate, putting in the trustee rate to reach that top rate as well, and we will continue to look for opportunities to do that, balanced against all of the other needs that we have. Nicola Willis: Is it the Minister's position that now is not an appropriate time to introduce taxes of the sort being discussed with the member due to volatility in the global economic environment, and, if so, what are the economic conditions in which the Minister thinks it would be appropriate to introduce taxes of that sort? Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: As indicated by the Cabinet decisions in May, a time when the global economy is so uncertain, where companies and households have been through very turbulent times, and where there are ongoing significant challenges to the New Zealand economy is clearly not that time. Nicola Willis: So does the Minister think it would be appropriate to introduce wealth taxes or capital gains taxes if the economic conditions were more permissive? Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The Cabinet has taken the decisions that are to be taken in this term of Government on taxation, and there are no further decisions to be taken in that regard. Clarity about taxation is very important, and we look forward to hearing clarity from the National Party about taxation—for example, whether or not the 39 percent top rate is coming back. Ricardo Menéndez March: Does he agree with 63 percent of people in Aotearoa who think now is the right time to implement a wealth tax to provide free dental care so people don't have to live with debilitating pain? Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: As has already been indicated, Cabinet has taken the decision not to implement a wealth tax. Ricardo Menéndez March: Who is most disproportionately impacted by the current economic conditions that he describes, the one in nine children living in poverty or the 311 wealthiest families in Aotearoa? Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Quite clearly, those people who are our most vulnerable are the most impacted by a deterioration in economic conditions, and that's exactly why, as a Government, I am proud that we have lifted the rates of main benefits, lifted family tax credits, lifted childcare assistance, supported superannuitants, students—all of them—with the cost of living pressures that they're facing. Those are the things that need to be prioritised over unfunded tax cuts that would deliver significant benefits to the wealthiest New Zealanders. Question No. 6—Public Service 6. ANGIE WARREN-CLARK (Labour) to the Minister for the Public Service: What reports has he seen about proposals for changes to the Public Service? Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister for the Public Service): Our Public Service supports the Government of the day to implement its policies and programmes. The Public Service does vital work, such as making sure businesses and workers are supported through fair and balanced law; educating our kids; fixing roads, rail, bridges, and houses after natural disasters; and assisting with solving the long-term intractable problems, like good environmental planning, safe water in the future, responding to climate change, and so on. The latest Kiwis Count survey reported that 82 percent of New Zealanders trust public services, and that compares to the OECD average of just 50 percent. I've seen reports on proposals to integrate CERT New Zealand into the National Cyber Security Centre to strengthen the country's cyber-security resilience and response. That's a proposal the Government accepted, by the way. Also, I've seen reports on proposals to improve national security leadership through organisational reform, something that this Government is doing. But I've also seen various reports of proposals to cut 7,300 Public Service workers in the Wellington region and 14,000 nationwide, including halving the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) workforce. All of these proposals would make it more difficult for any elected Government to implement its policies and would see significant cuts to vital services that Kiwis and our economy rely on. This Government has no plans to do that. Angie Warren-Clark: What would be the effects of a reported halving of MBIE public services? Hon ANDREW LITTLE: MBIE contains a number of functions that are crucial to successful economic activities. Halving MBIE's workforce would mean it could not have processed the tens of thousands of visas for the FIFA Women's World Cup that contributed $200 million to our economy. MBIE would not be able to process the hundreds of thousands of other visas which are the basis of our reinvigorated tourism sector or the thousands of working holiday green list and skilled migrant visas for nurses and other health workers urgently needed by our health sector. Halving MBIE's workforce would limit the support for our film and games industries, which employ thousands of people, or our emerging space industry. It would prevent the new Grocery Commissioner from starting his work to make grocery prices fair and supermarket shopping affordable, and there's much more. This Labour Government has no plans to reduce the capacity of Government in these vital areas. Angie Warren-Clark: What would be the effect of some of the other reported proposals about public services? Hon ANDREW LITTLE: One of the proposals I've seen is in relation to the Ministry for Women. That proposal would halt the Women's Employment Action Plan closing the gender pay gap, which has narrowed under this Government but still stands at 9.2 percent. Another reported proposal, in relation to the Ministry for Pacific Peoples, would mean abandoning the 2,700 people who have enrolled in programmes to support their pathway to homeownership, as well as the 1,350 people that the ministry has supported in jobs over the past year. A reported proposal in relation to Te Arawhiti, the Office for Māori Crown Relations, would significantly slow settling remaining claims related to the Crown's historical breaches of the Treaty of Waitangi and would slow or stop the work within Crown agencies and departments adopting modern Treaty relationships to address longstanding equity problems. This Labour Government has no plans to reduce capacity in these areas. Angie Warren-Clark: What other effects would a reported reduction of 14,000 core public servants have? Hon ANDREW LITTLE: It's likely that programmes like Mycoplasma bovis eradication and responding to the pandemic and natural disasters could not be staffed. It would also restrict the ability to develop initiatives such as targeted children's vaccination programmes for those missing out and policy responses to organised and violent crime. This Labour Government remains committed to having a Public Service able to meet the needs of all New Zealanders. Angie Warren-Clark: What would be the effect on the Wellington regional economy of a reported proposed reduction of 7,000 public servants who ordinarily work here? Hon ANDREW LITTLE: The public sector is responsible for 12 percent of the Wellington region's GDP. The hit to the Wellington economy would be in the region of $1 billion per annum. This Labour Government remains committed to a Public Service providing the services that New Zealanders need and developing the solutions for long-term difficult challenges—rather than repeatedly kicking the hard policy cans down the road. Question No. 7—Education 7. ERICA STANFORD (National—East Coast Bays) to the Minister of Education: Will she make the Common Practice Model a legal requirement for teachers to follow, and on what date will the final content of the Common Practice Model be published? Hon KELVIN DAVIS (Associate Minister of Education (Māori Education)) on behalf of the Minister of Education: On behalf of the Minister of Education, the final Common Practice Model will be released in term 4 of 2023. Teachers are encouraged to use the new maths and literacy curriculum from 2024 and through 2025. It will become a legislative requirement from 2026. Erica Stanford: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I didn't ask the Minister about the curriculum; I asked about the Common Practice Model, which is a completely different document to the curriculum. So the wrong question has been answered. Hon KELVIN DAVIS: I'll repeat the last sentence: it will become a legislative requirement from 2026. Erica Stanford: Will the Common Practice Model require Structured Literacy to be used to teach every student to learn to read? Hon KELVIN DAVIS: It will provide clarity to teachers so that they know what to teach. Erica Stanford: Can she explain to parents why it is that she's going to mandate a certain method that teachers will use to teach their children to read, but she won't say what that method is until after the election? Hon KELVIN DAVIS: Again, the Common Practice Model will provide clarity to teachers. Erica Stanford: Can the Minister provide any clarity to this House today on how parents will know, after the election, how their children will learn to read, and whether or not that will be Structured Literacy, which has been shown to be the best way to teach children to read? Hon KELVIN DAVIS: We always trust the teachers, but when we provide clarity their practice will improve even more. Erica Stanford: Isn't the reason that she will not put her neck on the line and state what method of teaching reading will be compulsory prior to the election is because she's afraid of the controversy and cannot defend her position? Hon KELVIN DAVIS: No, that's not the case whatsoever. We'll trust in teachers and, as I said, the Common Practice Model will provide clarity to them on the best ways to teach. Question No. 8—Racing 8. TERISA NGOBI (Labour—Ōtaki) to the Minister for Racing: What recent reports has he seen on the New Zealand racing industry? Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Minister for Racing): Our racing industry is on the charge. This Australian season just gone, Kiwi-bred and -trained horses made up 8 percent of group 1 starters, yet won 30 percent of races. That's just one statistic to show the quality of the New Zealand racing industry. Racing is worth $1.6 billion to our economy, and that contribution is growing. This positive outlook is confirmed in the New Zealand Thoroughbred Racing [NZTR] statement of intent which notes, "Off the back of the recent approval of the TAB New Zealand-Entain strategic partnering arrangement, our industry has been given an opportunity for significant revitalisation. We now see the dawn of a new era for New Zealand racing, laying a platform for improved professionalism and standards right across the board". The statement goes on to say, "We are extremely heartened by the strategic arrangement, which has given NZTR the ability to plan with certainty for the next five years, and prioritise key areas of the business to promote growth." I note this statement was signed off by Cameron George, a person who knows a thing or two about revitalisation. Up the Wahs! Terisa Ngobi: What feedback has the Minister heard on the TAB-Entain strategic partnership? Hon KIERAN McANULTY: The leadership of the New Zealand racing codes have told me that the partnership is a game-changer. In my role as Minister, I had to be satisfied the partnership would be to the benefit of New Zealand racing before I could sign it off. The feedback I received on this has been universal. Industry leaders are reporting that stakes are up, funding for world-class harm minimisation is up, and payments to the racing and sporting codes are also up. Terisa Ngobi: What feedback has the Minister heard on restoring the TAB legislative monopoly? Hon KIERAN McANULTY: Parliament was clear some decades ago that TAB should be the sole provider of racing and sports betting in New Zealand. This was done to ensure the New Zealand racing industry, one of the smallest in the world, would continue to be one of the best performing. At the time those regulations were passed, the explosion of unregulated, offshore, online competitors was not envisioned. With the Government's agreement in principle to restore TAB's monopoly, the industry have reported that this further improves the certainty of funding that goes to racing and sport. This is securing the future for those that love racing and sport, and those that work in the industry. This is another part of this Government's plan to bolster our emerging and high-performing export industry. Terisa Ngobi: How many people are employed in the New Zealand racing industry, and what does this mean for them? Hon KIERAN McANULTY: There are estimated to be around 15,000 people directly employed in racing. Providing certainty over how the industry is funded makes a career in racing an attractive prospect. In particular, racing provides an array of employment opportunities in regional New Zealand. I'm advised that this certainty of funding gives the industry confidence to further develop apprenticeship and training programmes, and to take more young people on. Question No. 9—Corrections 9. TONI SEVERIN (ACT) to the Minister of Corrections: Is it still the Government's policy to reduce the prison population by 30 percent over 15 years? Hon KELVIN DAVIS (Minister of Corrections): When we became Government, there was a prison population crisis, a moral and fiscal failure, according to Bill English, which was predicted to see the population balloon to close to 14,000 people by now, far more than the network could accommodate. The long-term target we set reflects the situation at the time, one that could have seen measures such as triple and quadruple bunking and mattresses in prison hallways, the possibility of using mothballed boarding schools out in the community. It is important to remember that Corrections does not decide who is sent to prison or for how long. Their contribution to the reduction in the prison population was through improving administrative processes for people eligible for release and also providing housing. The Government will continue to protect public safety and support the justice system to hold offenders to account, and I am progressing no specific policies to further reduce the total prison population. Toni Severin: Has his goal of 30 percent fewer prisoners in jail led to an increase in gang members, in gang associates, serving sentences in community on electronic monitoring from 383 in 2017 to 738 this year? Hon KELVIN DAVIS: Well, let's, first of all, commend the police for doing a sterling job in arresting those people who are committing crime, those gang members. The proportion of people in prison who are gang members has increased substantially, and because of the increases in arrests, I guess judges then are looking at various options for sentencing, which does include home detention, which does include incarceration as well. Toni Severin: Has his goal of 30 percent fewer prisoners in jail led to a situation where 917 violent offenders are in the community serving an electronically monitored sentence? Hon KELVIN DAVIS: Well, Corrections doesn't determine the sentence a prisoner receives, but also it has prevented about 3,000 people from not being housed in mothballed boarding schools around the country. Now, I'd hate to think about the community's safety if that had eventuated, as was predicted. Toni Severin: How is his goal of 30 percent fewer prisoners in jail not an experiment with public safety and an example of the Government failing to do its most important job of keeping people safe? Hon KELVIN DAVIS: Oh, that's an insult to the judiciary, who make the decisions about the sentences people receive. Corrections' job is to house the people that judges send there and they do a good job. They also do a great job in making sure people don't reoffend, because you can see the reoffending and the re-imprisonment rates have decreased as well. Toni Severin: Isn't it the case that we need more criminals, not fewer, in prison and will he support ACT's policy of investing $1 billion to build an additional 500 prison beds to ensure dangerous people can be locked away from law-abiding New Zealanders? Hon KELVIN DAVIS: No, and I hate to think about the amount of taxes they would have to raise and increase and impose on poor working New Zealanders. The operating costs of prisons—I mean, it costs billions not just to build a mega-prison, an American-style mega-prison like they want. It costs billions as well to operate them, huge costs imposed on the community, when we just need to really rely on the judiciary to do the job that they've been charged with doing. Question No. 10—Transport 10. SIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga) to the Minister of Transport: Does he stand by the Government's record on the delivery of light rail? Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister of Transport): A light-rail connection from the Auckland city centre to the airport is Government policy, as is progressing mass transit in Wellington, and that's what we've been doing. The planning of these major infrastructure projects is critically important. I'm told that his own party now regrets that they didn't plan for a public transport corridor when they widened State Highway 16, making the job of now adding the much-needed north-western busway both more difficult, more time consuming, and more expensive. Simeon Brown: Has he seen reports that zero metres of Auckland Light Rail have been built in the last six years, despite this Government spending over $140 million on this programme, and will he stand next to a giant red zero to celebrate this success? Hon DAVID PARKER: Sometimes that member puts a giant red target on himself. I mean, the member is facile in his assertions that everything is built under National and nothing is built under Labour. It was a Labour Government that planned the Waterview Tunnel; that did most of the work on State Highway 20. It was the National Government that finished it. It was the National Government that started the City Rail Link (CRL) after pressure from Opposition parties. The CRL has largely been completed under this Government. This Government has made major improvements to the State highway network. We finished Transmission Gully, the planning for which started under the prior Labour Government. The construction commenced under the National Government and finished under the Labour Government. These big projects take time and are, in duration, longer than any one Government, and the member needs to concede that. Simeon Brown: Was he aware that on the day that he announced light rail to Albany that—to the day—exactly six years earlier, Phil Twyford announced light rail to Mount Roskill, and considering the outcome of that light-rail project, what confidence does he have in delivering light rail to Albany? Hon DAVID PARKER: What I know is that State Highway 16, which is eight-lanes wide now close to Auckland—eight-lanes wide—has been expanded to six-lanes wide further out, and is already getting clogged up because the last, incompetent National Government didn't design the public transport corridor, didn't provide for it around the Waterview connection, notwithstanding that they were spending hundreds of millions of dollars on that connection, and, as a consequence, gridlock in Auckland down that corridor is getting worse. And we, on this side of House, have a plan to fix it. Hon Damien O'Connor: Has the Minister received any reports on the utilisation of large amounts of foreign capital to build our roading infrastructure? Hon DAVID PARKER: I have seen reports of both funding holes in how other parties are going to fund their proposals, which amount to many billions of dollars, and that overseas capital will be brought in to do it. Of course, the idea that overseas capital is cheaper than Government borrowing is illusory, because the private sector expectations of rate of return are higher. As to where that capital comes from overseas, some people are suggesting Belt and Road, but we're not. Simeon Brown: When will he concede that Auckland Light Rail is a failed transport project that is going nowhere, has no funding, and instead invest in the real transport infrastructure projects New Zealand needs, like new roads of national significance? Hon DAVID PARKER: There are some new roads that are necessary. The Brynderwyns improvement is one good example that this Government is committed to. A major highway project in Tauranga has also been committed to that is necessary to enable more housing. But the member's assertion that, essentially, roads are the answer is not true in metro areas like Auckland. We have spent billions and billions and billions of dollars on the likes of eight-laning parts of north-western motorway, and because of that member's party not planning for it, we've already got clogging up of that network, and fixing it with decent busway down that is much more expensive because of the incompetence of that side of the House. Question No. 11—Youth 11. NAISI CHEN (Labour) to the Minister for Youth: What has the Government done to support our young people to make the most of their unique talents and have a sense of belonging and connection in their communities? Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Minister for Youth): Young people represent 17 percent of the population and are 100 percent of our future. As Minister for Youth, I'm immensely proud of what this Government has done to support young people across the country. During this term, we have worked to support rangatahi to be heard through the refreshed Youth Plan to keep them engaged with education and training through increased funding of the Ākonga fund and have supported their innovative ideas through the youth enterprise programmes. Over the past three years, we have provided over 220,000 opportunities for young people to engage, supporting well over 100 providers every year to encourage and support the resilience and capability of young people and improve their overall wellbeing. Naisi Chen: What was the focus of the recently released refreshed Youth Plan and how will it help young people? Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME: Last week, I launched the refreshed Youth Plan, titled Voice, Leadership, Action, which will guide a consistent approach across the youth sector and, along with the Youth Health and Wellbeing Survey, aims to inform the Government's policies and will ensure we are incorporating feedback from our rangatahi. The voices and leadership of young New Zealanders are key drivers behind the plan, and we all know how effective and powerful change can be when young people lead it for themselves and their whānau, their schools, businesses, and communities. That's one of the reasons why the refreshed Youth Plan is such a great quality. Our youth advisory group worked on this plan with us—20 amazing young people with diverse knowledge and experience, who I have thoroughly enjoyed working with. And we heard from over 1,400 young people from across the motu, and I'd like to take this opportunity to thank them all for their amazing work and contributions. Naisi Chen: What has this Government done to respond to the emerging needs of young people, especially those who have become disengaged from school? Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME: In 2020, we launched the Ākonga Youth Development Community Fund in response to learners who had been hit hard by COVID and lost connections on their education journey. This fund helps at-risk learners, aged between 12 to 21 years, to strengthen their resilience and reengage with their communities and training opportunities. So far, almost 8,000 young people have benefited from the fund, helping them to reconnect with learning in their communities. Our recent evaluation of the Ākonga fund has confirmed what providers and young people have told us—that the Akonga fund is building the confidence of at-risk young people, fostering their relationships with peers, whānaus, and communities, and boosting their motivations and hope for the future. I was so pleased to announce extra funding in Budget 2023, and I'm excited that it will offer a further 5,500 ākonga opportunities through this. Naisi Chen: In what other ways has this Government supported providers to engage young people in development opportunities that strengthen their wellbeing? Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME: We've funded providers from Invercargill to Kaitāia to offer positive youth development opportunities that support young people to succeed in life and enjoy life, including giving them hands-on experiences to prepare them for work. During the past financial year, 160 providers delivered 82,000 youth development opportunities, providers like the Village Collective in South Auckland that I visited. This is just one example of the hundreds of programmes this Government has funded for young people and, through this, expanded their wellbeing and their opportunities to contribute. Question No. 12—Immigration 12. ERICA STANFORD (National—East Coast Bays) to the Minister of Immigration: How many, if any, accredited employers have had their accreditation removed by Immigration New Zealand, and how many, if any, job tokens have been issued by Immigration New Zealand following an approved job check application from an accredited employer that is under investigation by Immigration New Zealand? Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Immigration): In response to the first part of the member's question, six employers have had their accreditation revoked by Immigration New Zealand and 11 have been suspended, and there are currently 185 investigations under way. To the second part of the question, there are currently 15 open job check applications, covering 87 positions, where the employer is under active investigation. Once a job check has been approved, the employer or their representative issues the job token to the migrant. If an employer has had their accreditation revoked or suspended, these job tokens expire and cannot be issued. Where an employer is under investigation but has not been informed, Immigration New Zealand ring-fences all work visa applications so that no further action can be taken in relation to them until the investigation is concluded. Erica Stanford: When the Minister said on Radio New Zealand that "Every employer applying for accreditation was required to undergo a number of checks, that they were in business, that the business was viable" but not all of those businesses were undergoing the checks that should have been made, what is his understanding of what those checks were and how they should have been carried out? Hon ANDREW LITTLE: The advice I have had is that there is a set of routine checks that should take place and that those checks have not been taking place. Erica Stanford: Can the Minister confirm that the routine checks at the accreditation stage that Immigration New Zealand were carrying out were not actual checks but simply a declaration form that businesses filled in online, that did not require any actual documentation, evidenced in his quote to this House a couple of weeks ago when he said, "The advice [that] I've had is that employers are to provide a declaration in relation to the standards that they have to meet, which includes employment standards, … about their business."? Hon ANDREW LITTLE: The member hasn't got it quite right. There are a number of requirements that the employer has to meet. Some of those requirements are checked on an automated basis. So, for example, checking the name of the employer against the database that Immigration New Zealand and the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment have, against a list of employers who have either infringements against their name, prosecutions, or other negative checks. Then there are checks carried out at a human level to make sure that the documentation is in order. But not all of those checks, according to information received from staff members of Immigration New Zealand, appear to have been carried out. That is why I've commissioned a review, an independent review, through the Public Service Commission, to ascertain just what the quality of the processing is of those applications. Erica Stanford: Did officials inform the Minister about a general instruction from the Deputy Secretary of Immigration New Zealand telling staff to skip checks on almost all applications under the scheme, as reported in Stuff this week, in order to get as many workers in the country as quickly as possible? Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I'm not aware of any such instruction being given by senior officials of Immigration New Zealand, but that is why I have asked the Public Service Commission to arrange an independent review. That's in the process of being put in place at the moment. But I do want to remind the member of her position just two months ago on this matter, where she called for a process that was streamlined and did not have bureaucratic tape in the cost out. And I just say this to the rest of the House too—why I think the National Party is weeping crocodile tears on this—that in addition to wanting no bureaucracy at all in this, they voted against worker protection legislation earlier this year that is about giving officials more power to chase up bad employers. SALE AND SUPPLY OF ALCOHOL (COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION) AMENDMENT BILL Third Reading Debate resumed. SPEAKER: Urgency will continue. Before the lunch break, we were debating the third reading of the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Community Participation) Amendment Bill. Call No. 2 has concluded. We now call No. 3. VANUSHI WALTERS (Labour—Upper Harbour): Thank you, Mr Speaker, for the opportunity to take a call in relation to the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Community Participation) Amendment Bill at its third reading. I'd like to begin by thanking select committee members for a really robust process. Unfortunately we weren't able to recommend that the bill be passed as a full committee but certainly the majority of the committee did. It was, however, a robust process. We received 420 submissions and heard from 80 submitters. But I'm not surprised that we didn't get to agreement. I think, listening to the committee stage submissions, it was clear that Hon Paul Goldsmith was really struggling to get his head around the fact that business exists within community—that business exists within community and within society—and so, yes, we did wrestle with the question of businesses who'd been operating for a number of years and whether it was appropriate for District Licensing Committees (DLCs) and Alcohol Regulatory and Licensing Authorities (ARLAs) to be able to decline to renew a licence, and we landed on the fact that it was, that wasn't unusual for an entity to have to comply with new rules, with new research, and, indeed, we do this all the time. We're asking this of businesses now in terms of our climate response, as well. It is not new at all. As the Minister pointed out in committee stage, it is an essential part of democracy that we listen to people and communities now to decide what the appropriate rules are now. There was also much made about the removal of the appeals process but there is still an ability of entities to bring a judicial review should they wish to, so it is not removed in its entirety. If I speak briefly to the Opposition's objection to objectors, I would say there are very valid reasons why you would want people and entities from across the country submitting on these, and you only need to think a little laterally to understand who that might be. It might be that there's a group who are focused on harm to young people, who identify that there's a particular area in New Zealand where we've seen alcohol harm at exaggerated levels. Should they be submitting? Absolutely. You might have mana whenua who aren't living in the area that they connect with who wish to submit in relation to an application. Should they be submitting? Absolutely. You might have someone who was affected by alcohol in a particular community who no longer lives in that community. Should they be allowed to submit? Absolutely. There were objections, believe it or not, to hearings being more accessible. I don't even know that I should respond to that, other than to say there is absolute there is flexibility within clauses 14 and 15. So what the select committee did is provide a non-binding, non-exhaustive list of factors that the DLC could consider. This is all about putting decision making right on the ground levels where local authorities can be making the most relevant decisions for those communities. This is an excellent bill. I commend both the former and the current Ministers of Justice for bringing it before the House, as communities have asked for it, as local authorities have asked for it, and I commend it to the House. SIMON O'CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): Madam Speaker, thank you. Good to take a call, although it feels a little bit, I suspect, for all members, a bit of déjà vu. Because, of course, we're rushing this through urgency, which means we've done the second reading, committee of the whole House stage, and now the third reading. So in some ways I'm not going to be saying anything particularly new, including that National is not supporting this bill. The key reason—the key reason—is ultimately this is going to affect local businesses and good locals, neighbours and friends of ours, who run their businesses in a good, constructive way in the community. But the way that this bill has been structured is going to see some of those closed, or to create so much uncertainty into their business environment that it's incredibly unhealthy. I just want to tease that out very briefly. Look, first and foremost, I agree with the speaker who's just taken her seat, Vanushi Walters: alcohol harm is a problem in our society. How we address it has been a vexed question for as long as I've been in Parliament, will be after I've left, and has been well before I got here. We haven't got it right, but I don't believe this is the way forward. I just to illustrate coming out my own electorate—the great seat of Tāmaki—there are many liquor stores throughout the electorate. Many of them have been there for 10, 20, some of them 30-plus years. I'm not going to name them or particular people—they may not, as liquor store owners, want to be mentioned in the House—but they run an important service into the community. But a number of them, for example, are very close to schools. I'm thinking of one, and I'm not a cricket player but even I could just gently throw a ball from the front door of their liquor store and hit the local school—not with any intention or malice. But we know with local alcohol plans, and understandably these plans want to put guidelines in place to say, "Hey look, we really shouldn't set up a liquor store within 50, 100, 500 metres, say, of a school or a church or a community hall, a marae, whatever." Well, that makes sense, or somewhat can make sense, to a new facility. But it's been very clear, as this law has been progressing through the House, that that could also apply to existing businesses, which is what draws me back to my original point. Those existing businesses, like the liquor store owners in Tāmaki and right across this nation, are going to find that their businesses, all of a sudden, are under threat. That at any moment, in effect, local alcohol policies could see them close down. Close down. Again, I want to be really clear: this is not about the providers or liquor store owners who are providing poor service. Most, actually, are great. They're our friends, they're our neighbours, they're our locals. I don't believe that degree of uncertainty should be put to them. That's toxic—toxic—to any business. Secondly, as I say, I think New Zealanders—certainly my Tāmaki constituents—will be very surprised and disappointed if someone who's been there for 30 years is closed down because of this bill. So for that reason, almost alone, we're voting against it. The other part of it, too—and it's one of my particular concerns—is the vexatious dynamic which could occur. We talk about community participation—and let's take, for a moment, that's a good thing. I have no problem, actually, with the people of Tāmaki wanting to talk about liquor stores in Tāmaki. But I think it's important for anyone listening at home, and probably—hello, Mum and Dad. That's at least two of the viewers; that might be all of them, who knows? Hon David Bennett: One of them might have gone. SIMON O'CONNOR: One of them might have gone, but—well, I hope you don't mean literally gone. That would be a hell of a shock. Particularly to one of them. That was David Bennett, Dad, who made that interjection. You can call him later. But no, seriously, this is about the community. But actually, people anywhere in New Zealand—anywhere within the realm—can actually be submitting on a liquor store in Tāmaki. I don't know why they'd need to do that, and I would argue it's somewhat vexatious. So I think it's too broad. But again, the fundamental reasons I think this is going to be detrimental to existing local businesses. With that, I cannot support this bill to the House. LEMAUGA LYDIA SOSENE (Labour): It's a pleasure for me to speak on this bill, the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Community Participation) Amendment Bill. This is a very serious issue for communities of South Auckland and it is a pleasure for me to stand up and make a short call. This bill is long overdue. In a former role that I had, I was part of a community local board. We've waited for 10 years, and still Auckland Council does not have an approved local alcohol policy. This bill is legislation that is needed by our local communities, and if I could just quickly reflect, in South Auckland there are far too many off-licence alcohol shops in a very narrow proximity. I want to reflect on my local community: there are eight local licences in a 1 kilometre radius; four off-licences, which is where we have the problem. The community leaders have had a number of calls to the local board, who are the governors of our local area. When this bill is passed, it does give the power back to our local communities to have a say. They go through some very stringent tests. What is important is the mana of our local communities, that our communities, our leaders, would have their say in local alcohol policy. In terms of objections, just to very quickly highlight: not all communities have this problem, but there are certain communities that do have this problem, so this bill will help those local communities who have to face alcohol harm. I commend this bill to the House. CHRIS BAILLIE (ACT): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise on behalf of ACT to speak to the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Community Participation) Amendment Bill. We're in opposition to this bill. The bill states that the main objective is the sale, supply, and consumption of alcohol—so make sure it's undertaken safely and responsibly and the harm caused is minimised, which is all great. But protecting communities by taking a sledgehammer to a nut is not the way, we think. We believe this bill is another attack on democracy and especially the right to appeal which is almost unprecedented in the law in the situation we've got around this country today; everyone has the right to appeal if they don't agree. And it's a sad day when a group of people is punished for defending themselves too well and being too successful in organising their case, and wearing a suit and tie should not be a factor in legislation. Maybe we need to look at councils and try and work out why they are so poor at getting these local alcohol policies through and maybe give them some support. Instead, we are yet again attacking the businesses who are often part of that community. We're hearing from members talking about these shops as if they're a completely different entity; they're actually part of the community as well. Often the people go to the school together, all of that sort of stuff. They are actually part of the community. And businesses, over the last six years, have been under attack and that's been traversed so many times I'm not going to bother today. The vindictive and vexatious complaints by interest groups has sort of been brushed over but it's a very real concern from businesses, and to think that that's not going to happen is really a naïve way of understanding how people work. Supermarkets have indicated that they don't think it's necessary. They're going to need more security, are going to be more vulnerable, and they're worried about the extra rules that they're going to have to follow as well. I spoke last week to a healthcare worker who had been in the profession for quite a long time. He wanted to talk to me about alcohol harm and the abuse of alcohol and the agencies that were available in town and how to access them. We started talking—we actually had a discussion, which is something that we don't have here very often; we just say what we think and get shot down by it. But we actually had a discussion and he was saying how he thought this bill—he brought the bill up—was a great bill, protecting communities, all of those sorts of things that it says it's going to do. And I put my view across that alcohol use is actually reducing anyway, and the idea of personal responsibility—that people aren't forced to drink alcohol and behave the way they do—and sort of pointed out the current rules that those in the alcohol industry actually have to abide by already. And suffice to say I'm not convinced but he could well be voting ACT in October. People have had enough of being treated like they're stupid, and they don't want to be babysat all through their lives. This bill is an overreach of council powers and very undemocratic. It's aimed yet again at the lowest common denominator, and ACT opposes this bill. Thanks. CHLÖE SWARBRICK (Green—Auckland Central): E te Māngai, tēnā koe. Tēnā koutou e te Whare. I'm glad to take a call on this the final reading of the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Community Participation) Amendment Bill, which, of course, I'd like to acknowledge had its genesis in my bill, the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Harm Minimisation) Amendment Bill, and the community pressure and organising that we undertook to get to this point to force the Government to act. I did also want to respond to some of the points raised by members of the Opposition, particularly the ACT Party, which I'll get to in a minute. But I want to put it really, really clearly on the record and on the Hansard that those out there should be under no illusion whatsoever that the only reason that this legislation is currently passing through the House is because of the community organisation and mobilisation that has occurred. I want to acknowledge members of the House, particularly those who have their roots in serving at a local board level, like Lydia Sosene and her contribution just before. I want to acknowledge those Māori health organisation who on the ground have been lobbying and working for this for a really long time. I also particularly want to thank Alcohol Healthwatch, notably and namely their former boss Dr Nicki Jackson, who I worked with over the past several years in trying to progress this kaupapa amongst many, many others, and the many hands that had their role to play in the "Pass the Bill" campaign, which culminated in a petition handover of 8,000 New Zealanders supporting the passage of my alcohol harm minimisation bill. I also want to shout out to Students for Sensible Drug Policy, who I know are watching along at home or at university, as the case may be. Students for Sensible Drug Policy and many of those in the drug-harm reduction space have been advocating for interventions just like this for time pretty much immemorial—for evidence-based drug policy. So what is it that we're talking about today? We're talking about how we can go about putting in place interventions to reduce drug harm, namely alcohol harm, because alcohol is, of course, a drug, albeit a legal drug. It's the drug that New Zealanders like to consume the most of all of the drugs available to us. Approximately 80 percent of adult New Zealanders consume alcohol and a quarter to a fifth of them do so to incredibly harmful ends. The question for those of us in this place should be, when confronted with a substance that can cause harm, how can we go about creating a regulatory framework to reduce that harm? As I've said in this place many times before—but I'll put it on the record at any opportunity I've got—there is a spectrum of approaches to that regulation that we can take. At one end of the extreme of the spectrum there is criminal prohibition. At the other end of the extreme, there is a complete legal unregulated free market. At both ends of those extremes we have the maximisation of harm, because whether it is criminal organisations operating in the black market or commercial organisations operating in the legal market, you have entities that are incentivised to exploit vulnerable communities to make a quick buck by shifting as much of their product as is possible. The way to reduce that harm is to minimise the profit incentive and to rein it into a space of sensible regulation that looks like dealing with the issues of demand as well those issues of supply. What this bill does primarily is deal with the issues around the local alcohol policies process, and, actually, I would implore members of the Opposition, particularly the National Party. Their former Government passed the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012 ostensibly with the potential to empower local communities to put in place these local alcohol policies, but they at the last minute introduced this ability for special appeals processes. Now, this goes to the core point of what the ACT Party member was just putting on the table before, saying that somehow what this bill does is get rid of the appeals process. It does not. Special appeals, as outlined explicitly in the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012 as it currently stands are an anomaly amongst any other special appeals that may exist—for example, vape shops, tobacco outlets, pokies, or other forms of social harm that exist. This is an anomaly; it is unusual and it exists only in the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012. The removal of that special appeals process, as actually recommended by the former Health Promotion Agency and a range of other NGOs that have worked in this space does nothing to remove