Tuesday, 29 August 2023 [Volume 771] The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m. KARAKIA/PRAYERS SPEAKER: Members, today I've asked Dr James McDowall to say the prayer in the Ukrainian language. Dr JAMES McDOWALL (ACT): Всемогутній Боже, ми дякуємо за благословення, які були даровані нам. Відкидаючи всі особисті інтереси, ми визнаємо Короля і молимося за керівництво у наших обговореннях, щоб ми могли вести справи цієї палати з мудрістю, справедливістю, милосердям та смиренням для благополуччя та миру Нової Зеландії. Слава Україні! Амінь. OBITUARIES Thomas de Vere (Pat) Hunt David Graham McGee CNZM, KC SPEAKER: Members, I regret to inform the House of the death, on 24 July 2023, of Thomas de Vere (Pat) Hunt, who represented the electorate of Pakuranga from 1978 to 1984. During his membership of the House, he was a member of a number of select committees, including the Foreign Affairs Committee, the Labour and Education Committee, and the Public Expenditure Committee. I also regret to inform the House of the death, on 27 August 2023, of David Graham McGee CNZM, KC, who was Clerk of the House of Representatives from 1985 to 2007. He was the author of the first three editions of Parliamentary Practice in New Zealand and was held in high esteem throughout the Commonwealth as an expert on parliamentary procedure. I desire, on behalf of the House, to express our sense of the loss we have sustained and our sympathy with the relatives of the late former member and Clerk. I now ask members to stand with me and observe a period of silence as a mark of respect to their memories. Members stood as a mark of respect. PRIVILEGE Speaker's Ruling—Allegation of a Breach of Suppression Order Imposed by a Court SPEAKER: Members, I have been considering how to respond to allegations that, during oral questions last week, Rawiri Waititi may have breached a suppression order imposed by a court. In 2009, the Privileges Committee reported to the House on the exercise of the privilege of freedom of speech by members in the context of court orders. This led to Standing Order 116 being adopted in its current form in 2011. It balances the House's privilege of free speech with the relationship between the House and the judiciary. Standing Order 116 gives the Speaker responsibility for balancing these important interests. To allow the Speaker to exercise discretion, it requires a member who intends to refer to a matter that is subject to a suppression order to give written notice to the Speaker. Mr Waititi did not give notice but then referred to a matter that apparently is suppressed by a court. I do not know whether his failure to give notice is because he chose not to or because there is no such order. I do not intend to inquire further into matters that may be suppressed, as my doing so may itself be inconsistent with the principle of comity. Standing Order 418(y) is clear that it is a contempt of this House to knowingly make reference to a matter suppressed by an order of a court, contrary to the Standing Orders. In this case, the difficulty is that investigating whether Mr Waititi has done so risks compounding the harm caused by the original breach by confirming the existence of a suppression order and possibly identifying the subject of it. So I have decided to deal with this matter in two ways. First, I will refer a general question of privilege to the Privileges Committee asking to consider how the House should deal with cases such as this, where a member may have made reference to a matter in breach of a suppression order but investigating it could be inconsistent with the order if one exists. Second, I intend to deal with Mr Waititi's comments as a matter of order. The words Mr Waititi used in the House indicate that he believed that the matter concerned was subject to a suppression order, and, yet, he raised it without first notifying the Speaker. Parliament's relationship with the courts is of utmost constitutional importance. Reckless use of the freedom of speech enjoyed by the House damages that relationship and undermines the standing of this Parliament and the privileges on which it depends. NAMING AND SUSPENSION OF MEMBER SPEAKER: I consider that in his comments, Mr Waititi's conduct was grossly disorderly. Therefore, I name Rawiri Waititi and call on the House to judge his conduct. The question is, That Rawiri Waititi be suspended from the service of the House. Did you want a party vote on that? No—very good. Motion agreed to. VISITORS Malaysia—Special Select Committee for Women, Children and Community Development SPEAKER: I'm sure that members would wish to welcome members from the Malaysian Parliamentary Special Select Committee for Women, Children and Community Development, led by the Hon Hajah Rodziah binti Ismail. PETITIONS, PAPERS, SELECT COMMITTEE REPORTS, AND INTRODUCTION OF BILLS SPEAKER: Petitions have been delivered to the Clerk for presentation. CLERK: Petition of Anita Ye requesting that the House urge the Government to review sections 49A to 49E of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986. Petition of Barry-John Murphy requesting that the House urge the Government to stop Kāinga Ora and the Ruapehu District Council building a state housing development at Teitei Drive, Ōhākune. SPEAKER: Those petitions stand referred to the Petitions Committee. Ministers have delivered papers. CLERK: Government responses to the Report of the Regulations Review Committee on the Complaint about the Consumer Information Standards (Origin of Food) Regulations 2021 Petition of Roman Kashpir. Report of the Attorney-General under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 on the Ram Raid Offending and Related Measures Amendment Bill. 2022/23 Annual reports for the Judicial Conduct Commissioner Office of the Māori Trustee New Zealand Parole Board. 2023-28 statement of strategic intentions of Stats NZ. 2023-27 statements of intent for the Climate Change Chief Executives Board Ministry of Justice. 2023-24 Statement of Performance Expectations for the Māori Language Commission. SPEAKER: I present the Report of the Controller and Auditor-General, entitled Commentary on Te Tai Waiora: Wellbeing in Aotearoa New Zealand. Those papers are published under the authority of the House. Select committee reports have been delivered for presentation. CLERK: Reports of the Education and Workforce Committee on the 2021/22 Annual review of Te Pūkenga—New Zealand Institute of Skills and Technology International treaty examination of the UNESCO Global Convention on the Recognition of Qualifications concerning Higher Education Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment; Ministry of Social Development; Ministry for Women; Ministry of Education: Long-term Insights Briefing 2023 Petition of Asia Pacific Refugee Rights Network. Report of the Environment Committee on the Briefing into golden clam incursion in the Waikato Reports of the Finance and Expenditure Committee on the Controller and Auditor-General, Annual plan 2023/24 Report of the Controller and Auditor-General, Observations from our central government audits: 2021/22 and Briefing on public sector non-compliance with the Holidays Act 2003 Reserve Bank of New Zealand Monetary Policy Statement, August 2023. Reports of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee on the International treaty examination of the Free Trade Agreement between New Zealand and the European Union International treaty examination of the Protocol on the Accession of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership International treaty examination of the Protocol to the Digital Economy Partnership Agreement Report of the Controller and Auditor-General, New Zealand Defence Force: Resetting efforts to reduce harmful behaviour. Reports of the Governance and Administration Committee on the Briefing on long-term insights briefings Briefing on public governance Report of the Controller and Auditor-General, Improving value through better Crown entity monitoring. Reports of the Health Committee on the Briefing on Pharmac's review of Rule 8.1b Improving Arrangements for Surrogacy Bill (second interim report) Petition of Jane Ludemann Petition of The Hashtags. Reports of the Justice Committee on the Inquiry into the 2022 Local Elections Petition of Layba Zubair Reports of the Controller and Auditor-General, family and sexual violence Reports of the Ombudsman, OIA compliance in the Ministry of Justice and Department of Corrections. Report of the Māori Affairs Committee on the Reports of the Controller and Auditor-General, How well public organisations are supporting Whānau Ora and whānau-centred approaches and Four initiatives supporting improved outcomes for Māori. Reports of the Petitions Committee on the Briefing into ministerial and Government responses to petitions Briefing into petition platforms and citizen