the ability for judicial appeals and judicial review. It is the right of any citizen in this country to appeal and take their case to the courts, to say that the legislation is not meeting those standards in the application of law in this country. It does not remove those judicial appeals. It simply removes the added special right of special appeals. I want to make that really, really clear. The other point that was raised by the member of the ACT Party is that what we should be dealing with here or rather the way we should approach substances, particularly alcohol, is through the lens of personal responsibility. Let's just take that to its logical consequence. Why have any laws at all when we're talking about substances and how to go about reducing that harm? If we're talking about how we can create a regulatory framework under the social contract—that is, this society and these communities and this country that we all live in—we all accept that there are basic standards that we want to wrap around things that can potentially be harmful, and that, of course, is the point of the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012 and, further, the amendments that are being made to this day. Far too frequently I hear personal responsibility being used as a rationale for an abdication of political responsibility and, indeed, for creating a narrative and whipping up this construct of choice. There is not actually too much in the way of meaningful choice and ability for community participation under the present way that the local alcohol policy process works with the ability for those special appeals to be utilised, particularly, I might add, by our supermarkets, which the ACT Party member mentioned, overwhelmingly oppose this. Well, it just so happens that they are the overwhelming entity that continues to use that special appeals process to steamroll over community willpower being implemented through the local alcohol policy process—like, these things are kind of connected, and that's where power lies in this country. I also want to point to some of the points alluded to in the ACT Party member's speech around other interventions that may potentially reduce harm. When we're talking about drug harm reduction, other opportunities to reduce that harm, of course, look like, for example, safe consumption spaces. Here I point to on-licences where there's a duty of care for those who are engaged in the sale and supply to create a space, an environment, that is supposed to more conducive to somewhat less harmful consumption of that substance. The point that this bill misses, which obviously the broader campaign that led us to this point after my member's bill, the alcohol harm minimisation bill was drawn, and kicks to touch and does not deal with is the issue of glamorisation and normalisation of alcohol in our communities, which actually has been identified by the World Health Organization, and one of the best buys in terms of reduction of drug harm could be to remove advertising and sponsorship throughout our communities. So I implore the Government to continue with that piece of work. I had a lot a lot of engagement with the former Minister of Justice, Kiritapu Allan, and I want to acknowledge her for the work she did for getting this bill into shape and initially bringing to the House. This is a legacy piece of work and a really, really important one at that. There is still so much more work to do. Finally, I just want to address some of the contributions particularly from National Party members, around, for example, how it is the case that currently existing businesses should override our consideration of not only the evidence but of community need and want with regard to reducing harm—community wellbeing. And here they were talking about, obviously, the sale and supply of alcohol. I'd ask them for some logical consistency on that point, because they could apply that logical consistency to, for example, tobacco or to vaping or to other substances that are currently illicit under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975 but which we continue to see substantive proliferation of throughout our communities. The Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand is the only party that can stand in this House and say that we have a consistent approach to all substances that is an evidence-based approach to reduce harm through sensible regulation, minimising the profit motive as much as is possible, and tackling the reality that right now we continue to spend four times as much money on enforcing criminal prohibition, with worse and worse outcomes, than we do on health-based approach, and our communities are all the poorer for it. All of that said, I'm proud to support this bill today. I want to again acknowledge the grassroots communities that have organised to build a mandate for this, and I'm stoked to see that the Government is nicking another piece of our homework. But I'd invite them to go full hog and deal with that issue of cultural norming. ANNA LORCK (Labour—Tukituki): It is with great pride that I can acknowledge Henare O'Keefe from Flaxmere District Council and also Des Ratima, who was the mayor of Whakatū—two men who worked tirelessly in Flaxmere to try and prevent an alcohol liquor licence being repeated in Flaxmere in a store. They fought tooth and nail but they didn't have the tools through a local plan to be able to fight this. They know, and I know, Des would be so, so thrilled that this bill is going through today that finally puts those decisions in the hands of locals. Thank you, Madam Speaker. ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): The next call is a split call. I call on Nicola Grigg for five minutes. NICOLA GRIGG (National—Selwyn): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Just a brief call from me just to outline further our opposition to the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Community Participation) Amendment Bill. I think the aim of this bill is worthy; we would all acknowledge that alcohol does cause harm to some people and communities in our society. But the fact that this bill is removing the safeguards that are currently in place for some parties and/or organisations and/or agencies to overturn community decisions, at times, when necessary. We think that that's where the bill has, unfortunately, fallen short. As I just said, we do acknowledge that alcohol misuse does cause serious harm in our communities and that alcohol abuse is a very complex situation that needs a multi-pronged attack to solve it. We do support harm reduction initiatives that do work alongside community institutions. But, as I said, we do disagree with removing the appeals process for local alcohol policies. We would rather see the process improved than eliminated or banned all together. We do think that the current system, particularly with respect to the speed, is not fit for purpose. But as I say, we would rather see it improved that abandoned altogether, because it does make the assumptions that local authorities will always get it right. We'd like to think they all do, but we're all human; people do make mistakes at times. We do want to ensure that an appeals process remains in place, because we do think that it does bring an additional safeguard, and, yes, we do acknowledge that businesses will struggle, and to the member from the Greens who thinks that that's a dreadful position for us to take, we actually do come down on the side of business. We've got to think of everybody who's being impacted by this. So as I said, we'd rather see solutions to where the problems are than an outright ban. We think that the current system is flawed and can be improved, but we don't think that this bill is the vehicle by which to do that. So with that, we continue our opposition to this bill. HELEN WHITE (Labour): I just want to take a short call and I want to focus on a colleague of mine, Lydia Lemauga Sosene, because she was a person that brought this to my attention in particular. She is a person who has spent a lot of time in South Auckland on a local board, and this is an area which mattered to her because she saw the impact on one of our poorest communities. It has a devastating impact. This is work that she's had in progress for a long time. She has coupled it with things like looking at the needs to improve housing and make sure we have the minimum wage. This is Labour values; this is about local communities being able to deal with things—and it's a recognition of power imbalance. I commend this bill to the House. Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Labour—Mt Roskill): The Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act was passed in 2012 and local authorities such as Auckland Council developed their provisional local alcohol plans in 2015—and I'm well aware of that because I was an elected member of that council as that process was being worked through. Local alcohol plans, which are a good part of that legislation passed by the previous National Government, were a mechanism whereby local communities—with wide-ranging input from communities, residents, businesses, and experts—were able to develop an evidence-led policy to manage and minimise alcohol harm within communities. We are standing here, eight years after those plans were developed by communities, without them having been implemented, because of large players—not mom and pop operations, let's be real. The major supermarket chains and the major liquor chains have abused their ability through the courts to delay and obfuscate the implementation of these plans against the wishes of communities. There is much in this bill that is to be commended, but for the particular fact that it will enable local alcohol plans to be implemented: that will help to minimise harm; that represent the interest of communities and will stop the big players from blocking those, I heartily commend this bill to the House. Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (National): The National Party is not supporting this bill. We did support, and we introduced in Government, the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act. This is an amendment to that bill, with the interesting brackets in it, "(Community Participation)". Throughout the debate, all through today, we've heard Labour members, particularly, talking about "community, community, community". Well, I asked the Minister during the committee stages please define "community". And he didn't because he can't because this bill makes it possible for anyone anywhere in New Zealand to oppose any application for either a new licence or a variation anywhere in the country. If anyone thinks that that somehow is a representative or a way of representing the views of the community, they're wrong. I've been really surprised by the way Labour members have approached this. If anyone doubts in this country that the sentiment of the Temperance Union has died, they've only got to listen to the debates today. What is particularly irritating is that most of those facilities throughout the country operate without a problem. Of course there are problem outlets, but there are problem outlets in almost any activity in the commercial sector and, frankly, the Government sector. So that's what should be dealt with—not this blanket approach to putting a sword of Damocles over any operator anywhere in the country, as this provision does. I make that point because if we're going to talk about the word "community", then surely that large majority of people who live in our suburbs, who live in our cities, who live in our rural areas who just assume that, of course, there's going to be a local pub; of course, I can buy a wine at the local cafe if I want to; of course, I can go down to my neighbourhood tavern. They assume it's going to be there, and they assume that it's going to be operating properly—and they assume that there is a body out there keeping an eye on how that operation is undertaken. We have the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act, which is a very voluminous piece of legislation that puts massive duties on anyone who operates in those types of outlets, and they are very seldom abused. So here we have, really, a bill that's salving what is, I think, a very loud group in some communities, who are saying, "We can't have these things." It is, as I said before, the Temperance Union sentiment on steroids. I think it's a great shame, because it assumes that anyone who opposes these things is from the community, when the vast majority of people in the community just assume the law is there to give them the opportunities that they might occasionally want to avail themselves of. As for the Green comments today, I was staggered by that. How that Green member can stand up here and talk about the damage and harm from alcohol and then have a sentiment and a history and a policy to legalise marijuana is absolutely beyond me. It just has to really show that there is a particular bias against the operators of these sort of establishments. I will conclude comments there, simply saying that this is bad legislation, it is selective legislation, it is pernicious; it does not look at the problems of alcohol harm and why that is prevalent in some communities and not others. It is the sort of legislation that makes people feel good, but will make very little difference to outcomes. Does anyone really think that if a number of bars in New Zealand were just down to the same level as cigarette outlets, for example, that people would just say, "I'm not going to any more. No more beers on a Friday night for me."? No, they'll go to somewhere where it's available. So: understand what "community" means, understand what society is, deal with the problems in it, don't start putting restriction on choice on everybody because of a particular bias that someone might bring to this House. ANGIE WARREN-CLARK (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It's a real pleasure to stand and speak on this bill. It'll be a quick speech. I'm delighted to support this bill. Having worked in the family violence and sexual violence elimination space for many years, we know what alcohol harm contributes to that space. And also, having worked in the environmental space, we know that our communities of poverty, our communities that have the least resources, have the most alcohol outlets and they also have the least ability to stand up to the large organisations out there who are pushing back. We are getting rid of the adversarial nature of people having their say in community. We're all community members. We all get to have a say. It isn't about us having a drink or going down to the pub and having things closed down. We all agree that there should be the opportunity to do these things, but this bill is about the whole of the community having a say and I commend it to the House. A party vote was called for on the question, That the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Community Participation) Amendment bill be now read a third time. Ayes 75 New Zealand Labour 62; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 9; Te Paati Māori 2; Kerekere; Whaitiri. Noes 38 New Zealand National 29; ACT New Zealand 9. Motion agreed to. Bill read a third time. DEPUTY SPEAKER: I declare the House in committee for consideration of the Legal Services Amendment Bill. LEGAL SERVICES AMENDMENT BILL In Committee Parts 1 and 2, the Schedule, and clauses 1 to 3 CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Members, we are in committee on the Legal Services Amendment Bill. We come first to Part 1. Camilla Belich: Point of order. I seek leave for all provisions to be taken as one question. CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Leave is sought for that purpose. Are there any objections? There are none. The question is that Parts 1 and 2, the Schedule, and clauses 1 to 3 stand part. CHRIS PENK (National—Kaipara ki Mahurangi): Madam Chair, thank you for the opportunity, and I look forward to engaging with the Minister in the chair on this subject, as well as other members of the committee as we consider this important area of legal services. And I should start by saying that our reservations about the legislation remain from previous stages of the debate and also the select committee stage, and also the overall context of our justice system and, more particularly, the dysfunction of our courts which is quite simply that they are in disarray. The backlogs are unforgivably large; far too little of substance has taken place to reduce these, and if any doubt existed in that matter the results and the implications for Kiwis' lives struggling to access justice should leave no watcher or listener to the debate in any doubt of that. So while we would acknowledge that legal services through the legal aid regime are important, and that's naturally a system that needs protection so far as it goes, the elephant in the room is not being addressed and we are far too far along the road of fundamental issues in our court system not being addressed to be content merely with such tinkering as this. In particular, I'd like to ask the Minister to address the subject of whether this measure will do anything to improve access to justice when it comes to timeliness of justice and the expense involved in taking matters to court as opposed to merely kicking cans down the road whereby we have, for example, the waving of interest on debt, which in itself we think will have an unintended consequence of making people less likely to be prepared to pay, and the moral hazard that's associated with that of some choosing to pay as is required and others not doing so and facing no sanction or, more to the point, no incentive for not acting in that way. So those are some initial points, some have been framed as questions, more so, however, it's a statement of position and I'd welcome the Minister's response on any or all of those and look forward to the discussion no doubt that will continue at that point. Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Minister for Oceans and Fisheries): Thank you, Madam Chair. As the member Chris Penk has just noted, this bill does have a very narrow scope and it is just about repealing that user charge and also getting rid of interest on unpaid legal debt. Going to his point about access to justice, this bill is all about access to justice and it definitely is related to the expense incurred by people who are going to struggle to pay legal fees in the civil jurisdiction and need legal aid. So it will help with the expense issue. The bill is not about timeliness, and that's out of scope. CHRIS PENK (National—Kaipara ki Mahurangi): Thank you, Madam Chair. I wonder if the Minister in the chair, Rachel Brooking, could respond with her view on whether it would improve legal access, even within the realm of legal aid, to actually increase its applicability, for example to victims of crime or those involved in the coroner system, where eligibility doesn't currently exist. Would that not be a better use of the equivalent resources, as compared with allowing those to access services without any cost or co-payment or interest payable whatsoever? Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): Thank you, Madam Chair. I suppose the first question is the question of the impact of removing interest on legal aid debt. Just for the background of people tuning in to this debate on the Legal Services Amendment Bill, when people go before the courts, it's an expensive business. I think one of the first things that one learns from reading Dickens or anything is to try and avoid going to court if at all possible, because it's never a good situation, whether it's a civil case or criminal. There are sort of three categories: those who just are on their own—they pay for it—then there's another category of people who qualify for legal aid based on income and the ability to pay, and that legal aid covers the cost of all their work and it's a grant. So they are helped to defend themselves if they need to, or if they're wanting to take some sort of case and they meet that threshold. So that's the most vulnerable group who don't have the resources and they get a grant of legal aid to help pay their defence, or whatever the case may be. The intermediary group are people who have a higher income and a greater ability to pay, and so the legal aid that they get to pay for their defence or their lawyers is given by way of a loan, with the expectation that it should be paid back. Currently, there is some interest that is applied to that in order to encourage people to pay back that debt. This bill does away with that interest, and, of course, I mean, there is a real cost in that. I'd be interested to hear from the Minister the best estimates of the cost. Of course, it's more highly relevant at the moment because interest rates are going up because inflation is running amok, and that's a broader topic around economic management which I won't go into. If you look to it in the context of student loans, the rule of thumb was that, you know, every $10,000 that was loaned out had to be written down immediately by about 40 percent on the Government's books, because that was the cost of it being paid back over a long period of time and the value of that $10,000 reducing in purchasing power because of inflation. I would've thought that with interest rates rising again, then that cost will be going up and so the write-down will be more significant. So, in terms of the many—and, you know, we spend a lot on legal aid; I haven't got the figure right in front of me, but, you know, a couple of hundred million a year springs to mind, or something in that vicinity. So the amounts that are loaned out, if we're immediately writing down 40 percent of that loan because there is no interest applying, then that becomes a problem. So the simple question is: is that the best use of scarce resources in the broader justice system, because I don't think anybody would deny that there is a huge amount of need in the broader justice area for well-targeted and well-focused interventions. So my fundamental question to the Minister is: how has she assured herself—and, of course, if you look at the documents, it was Kris Faafoi who kicked this all off as Minister of Justice, and then it was Minister Kiri Allan that, I think, introduced the bill to the House, and now Ginny Andersen trying to ram it through in the very dying days of this Government. So my question to the Minister in the chair is: how is she assured that this is the best use of spending? Our basic proposition is that, actually, the better thing for the Government to be focused on is actually the much broader and more difficult issue of speeding up the process of the courts. So it's a question of priorities there, and that's my first question to the Minister. Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Minister for Oceans and Fisheries): Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to the Hon Paul Goldsmith for referencing Dickens and a number of other matters in his contribution. Going to his point, I think the main question there was around the interest and the cost of that. Of course, those decisions were made in the Budget, because at the moment the Budget has already provided, since the start of this year, that there is no charge and no interest, but the cost of that will be about $600,000 per annum. The decision goes back—as the member noted, a number of different justice Ministers have been involved and there was the 2018 review, and this piece of legislation goes back to that review. Of course, it is, as I've already said, narrow in scope. The previous speaker Chris Penk was asking about the coroner's court, and I'm told that, in fact, legal aid can be assessed in coronial matters if the coroner declares an inquest. CHRIS PENK (National—Kaipara ki Mahurangi): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I'm delighted that we've reached the stage of the urgency business of the House that we're discussing Charles Dickens. For newer members who might not have watched my maiden statement—or those who did or forgot or were not paying attention at the time—I referenced no fewer than four Dickens novels. I sort of wove them into it, and Great Expectations was an obvious one. Bleak House, too, which kind of feels quite appropriate right now, and I forget the others. In any case, I think what we have reached is the stage where the Minister has explained the current regime and the justification for it, but what I think is important for everyone who is listening to the debate to note—anyone who may be listening to the debate, I don't know how many there are outside the Chamber; I don't know how many are inside the Chamber, either, for that matter. But there already exists a mechanism for "just and equitable reasons" that there can be an exemption of legal aid debt already, so this relates to grounds of financial hardship or any other reasons the applicant believes should be considered. So I wonder if the Minister can explain how—with such a mechanism already available—it should be necessary to apply a blanket rule such as this, whereby the application of a waiver or an exemption effectively be applied to all and therefore miss the opportunity to narrow down that assistance to those cases where it is most needed? Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): Look, the only other question I have is around the Minister's confident assertion that it will cost about $600,000 a year—I question that. And I suppose the obvious place to start is the impact that it may or may not have on behaviour: firstly, in taking on more debt because it doesn't necessarily have to be paid back or there are no consequences for taking much longer to pay it back. And then secondly, the changing attitude towards paying it back if there is no incentive to do so. And then I look at the regulatory impact statement, and it says "We've included analysis done on the second option"—but the basic constraint that the reviewers said was that there was a limited and unreliable data is collected on legal aid applications and recipients, which seemed like a pretty broad statement. So we've got a very confident assertion that it's going to cost $600,000—which doesn't sound like much—but we've also got statements saying that, you know, basically, the analysis is done on limited and unreliable data collected on legal aid applications or recipients. So I'm just wondering how confident the Minister is in her assertions, because ultimately—like I say, it's just a question of judgment. Are you better to spend the money: even further changing the thresholds, for example, for people to get access to legal aid? Or is a Government—really, if it's interested in dealing with this problem—better to be focused on the core issue which is speeding up the processes of the courts? And I suppose our fundamental critique of the Government's justice policies—or one of the fundamental critiques—is that a question of priorities, and the priority on speeding up process of the courts and the efficiency of the courts hasn't been as high as we would have liked it. They've been distracted with such things as hate speech, reducing the voting age, and a whole bunch of other things which may not be of interest but are not fundamental to the way the justice system works as this is. Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Minister for Oceans and Fisheries): Thank you, Madam Chair. I think again—obviously I repeat that the scope of this bill is narrow and does not go to the speed of the justice system, as the member's just been discussing and realises— Hon Paul Goldsmith: Context, context. Hon RACHEL BROOKING: Yeah, giving the context! And both the previous speakers are really asking the same question, and that is about the justification for spending the money on not having the interest cost versus other things within the justice system. That question was looked at by the Legal Services Commissioner in 2018 in the report, and they determined that "removing the requirement of the payment of interest for all users of the legal aid scheme—rather than writing off more debt—best met the objective of reducing financial barriers to legal aid so that people of insufficient means could better access justice". CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is, That Parts 1 and 2, the Schedule, and clauses 1 to 3 stand part. A party vote was called for on the question, That Parts 1 and 2, the Schedule, and clauses 1 to 3 be agreed to. Ayes 84 New Zealand Labour 62; ACT New Zealand 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 9; Te Paati Māori 2; Kerekere; Whaitiri. Noes 29 New Zealand National 29. Parts 1 and 2, the Schedule, and clauses 1 to 3 agreed to. Bill to be reported without amendment. House resumed. CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Mr Speaker, the committee has considered the Legal Services Amendment Bill and reports it without amendment. I move, That the report be adopted. Motion agreed to. Report adopted. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The bill is set down for third reading immediately. Third Reading Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Minister for Oceans and Fisheries) on behalf of the Minister of Justice: I present a legislative statement on the Legal Services Amendment Bill. DEPUTY SPEAKER: That legislative statement is published under the authority of the House and can be found on the Parliament website. Hon RACHEL BROOKING: I move, That the Legal Services Amendment Bill be now read a third time. The Legal Services Amendment Bill addresses two barriers to accessing legal aid. By removing the user charge and the payment of interest from the Legal Services Act, it will give enduring certainty to users of the legal aid scheme that they will not have to pay a user charge to access the scheme designed to support them, and that the amount that they are required to repay will not continue to increase as they pay it down. The user charge was designed to make people think carefully about whether to engage in legal aid. Not only is this unnecessary in that people who are eligible for legal aid are on low incomes therefore the decision to take on debt will be a serious one, but also it's a financial barrier to people who want to or need to use the legal aid scheme to access the justice system. Sometimes, to avoid this charge being applied, legal aid providers—that is the lawyers, are known to absorb the user charges themselves. This means that in some cases, legal aid providers have to take a financial hit to provide their services. This is a workaround that shouldn't be needed. It's good to be removing this barrier to legal aid funding. Interest payments were introduced to encourage people to pay down their debt. What interest payments assume, however, is that people using the legal aid system actually have the money spare to make payments that pay their debt down faster. In reality, legally aided people cannot afford to pay their debts down quickly. It will take time for them to pay the debt down, especially if they owe other debts to Government that need to be paid down first. In the meantime, the debt continues to grow as the interest continues to accrue. It can be demoralising. There are other options that encourage legal aid recipients to make efforts to pay down debt, too. This includes placing caveats on property and issuing deduction notices so the payments are taken directly out of their bank account. Charging people more money is not a useful method to encourage payment of legal aid debt. Some people might call these changes "tinkering", but for the people who need to use the legal aid scheme, it is far from it. Let's not forget the positive difference that these changes will make to low income New Zealanders, who, without Government support, would be unable to access justice and assert their rights. We are committed to improving access to justice, and this bill makes up just one part of the ongoing efforts to do so. The changes in this bill formed just one part of the Budget 2022 package to increase access to the legal aid scheme. In January this year we increased eligibility and repayment thresholds for legal aid recipients. Wage inflation has slowly eaten away at these thresholds, meaning that people who meet the criteria for legal aid in 2008 would not qualify in 2022, despite having no material change in their circumstances. We increased eligibility thresholds by 15 percent, making another 93,000 New Zealanders eligible for legal aid. This goes some way to offset inflation and make sure that New Zealanders who should be able to access legal aid are eligible. We also increased repayment thresholds by 16.5 percent, meaning people will be asked to pay back their debts at a level that more accurately reflects their income and ability to pay. Last year we increased legal aid provider remuneration by 12 percent in recognition of the important and essential work that legal aid providers do. In all, these changes will ensure that more people are eligible for legal aid funding, that more recipients won't be unnecessarily burdened with repayment obligation, and that providers of legal aid services are more fairly compensated for the very important work they do. Lastly, I want to acknowledge those who have contributed to the bill. I'd like to thank the Justice Committee for their consideration of the bill, and also to acknowledge those who took the time to make a written oral submission on the bill when it was a select committee. Thank you to those submitters for your time and for sharing your views. We have a duty to provide accessible, high quality legal advice to New Zealanders who otherwise couldn't afford it, via the legal aid scheme. This bill is a step towards improving that accessibility, and I commend this bill to the House. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is that the motion be agreed to. Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): Thank you, Mr Speaker. The National Party is not supporting this bill, and it reminds me of and it sort of has all the look and feel of a member's bill, actually. It's five pages long and it's the sort of thing that you would expect a backbencher to throw into the ballot and it might come up. But this has been, apparently, the focus of Government officials and the previous Minister of Justice, Kiritapu Allan, and, before that, Kris Faafoi, and now, currently, Ginny Anderson. Look, it's not a newsflash: this Government has a clear majority and they will pass this legislation, and that will be that. We are in the second to last week of this term, and this is one of many bills that they're passing through. The point we make, ultimately, is that it's just emblematic of the failure to deal with the big issues effectively under six years as Minister of Justice—or six years of Government—and a kind of a flick right at the very end, as if to say, "Aren't we clever? This what we've done." Meantime, the inflation adjustments for the basic sort of work has only gone some way, as the Minister said, to dealing with inflation and so it's a question of choices. So when we look at the challenges facing the justice system as a whole, we identify three major issues round the increase in violent crime, increase of youth crime, and having to have a more effective response to that. But the third big issue—fundamental issue—is this broader context of access to justice being denied by an incredibly slow, cumbersome, and expensive system where people's lives are kept on hold for years, waiting to grind their way through the Family Court processes or the Employment Court processes or the Criminal Court processes or any other process. In fact, in the civil courts, it basically just doesn't work at all. If somebody steals $100,000 from your business, the whole process is so expensive and so cumbersome and so untimely and so uncertain that it's basically not worth doing anything about it, which is unbelievable that we can't design a system that works for those sorts of things. So this grinding, slow process of the Family Court and all those other courts, year in and year out, is what creates this massive cost and problem, because every time that the lawyers go off to some meeting in the Family Court and at the last moment it's cancelled for some reason because somebody's not ready, and there's no consequences for not being ready—it just rumbles on. There's no discipline in the whole process. Some judges will use AV material and some won't. They don't like it for some reason, but I don't know why—there is a whole heap of issues as to why the court processes are slow. Our primary critique is that instead of focusing on dealing with that issue effectively, they've done all sorts of other things. They've started a plethora of projects and programmes that are under way. We just heard that finally, after six years, they've led a project to upgrade the IT systems for the court processes—well, that's good, finally—and there's things on various other rules. There are projects under way, but it has been very slow, haphazard, and it hasn't been anywhere nearly a bigger priority as it should have been. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Well, let's put a priority on going to the bill now. You've had a pretty good five minutes. Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, that is the important context. That's the context—it's just the context of the bill. The Government has had six years to get around to it, and I've only had five minutes and I still haven't. I'm just warming up— DEPUTY SPEAKER: And you still haven't got to the bill. Everything is proportional, Mr Goldsmith. Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Six years, they've had, and so what we've got instead is this bill, which does two things, as the Minister did point out—two things. It first does away with the $50 administrative fee. Frankly, if people are desperate for justice and they want to achieve justice and they're looking to solve an horrendous problem in their life in some way, $50 doesn't seem to me to be an insurmountable barrier for New Zealanders. So it's all a matter of priorities for where the Government puts its money. You can choose between changing the thresholds further for which people have access to legal aid—you could do that—or you could do what is being proposed by this bill which is do away with that payment and then take away the interest payments for the loans. It's pretty simple, really. If you don't have to pay any interest on the loan then there's no incentive to pay it back at all or in any hurry. So the rest of the community ends up picking up that bill. The point of the process is that those who are really desperately in need get legal aid as a grant. This is the second category of people who would get it as a loan, who have more resources and more ability to pay. They've been considered by the system as able to repay that debt but if we do away with the interest then that's very unlikely that they'll do so. That has a cost, and so the question is whether this is a good use of that money or whether it would be of better use with higher thresholds, higher payments, to legal aid people or other areas of the justice system, and we're not convinced by the argument of this. Then, secondly, we would have preferred, like I say, that the Government—because these bills, even though this one is, like I say, five pages and looks sort of like a member's bill, it still takes the focus and energy of the Ministry of Justice and the officials. We've been through the process in the select committee and we've listened to all the submissions, and I do want to thank the chair of the Justice Committee, Vanushi Walters, who has conducted herself, I think, very well and in good spirits. We've heard from many—well, we didn't hear from many submitters, but we heard 10 submissions through the process, and we were well advised by the Ministry of Justice people. So it's all just a question of what you focus on. So the Ministry of Justice was working on this and they were doing that and we all had this group together while they were also doing other things like the hate speech and reducing the voting age and all those sorts of things, when I would argue that they would have been far better to have had a laser-like focus—which the Prime Minister talks about from time to time—on dealing with the big issue in the justice sector, which is how we get a much quicker resolution to the cases and a speedier application of justice. Ultimately, we look at it very much from the perspective of the consumers of justice, which is the people who want to get (a) justice for something that's been done to them, or (b) the dispute or the thing that they've been accused of resolved in a timely matter so that they can get on with their lives. They can take the punishment, if they need to, but then get on with their lives, or get the payment that they need to or get the resolution to the problem that they have dealt with so they can get on with their lives. That needs to be the No. 1 focus of the Government in this space and we've gone backwards, badly backwards, over the last few years. COVID didn't help and, in fact, I think some of the reactions to it went too far and slowed us down further than it should have. But the response has been too slow and given insufficient attention by the Government and the officials under their direction. So that is why we think this is tinkering at the edges when there's so much more important work that should have been done. VANUSHI WALTERS (Labour—Upper Harbour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I was listening intently during the committee of the whole House stage of this bill, and I will say this: it was the best of times listening to the Minister; it was the worst of times listening to the Opposition. I have to throw my Dickens in there, given the theme of the day. But Mr Goldsmith is correct that it was a really collegial select committee that we had when we considered this bill. We received excellent advice and actually had a very thorough, robust conversation. So I must admit I was surprised by the Opposition's position on this bill as the only party who are opposing this bill. I'm surprised and perplexed for a number of reasons. So we were told, on the one hand, that this is a bill that's about tinkering, and then, on the other hand, we were told that, actually, removing the interest payments on legal aid loans was a very, very big thing—a very big scary thing—that shouldn't be done. So the question is which is it—is it tinkering or is it a big thing? Now, I'll tell you, I worked at YouthLaw Aotearoa for nearly a decade, and there's something about watching the point of decision after you've advised someone about the strength of their legal case and that they can access a legal-aid loan, watching their face as they go through that decision-making process, and seeing the people who are low income and who have very sound legal cases, who look at me and say that they aren't going to access legal aid because they simply cannot perceive taking on that loan. Unless you've been in that position or advised someone who is, you do not know the scale of the people who are not accessing justice. Now, Mr Goldsmith has repeatedly made the argument that if there's no interest, people will not pay the loan back. But the advice we received was that the Legal Services Commissioner has the power to issue deduction notices directly to employers or to bank accounts. So that option is there; it was given to us in advice. The Opposition have argued, "Well, why aren't you doing other things like improving the court processes?" We are. Mr Goldsmith knows that. He was in the room this morning as we discussed with the Ministry of Justice Te Au Reka, which is their digital case management system. He's been there as we've made changes to the coronial system. He's been there as we've made changes to the Family Court. Mr Simon O'Connor, in the second reading, argued that we should be putting our justice money in other pockets. He's been there in the room as we talked about the circuit-breaker programme. He's been there in this House as we've talked about expanding that programme; putting 1,800 police on the ground. We're about saying yes to all means of access to justice, and saying yes to all ways of addressing community safety in our community. I commend this bill to the House. CHRIS PENK (National—Kaipara ki Mahurangi): Thank you very much. Continuing the Dickens theme, these are Hard Times for our justice system. Of course, that's not to be confused with the quote that the member Vanushi Walters has made from A Tale of Two Cities—the name of a novel in itself. But "hard times" is a very fair description of the legal system and the appalling state of lack of access to justice in this country at the moment. The system was in need of reform for many years, admittedly, including across successive Governments. It has steadily deteriorated over the last six years. COVID didn't help, admittedly, but the lack of imagination, energy, and impetus to do much about that is frankly appalling, and that responsibility lies with every branch of Government. I know that's not a thing one should lightly say, but the fact of the matter is the matter has been allowed to slide in a in a fashion that is frankly hopeless. As far as this bill goes and what it does and doesn't do, I pick up on the theme, initially, of the comments made by my colleague and friend the Hon Paul Goldsmith. He notes that there's not much in the bill. Of course, you know, that can be deceptive—I suppose you could have a good idea or a major policy change reflected in relatively few words. In this case, basically every second word is either "repeal" or "delete". Again, that shouldn't necessarily mean that we don't find favour with it. Repealing and deleting is a legislative activity I would very much like the opportunity to do quite a lot of, 51 days from now. But I think it does show lack of imagination, because nothing constructive is being done by this bill. It is merely, at best, lessening pain only to a minor extent. It is a band-aid on the weeping, seeping wound of our lack of access to justice in this country, for all the reasons that we have already described. In terms of the cost barriers, the greatest cost barrier is the extraordinary amount of time, and therefore expense, that is involved in taking legal claims at any level whatsoever of our justice system, courts and tribunals alike. That would be the single best thing that could be done to achieve more cost-effective justice, as well as more effective justice and justice that is less delayed and therefore less denied than we currently have. We've heard from the previous contributor to the debate Vanushi Walters that the Government has been undertaking various measures in the space to improve matters. That's true, as far as it goes, and I think it's worth acknowledging the point that she's made. But also it's fair to acknowledge National has supported in good faith all of those measures. Associates have been appointed, there's lots of talk about various reforms—not much more than talk in the case of a couple of the programmes, which is disappointing. But, to a large extent, that blame lies with not only the current Government but this branch of Government. So not much has been effective. There's been not much more than tinkering. Members opposite may disagree with that characterisation, but the results speak for themselves, and the results are of a justice system where the time frames and the backlogs are out of control. It is deeply dispiriting, deeply disheartening, and merely waving relatively small amounts of money here and there simply will not cut it. There's no good reason that we should pretend that it is anything more than that. It's also worth noting that to some extent this is unnecessary because there is already a mechanism available, under which the applicant—that is someone who's applying for legal aid—can consider or have considered grounds of financial hardship, which, of course, is a directly relevant one when we're talking about the costs involved, or any other reasons that they believe it should be considered. These are under the headings of "just and equitable" reasons. So the mechanism exists already, but, nevertheless, the Government sees fit to apply a blanket provision whereby we are to understand that society as a whole is to pay all the contribution, the person involved, himself or herself, none of the contribution. That wrong seems to me. If there is no skin in the game—not even a nominal amount of interest, not even a nominal co-payment—then there is no reason for people to accept responsibility for the situation in which they find themselves. So, for all these reasons, we don't think that it is worth supporting this bill. There are many more things that would have been much more helpful. Again, at this, the final reading of the bill, we do not support it, and we will not support it. But we will, if given the chance in a very short space of time, make real, tangible, effective measures to actually improve access to justice in this country. HELEN WHITE (Labour): A lot of years ago, I started in a firm called Ellis Gould. It was a high-priced firm and it had a beautiful view from my office of the city. I gave up that job to go to something which was the Union Law Centre in Ōtāhuhu. When I got there, I was working out of the tea room. My first client came in and she had what was called, at the time, a non-molestation order that she needed—it's now called a domestic violence order. I listened to her and I understood that she didn't have the money to pay for the order, and I was concerned about that. I remember my boss saying, "Don't worry about it, we just do those ones." That's what lots of the legal community do. Now, that woman had had a machete held over her head by her partner. She had four children and it was a pretty serious situation. That's the situation I'd like to contrast with some of the statements that have been made on the other side about how people have to have a bit of skin in the game if they are to deal with situations of their own making. That was a situation where we needed to be kind. We needed to understand what $50 is. We needed to understand what we needed to do in the circumstances. Our family lawyers and our employment lawyers know that, and they do it. This law is going to help people. It isn't a little law; it's a really important law. I'll never forget that story. It haunted me through my entire practise and it kept me honest. Thank you, I commend this bill to the House. CHRIS BAILLIE (ACT): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of ACT to take a short call on the Legal Services Amendment Bill here before us under urgency. It seems like an uncomplicated bill. We've got two parts to it: $50 user charge, which has been identified as a barrier to accessing justice for those people on low incomes, and it really doesn't seem to serve much of a purpose. The other part is removing the 5 percent interest on legal aid after six months. ACT says if the $50 charge is a deterrent for people struggling, let's remove it and remove that excuse. We already have an issue with people paying fines, and it's good to at least go into the court process with a clean slate. Unlike most of Labour's policies, this bill actually targets the right people. With the GST on fruit and veggies, the winter energy payment, prescription charges—all policies that help the rich people or the evil millionaires more than they do the poor people. So it's good to see a focus. This will actually help those people who are struggling in the world today, which is often the world which has been created, again, by this Government, and it may reduce the stress in their lives. The policeman in me thinks that it would be better if the person wasn't in court at all and didn't require any legal services. Again, an ACT-influenced Government will help them on this path, so there is hope. The bill will hopefully make it easier to access democracy—and that's a word that we're fast losing the meaning of in New Zealand. And because of this, ACT supports the bill. Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Tēnā koutou e te Whare. The Green Party supports this bill. They are good changes that are cleanly aligned with Green policies and statements. We would go further with much more substantive changes to the framework for legal aid. While these are small, the changes are clearly positive steps. The Green Party opposed National's legal aid changes in 2011. We lobbied against further changes in 2012. Green MPs called for an inquiry into the equality of access to justice in 2015. There should be no financial barriers to accessing justice and representation in the court and the provisions around interest on unpaid legal aid debt as well as the upfront fee are a barrier to access for justice. And it's just a very clear case of an ideological approach of "user pays" that doesn't recognise that all people are entitled as members of our society to have access to justice. We're all better off if we make that as easy and accessible as possible. So we congratulate the Labour Government for getting this to this point, even if it isn't as far as the Green Party would like to go. ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Thank you for the opportunity to speak on the Legal Services Amendment Bill. This is a good bill, and it was a pleasure to sit with the Justice Committee in consideration of it and to consider the detail about how this will improve access to justice. Access to justice is something that everyone in this House should support, and this bill clearly does that. This bill does two simple things, and I thank the ACT member who spoke about the removal of user charges being a good thing. It's a real no-brainer; $50 is the difference between somebody being able to access the services of a legal aid lawyer or to make choices about, say, school camp coming up or groceries on the table. To remove that fee makes a real difference in the lives of exactly the kind of people who need legal aid. The second this it does is that removes interest, and that means that the bills of people who access legal aid services don't continuously go up as they are trying to pay them off. It can be incredibly demoralising for people, especially those people who have outstanding debt to other Government departments. So it really makes sense to do this. Any party who is opposing access to justice in this way has got the wrong idea. Fees and barriers to accessing legal services and the knowledge to navigate the legal system create the kind of inequality which is inexcusable in New Zealand society. It's a trap of poverty that this bill does something to prise the jaws open from. Those kind of barriers generate arbitrary and unsustainable inequalities that radically undermine the meritocratic values this this democracy was founded on. It keeps people at the bottom at the bottom, while the continuous accumulation of capital lets people at the top keep going up and up. The existential growth of inequality in our society is something we should all push against. The thing which brings us closer together, whether it's in wealth or in our standing in our communities is the diffusion of that knowledge. It's the fact that you can go into a courtroom and have somebody who knows what's going on explaining it to you. It's those policies like education that transform people's lives, and this is one of those. I'm proud to stand up for this bill, and I'm proud to stand with a Government that's advancing it. DEPUTY SPEAKER: A five-minute split call—Barbara Kuriger. BARBARA KURIGER (National—Taranaki-King Country): Thank you, Mr Speaker. National is opposing this bill. We agree that New Zealanders struggle to access justice, especially under the current Government. The best thing that this Government or our new Government could do to improve New Zealanders' access to justice would be to speed up the very slow court processes so that those involved in proceedings don't have their lives kept on hold for years and years. Rather than reducing the incentive for those with debts to repay by removing interest, we believe any additional spending in the system would be best speeding up the process of justice, firstly, and, secondly, to improve legal aid available to make it more attractive for lawyers. Currently, legislation allows for applications pertaining to the exemption of legal aid debt under the grounds of financial hardship or any other reason that the applicant believes should be considered. These are labelled as just and equitable reasons. So, in my very short speech today, I just wanted to reiterate that there are much better ways of giving access to justice and tidying up the legal system, and to reiterate that National will be opposing this bill. Thank you. DAN ROSEWARNE (Labour): It's my pleasure to rise in this House and take a quick call on the Legal Services Amendment Bill. This bill, it's all about access to justice, and my learned colleague Helen White painted the picture relatively well, I thought. People don't access justice when things are going well; they usually access justice when there are a lot of other challenges going on in their lives. So it's important to recognise that and make sure that the system recognises that—that when people are in vulnerable positions, that $50 fee can act as a huge barrier to getting that justice. And then also, in the House, we've talked about the 5 percent interest that accrues on that fee as well, and then when that's lined up with other outstanding fees that the individual may owe to other Government departments, that can quickly become quite overwhelming. So this is a really good bill, and these proposed changes will mean that thousands of people who would otherwise not be able to afford a lawyer will be able to have proper legal representation. Looking through the commentary on the bill, we had 10 submitters. Four were from individuals and six were from organisations, and all 10 of those submitters supported the bill and didn't recommend any amendments. So, just in closing, another point to note is that, you know, investment in Budget 2022, actually—it's helped around 93,000 people be eligible for legal aid since January 2023. So we're fulfilling our election promise to make improvements to our court system so that everybody has appropriate access to justice so that we can improve equitable outcomes for all. Thank you. LEMAUGA LYDIA SOSENE (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I'm really pleased to be able to speak on this bill, the Legal Services Amendment Bill, and to take a call. I want to thank the Justice Committee members and also the officials who prepared the briefings and, specifically, the submitters who were able to put forward their contribution. This is a good bill for those who cannot access the legal services or access justice, in terms of equality and equity. The bill refers to two minor technical amendments that will help those thousands of households on low incomes to access justice. In my local community, we have the Māngere Community Law Centre. I want to acknowledge the team who work really hard, because they deal with very diverse community members who would not necessarily put themselves forward to access the legal services that are required to understand, because many of the people in the South Auckland community, or the local communities, come from different, diverse backgrounds. When they have problem, because they don't necessarily understand the complexities of law in English terms, it is very helpful for them to access justice and access the community law centre. The bill is helpful. It is very helpful, because, for those households—thousands of households—across the motu who cannot afford the fee, it is helpful to repeal those sections and interests. Although it seems like quite a small amount, it will be very helpful for those particular households. It is important to be educated on the laws of the land, to understand your rights as a person in the community and whatever has happened and you require legal help, there are the services out there in the community that will be able to assist you because they have the knowledge, the expertise, and the legal backgrounds. I do want to thank those who prepared, and I would commend this bill to the House. JOSEPH MOONEY (National—Southland): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise to make a small contribution on the Legal Services Amendment Bill, one that the National Party is opposing. We do agree that New Zealanders struggle to access justice—something that has become certainly harder and longer in the last five years. Our view is that the Government would be best focused on improving New Zealand's access to justice by speeding up what is a very slow court process. It's something I have certainly seen in my previous career—even before the delays of the last few years, when it could take someone two to three years to progress their way through the court system. This bill does remove some costs. But, I mean, ultimately, people can still access the legal aid system; they can still get help. We think it's important that legal aid is accessible for all. But this bill simply takes away the $50 contribution that people have to make and takes away the interest that they'll have to pay on any outstanding money. Of course, anything that someone has to pay less of is helpful—particularly those who are in a difficult position. But frankly, this country is in a difficult position. Core Crown debt has doubled since 2019, we have the biggest gross national debt we've ever had—just over $800 billion—and our balance of trade deficit is the biggest in the OECD, meaning that we are spending significantly more than we're earning as a nation. So we don't have a whole lot of money to spend on a whole lot of things. I think it would actually be a lot more valuable to people who are trying to access justice to get faster progress through the court system, which fundamentally actually will cost them less in legal fees, and therefore there will be less interest they'll need to pay on any debt that incurs if we're able to speed up the court process. So we think the money is better spent on getting a more efficient, faster court process. I think a $50 contribution would actually be a significant—I think many people would be very happy to pay that to have a much faster court process, which actually gives them certainty as to the outcome of that court process, whatever it may be. Because uncertainty is, actually, a huge cost to people emotionally, physically, and financially. A $50 contribution to the cost of the court and some interest being paid—so actually, if we can put that towards speeding up the court system, that would add the most value to people's lives. There's an old saying that, "Justice delayed is justice denied." That's certainly a real truism. Fundamentally, that money, we think, would be best spent towards actually making sure justice is not delayed more than it needs to be and assisting with that. So with that, I will conclude my contribution. SORAYA PEKE-MASON (Labour): Tēnā koe e te Mana Whakawā. I'm pleased to take a call on the third reading of the Legal Services Amendment Bill. I'm so grateful for this amendment, having myself supported whānau to navigate the justice system, and seeing the despair on their faces and not knowing what to do and wanting to know how to access legal representation. The justice system is a stressful place to be in if you've never been there before; absolutely, the experience is much more overwhelming than it already is. I recall turning up to court and it's a sterile, cold place. You've got to stand there and look for the name of what courtroom you're in, and so on and so forth. That is bad enough. The bill does speak to two significant things, such as the removal of the $50 user charge. It might be pittance to some, but as I've said before in this House it is gold to others. Secondly, it gets rid of that 5 percent interest charged on unpaid legal debt. I'm delighted the user charge and interest payments will already be in effect—in place—before this bill passes, by changing the regulations and removing reference to the charges and the interest payments. Legal aid is central to ensuring equity in New Zealand's justice system. By doing this, the legal aid scheme can keep doing what it was designed to do in the first place. This means that more people can, of course, access legal advice ensuring the ongoing viability of the legal aid system. And I just want to note that the bill responds to the Ministry of Justice findings in the 2018 review of legal aid. The changes are part of our Budget, the 2022 package of $149.7 million to strengthen the legal aid system. I welcome this and I commend this bill to the House. A party vote was called for on the question, That the Legal Services Amendment Bill be now read a third time. Ayes 84 New Zealand Labour 62; ACT New Zealand 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 9; Te Paati Māori 2; Kerekere; Whaitiri. Noes 29 New Zealand National 29. Motion agreed to. Bill read a third time. LAND TRANSPORT (ROAD SAFETY) AMENDMENT BILL Second Reading Debate resumed from 2 August. RACHEL BOYACK (Labour—Nelson): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It's a privilege to stand and take a call on the Land Transport (Road Safety) Amendment Bill. This bill particularly concerns the issues of fleeing drivers and the safety concerns that result from people misusing a vehicle and refusing to stop for police. There have been a number of these cases throughout New Zealand where we do have drivers who flee from police and, unfortunately, there are times when that leads to devastating crashes and devastating injuries and deaths from both, those who are in the vehicles that are fleeing but also other vehicles. I do want to just put on record, and I have spoken about this case in a previous call on this bill. In 2018, we lost a woman in Nelson who was driving to work, early on a weekend morning, and was traveling down a rural road, and there was a fleeing driver who was fleeing from police at the time and crashed into the vehicle and, devastatingly, she lost her life, leaving her teenage children without a mother. The ripples of that were felt throughout the community. I think we all in this House acknowledge that the issue of fleeing drivers is one that there's no excuse and no reasonable excuse at all for people who behave in that way, and the impacts felt on the people who are the victims of such terrible offences are devastating. One of the matters relating to fleeing drivers I just want to note, is about the role of the police in making that risk assessment on the day on their ability to—of whether it is safe or not to pursue a fleeing driver. It is a really challenging psychological issue, where there are, unfortunately, times when, by being chased, it can lead to you a young person, particularly, speeding up even more and actually make the situation worse. One of the things we have to take care real care about in this House is ensuring that police can make the right operational decisions based on a proper risk assessment of the risk of pursuing a fleeing driver. I know that has been a manner of some debate at times in this House and in the public, but, ultimately, we do need to rely on the expertise of the police to make those decisions, rather than politicians making those decisions. But we are also very clear that such an offence is an offence. It's a terrible offence. A vehicle is a very dangerous item for someone to use in such a way. It can do significant damage, just like any other weapon—and a vehicle can essentially become a weapon in these matters. So it's important from the Government's point of view that we are taking steps to really crack down on fleeing drivers, in terms of the offences that are there. The Justice Committee has examined this bill and recommends that it be passed. It seeks to reduce unsafe behaviour on New Zealand roads by increasing the severity of enforcements for fleeing drivers. What it would do is amend the Land Transport Act to lengthen the period for which an enforcement officer may seize and impound a vehicle from the current 28 days to six months if a driver has failed to stop or remain stopped when required. It also introduces a new offence if a person fails to provide information about a fleeing driver. So if someone has information and refuses to provide that information to the police, there's a new power there for a vehicle to be seized and impounded for 28 days. It also increases the licence disqualification period after a second conviction for a failing-to-stop offence from one year to one-to-two years. It is important that we send a very clear message as a House to people who wish to use vehicle in this way: that they can cause significant and severe damage to people contained in those vehicles and also any other vehicles or members of the public that they may unfortunately come in contact with if they are fleeing and fleeing at a very, very high speed. I think, unfortunately, something that we probably all share in this House is a connection to people who have lost their lives on the roads. I have a cousin who lost his life on a road. I know far too many New Zealanders who've lost their lives on New Zealand roads. It's important that this House continues to take our responsibility seriously to limit the potential for people's lives to be lost on our roads. This is an excellent bill. I do commend the Minister, I commend the Justice Committee for their work on it, and I commend it to the House. DEPUTY SPEAKER: A five-minute split call—Chris Penk. CHRIS PENK (National—Kaipara ki Mahurangi): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Can I pick up where the previous member has left off by thanking the Justice Committee for their work. We are close enough to the end of this parliamentary term that I'd like to make that a slightly more general remark in the sense that the Justice Committee has worked hard on a number of different bills—obviously