engagement Petition of Bernard Schofield Petition of Christian Cosgrove Petition of Claire Dale Petition of Hon Judith Collins. Reports of the Primary Production Committee on the Briefing on the pork industry Briefing on the risks posed to New Zealand by foot-and-mouth disease Ministry for Primary Industries, Long-Term Insights Briefing 2023 Petition of Melody Willis Petition of Tara Jackson. Reports of the Privileges Committee on the Question of privilege arising from Registrar's inquiry into a member's compliance with the requirements of Appendix B of the Standing Orders Question of privilege concerning a member's conduct toward the chairperson of the Transport and Infrastructure Committee. Report of the Regulations Review Committee on the Complaint about Health and Safety at Work (Hazardous Substances) Regulations 2017 Report of the Transport and Infrastructure Committee on the 2021/22 Annual review of the Civil Aviation Authority of New Zealand. SPEAKER: The bill is set down for second reading. The reports on long-term insights briefing and internal treaty examinations; the reports of the Privileges, Governance and Administration, Environment, and Regulations Review Committees; the Inquiry into the 2022 Local Elections; Briefings on public governance, the pork industry, foot-and-mouth disease; Pharmac's review; ministerial and government responses to petitions, petition platforms and citizens engagements; and reports of Officers of Parliament and the Reserve Bank of New Zealand are set for consideration. The Clerk has been informed of the introduction of a bill. CLERK: Te Korowai o Wainuiārua Claims Settlement Bill introduction. SPEAKER: That bill is set down for first reading. ORAL QUESTIONS QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS Question No. 1—Cyclone Recovery 1. TĀMATI COFFEY (Labour) to the Minister for Cyclone Recovery: What progress has been made on agreements with councils in severely affected areas following Cyclone Gabrielle? Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister for Cyclone Recovery): The Government has reached cost-sharing agreements with Hawke's Bay's five councils, Auckland Council, and Gisborne District Council to support their region's recovery from the impact of flooding and Cyclone Gabrielle. These agreements, in total, will see the Government contributing up to $1.7 billion from the national resilience plan to support a locally-led recovery. I am pleased that we've reached an agreement, and I'd like to thank the mayors and councillors for their collaborative approach in planning the recovery of these regions. Anna Lorck: What agreement has been reached with Hawke's Bay's five councils? Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Well, the cost-sharing agreement with Hawke's Bay's councils may be worth up to $556 million. The Government will contribute half the net cost to purchase category 3 residential properties. The net cost is the agreed buy-out value, less any insurance proceeds received, plus legal and transactional costs. The Government will also contribute $203.5 million for flood protection projects, including $70 ring-fenced for a flood protection scheme in Wairoa. Alongside that, $260 million will be invested in roading improvements and the building of new transport infrastructure, including funding the estimated costs of the Redclyffe Bridge replacement, the Puketapu, Matawhero, and Aropaoanui bridges works in Hastings, critical roading projects for Central Hawke's Bay, and the Te Reinga bridge works in Wairoa. Tāmati Coffey: What agreement has been reached with Gisborne District Council? Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The Government and Gisborne District Council have agreed to a cost-sharing package to further support the Tairāwhiti region's recovery from Cyclone Gabrielle. The package includes supporting the council to purchase category 3 homes, with the Government's contribution of half the net costs expected to be up to $15 million. We will also contribute $64 million for flood protection work, and $125 million to rebuild roads and increase regional resilience. As with all of these agreements, this is subject to community consultation. The Government will also facilitate a zero-interest 10-year $30 million loan for the Gisborne District Council in recognition of the cash-flow challenges facing the council. Lemauga Lydia Sosene: What agreement has been reached with Auckland Council? Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: A cost-sharing agreement between the Government and Auckland Council will see the Crown contribute $877 million towards Auckland's recovery. In addition, the council is applying for further recovery funding through Waka Kotahi, which would bring the total Crown funding Auckland may receive up to $1.1 billion. The Government will contribute half the expected net costs of up to $387 million to support Auckland Council to purchase category 3 residential properties. We will also contribute $380 million for investment in flood protection works to mitigate the flood risks in the category 2 damaged in the events, and $110 million for local transport networks affected by the weather events. Tāmati Coffey: Has an agreement been reached with iwi in affected regions? Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: We have a parallel pathway for dealing with whenua Māori in category 3. This pathway recognises that there are unique legal provisions governing Māori land, and duties that sit with the Crown rather than with councils. We are continuing to engage with whānau, hapū, and iwi on these issues. I expect to be able to make announcements on this in the coming weeks. The Government is committed to working together with affected communities to find solutions for the recovery and rebuild. We are making significant investments to provide certainty to those affected by the weather events, and support these regions to become more resilient as we all adapt to changing weather patterns as a result of climate change. Hon Meka Whaitiri: What reports, if any, has he heard from whenua Māori owners in affected areas following Cyclone Gabrielle? Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: There's been a number of consultation meetings and hui taking place across Tairāwhiti and Hawke's Bay in particular. There are a range of different concerns in different places. That ranges from the place of marae, also what happens in things like urupā, what happens in terms of communities that live in and around those areas. We're working through that, and as I said in answer to my last supplementary question, I hope we will be able to make announcements about that in the coming weeks. Hon Meka Whaitiri: What promises can he give to whenua Māori owners in Ōmahu, Waiōhiki, Pētane, Tāngoio, Wairoa, Te Karaka, and the East Coast affected by Gabrielle that there will be money left in the kitty because his officials are still trying to work out the special characteristics of whenua Māori six months on? Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I can absolutely assure those communities who have been the places where the hui have been held that we remain committed to supporting them and that resources will be available for that. Question No. 2—Transport 2. Hon JAMES SHAW (Minister of Climate Change) to the Minister of Transport: Will the Government commit to building light rail in our three major centres in a cost-effective way that reduces emissions? Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister of Transport): The Government supports building a light rail connection from the Auckland city centre to the airport and is progressing mass transit for Wellington and developing a rapid transport network in Christchurch. The Government's also committed to developing the Northwestern busway and completing the City Rail Link (CRL) in Auckland. The Government expects all transport projects such as these to be designed and built in a cost-effective way that gives citizens affordable and convenient transport choices which reduce traffic congestion and transport emissions. Hon James Shaw: What advice, if any, did he provide to the Minister of Finance for the recent rapid savings exercise on potential savings from doing Auckland light rail at street level rather than tunnelled? Simeon Brown: You haven't even started it. Hon DAVID PARKER: Those matters will be addressed by Auckland light rail in their cost-benefit analysis. Hon James Shaw: I beg your pardon, Mr Speaker; I was having trouble hearing that answer over Simeon Brown. SPEAKER: I'll ask the Minister to repeat his answer, and can we have this in silence, please. Hon DAVID PARKER: Those matters will be addressed by Auckland light rail in their cost-benefit analysis. Hon James Shaw: Did he, as part of the Government's recent rapid savings exercise, recommend replacing the $45 billion six-lane road tunnel across the Waitematā with a cheaper, more effective rapid transit option? Hon DAVID PARKER: No. Hon James Shaw: Why not? Hon DAVID PARKER: All of the proposed options for the second Waitematā crossing include, from the very first stage, increases in public transport connectivity. Hon James Shaw: Has he, following advice from officials that his draft Government Policy Statement on Land Transport would result in an emissions increase, received any advice on other transport options to reduce emissions? Hon DAVID PARKER: I think it's notable that the Government policy statement for Auckland, our largest metro area, includes funding for the Northwestern busway, triple and quadruple railway line improvements coming into Auckland, and also a priority on securing the points of connection between the CRL and busway so as to maximise the value of those investments that have already been made by central government. Question No. 3—Prime Minister 3. CHRISTOPHER LUXON (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all of his Government's statements and actions? Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Prime Minister): Yes, particularly our careful economic management and the actions that we have taken to support businesses and to protect jobs during global instability, resulting in an economy that is 2.9 percent larger than it was a year ago and more than 6 percent larger than it was before COVID-19; unemployment below 4 percent for 24 consecutive months—that's only happened once before in the last 30 years, and that was between 2004 and 2008; coincidentally, also under a Labour Government—wages have increased by 7.1 percent in the year to June and by 29 percent since we took office; more New Zealanders in work than ever before, with labour force participation increasing to 72.4 percent and the employment rate increasing to 69.8 percent, with both being the highest on record; increased numbers of people in apprenticeships; a 44 percent increase in the minimum wage; record levels of R & D investment, up 67 percent since we became Government; the delivery of new free-trade agreements that mean almost three-quarters of our exports are now covered by a free-trade agreement; we have cleared Mycoplasma bovis infections from 280 farms with no active M. bovis infections in New Zealand; and we've seen record high food and fibre revenue, up 50 percent from 2017. But I also particularly stand by my comments that the member was proposing unaffordable tax cuts, and I welcome his admission that they are unaffordable, judged by the fact that they're proposing now to introduce four new taxes in order to pay for them. Christopher Luxon: Why, if everything is going so swimmingly well, is he now ready to admit that there's billions of dollars of waste, and why didn't he start reining it in over the last six years, instead of leaving it just for the last six weeks before the election? Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: It may come as a surprise to the member that every Budget cycle, Governments look for savings, and we indicated on Budget day that we would continue to look for savings, and that is what we set out yesterday. What I can say is that every commitment that we are putting before the electorate in this election is fully costed and it's fully paid for. The member can't say that, and that's why his finance spokesperson and co-leader is proposing new taxes in order to pay for them. Christopher Luxon: Isn't it pathetic that after scaremongering over National's plans for responsible fiscal management for months, he's now making spending cuts at the eleventh hour in a very desperate attempt to make New Zealanders think that his Government hasn't been engaged in reckless economic vandalism on a scale we've never seen before? Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I'll tell the member what's desperate: spending two years saying that tax cuts are affordable, and now desperately trying to scrabble together four new taxes in order to pay for them. But we should not be surprised because the National Party have past form. They said that tax cuts were affordable last time they came into Government, and then they increased GST in order to pay for them, meaning New Zealanders paid more every time they went to the supermarket, more every time they paid the power bill, more every time they filled up the car—all because National promised unaffordable tax cuts, which is history repeating itself here. Christopher Luxon: Oh, my goodness! Why should New Zealanders believe this last-minute promise to rein in wasteful spending when this Government has spent more than it promised at every single Budget it has delivered over the last six years? Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: We've been very clear through the course of the year that we would look for savings and make sure that New Zealanders are getting value for money from their public services. That is ongoing work that we have been doing across the entire six years we have been in Government. But I am very proud of the fact that our teachers have had record pay increases and our nurses have had record pay increases. Unlike the last National Government, we've invested in our health system and our education system. We are spending record levels on road maintenance because we don't think that running down the roads in the way the last National Government did was an acceptable way to manage the economy. The National Party are trying to tell New Zealanders that they can have all of the promises National is making and no one needs to pay for them. Well, now the mask starts to slip and we see that there are at least four new taxes on the drawing board in order to pay for his unaffordable promises. Christopher Luxon: Isn't the real reason he has announced last-minute spending cuts that he's just trying to paper over the fact that his Government's reckless spending has left our country's economy and finances in ruin? Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The only person that's trying to paper over anything at the moment is Nicola Willis, who is desperately trying to paper over the fact that the National Party's promises simply don't add up. Christopher Luxon: Can he confirm, then, that under his Government, spending is up almost 80 percent, inflation has increased by more than 22 percent, tax has increased by 65 percent, the national debt has tripled, and we're the only country in our region in a recession? Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: What I can confirm is the IMF has reported this morning that since the global pandemic—since the second quarter of 2020—the New Zealand economy has experienced cumulative growth of 10.2 percent, and when I compare that with the IMF's stated growth for Australia of 8.8 percent, for the US of 7.6 percent, for the euro area of 7.1 percent, or 6.1 percent for the UK, that shows that we've actually been managing the economy pretty well. Christopher Luxon: Oh, no, no, it doesn't. It doesn't show that. Isn't it extraordinary that after months of accusing everyone else of cutting public services, it turns out that he was the one planning millions of dollars in cuts to health and education to fill his fiscal hole? Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Oh, the member can't have it both ways, because, presumably, they're going to announce more cuts themselves tomorrow, in addition to the fact that they are now saying that they're going to add four new taxes in order to pay for the tax cuts that they're proposing that will disproportionately benefit those on the highest incomes—millionaires, amongst others—and property owners. I think we've got our priorities about right. We are focused on supporting working New Zealanders through the current cost of living challenge with targeted cost of living measures that will make a meaningful difference for them. We're not focused on delivering tax cuts to those who need the money the least. Christopher Luxon: Why is it that every time a Labour Government is put in charge of the public finances, they leave a complete and utter mess for a National Government to come in and clean it up? Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The member should have quit while he was behind a couple of questions ago, because I'm very proud of our economic track record, and when we compare that with the last National Government, despite the fact that— Simeon Brown: You've cooked the books. Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: —we have faced a global pandemic, our economy— SPEAKER: Order! Sorry. Simeon Brown, that interjection is completely out of order. [Interruption] No, I haven't decided if you're staying. Can you stand, withdraw, and apologise. Simeon Brown: I withdraw and apologise. Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I am very proud of the fact that under our Government, despite the fact that we faced a global pandemic, our economy, year on year, has had stronger growth, on average, than it did under the entire nine years that National was in Government. Question No. 4—Housing 4. TERISA NGOBI (Labour—Ōtaki) to the Minister of Housing: How is the Government's record public housing build programme increasing the supply of homes in regional New Zealand? Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister of Housing): The Government is undertaking the largest State house building programme since the Walter Nash Government of the 1950s, adding over more than 13,000 net new public homes since 2017—including over 11,000 brand new builds. One in six new homes have been added in the last six years. This is a significant achievement when you consider that the first homes started to be built in 1937. For the first time in many years, we are building back public housing in the regions, such as Wairarapa, Rotorua, Gisborne, and Invercargill. Hon Kieran McAnulty: How is Wairarapa and the Tararua District benefiting from the Government's record social housing build? Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: Last month, I opened 21 new public homes in Masterton, with two new homes in Dannevirke. These mark the first State houses built in over two decades in this area. A further 100 new homes are also currently in the pipeline and due to be completed in the next few years across the Wairarapa and Tararua regions. This is in no small part due to the result of wonderful advocacy on the part of a tenacious and determined local MP. Tāmati Coffey: How many of the Government's new public homes are in Gisborne? Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: The Government has added 82 additional public homes in Gisborne since 2017. This is in stark contrast with the 2008 to 2017 period, where the number of Housing New Zealand homes fell by 33 houses—but I am happy to report that approximately 300 new homes are currently in the pipeline and due to be completed in the next few years. Jamie Strange: How is the Waikato region benefiting from the Government's new public homes? Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: I'm pleased to report that our Government is making great progress rebuilding public housing in the mighty Waikato. We've delivered 850 additional public homes in the region over the past five years, with over a thousand in the pipeline. When you compare this to a net loss of 172 homes under the previous Government between 2008 and 2017, it's clear that we are not only rebuilding but adding hundreds more homes. Chris Bishop: How many of the promised 100,000 KiwiBuild houses have been built in regional New Zealand, and is the number larger or smaller than the number of extra Kāinga Ora staff added to the public housing supply in the last six years? Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: The primary question was, of course, about public housing, something I'm sure that member—coming from a party with his party's record on public housing—wouldn't want to ask a question about. But I'm happy to confirm to that member: the number of KiwiBuild or affordable first homes, in New Zealand, is far larger by many magnitudes than his Government achieved. One hundred affordable homes over nine years in Government; we have over 3,000 homes delivered. Dr Liz Craig: How many of the Government's new public homes are in Invercargill? Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: The Government has added 30 additional public homes in Invercargill since 2017, with an additional 57 new homes in the pipeline. Though this is great progress, it's unfortunate that we're just making up for the 2008 to 2017 period, where the number of Housing New Zealand homes fell by 77 houses. Our public housing homes in Southland are some of the oldest in the country, so it is important that we continue to deliver new housing. An example of this is the recent completion of 13 two-bedroom homes in Appleby, Invercargill. Question No. 5—Prime Minister 5. DEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER (Co-Leader—Te Paati Māori) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all of his Government's actions and policies? Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Prime Minister): Yes, and I am particularly proud of our work to improve outcomes for Māori. I am proud of our work to establish Te Aka Whai Ora, the Māori Health Authority; the 145 percent increase in funding for Whānau Ora since 2017; the 71 percent increase in the number of Māori apprentices under our Government; the doubling of the number of ākonga studying Māori language immersion at levels 3 and 4, and the more than 32 percent increase in schools offering it; the number of Māori preschool tamariki enrolled with an oral health service, which has increased from 64 percent in September 2015 to 80 percent in September 2022; Whai Kāinga Whai Oranga, which has helped us to approve or contract 1,018 new homes, 483 home repairs, and infrastructure for 1,618 sites; the nearly doubling of the number of scholarships and bursaries provided each year for Māori students pursuing a career to work in mental health and addiction services since 2019, among other things. Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: What will the Prime Minister do to protect these important Māori kaupapa, such as Māori wards, and the Māori Health Authority, given other parties have committed to remove them? Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Win the election. Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: What message is your Government sending to rangatahi, when on the one hand, you are putting forward legislation to allow 16-year-olds to vote in local elections, while on the other hand, you are passing legislation to lower the age in which children can be charged for ram raids to 12 years old? Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: It's important to note that the law change that we're proposing before Parliament will allow the Youth Court to intervene in more cases of serious repeat offending, such as ram raiding for young people. We believe that that will ensure that we can get the wraparound support around those young people that they need, so that we can break the cycle of offending. Nobody wants to see those young children, some as young as 12 years old, going on to a lifetime of criminal offending, which is the pathway that they will find themselves on unless we intervene to support them more. The member has mischaracterised the legislation that is before the House; this is about making sure that we are intervening earlier and more effectively to stop these kids repeat offending. Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: What will your Government do to protect rangatahi Māori from profiling given that last year, an investigation by the Independent Police Conduct Authority and the Office of Privacy Commissioner found the police to have racially profiled rangatahi Māori, and illegally photographed them without consent? Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I think that is exactly why those two organisations exist, to make sure that there is an evidence base to identify where those sorts of practices happen. I know that the police have taken the findings of both of those organisations very seriously, and there is work going on within the police force to ensure that they are more aware of these issues, and that they aren't policing in a way that is discriminatory. Question No. 6—Finance 6. NICOLA WILLIS (Deputy Leader—National) to the Minister of Finance: What concerns, if any, does he have about the performance of the New Zealand economy, and what impact is the performance of the New Zealand economy having on New Zealanders? Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): The New Zealand economy has strong fundamentals, with the IMF, this week, noting that New Zealand had experienced cumulative growth of 10.2 percent since the second quarter of 2020, compared to 8.8 percent for Australia, 7.6 percent for the United States, 7.1 percent for the euro area, and 6.1 percent for the United Kingdom. The impact of the strong underlying performance of the economy means that more Kiwis are in work than ever before, with Stats New Zealand data showing that another 6,000 people entered the workforce in July. I do have concerns, though, which is why the Government is acting to mitigate them. As a small, open economy, New Zealand is at risk from changes in the global economy. We've seen over the past few weeks the impact of a deteriorating outlook in China—for example, on our domestic milk prices here. This makes it all the more important that we signed the free-trade agreements with the European Union and the United Kingdom as part of diversifying our export markets. We do see impacts in New Zealand from global interest rates feeding through into higher mortgage rates for New Zealanders, even though the official cash rate has remained steady. As a Government, we are doing our bit to help protect our economy from this global fallout—this includes supporting jobs through new investment in infrastructure, and rebuilding communities devastated by recent weather events. But it does also include cutting our cloth to take pressure off inflation and ensure that the Government's books remain in a sustainable position, all the while balanced by investments in critical public services, like health, education, and housing. Nicola Willis: Is he concerned that during his time as Minister of Finance, New Zealand's inflation rate has been out of control for 27 months so far, leaving New Zealanders to struggle through a cost of living crisis seemingly without end? Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: As has been noted many times in this House, this is a global inflation crisis. Here in New Zealand, what I can say is that I'm proud of an economy that's 6.7 percent larger than before COVID. I'm proud that employment has risen in 15 of the past 16 months. I'm proud about the fact that ASB's economist said, today, that New Zealand's fiscal metrics remain world class. Throughout this period, we have looked after New Zealanders by supporting them through increases in the family tax credit, childcare assistance, main benefits. All of the things we did to support people through that period of time—opposed by the National Party. Nicola Willis: Is he concerned that during his time as Minister of Finance, the official cash rate has risen quicker than at any other time during its history, leaving New Zealand mortgage holders scrambling to meet super-sized mortgage payments, as commercial rates, effectively, double? Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: And, indeed, this, again, is a global trend. I do note for the member that when the Reserve Bank, who are responsible for decisions about the official cash rate, began increasing the official cash rate in, I think it was, October 2021, just days later, the leader of the National Party proposed more spending to increase what would happen with inflation. Nicola Willis: If high inflation and interest rates are simply a global phenomenon, then why does America have so much lower inflation than New Zealand, and why is it that our domestic inflation rate is higher than our imported inflation rate? Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: As the member knows, by referring to something that doesn't exist, called the "domestic inflation rate", she's not actually representing the facts on that accurately. The New Zealand economy has recovered earlier than many other countries. That affects the different rates of growth and the different rates of inflation that we see. But what I know 100 percent is that if we had followed the advice of the member and her co-leader, we would have had inflationary tax cuts in the last Budget that would be making things far, far worse for New Zealanders when it comes to inflation. Nicola Willis: Is he concerned that after six years of him managing the economy, our country is now the slowest-growing in the Asia-Pacific region, in recession, and predicted to be one of the slowest-growing countries in the world next year? Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: If the member cared to look at the particular table that that number comes from, she would discover that, actually, if you look at the period of time through 2020, through 2021, and through 2022, New Zealand grew above average compared to the countries within that survey. As I said before, our economy began to recover earlier. But now we have the prospect of a member who has told us, time and time again, that she can afford the tax cut that she wants to deliver, now delivering those via four new taxes. The thing that will really cause problems for the New Zealand economy is unfunded tax cuts, a fiscal plan that doesn't add up, and more inflationary pressure on New Zealanders. Nicola Willis: Speaking of fiscal plans that don't add up, can he confirm that under his stewardship of the New Zealand economy, net Crown debt has risen from $5.4 billion in 2019 to $73.3 billion today, and can he guarantee to the New Zealanders that every dollar he has borrowed has been put to good use? Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I congratulate the member on her graduation to professor of hindsight economics! Throughout the period of COVID, I stood in this House, sometimes with the support of members opposite, to say "We need to look after New Zealand households, businesses, and the health system". Sometimes, members opposite asked us to spend even more on that. I'm proud of the fact that New Zealanders emerged from COVID with one of the lowest excess mortality rates in the world, and I'm proud of the money that we spent on things like the wage subsidy, which members opposite went around the country supporting, asking me, writing to me, saying "Why aren't you spending more?". The member cannot now look back and change that position. We stood by New Zealanders through the difficulties of the pandemic, and we continue to stand by New Zealanders. Nicola Willis: Well, is he proud that under his economic management, New Zealand has the largest current account deficit in the developed world, and does he have another excuse for that one too? Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The member will be well aware that New Zealand, as an economy that relies, for example, on the foreign exchange earnings from tourism, has suffered during a period of time when tourists couldn't come here. Our net international investment position is improving. The current account deficit is coming down. But, again, all of the credibility that's been built up in the New Zealand economy that means that Moody's have endorsed what we're doing, that means that the IMF have supported what we're doing—all of that credibility would be frittered away by unfunded tax cuts for millionaires; that's what the member's promising. Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Does the Minister of Finance believe that more tourists might come here if we didn't have prominent politicians travelling around the world, describing New Zealand as wet, whiney, and miserable? Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Absolutely that would help—and, in fact, generally speaking, I think it would help if politicians such as that didn't travel overseas at all. Nicola Willis: Isn't it the case that despite his many attempts to blame others, in fact his legacy to the New Zealand economy is a cost of living crisis, recession, deficit, and debt, and is it the case that he is simply carrying on Labour's proud tradition of leaving the New Zealand economy in tatters? Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The member might want to reflect on the level of unemployment when we came into office, which, if I recall, was around 4.8 percent, and the fact that, as the Prime Minister's already said, we've had record low unemployment over a long period of time. We prioritise having people in work. We prioritise making sure that we look after the most vulnerable in our society, that we lift kids out of poverty, that we get people into skills and into training. All of that is at risk from a potential Government obsessed with making sure that they deliver tax cuts for millionaires. Question No. 7—Education 7. Dr ANAE NERU LEAVASA (Labour—Takanini) to the Minister of Education: Mālō 'aupito, Mr Speaker. What feedback has she received on the Government's free healthy school lunches programme? Hon JAN TINETTI (Minister of Education): Last week, the Government reached the milestone of 100 million free and healthy school lunches delivered. Every school I visit that has the Healthy School Lunches programme tells me what a huge difference it makes to their kids' wellbeing, learning, and engagement. Much of this sentiment is reflected in public reports. For example, a principal from Nelson has said, "We're having 325 lunches provided every day, and everyone has exactly the same lunch, we know it's nutritious, we know it meets the health standards, it has benefits in terms of concentration levels and to learning outcomes for our tamariki." This is a sentiment shared across 996 schools who are eligible for the programme. Dr Anae Neru Leavasa: Why is this a worthwhile investment? Hon JAN TINETTI: This Government believes in barrier-free access to education. When we came to office, many students were turning up hungry or not turning up at all. The attendance challenges we currently face started in 2015, were worsened during COVID-19, and are now starting to turn around. Schools tell me that having