all in the justice space one way or another, but it's a very broad remit and I acknowledge the current chair of the Justice Committee, Vanushi Walters. Before her I think it was the Hon Ginny Andersen. I think that's the extent of the chairs involved over this term of the Parliament. But on the occasions when I've been fortunate enough to participate, it seemed to me a good body of MPs who have been prepared to examine issues such as this in good faith and acknowledging the seriousness of the issues involved. The consideration and indeed deliberation of this matter at select committee was not something that I took much active part in, Sir, but I have followed the debate, as I know you have and are still doing now, despite my best attempts. And clearly, much thought is given to some of the competing considerations that are inherent whenever we're talking about increasing the severity and speed of the administration of justice. So it's right to take these issues very seriously. If we think about the speed of enforcement, this is important for a number of different reasons. One is that it will promote confidence in the justice system, if we have the consequences, roughly speaking, of offending being administered quickly, and we need to do that in a way that is most efficient while at the same time not reducing fundamental rights of persons who are charged and are entitled always to be presumed innocent unless and until such time as they're proven guilty of a crime. So the way that this balance has been struck within the bill, as referred to in the select committee report, is by enabling the serving of notices by electronic means. In 2023, it seems appropriate to allow the methods of delivery—albeit of bad news in the sense of it might be some sort of traffic infringement. But of course, there's much worse news that one can receive in relation to road safety, and Rachel Boyack has referred to those tragically in relation to loss within her own family and those whom she knows. I think she's right. There will be many of us who are aware of such issues from a deeply personal place, and that's tragic and it's to be avoided, if at all we can. So for all the New Zealanders and visitors to New Zealand, for that matter, who are involved in road safety incidents, whether at fault in the legal sense or merely involved by an accident of circumstance—of course, for all of these people we must take very seriously road safety measures such as are put forward in the bill. That's not to say that we agree with every detail in here, and others have spoken about the point to point safety camera regime, but when it comes to things like the automated issuing of certain infringement notices, again, a pretty important, albeit technocratic step to enable justice to be served more quickly, we do support that, because we support the administration of justice being taken seriously in this crucial area of public life. We see that, among other things, there is the ability for an enforcement officer to impound a vehicle for 28 days. That would be if a person fails to provide certain information when requested. And while on the face of it, one might say it's pretty heavy-handed, because it involves a confiscation of property in the absence of a criminal conviction, nevertheless, we think that if a person fails to provide certain information when requested, it's reasonable to use a tool that's available to us at our disposal in the toolbox, so to speak, by motivating them to be involved in the process whereby guilt or otherwise can be determined. That's another example of measures that are within the bill that we think will make things easier for the police and other authorities to do their job, because, as we can all agree, I'm sure, this is an important issue and we want to equip those who perform these duties to the best of their ability. So with that, so I'll conclude my relatively short contribution, except only to thank the House again, the Justice Committee again, and say that we do join others in commending the bill to the House. ANGIE WARREN-CLARK (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It's a surprise but also a pleasure to be standing and speaking on this bill. I have not sat on the Justice Committee. Nevertheless, I understand, as the member Chris Penk, who has just resumed his seat has said, that the Justice Committee have taken through this House the most bills in this term. So I want to acknowledge Vanushi Walters, the chair, and a very apt and able chair she is too; also the former Hon Ginny Andersen for her work. I think it also has to be said, absolutely, because it's not just the chairs or the select committee but the officials that have worked, and I imagine they have worked tirelessly on this work. This this bill, in the second reading, I understand there were 33 interested groups or individuals and eight oral submitters that came before the select committee, and the bill simply seeks to reduce unsafe behaviour on New Zealand roads by increasing the speed and severity of enforcement. Two matters that I think are particularly useful that were discussed: the vehicle impoundment for failing to provide information. One of the things that hasn't been said is some of the grounds that don't necessarily mean that the impoundment sticks or stays, and that is there are some compassionate grounds that mean that the vehicle can be returned, creditors can also have asked to have the car or vehicle released, and other police have a discretion to use that. Also, in terms of vehicle forfeiture, there is a really clear process as well for ensuring that the financial sale of the property is also now going to be kept by the Crown. I think that that is a very severe message that we send to people who are committing this crime. Thank you, Mr Speaker. TANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North): Kia orana, Mr Speaker. It's a pleasure to take a brief call in support of this particular bill. In doing so, I want to acknowledge the work of the Justice Committee. Mr Penk acknowledged that it's a hard-working committee under the chair Vanushi Walters, and what they have done is they've worked through this after listening to submissions and have come back with some rather sensible and practical solutions to make the bill more workable. One is really around the practical aspect of what defines a registered person—making sure that there's a broader scope around that. Also allowing the electronic means to be incorporated in terms of not just filing of information, which seems to be fairly common these days, but also in terms of following through on the service of notices when it comes to particular breaches or infringements that might follow. The interesting thing I note also is that it lengthens the period from 28 days, which seems to be the common theme in a number of calendar events when it comes to criminal proceedings, to that of six months as a period, by which the enforcement officer may take action to impound a motor vehicle. That gives the enforcement agency—more likely than not to be the New Zealand Police, of course—more time to work through processes, to establish identity, and to take appropriate action. The limitation of the 28 days as a time frame is just an indication where it has proved a little bit difficult. So I, again, congratulate and acknowledge the work of the Justice Committee. I thank the Minister for bringing this to the House and commend this bill to the House. BARBARA KURIGER (National—Taranaki-King Country): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Well, this bill is a result of an announcement that the Government made back on 16 May this year to control a problem that actually has literally run away on the Government, and that is around fleeing drivers and introducing some new powers for police when it comes to those fleeing drivers. So police will now be able to seize and impound vehicles for up to six months if it's failed to stop. It will also apply if the registered owner of the vehicle fails to provide information of the fleeing driver, and impounding is deemed necessary for public safety. Vehicles may also be forfeited upon conviction for a failing-to-stop offence. The background to the reasoning for this—and National is supporting it, but we feel like it's come at a very late stage when something could have been done a lot earlier, because data released last year showed that the number of fleeing drivers between December 2020 and December 2021 was 4,846; the same number showed the number of fleeing drivers between November 2021 and November 2022 was 9,499. So it practically doubled. It just goes to show that if there's inaction with law and order, problems can really start to accelerate—and that's not meant to be a pun but it certainly has been an accelerating problem. In the same time, the number of unidentified fleeing drivers increased from 2,419 to 6,412; while the number of police proceedings jumped from 3,374 to 3,484—so a very, very small number of police proceedings in relation to what was happening out there on our road and putting the number of people out there in danger. So, for six years now, all offenders needed to do was put their foot down and nobody would chase. The results have been predictable: an increase of 96 percent more fleeing drivers from that December 2020 period that I quoted before. So Labour's lack of action on crime, combined with this bill that won't have a massive overall effect on the wider crime picture, shows that the Government is waving the white flag and giving up on law and order. The Government is now belatedly waking up to the fact that authorities need stronger powers and that offenders should face some real consequences. This bill will help but the real challenge is to change the culture of excuses. The only target that this Government has focused on in the justice sector, until now, is a 30 percent reduction in prison numbers. So this is far too little, far too late. Many people have lost their lives in the interim. So National is supporting this bill today. We just would, again, reiterate the fact that it's been a very long time—far too long—finding its way into the House to give the police some powers to act on at least one crime that is desperately out of control. Thank you, Mr Speaker. TĀMATI COFFEY (Labour): Again, I join the rest of the House in thanking the submitters in getting us to this point and the Minister for bringing this to the House. This is really important. I think back to the region that I come from and I remember, just before Christmas in 2017, there was a fleeing driver that hit a police officer that was actually just trying to put out some road spikes to try and stop the fleeing driver in the first place. That police constable was actually hit and hurt and had to be flown to Waikato Hospital because he was just trying to do what the right thing was, what the public expected him to do. Earlier this year, back in January, an innocent woman suffered life-threatening injuries when a fleeing 37-year-old driver crashed into her home as she was eating dinner in Gisborne. Again, off to Waikato Hospital for some surgery to her serious injuries. We need to crack down on fleeing drivers. Fleeing drivers need to know that it's not OK. Fleeing drivers need to know that there are serious implications when they run and they hit innocent people, whether it's police officers in the line of duty or innocent New Zealanders sitting in their kitchen eating their dinner. It's not acceptable. This bill will create the ability for police to be able to impound cars for longer, to be able to utilise the mechanism of disqualification of licences. They are being given a set of tools to be able to turn around this awful, awful statistic. The previous member talked about how this is on the rise. It's unacceptable; no matter which side of the House that you sit on in this place, we all understand the value of being able to give the police the tools to be able to deal with fleeing drivers. This bill is good for the people that have been affected by fleeing drivers, whether it's the police officer in Awakeri that day in 2017 or the lovely lady in Gisborne who was sitting down to eat her dinner and the car came crashing through her House. I commend this bill, on their behalf, to the House. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is, That the amendments recommended by the Justice Committee by majority be agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments be agreed to. Ayes 91 New Zealand Labour 62; New Zealand National 29. Noes 22 ACT New Zealand 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 9; Te Paati Māori 2; Kerekere; Whaitiri. Amendments agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question, That the Land Transport (Road Safety) Amendment Bill be now read a second time. Ayes 91 New Zealand Labour 62; New Zealand National 29. Noes 22 ACT New Zealand 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 9; Te Paati Māori 2; Kerekere; Whaitiri. Motion agreed to. Bill read a second time. DEPUTY SPEAKER: I declare the House in committee for consideration of the bill. In Committee Bill Parts 1 to 3, Schedule 1, and clauses 1 and 2 CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Members, the House is in committee on the Land Transport (Road Safety) Amendment Bill. We come to Part 1— Tangi Utikere: Point of order. I seek leave for all provisions to be taken as one question. CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is none. The question is that Parts 1 to 3, Schedule 1, and clauses 1 and 2 stand part. Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): This legislation does a number of things that we agree with, which is getting more teeth to help the police with fleeing drivers. The current situation where you just know with absolute certainty if you put your foot down and speed off, you won't be chased and won't be caught—well, you've got, I think, about a 15 percent chance of getting caught—is not tenable. But there's one thing that we don't particularly agree with, and I want to ask the Minister in the chair around this, which is in relation to the point-to-point speed cameras and the new regime that they've brought in new section 141A. This is in the context of a Government that is determined to slow us down at every turn with putting these 30-kilometre-an-hour speed limits everywhere. If you look in my neighbourhood in Auckland, where the rubber really hits the road when you think about one of these speed cameras going a kilometre down a road where you're obliged to drive at 30 kilometres an hour in modern vehicles that have never been safer. They have got all sorts of things going on, and we have to crawl along at 30 kilometres an hour. I notice that the equation that's put together here is "(d × 3.6) ÷ t"—with "d" being the distance and "t" being the time—in order to work out whether or not you've infringed. But I just have this old-fashioned view—and I wonder whether the Minister in the chair shares that—that one of the purposes of being in Parliament and being in Government is to make peoples' lives easier, and it seems to me that the purpose that the Government is pursuing with this is to drive people crazy. It is to force them to drive along at 30 kilometres an hour in modern cars at a snail's pace, with a point-to-point camera determining that you do the whole kilometre or whatever it is down the road at no more than 30 kilometres an hour. Now, you could go at 50 and stop and have a break and then start again, but I don't see any public benefit in that process occurring. So why is it that the Government is so determined that we have to do it this way? Secondly, given natural concerns that people have around safety on the road, why isn't the Government focused on all the other more important matters? So we asked the officials, in terms of fatalities and serious accidents, what percentage were caused by excessive speed, and it's not half, it's not a third, and it's not 20 percent. I think it was around 10 percent, and yet the Government over the last six years has done half the number of drink-driving tests that it should have. So they don't focus on the real dangers around drink driving. They've fluffed around and haven't got around to dealing with an effective drug-driving test, and so that is another major area. They haven't particularly focused on driver distraction and cellphone use and so forth. They certainly haven't focused on making sure that people wear seatbelts, which is one of the most important things. So when it comes to safety, all those things that they should be focused on, they're not really and haven't been focused on enough. But the one thing that they do put all their energy and all their efforts in towards is to make us crawl around at 30 kilometres an hour in our modern cities in our safe, new vehicles. So I want to ask the Minister why on earth he thinks this is a good policy and what on earth is he trying to achieve by it, and if they're focused on road safety, why don't they focus on the things that really matter? Secondly, I'm asking: is he sure that the equation he's got there of "(d × 3.6) ÷ t" is correct, and I'd like him to give us a couple of examples—that would be great. Secondly, I'd like to have a better understanding about what evidence there is to show that this particular speed camera on a 30-kilometre-an-hour road is going to make our lives better, make our lives easier, and generally help people get around and get on with the things that they need to do? Thank you very much. Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Associate Minister of Transport): Look, thank you, Madam Chair. I'll do my best. I've come into the role relatively recently, but I'll do my best to answer the questions here. I just want to acknowledge the select committee that's done a very good job to work through this piece of legislation and make some improvements. Regarding the point-to-point speed cameras, they are used internationally, and for the most part they're on open road. While I haven't had a chance to talk to officials in depth about this, I doubt whether there will be many in 30-kilometre-an-hour areas. The member asked the question: do we have a role to make it easier? Yes, in part, but when it comes to road rules, actually safer is the focus of what we're trying to do here. If it was a 30-kilometre-an-hour sign, it would most likely be highly populated or there would be roadworks. The chances of those being over 2 kilometres, maybe they would be, but I doubt whether we would have point-to-point cameras in such a situation. For the most part, they will be on open roads. I have asked officials to ensure that where they are put up, there must be signs—that's what the legislation says—that it will be in an area and over a distance where you can accurately assess what might be speeding or so. So they are one of many tools in the tool box to make our roads safer. We have too many people who are run over, particularly around roadworks—hit in roadworks or hit in pedestrian areas. So look, we're trying to do our best here. I think the member's questions about 30-kilometre-an-hour zones and fixed speed cameras or point-to-point is not really relevant in this because for the most part they'll be on open roads. CHRIS PENK (National—Kaipara ki Mahurangi): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I have some exciting remarks to make on the Land Transport (Road Safety) Amendment Bill and as usual it's traditional to acknowledge the large crowd that gathers for such occasions. But if you will indulge me actually on that note, Madam Chair, I do want to acknowledge those valedictorians who are about to give their final remarks, and they will no doubt have some actually exciting remarks to make. I've enjoyed working with Jan Logie on many occasions in relation to her role as musterer and mine as whip; Eugenie Sage—the Hon Eugenie Sage, no less—particularly on the Regulations Review Committee in which she was a very astute member; and the Hon Poto Williams, who I remember came up to Warkworth within my electorate in her role as police Minister and gave a very good account of the Government's gratitude to those fine members of our community who do so much for us. In relation to the bill itself, I just wonder if the Minister can turn his mind to new section 102A. This is the "Appeal to Police against impoundment of vehicle" under a particular section, and I think it's appropriate that the bill allows an appeal mechanism. We've got quite a strict power whereby a vehicle can be impounded quite rapidly and we've talked before about how that's a protective measure in order to get engagement in the process from someone who's likely behaved badly, albeit that they haven't necessarily received a criminal conviction. And so there's an appeal right and that seems appropriate, but I wonder if the Minister can offer any thoughts on how that relates to a person's ability at the same time to complain to the Independent Police Conduct Authority and/or make an application to the courts. I don't think the bill is trying to stop those things happening as well but they're sort of parallel processes. So I appreciate the Minister's relatively new and maybe turning his mind to the bill so, respectfully, I'd suggest that if he were able to gain some advice on that that might be helpful, just to ensure that once this bill is passed as it soon will be that it can be interpreted and applied in a way that reflects the intention of the Government and indeed the Parliament as a whole. Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Associate Minister of Transport): I thank the member for his question and, look, nothing in the bill here prevents the right of appeal through any part of the process. And I'd just like to acknowledge that he too, along with his colleagues, is supporting what we're trying to do with this piece of legislation here. As I say, it is very unfortunate when some people will choose to run from the police—create very dangerous situations—and so what we're trying to do here is provide some penalties and some clear messages that if they do that, then they will lose their vehicle. And that sometimes is the most important asset that they have. So we're making progress here. CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Members, the Government has indicated that they wish to conclude urgency, therefore, I will report progress on this bill. House resumed. CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Mr Speaker, the committee has considered the Land Transport (Road Safety) Amendment Bill and reports progress. I move, That the report be adopted. Motion agreed to. Report adopted. SPEAKER: The bill is set down for further consideration in committee next sitting day. VALEDICTORY STATEMENTS SPEAKER: Members, following the valedictory statements, the House will adjourn until 2 p.m. on Tuesday, 29 August. I call on Jan Logie to make her valedictory statement. JAN LOGIE (Green): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. As I rise for perhaps the last time in this House, in the wake of Aupito's inspiring valedictory, I've decided to come as my proudest lesbian self in my boiler suit. First up, I want to acknowledge all the support and the resilience of my family: my mom, Judith; my dad, Ray; my brother, Ian; and my friends, despite the fact that I've been a bloody terrible friend and family member for the last decade. I specifically want to acknowledge my mate Liz, who I share a mortgage and side-by-side homes with in the fabulous Cannons Creek, who has kept things running when I've been absent. In my time in Parliament, I've been lucky to fall in love with Kath and become a member of the council of mothers, with Kath, Justine, and Danielle caring for the two fabulous young wahine Pipi and Vita. Yes, I see you. It's been so beautiful to be welcomed into such a generous extended family as a well-intended though often absent member. Love you a lot. Kath, I have to particularly thank for putting up with some of the worst dates ever, including protests, election panels, vigils for murdered women and children; for forcing her introvert self out door-knocking; for staying up with me until 3 in the morning, swotting up on progressive political messaging ahead of caucus meetings; and being there when I was struggling to breathe in the wake of Metiria's resignation, feeling as if the bastards had won, and needing to be on TV in less than an hour. So many acts of kindness—thank you. But I still won't be proposing. I've spent much of my life disengaged from parliamentary politics because the politicians I saw in the news seemed more interested in one-upping each other than genuinely working for our communities. I used to say I decided to stand for Parliament to stop yelling at the politicians on the radio, and now I'm leaving because I want to stop yelling at myself on the radio. It's been a real privilege getting to fight for people in this place. But my theory of change is about the movement, not the individual, and part of the job that no one really gets to see is that absolute joy of connecting with those on the ground doing amazing mahi, people reflecting on how we could do better, and organising to make it happen. In my experience, none of the good things in this place happen without those people and groups. They are the heart of our democracy. And that's not a criticism of this place; that is something that I think reflects well on us. This speech is my love letter to my colleagues and everyone in the public sector and communities who I've had the incredible privilege to be challenged by, learn from, and work with. Every single day, there are people all over this country and in this place bringing the beauty of environmental and social justice and democracy to life through their work and their advocacy, and tonight I want to celebrate them, including all the incredible Green members, and staff here and in the party. Specifically, I want to call out to the teams in my office: Marie Retimanu, Jessie Dennis, Raewyn Tate, Sarah Saunders, and my ministerial office from last term, Claire Lyons, Heather McDonald, Stephanie Rodgers, Sarah McGray, and Mel King—I really am indebted to their singular and collective brilliance. I want to acknowledge the unions—particularly E tū—the Coalition for Equal Value Equal Pay, Graduate Women, YWCA, Mind the Gap, National Council of Women, and my she-roes Kristine Bartlett and friends for all of their work to ensure every worker is paid according to the value of their work. Our economy has too long relied on exploiting traditional women's work. It's been a long battle and we're not there yet. Come on, pay transparency and the care and support workers settlement. But over 175,000 women have got massive pay rises in the last six years. I also want to acknowledge Auckland Action Against Poverty, the Child Poverty Action Group, New Zealand Council of Christian Social Services, Wesley Community Action, the City Mission, the Salvation Army, beneficiary rights' groups from Southland to Northland, We Are Beneficiaries, Metiria Turei, and many others. Government has the power to eliminate poverty. There is frustration at the painfully low implementation of what was recommended by the Welfare Expert Advisory Group (WEAG). WEAG create a pathway that represented the interests of business, working people, and the sick and disabled in our whānau and communities. The potential for wellbeing from this consensus has been squandered by a Government that limited itself by refusing to take on the inequities of our tax system. Just tax the rich, already. That said, I will be very excited, though, to see fair pay agreements roll out, and I feel lucky to have worked with unions and the Government over the last six years to help get us to this point. I really hope that people who care about reducing inequality vote to ensure these agreements come to fruition. Our communities need this foundation. Fired Up Stilettos and our Uber drivers are more examples of ordinary people supported by union colleagues putting themselves on the line for work rights for themselves and others. This is work towards human dignity. We should celebrate them, and we should make their lives a little easier by increasing the labour inspectorate and creating stronger protections for all workers, not just employees. And we need far more fundamental reform of ACC to ensure it can deliver on Owen Woodhouse's intent—this has been said in this House. A shout-out to ACC Futures Coalition and others. There is so much potential, here, to strengthen our social safety net. Maternal birth injuries was a start, but we need to eliminate discrimination on the grounds of accident, illness, or birth, as intended. That work is to come. I may have said before in this House—and I am serious about it—that family violence and sexual violence are endemic and a shame on this country. Sadly, there's no one solution to changing it. I need to acknowledge the Hon Andrew Little and Jacinda Ardern for letting me roam well beyond a tight interpretation of my delegations last term, to unleash some of the wisdom from our communities, and I am so grateful. Thanks to the efforts of Te Ohaakii a Hine—National Network Ending Sexual Violence Together, Ngā Kaitiaki Mauri, all our Women's Refuges, Te Kupenga, Korowai Tūmanako, and Ange Jury, Kim McGregor, Louise Nicholas, Heather Henare, David White, Ken Clearwater, HELP Auckland and HELP Wellington, all the Rape Crisis centres, START, Shakti, Sharma, E Tū Whānau, Pasefika Proud, Le Va, Te Pūtahitanga, Māori Women's Welfare League, Prue Kapua, Tā Mark Solomon, Te Whakaruruhau, Te Hiku, Aviva, Shine, Tū Wahine Trust, Tu Tama wāhine, Kite Rapu i Te Ora Trust, VOYCE - Whakarongo Mai, Mojo Mathers, Debbie Hagar, Laurie Mackness, Sue Hobbs, Thursdays in Black, Community Law, Elisabeth McDonald, Yvette Tinsley, Julie Tolmie, Jan Jordan, the Family Violence Clearinghouse, and so many more people who hold the wisdom. For all their efforts, we managed to get a dedicated Minister—go, the Hon Marama Davidson—family violence legislative reforms, sexual violence legislation, and a plan to address the issues identified in the 2009 Task Force for Action on Sexual Violence. We got around half a billion dollars towards community based services including tailored services, we set up infrastructure to break down Government silos and create processes of genuine accountability, and we started the long journey of the Crown taking responsibility for the harm it has caused and ensuring people get the right help when they need it. Interim Te Rōpū—sorry, you never got a decent name—did the foundational work that led to Te Aorerekura, a national strategy to end violence over generations. I do believe having a plan that was driven by Māori leadership, not our Public Service—and no shade meant—has given us something far more inclusive, far more real, and less risk averse. I get so frustrated—and that's polite—when I hear suggestions that enabling Māori leadership is divisive. The experience of communities I speak to and will listen to is the polar opposite. I was attending a community election panel organised by Te Pae Ora a few weeks ago, and I was so encouraged that so many of the questions from the floor to all the parties were seeking to get a commitment to Te Aorerekura. We need community to hold everyone in here to account to ensure the work is sustained and driven, regardless of shifts in political or news cycles. I trust them to do this. The staff of the joint venture, now Te Puna Aonui, had and have a really tricky job leading change right across the public sector and I am incredibly grateful to them. It has not been easy. There is so much more to do. But the community, with Marama Davidson, have this. One of those things, though, that we need to do, is we need to do much better by our children who have experienced violence or neglect, and I want to pay tribute to all the survivors who have shared this story with the royal commission and to VOYCE Whakarongo Mai, and children's rights advocates Hands Off Our Tamariki, and our Children's Commissioners. Children who have experienced trauma need love and care and to know what loving relationships look like. The royal commission has already highlighted the intergenerational impact of abuse in State care and how that drove gang culture. When we punish these young people for the survival skills that they've learnt because of our failures and past violence, we condemn ourselves to repeat history and we make a continuation to continue violence. I want to thank Women's Refuge, Shine, Māori Women's Welfare League, Zonta, the National Council of Women, the Human Rights Commission, and unions—especially the PSA—for everything they did to help pass legislation putting workplace protections in place for victims of domestic violence. This was a world first that the other jurisdictions around the world are now following. Being a world first has been almost as amazing as hearing the difference from survivors that this has made to them. I also want to give a shout-out to the Abortion Law Reform Association of New Zealand, Dame Margaret Sparrow, the Family Planning Association, and quite a few good women journalists who pushed for abortion law reform alongside many others. I was so proud that the Greens were the first party to put our commitment to reform into policy. It was a highlight, for me to work with women across this House to progress the reform of our abortion legislation. In my maiden speech. I also spoke about the beauty of diversity. I want to thank Allyson Hamblett, Jack Byrne, Louisa Wall, Dr Elizabeth Kerekere, Mani Mitchell, Kevin Haunui, as well as Gender Minorities Aotearoa, InsideOUT, RainbowYOUTH, Intersex Awareness New Zealand for all their often unpaid work to ensure a voice rights and protection for takatāpui, intersex, non-binary, LGBTQIA+ peoples. I was honoured as a cis feminist lesbian to accept petitions to this Parliament to enable self-identification of gender on birth certificates and gender affirming healthcare. We quickly got a political consensus on the right to self-ID when it was first considered by this Parliament, and our longstanding women's organisations have been strong allies on this, because they recognise that trans women are women and that we will never be free until we are all free. The last decade has been a renaissance for the women's movement. Just look at the public joy of celebrating the Football Ferns and Black Ferns and the power of the Me Too movement. Strong movements bring people together; they don't drive people apart. And that's why it's been so disappointing to also see the rise in transphobia in our communities and politics, activated from offshore. When Carterton elected Georgina Beyer as mayor, they didn't see her as a threat to women; they saw her as the eloquent, bolshie woman who would fight for them—and she did. I want to acknowledge the Inclusive Greens, Disabled Persons Assembly, People First, CCS Disability Action, Paula Tesoriero,the Disabled People's Organisations, Deaf Action Aotearoa, Arts Access Aotearoa, Access Matters, Huhana Hickey, and all the brilliant disabled activists and allies who I've had the privilege of learning from. We have a very long way to go as a country to remove all the barriers to disabled people being able to fully access their human rights. I'm so pleased that the staunch advocacy of disabled people has led to the delay—and hopefully review—of the poorly named and even more poorly drafted Accessibility for New Zealanders Bill. Change is possible. Still, I've found it hard to hang on to the progress we've made, because I'm so aware of the remaining gap between what we've achieved and what we still need to do to truly uphold the mana and potential of people and planet. We're watching countries burn right now. We're seeing beaches covered with dead fish because the oceans have become too warm for them to survive. Too many of our communities are experiencing climate change viscerally, and the stress and fear is real. We're also facing a biodiversity crisis that might spell ruin even before complete climate breakdown—I know, I'm a downer! Those who know are questioning why our political leaders aren't responding to the same information that they're seeing with urgency. And I know that the Hon James Shaw struggles with this frustration as he continues to turn up every day to fight for what is required. But when we see the most marginalised people being used as scapegoats to feed political ambitions—people still struggling to pay the bills and care for their kids; when children are still being raped and sexually abused and we don't trust the system enough to protect them, let alone help the person who hurt them to change—it's easy to feel hopeless. Somehow, we need to find a way to hold the possibility of transformation at the scale our circumstances demand. Now, more than ever, we need hope. We need hope in the possibility of collective action. I'm 100 percent confident that the Greens hold the things I really care about and I can walk away with just gratitude and huge respect to them, and a sense of knowing that they will continue—but they cannot do it alone. In my 12 years, I've seen significant change that has happened because people have come together to create that change. The challenges in front of us now are bigger than they have ever been, and only if we come together can we meet those challenges and create a future where our children can thrive. The time is now, and we do not have time to wait. We need to stop thinking that politicians are going to fix this without stepping up to help them; no one in this place succeeds alone. Our power is only derived from our communities, and the most meaningful thing we can do is to honour that gift and give the power back. Every decision to join a group, create a petition, join a march to vote—join the Greens—turn up for a better future to stand for hope; to stand together for urgent climate and environmental action in a society where everyone can live in dignity under the shelter—and the power of Te Tiriti will help create that future. I began my maiden speech saying I look forward to our ongoing journey, and that is how I will conclude. [Authorised te reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.] [Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.] [Applause] Waiata—"9 to 5" Hon EUGENIE SAGE (Green): Mai ngā maunga ki ngā ngahere Mai ngā awa ki te moana E rere aku mihi ki a koutou katoa Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa E rere hoki aku mihi ki ngā mana whenua huri noa te motu me koutou anō hoki o tēnei wahi Taranaki Whanui tēnā koutou katoa Ratou kua wheturangihia ki a ratou Tātou ngā kanohi ora ki a tātou Tēnā tātou katoa [Authorised te reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.] [Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.] Mr Speaker, I never intended to be an MP, especially after working in the Government research unit and then as a ministerial press secretary in the late 1980s and seeing the hours MPs worked. But Nick Smith and Rodney Hide changed that when, in March 2010, they axed elected regional councillors on Environment Canterbury, me included, to install commissioners more sympathetic to irrigation development. I was angry that a Government could so easily cancel an election, overturn local democracy, and pass legislation under urgency with no public submissions. Anger became action. Thank you, Grace Taylor for the mentoring and encouragement to stand, and the Aoraki Greens, especially Prue, Kay, Roelien, Rosemary, Tim, Nikki, Jacinta, Dot, Jan, Bruce, and so many others for all your support and campaign mahi over the last 12 years. In 2011, with Russel Norman and Metiria Turei as co-leaders and an energetic party organisation, the Greens got 11.1 percent of the party vote—still our highest ever under MMP, and I hope exceeded this October. That saw me, Jan Logie, Julie Anne Genter, and 11 other MPs elected, with 14 MPs returned again in 2014. One of the things I am most grateful for in the Green Party is our strong kaupapa. MPs move on, but we keep pushing on our priority issues until we get change, even if it takes years. The "dirty rivers, clean water" campaign which Russel, Catherine Delahunty, and I all worked on at different times during six long years in Opposition is just one example. Alongside NGOs and local communities, we highlighted the damage to rivers and streams from agricultural intensification, we helped stop the Ruataniwha dam, and built the public mandate to end Government subsidies for irrigation in 2017 and for David Parker to implement stronger national direction on freshwater. Stronger regulation is now making a difference, but cow numbers and nitrate pollution of waterways and methane emissions remain too high. I look forward to Steve Abel and Lan Pham being elected and continuing to push on issues such as tighter drinking water standards for nitrate. Last month, Federated Farmers CEO Terry Copeland said—and I quote—"We have seen peak cow in this country. With hindsight should we have done so much dairying in Canterbury? Probably no." Scientists such as Dr Mike Joy and Dr Russell Death, former Canterbury medical officer of health Dr Alistair Humphrey, environmental NGOs, Fish and Game, and the Green Party have all been saying that for 15 years. Government and MPs need to listen more intently and act more quickly on public concerns and be less persuaded by vested interests. Thank you, Russel Norman, for your strategic smarts and leadership as a political campaigner. The Keep Our Assets campaign to oppose the partial privatisation of our energy companies built a mass movement. It changed public opinion about State asset sales. A National Government ignored the successful referendum results but no further assets were privatised. I acknowledge Metiria Turei, whose championing of justice for people and planet has not been properly recognised here. Metiria's honesty in a speech at the 2017 Green AGM and her critique of the social welfare system, and need for reform so everyone has what they need, resonated with the public. The bump in Green support in the polls helped propel Jacinda Ardern to Labour leadership and victory. The 2017 election and its aftermath was a time of heartbreak and excitement: heartbreak at the forced resignation of Metiria and the loss of caucus colleagues Mojo Mathers, Denise Roche, and Barry Coates, and excitement that the Greens were in Government. I got a dream job as Minister of Conservation, Minister for Land Information, and Associate Minister for the Environment with responsibility for waste. Thanks to an energetic, cohesive, and professional ministerial office team of advisers and private secretaries who worked closely with agencies, we got heaps done over the next three years. In conservation, this included the largest addition to an existing national park—thank you Sandra Cook, Ngati Waewae, and Ngāi Tahu; a revised Threat Management Plan to better protect Māui and Hector's dolphins; changes to the Conservation Act to benefit our threatened native fish; and a new Aotearoa New Zealand Biodiversity Strategy, Te Mana o Te Taiao. In Budget 2018, we got the biggest funding increase for conservation in 16 years, and then in 2020, $488 million of the $1.2 billion Jobs for Nature package. Thank you to Grant Robertson for recognising the importance of natural capital in your Wellbeing Budget framework and to James Shaw for helping get it and a new revenue tool—the International Visitor Conservation and Tourism Levy across the line. The increased Budget funding enabled Te Papa Atawhai to undertake its biggest-ever predator control programme, and Predator Free New Zealand Ltd to support iwi and hapū, councils and community organisations establish more landscape scale projects. If anyone wants advice on effective lobbying, I suggest they talk to Te Whānau-ā-Apanui and Ngāti Porou. With the help of a helicopter, they dropped me deep in the forests of the Raukūmara Range to see how large numbers of deer had not only eaten out the forest understorey, but also stripped the trees of bark. I was close to tears seeing the collapsing forest; there had been no pest control for decades. But that resulted in Raukūmara Pae Maunga. It's a tremendous Treaty partnership between Te Whānau-ā-Apanui, Ngāti Porou, and Te Papa Atawhai with significant funding to help control pests, goats, and deer over 150,000 hectares. We really do need to get on top of rising deer numbers throughout our forests. Banning single-use plastic bags was not a priority for Ministry for the Environment (MFE) officials in 2017, and one guffawed when I first suggested it. We made it happen partly because of the deluge of letters on the issue from school students, especially to the Prime Minister. It was an honour to be a Minister under the Rt Hon Jacinda Ardern, with her formidable intellect and support for action on waste. To any tamariki listening: your letters matter. I am proud of the work I, and the ministerial office team, did with a small group of MFE officials to kick-start a major work programme on waste. It included properly regulating outdoor tyre storage to prevent tyre fires, starting work to standardise kerbside recycling, phase out single-use plastics such as tableware, and establish mandatory product stewardship schemes for refrigerants, tyres, and electronic waste. All of that work has continued and increased under the current Government—except the development of a beverage container return scheme; that should restart. We expanded and increased our only environmental tax—the landfill levy. It's expected to generate around $260 million to help fund central and local government minimise waste with community organisations. Imagine what a wealth tax could do. As Minister for Land Information, it was satisfying to work with top-notch policy folk at Land Information New Zealand to develop and introduce the Crown Pastoral Lands Reform Bill. It stopped tenure review and required a stronger sustainability focus in the management of 1.2 million hectares of South Island high country. High country leaseholders opposed the bill, but the sky hasn't fallen since it was finally passed under Damien O'Connor last year. Increasingly, the public understands the scale of the twin crises of climate and nature. A powerful remedy to existential despair is connecting with others to promote change. That creates hope and, eventually, political action. I am so grateful for the advocacy and activism of citizens and community organisations who have a vision for a better future, informed by science, matauranga, lived experience, and practical doing. People who call decision makers to account and make life uncomfortable for Ministers and departments, who connect and strengthen our communities are treasures in our democracy. Chairing the Environment Committee this term has been a privilege because of engaged colleagues, talented select committee staff, and the range of business the committee has dealt with—some it, like the Natural and Built Environment Bill, formidable in size—but nothing deters the Office of the Clerk and staff supporting select committees. They and the Parliamentary Library, the Parliamentary Counsel Office, and legislative counsel facilitate a huge volume of quality work within often tight deadlines. Ministers and MPs may be the face of politics—thank you, news media—but our democracy exists because of the work of so many people in this building and beyond. Thank you for your dedication and expertise. But select committees need more staff and resources to counterbalance executive power, especially with complicated and technical bills. Having a separate financial appropriation for Parliament approved by the Speaker, rather than by Treasury and the Minister of Finance, would strengthen Parliament independence and could help here. To all the Parliamentary Services staff and contractors—cleaners, buildings, security, ICT, finance, travel, and Copperfields—thank you for making this place function and for your humanity. Thank you to Green Party members, national office staff, and parliamentary and ministerial staff past and present. They see MPs at their best and worst. As a colleague said, "MPs get on this train called politics while staff provide the tracks to keep us going in the right direction beyond whatever today's limited focus is." They go above and beyond, repeatedly. Thank you to caucus colleagues for your glorious individuality and all of the laughter. James Shaw, thank you for giving it your all to push the law and policy changes and investment we need to avert climate catastrophe. Your single-minded focus has seen more achieved in the last five and half years than the previous 30. Marama Davidson: wāhine toa extraordinaire. I acknowledge and honour the strength and purpose of your leadership, your dignity, integrity, warmth, love of and connection with people. When I directed the Department of Conservation to implement a much-neglected statutory plan to control and reduce Himalayan tahr numbers so that alpine plants stood half a chance, there was an outburst of misogyny and online hate. Marama, Golriz, Nanaia Mahuta, and Jacinda Ardern, and others have faced down much worse for much longer. They are strength and courage personified. We must all call out inflammatory statements and personalised attacks which feed the trolls and, instead, promote debate about ideas. I leave here with some frustration about what has not been done. On land, we have long recognised the benefits of protecting land and waters, plants and wildlife, for their intrinsic value, human health, culture, and wellbeing; 30 percent of Aotearoa enjoys some protection from extractive uses as conservation land and waters. Why is it so hard to do the same in the sea? Less than 0.5 percent of our oceans are protected. There are no protected areas in our entire exclusive economic zone , despite it being the fourth-largest in the world. All of it is open to fishing despite our responsibilities under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. Protection around Rangitāhua, the Kermadecs, is no further ahead than when I mentioned it in my maiden speech, despite the best efforts of David Parker and mana whenua. It was challenging to get change on anything involving fisheries and oceans last term, even when this was a ministerial priority. Seabirds are amongst the most threatened groups of birds globally, and fisheries bycatch is one of the greatest threats to many species. It's unacceptable that commercial fishing kills an estimated 13,000 seabirds each year, and yet there was so much resistance to a zero bycatch goal in the reviewed National Plan of Action for Seabirds. All we could get was "New Zealanders work towards zero fishing-related seabird mortalities by 2050". That's not good enough. No new marine protected areas have been established in six years, and despite pushing for a network on the south-east Otago coast, they have yet to happen—four years after ministerial decisions and 10 years after the South-East Marine Protection Forum was established. Work was under way on reform of the Marine Reserves Act, but progress since is not obvious. It would be wonderful to debate legislation to establish new marine protected areas in the Hauraki Gulf before the House rises. There are many extremely dedicated people in the Public Service, but across Government agencies we need to recognise the urgency of action for nature and climate and act as if our lives depend upon it, because they do. The oceans have buffered us from the worst effects of climate change. They can protect us if we stop harming them. Many in the agricultural sector know that land use and on-farm management practices need to change. Good farmers are retiring steep hill-slopes, planting stream banks, trying more diverse pasture species, and reducing stock numbers, yet too many in the commercial fishing industry continue to deny there is a problem in fisheries management and with methods such as bottom trawling. What's next? I don't know yet, but there's no shortage of issues where people and nature need a helping hand, and this unfit body could do with some exercise. I have too often been an absent friend and family member because work has taken priority. I look forward to reconnecting. My parents, Tony and Meryl Sage, were in the gallery for my swearing in, but are now with the stars. Their unending love and support, and a rough and tumble childhood with three brothers—John, Phillip, and the late Stephen—have helped me survive here. With most of my immediate family living overseas, thank you Mike, Chris, Diana, and the wider Suggate whānau for always being so welcoming. Kia kaha Jesse and Claire—thinking of you. Biggest thanks go to my life partner and anchor, Richard Suggate, who has encouraged, listened, loved, done way more than his share of household chores, and kept me going when it's all turned to custard. Thank you for so much practical aroha, including for Mother last term—love you lots. It's been a privilege to be a paddler on the Green Party waka in the parliamentary fleet. It's been hard work but hugely rewarding. I'm delighted to pass the paddle on to others and wish everyone well. Nō reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa. Noho ora mai. [Applause, hongi, and harirū] Waiata—Purea Nei SPEAKER: Kia ora. Am I correct and we're swapping out audiences? We are. So can ask members' folks that are in the gallery above me to make room for the friends and family of the Hon Poto Williams. Hon POTO WILLIAMS (Labour—Christchurch East): Kia orana tatou katoatoa. Kia Orana tatou katoatoa na roto i te aroa maʻata o te Atua. Thank you, Mr Speaker. I have written various iterations of this speech, starting a cathartic process and realising that over those weeks, what I wanted to do is leave this place paying respect for my time, acknowledging those who have helped, and giving thanks and love. So that is what I am going to do, also quoting former Deputy Speaker, the late Hon Chester Borrows, who said—he admonished me with this line—"The kūmara does not speak of its own sweetness." So in his honour, I shall add a healthy dose of self-deprecation. I was a community worker before coming to Parliament, saying once that my lived experience and my extensive work history in family violence meant I could survive anything. Then I joined the caucus of the Labour Party under the leadership of David Cunliffe. My first words uttered in this House were, "Thank you, Mr Speecher." Like this time, it caused Grant Robertson to guffaw out loud, me to blush to my hairline and take a deep breath, and calmly continue. The ability to "Keep Calm and Carry On" is my superpower and the trait that members who know me, know me for that. It has stood me in good stead as Assistant Speaker and been a valuable tool as Minister, but mostly it is a reminder not to take oneself too seriously. I came to this House with two clear agendas. The first, to be a good local electorate MP: to advocate strongly for my community, impacted by the most significant natural disaster of that time. We worked so hard, while the ground continued to shake, to get fair rebuild and repair strategies or adequate payouts so that my community could get on with their lives. I hope, for my community, that I have filled that brief. When I look back, I see the tears that flowed in my office from the 2,628 households—let me repeat that, the 2,628 households—that came to me for help with their Earthquake Commission, insurance, and earthquake issues, and the tears that flowed when, months or even years later, they were back in the homes that they cherished and the community that they loved and those issues were finally behind them. We all thought, "If only I can get my house repaired, I will be fine." Nobody knew that more than the tremendous team of dedicated staff in my office in Christchurch. These women held what seemed like therapy sessions: consoling, cajoling, and encouraging; photocopying; filing for Official Information Act requests; taking photos; speaking, in a vocabulary that seems foreign today, of sub-floor, pack and jack, and levelling strategies; making tea; holding hands; and getting into battle against the big guys with the big money, and getting results. Hours, weeks, months of tireless work so that our people got what was right, with their homes repaired and rebuilt, as stated in their insurance contracts. When the unfairness of Government policy or status quo got in the way, they fought tooth and nail to get this changed. It is truly humbling work, to be trusted with the most difficult issues that your community faces, but rewarding when we make a difference. When the opportunity to propose shovel-ready projects came about, like a good advocate for my community, I literally stalked the Minister of Finance, chased him down hallways, and stood guard at the entrance to the Chamber to secure the $7 million for the New Brighton collective of nine community projects that would not be there in New Brighton today without the Provincial Growth Fund. Whilst we technically didn't qualify, I added a dose of Aupito's cunning to my plan to secure the funds, and learnt a valuable lesson in shameless hustling for my community. Which brings me to the second part of my agenda. Each year, on the anniversary of becoming an MP, I review my maiden speech and I reconfirm my commitment to James Whakaruru: to end family harm and bring voice to the experiences of children living and experiencing the trauma of family violence in their homes. As Associate Minister for social development and then Minister of Police, I had direct influence on the development of Te Aorerekura. Others have felt the need to judge me, and I came under the most blistering scrutiny on social media but also mainstream media. One particularly cruel incident was Jenna Lynch's Newshub poll on whether I was the worst police Minister. If only the press gallery were subject to the same scrutiny as Ministers, such as proactive diary release and disclosure of conflicts of interest. The irony is not lost on me that in my life as an advocate for those bullied, harassed, and abused, I should be the subject of bullying. But I know what I have achieved and what I am proud of: the largest increase to the police budget ever; significant investment in the enhanced safety programmes for front-line police so that we keep our police safe, and, as a mother, I know that Di Hunt, mother of Matt Hunt, would have wished for this to be in place to prevent what happened to her and the families of police killed in the service of our country; Te Pae Oranga and working alongside its patron, Kīngi Tūheitia; working with the Minister for Pike River re-entry to secure further boreholes to provide the evidence to, hopefully, secure a prosecution; working with the families of the victims of the mosque attack and putting in place the recommendations of the royal inquiry; the first ever Minister of Whaikaha - Ministry of Disabled People, and the first ministry of its kind; working to continue the arms register, and, despite misinformation from the ACT Party, this register will significantly dampen the ability for firearms to find their way into the hands of those who would do us harm; getting kicked out of the House with the other Opposition MPs who stood up to John Key and his minimising of domestic and sexual violence; doing the haka on Willie Jackson—soz not soz, bro, but sometimes you just need to be told!—and, sublimely, approving the lights on Hagley Oval. Whilst Mark Mitchell and Stuart Nash continued to do their arm wrestle and bench press competitions, I secured the ratio of one police officer to every 480 Kiwis, a gold standard—[Interruption]—oh, thanks, Sally Page—that means we will always have sufficient police to do their extraordinary work to keep us safe. To Commissioner Coster and your amazing team, Penny Nelson and the wonderful Department of Conservation team, Paula Tesoriero and the Whaikaha team, John Snead and the building and construction team, the Department of Internal Affairs and the community and voluntary sector team, Chappie Te Kani and the Oranga Tamariki team, Andrew McKenzie and the Kāinga Ora team, Anne Shaw and the Christchurch recovery team, Debbie Power and the Ministry of Social Development Team, and the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment teams across many portfolios, especially immigration—ka nui te aroha ki a koutou katoa. As I have told all of you, you are my favourite officials, but only John Snead and Amy Moorhouse know the truth. It has been my greatest honour to serve in Jacinda Ardern's executive and Cabinet. It's been a true privilege, and I want to thank Jacinda for her belief in me, her kindness to me and my family when I went through some of the toughest times in my political life. You gave me the strength to face the day, every day, because what we were doing was right. My words are humble but they are true: Jacinda, thank you. In my time as Assistant Speaker, which I really enjoyed—from the front of the Chamber you can see a lot of things playing out, such as when the National Party are running the numbers for their coups. I have always loved the processes of the House and the privilege that comes with this role, but mostly the ability to sit people down and to shut them up and to deliver the death stare. I would've liked the ability to use the occasional cattle prod, especially on David Seymour—just jokes! But I also recall the power of the Treaty bills, the passion of the debate, the gallery filled with iwi and waiata and whaikōrero, the arduous urgency—sorry, people—and the endless extended sittings, where I once spent 15 hours in the Chamber in one day. But I also recall the important debates on legislation that made history and made it better for our most vulnerable and marginalised. The Clerks are like the secret society: the elves that work their magic overnight and, like magic, everything operates smoothly, like a well-oiled machine. The hours are long, there's lots of wine therapy, and colleagues have become my work family because we see more of them than we do our real families. I have two work families: the amazing Canterbury caucus and the stellar Pacific caucus. Megan Woods, you are one feisty and amazing woman. Over the last 10 years, we have had the most sensitive and the most robust conversations, sometimes within the same conversation, and I thank you, Megan, wholeheartedly, for all the support, the rev ups, and the friendship. And Duncan, you are welcome to help me spill red wine on my carpet anytime. You are great colleagues, wonderful local MPs, and I promise to be helpful, in a "stay out of your hair" kind of way. My other family, my aiga Pasifika, includes my ex - bench-mate Aupito. I think they split us up because you are a bad influence, Aupito—you are so cheeky. When I first arrived here, there was Kris Faafoi and Aupito as the Pacific caucus, and I like to think I was the thorn between the roses. Aupito, you have worked hard for the Pacific people. You built Pacific capacity in the Parliament and in the party. I'm so proud of what you have achieved for Pacific people and how you built our caucus strength, and the numbers and the triumph of the Dawn Raids apology. Anahila, you picked up the mantle and you made sure we engaged widely and we built our knowledge and our networks. And to the first Pasifika to be Deputy Prime Minister: Carmel, we have shared lots over the years, and I'm truly humbled and honoured to call you friend. To the Pasifika caucus, we have been on the eight-week challenge for three years now, and the only one to benefit is KFC. Remember the principles of Pacific world domination, as designed by my cousin, Caren Rangi—the importance of having Pacific people in key decision-making positions. Also, remember to mention Pacific world domination often, especially in front of Willie Jackson, because it really makes him mad. Chippy—Prime Minister—thank you for your advice and your guidance over the years, and for your quiet encouragement when you would sit on my couch and play coach before question time. The best piece of advice you ever gave me was to take your chance at every opportunity to speak at committee stage. I took that and ran with it, and when I asked you about what happens if I run out of things to say, you said, "Just start again from the top." You said, "It doesn't really matter, because no one is listening, anyway." Prime Minister, you have always been a steadying influence. You keep it real and you keep it simple for the people of Aotearoa. It's an easy option for New Zealanders come October: steady, trustworthy, competent, and hard-working; relatable to Kiwis up and down the country; and building on the amazing work we have already accomplished. I admire you greatly. I know you and the team will fight hard and win this election. Prime Minister, you are the bomb, or, in the words of my grandson Fletcher, "the bom bom". This mahi is not for me on my own to claim, but we do not do this work by ourselves, so I need to acknowledge the tribe. My first thanks goes to Heather Mannix, Leeann Apps, Kath Hamilton, Laura Price, Cameron Taylor, Donna Burr, Emma Williams, Moana Fuli, Bronwyn Presland, Paul McMahon, Tiarne Gush, Danye Whitmore, Sera Benseman, Matt Swann, Georgina O'Reilly, Paddy Greig, Sally Paige, and Ryan Jones—you are my Xena warrior princes and princesses. But all of my team members, advisors, press secretaries, administrators, and department private secretaries: you make us all look good and you take a lot of flak for that. So for that reason, all of you in the gallery who have worked in my office, please stand up so we can applaud you. My Christchurch Labour Electorate Committee: special mentions to Tim Baker, David Close, and David Lawrence; the late John Chirnside and Marie Rean; Sarah Whitcombe Dobbs; Kevin Brett; Peter Crop; Peter Parsons; Liam Bateman; Toupili Pamatangi; Sandra Sim; Alex Hewison; Jenny Hughey; and my dear friends, Hugh and Raewyn Perry. All the volunteers over the years who knocked on doors, delivered pamphlets, and helped out during campaigns—arohanui to you all. You are heartbeat Labour and strong in your convictions, and I am humbled by your efforts that have supported me over the years. Reuben Davidson, it is with confidence and relief that I pass the mantle to your very capable hands; please look after them, they are taonga. Thanks to the party; the president Jill Day; and the former presidents Claire Szabó, Nigel Haworth, and especially Moira Coatsworth, who was responsible for bringing some extraordinary women into Parliament in her time. To all the VPs, the sector leads, the policy boffins, and the hard-working Labour on-the-ground volunteers: thank you, and keep it up. Let's all redouble our efforts to keep our country on this path. Thanks to my long-suffering family, starting with my sisters, Tokerau, Margaret, and Rere—the backup singers and dancers on the street corner meetings in Shirley and Aranui, the chief cooks and hostesses of campaign time—thank you for being there to pick up the pieces, but mostly for being ignored! To my beautiful daughter Terai, I agree with your husband: you are the mother of the family. You are the sweetest, kindest person I know, and such a good mum to Bodhi Reid Thomson and Fletcher Jeffrey Thomson, your boys. I can't wait to have more time to help out and to hang out with you. And thank you Tomo for being such an awesome son-in-law, so that I never have to worry about my family because I know you have it covered. And to my boyfriend, Stephen Hughes, your loyalty and how passionately you have stuck up for me is really humbling. It's been a rough couple of years, but you always make me feel so safe at home. Whether you like it or not, there's heaps more time for the illusive art called fishing and for dancing. You don't spend 10 years in an institution without gathering a few stories, like the New Zealand parliamentary netball team bumping into David Bennett at Sydney Airport carrying the gear bag for the Australian parliamentary netball team; or the night, Mr Speaker, shared with you and Winston Peters and a bottle of Johnny Walker Blue Label; or kava in Vanuatu—and, yes, it is as potent as they say. Or a certain away-caucus at Brackenridge, with euchre, too much wine, the musings from a certain senior Labour Party icon, and flavoured olive oil. I cannot leave without heartfelt thanks to our cleaners, maintenance teams, our security team—thank you for all you have done to keep us safe, for your banter and your chat, your friendly good mornings, and especially for the difficult time we had when the mad music festival called "the convoy" landed on our front lawn. Thank you to chamber staff, Serjeants-at-Arms, and messengers, and a special mention to the dancing Jenny and a previous member of the staff, who shall remain nameless, who on his last day of service may or may not have served gin to you and me, Mr Speaker, in our water glasses—you may or may not recall that yourself, Mr Speaker. To you Mr Speaker, my dear friend, I am so proud to have served alongside you as a presiding officer and so proud that you are our Speaker. Your dignity, your mana, and your commitment to this institution and upholding good parliamentary practice are enhanced by who you are as a person. A special mihi to you, my friend. As they say, "You do the crime, you have to do the time"; I must have been really, really bad. I have wrung out every ounce and sometimes found ounces I didn't know I had. This place is a privilege, but it is hard. It is a workout on your stress levels and your intellect, but service is the most important and rewarding work one can do. This House will remember my name and my work when I have passed; the words I uttered in this House, for ever recorded in Hansard; and my photo is on a shield in the Speaker's corridor. So, to end, I quote New Zealand's most-famous poet, Sir Buck Shelford: "I have left everything on the field, and, actually, I've left some parts of myself on the field." Mr Speaker, it has been the privilege and honour of my life, and I leave you with nothing but love. [Applause] Waiata—Tongareva The House adjourned at 6.20 p.m. (Thursday)