free, healthy lunches at school is a critical part of the plan to turn around attendance and meet our national targets. Teachers, school trustees, and whānau acknowledge the difference the programme makes in the classroom and to the behaviour of students. They know how hard it is for hungry kids to learn. Dr Anae Neru Leavasa: What would it mean for families if this programme was no longer available? Hon JAN TINETTI: With the current cost of living pressures that families are experiencing, knowing their kids will get a free, healthy school lunch provides peace of mind, and it's one less thing to put pressure on the family budget. The programme is estimated to save a family with two kids around $66 per week and $2,500 per year, on average. While the programme is targeted to 25 percent of schools with the highest need, many have spoken about the importance of universality for eligible schools. By providing lunch to every student in the school, it reduces any stigma that can be associated with singling out kids who don't have lunch that day. Approximately 230,000 students receive a healthy school lunch every day, and we know that if the programme wasn't in place, there would be many children who would go without. Dr Anae Neru Leavasa: What other benefits does the Government's Healthy School Lunches deliver for communities? Hon JAN TINETTI: The programme also supports over 2,300 jobs in communities across New Zealand. As the Minister of Education, I have travelled across the country and spoken to the wonderful Kiwis delivering these meals for our tamariki and the joy it brings them to know they are preparing a meal for a child to support their wellbeing and learning. Just last week, while I was helping prepare the lunches at Alfriston College in the Takanini electorate, one of the kitchen workers was telling me how much the programme had changed her life. We currently have 254 schools using an internal delivery model where the lunches are prepared on site, often by students, to provide educational benefit in food preparation, nutrition, and time management. Question No. 8—Prime Minister 8. DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all of his Government's statements and policies? Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Prime Minister): Yes, particularly our actions to pass the Climate Change Response (Zero Carbon) Amendment Act, reform the emissions trading scheme, and the actions we've undertaken to ensure we are on track to achieve New Zealand's first emissions budget. We've achieved record levels of renewable electricity generation and the lowest level of coal imports since 2013. We're investing in 81 significant industrial decarbonisation projects that are set for completion by December 2027, with two significant partnerships that reduce 1.6 million tonnes of emissions. We've increased the number of electric vehicles entering the New Zealand fleet from just 2 percent in June 2017 to 37 percent in June 2023. We've co-funded more than 1,300 electric-vehicle chargers across New Zealand. We've supported 110,000 Kiwi households to be healthier and to have cheaper power bills, through Warmer Kiwi Homes. We've banned new coal boilers and removed 50 coal boilers from 46 schools. We've provided discounted public transport that has benefited thousands of New Zealanders. Climate pollution fell in 2020, 2021, and 2022, with the December 2022 quarter delivering the lowest figure in at least nine years. There is more to do and some big decisions to be made in the next term, but, on our side of the House, we're committed to making progress to tackling climate change rather than taking the giant leap backwards the member is proposing. David Seymour: What does the Prime Minister say to the people of Auckland, Coromandel, Tairāwhiti, and Hawke's Bay when they realise this Government has failed to pass the climate adaptation Act, and, of the $4.5 billion in the Climate Emergency Response Fund, all of it went on trying to reduce emissions but not one cent went on adapting people and preparing them for the impacts of climate change? Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I say we've just given those communities $1.7 billion of support. David Seymour: Does the Prime Minister miss the point that that occurred after the event, because he spent not one cent from the $4.5 billion Climate Emergency Response Fund on adaptation and preparing people for the impacts of climate change, and the finance Minister, who's whispering in his ear, admitted that in select committee at the time? Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The member seems to be arguing we should simply give up on mitigating climate change and just focus on adaptation. In fact, we need to do both of those things. I am not willing to give up and say that these extreme weather events can continue to get worse and we should just try and adapt to that. Actually, we need to support communities to adapt, and we are, but we also need to continue our focus on mitigation. David Seymour: Is he aware that the International Monetary Fund regional economic outlooks say New Zealand is projected to be the second slowest growing economy in the entire world in 2024, beating only Equatorial Guinea, and who, except his own Government, is responsible for New Zealand's economic performance, compared with the rest of the world, after six years in power? Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Well, I'm happy to quote directly from the IMF report, who said that New Zealand had experienced cumulative growth of 10.2 percent since the second quarter of 2020, compared to 8.8 percent for Australia, 7.6 percent for the US, 7.1 percent for the euro area, and 6.1 percent for the UK. I think our economic track record's pretty good. David Seymour: If the Government's done such a good job, why is he now reduced to avoiding the fact that we will be the second worst in the world, ahead of only Equatorial Guinea next year, after six years of his Government in power? Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: As I mentioned before—I'll run through the numbers again for the member in case he missed them. Since the global pandemic began in the second quarter of 2022—sorry—2020, New Zealand's had cumulative economic growth of 10.2 percent, compared to Australia at 8.8 percent, 7.6 percent for the US, 7.1 percent for the euro area, and 6.1 percent for the UK. The member can look at any given point in time, and each of those economies will be at a different point in the economic cycle. But, cumulatively, across time, New Zealand's economy is performing very well. It's a testament to the hard work of New Zealanders and the hard work of our businesses, who we are backing to get through tough economic times. David Seymour: Is he aware that the Ministry of Justice reports that victimisations per 100 adults have risen 29 percent, from 60 victimisations per 100 adults to 76 victimisations per 100 adults, since 2018, and will he accept his Government has failed to keep the public safe over the past six years? Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: In answer to the last part of the question, no, I will not accept that. Our Government has been working very hard to ensure that our police have the resources that they need to fight crime; 1,800 more police on the beat compared to a reduction, in real terms, of the number of police on the beat when National and ACT were last in Government, imposing austerity on New Zealand in the way that they were. We have been focused on making sure that we're making it easier to report crime—for example, by putting new systems in place so that our retailers can better report retail crime. We've been focused on tackling gang offending. We have also been unrelentingly focused on making sure that firearms aren't getting into the hands of potential offenders. And I note the member's policy announced over the weekend—it shouldn't be about putting it on their website and not talking about it—that they want to reintroduce semi-automatic weapons that were banned in New Zealand after the March 15 terror attacks. David Seymour: Is the Prime Minister aware that term 1 regular school attendance has fallen from 73 percent four years ago to 60 percent this year, while chronic absence from school has doubled from 4 percent to 8 percent over the same period—what responsibility will he accept as a Prime Minister, and, for five years, Minister of Education, for the fact fewer kids are going to school and learning less under his Government? Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I absolutely accept the fact that in term 1 of this year we still had a mandatory seven-day isolation period for COVID-19, and that will be reflected in the school attendance figures. Question No. 9—Immigration 9. INGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri) to the Minister of Immigration: What recent announcement has he made regarding a residence pathway for Special Ukraine Visa holders who are settled in New Zealand? Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Immigration): On Saturday, I announced a new residence pathway for Special Ukraine Visa holders. The Special Ukraine Visa originally allowed Ukrainians with close relatives who are New Zealand citizens or residents to come to New Zealand to shelter for two years. Latterly, conditions were amended to allow non-family to sponsor Special Ukraine Visa holders. Most of the Ukrainians who took up the visa hoped they could return home quickly, but that hasn't been possible with the ongoing war. Special Ukraine Visa holders in New Zealand up to 14 March 2024 will now be able to apply for residency. The Ukrainians who are coming here to New Zealand are contributing to our country. Their kids are becoming more Kiwi by the day and it's important that they have the security of certainty that they can stay and make New Zealand home. Ingrid Leary: What has been the uptake of the Special Ukraine Visa? Hon ANDREW LITTLE: As at 20 August 2023, around 1,510 Special Ukraine Visas have been granted. Around 720 people have travelled to New Zealand on this visa, including those who've left New Zealand and re-entered on one or more occasions. Right now, around 340 special category visa holders are in New Zealand. The residence pathway announced on Saturday will be available to Special Ukraine Visa holders where the principal applicant was granted a visa and travelled to New Zealand before 15 March next year. Ingrid Leary: What will be the requirements for residents on the new pathway? Hon ANDREW LITTLE: We are striking a balance between making the pathway easy to access on one hand, and prudent protection of our borders on the other. Normal character checks and identity requirements will apply, however, only a limited medical certificate will have to be provided. Applicants will not need a sponsor and do not have to sit English language tests. While a $1,200 residence visa application fee will apply, we have decided to waive the immigration levy. Ingrid Leary: What response has he seen to the announcement? Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I've seen feedback from the community advocacy group Mahi for Ukraine, which, along with Ukrainian associations and World Vision, has done so much to raise the plight of Ukrainians seeking shelter in New Zealand. Mahi for Ukraine has said the new residence pathway provides much-needed certainty and is, as they say, "a beacon of hope" and that "New Zealand's actions speak volumes about its commitment to humanitarian values, and we are thankful to be a part of a nation that stands by those in need." Ingrid Leary: What else has the Government done to support Ukraine to defend itself against Russia's invasion? Hon ANDREW LITTLE: This Government has stood resolutely with Ukraine against Russia's illegal and immoral war. We provided more than $4 million of diplomatic support to the International Criminal Court, the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, and for nuclear safety and security. We've provided almost $20 million of economic and humanitarian assistance. And we've contributed more than $58 million of military assistance, including deploying New Zealand Defence Force personnel to the UK to train Ukrainian troops. I can tell you that my colleague the Minister of Defence saw when he attended the Ukraine Defence Contact Group in Ramstein in Germany, that the democratic world is enormously grateful for the contributions New Zealand has made to the defence of a faraway democracy. Slava Ukraini. Question No. 10—Health 10. MATT DOOCEY (National—Waimakariri) to the Minister of Health: Why are there 16 fewer psychiatrist FTEs employed in 2023 than when this Government came into office in 2017, and does she think that this is an acceptable outcome from the $1.9 billion announced for mental health in Budget 2019? Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Minister of Health): I am advised that there are 465.3 fulltime-equivalent psychiatrists working for Te Whatu Ora across New Zealand. There are a number of vacancies. New Zealand is experiencing pressure across all areas of the mental health and addiction workforce, particularly the clinical workforce. These pressures are longstanding and felt across the world. Growing our specialist workforce is tough because highly specialised people take a long time to train. The effectiveness of that $1.9 billion should be judged according to what we said we'd spend it on. The flagship health initiative was Access and Choice, a programme for mild to moderate mental health conditions. This programme has been scaled to over 600 sites and has had over one million visits. For that programme, we have created over 1,000 new mental health workers— Hon Member: Psychiatrists? Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: —none of whom are psychiatrists. This Government has built a primary mental health system from the ground up. None of that existed when we came into Government. I am sure that member did not mean to imply that the Budget '19 funding was for psychiatrists. Matt Doocey: Does she think it is acceptable that after the Government promised to transform the mental health system in 2017, there are now 16 fewer psychiatrists in 2023? Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: This Government has done what it intended to do, based on the review at the beginning of this work. We have created Access and Choice, which is providing mild to moderate mental health care in the community. We have launched the Wellbeing Support website to connect people with those services. We are funding methamphetamine harm-reduction services. We have adapted services for rangatahi, kaupapa Māori, and Pasifika. We are making sure mental health workers are competent in dealing with rainbow communities. We have taken innovative approaches to funding the 1737 health line, Youthline, and digital service apps like Groov and Headstrong. This is hard work, but our transformation is well under way. Matt Doocey: How can she defend that after announcing $1.9 billion for mental health and promising to transform the mental health system, there are 16 fewer psychiatrists today than six years ago? Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: As I said, the Government should be assessed on what it said it would do. We have created a thousand additional workers in Access and Choice. We have increased places for New Entry to Specialist Practice for nurses to 282 annually. We have grown the role of peer support workers in mental health. We have increased the number of occupational therapists and social workers going through the New Entry to Specialist Practice programme. And we have increased the number of psychologists by 713 and tripled the number of psychology internships. Matt Doocey: Was it her Government's intention, after announcing $1.9 billion for mental health and promising to transform the mental health system, that there would be 16 fewer psychiatrists today than six years ago? Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: That money has been spent on what it was intended to be spent on, and we are delivering the results. I don't know why that member is interested in a sleight of hand of pretending it was intended for some other purpose, unless he's buttering the public up for the cuts we know are coming under a National Government. Matt Doocey: Is the failure of delivering 16 fewer psychiatrists an example of what the Mental Health and Wellbeing Commission stated: "There are persistent workforce shortages. We are yet to see a clear strategy and a roadmap to grow and develop the workforce we so desperately need."; and why have you failed to deliver to vulnerable New Zealanders after you promised them six years ago? Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: It's great to see that member quoting the Mental Health and Wellbeing Commission. I am so pleased that our Government brought back the Mental Health and Wellbeing Commission after they cut it. I have already spoken to the huge amount of work to increase our workforce, which is evidence of a plan, and I will repeat it: 1,000 additional workers in the Access and Choice programme; new programme for nurses, with 282 going through per year; increased role for peer support workers; increased specialist training for occupational therapists and social workers; and a tripling of the number of internships for psychologists. Question No. 11—Justice 11. VANUSHI WALTERS (Labour—Upper Harbour) to the Minister of Justice: What progress has the Government made in cracking down on youth offending? Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Minister of Justice): The current level of youth offending is unacceptable. While the actions we've taken to date are working for the majority of young people, we know there is more work to do with a small group of repeat offenders. The bill I introduced last week, which will be read for the first time today, will introduce a new offence for ram raids. It also introduces new aggravating factors for adults who use young people to commit crimes and those posting their crimes on social media. It's completely unacceptable that a victim of a crime may be retraumatised by seeing it posted online. This also sends a strong message to those who post their crimes online in a bid to gain notoriety that they can now face tougher consequences. Vanushi Walters: What impact is the Government's policies having on ram raid offending? Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: One ram raid is one ram raid too many, but I am encouraged that ram raids are down by two-thirds since their peak in August last year and have more than halved since the first full month after I became Minister of Police in March. Interventions like Kotahi te Whakaaro have been working. Nearly 80 percent of children going through the Government's fast-track programme for children who have committed serious offences have not reoffended. That's a stark contrast to other parties' proposals, such as boot camps, which have an 80 percent reoffending rate and which the former Chief Science Advisor simply said don't work. Vanushi Walters: How does the bill provide tools to the justice system to deal with young offenders? Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: The new ram raid offence enables 12- and 13-year-olds alleged to have committed a ram raid to be charged now in the Youth Court, like other serious offences such as aggravated burglary. Other measures that have been effective in breaking the cycle of offending include the Better Pathways Package to improve education, employment opportunities; and the fast-track programmes, which respond to serious offending by children and young people. This new offence will not be the first port of call for first-time ram-raiders. This is for a small group of repeat offenders where earlier interventions simply have not been working. This bill closes that gap. Vanushi Walters: What other steps is the Government taking to support communities affected by ram raid offending? Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: The Government is committed to improving the safety for small retailers through the Retail Crime Prevention Programme, which has seen more than 2,266 security interventions installed around 586 retailers such as bollards, CCTV upgrades, alarms, and roller doors. We've also supported businesses through the fog cannon subsidy scheme, which has seen 1,995 installations completed, and even more approved and in progress. We know that ram raid offending causes significant property damage and harm to victims and their livelihoods. I am determined to get on top of this destructive behaviour and ensure young offenders face the consequences of their actions. Question No. 12—Police 12. Hon MARK MITCHELL (National—Whangaparāoa) to the Minister of Police: Does she stand by her statement, "It is my view that New Zealanders feel safer"; if so, why? Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Minister of Police): I stand by my full statement at the time it was given, or, to quote Radio New Zealand's summary, "Mark Mitchell has been dredging for that lustre of funny in the repetition mine for four months now. … Finding the gag less humorous is the Minister of Police Ginny Andersen, who has been adding context to the same partial quote for four straight months [now]." Hon Mark Mitchell: Does the Minister of Police think that public safety is funny? Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: No. Hon Mark Mitchell: Does she think that "New Zealanders feel safer", given that a leaked Police report says that there are over 100 offenders on electronic monitoring for offences like homicide and kidnapping and that public safety has been "compromised". Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: It is correct that there has been an increase in the number of people on electronic monitoring, which is something that the previous National Government sought to encourage towards the end of its days in office in 2016. As the Prime Minister has stated, there are already a number of reviews into the tragic events in Auckland that are ongoing, and we will await the findings of those reports before making any decisions about further action to trends in electronic monitoring (EM). Police advise me that the new national bail coordinator role, which will focus on EM bail, will be embedded within Corrections from early September. Hon Mark Mitchell: Given her single focus on community safety, are communities safer now than when she became police Minister? Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: There is always more work to do, but let's not forget that it was the previous National Government that passed legislation in 2016 to expand the use of electronic monitoring. Now they say, "We want to massively limit its use". If the National Party are now walking back, they need to explain how they'll pay for American-style mega-prisons needed to accommodate these people. APPOINTMENTS Assistant Speaker Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Leader of the House): I seek leave that the House appoint the Hon Poto Williams as an Assistant Speaker until the end of Thursday, 31 August 2023, despite Standing Order 29. SPEAKER: Is there objection to that course being followed? There is none. Thank you very much. PRIVILEGE Consideration of Reports of Privileges Committee Member's Compliance with Appendix B of the Standing Orders—Hon Michael Wood Hon DAVID PARKER (Attorney-General): I move, That the report of the Privileges Committee concerning a member's compliance with the requirements of Appendix B of the Standing Orders be noted. I will, as chair of the Privileges Committee, give a summary of the report from the committee. This report relates to the failure by the Hon Mr Wood to properly declare his interests in two companies: Auckland International Airport Limited and Contact Energy. As the report shows, Mr Wood had these interests at the time he entered into Parliament, but he had acquired those shares quite a long time ago, around 1998, and he didn't declare them until 2022 and 2023. He first entered Parliament in 2017, and as the report explains—and as Mr Wood explained to the committee—he forgot that he owned those shares. He was, at one time, also confused between the shares in his personal name and shares held by a trust. But in any event, the committee found that his actions in respect of the period between 2017 and 2022 when he did declare the shares, was essentially negligent in that he was in breach of his duties to the House to make a proper disclosure of those shares. There was also an allegation that shares that were owned by a trust in which he had an interest—also in Auckland International Airport—should have been disclosed. The committee went through in some detail, the—oh, no. Sorry. Before I cover that, I should note that there are a number of members who on occasions make mistakes in their returns on shares or other assets, and those mistakes are not to be taken lightly. But when a mistake is noted, it is a duty upon the member not just to fix the error going forward by making a correct disclosure in a later year, but to cause the registrar to be aware of the error or the omission in earlier returns, and to correct that error by causing the earlier returns to be corrected. And that's the mistake that Mr Wood made here: both not declaring the shares in Auckland International Airport and Contact Energy in those first five years, but then, once he did become aware that he had made those mistakes, not correcting the earlier returns—instead, he just made correct returns in the years that followed. The other allegation that was made against him was in respect of shares owned by the JM Fairey Family Trust, and there the committee quite carefully sets out the rules that are in Standing Orders. Those rules say that pecuniary interests that are held by a member in a company or business entity are meant to be disclosed to the extent that the rules require them to be disclosed. The rules, then, make it clear that company interests that are owned by a trust, or indeed another company, don't have to be disclosed. And that's made clear by clause 5(2) of the relevant rules, which says that "a member does not have a pecuniary interest in a company … merely because the member has a pecuniary interest in another ….business entity"—in this case a trust—"that has a pecuniary interest in [that company]". And it's on that issue that the Privileges Committee makes it clear that on our reading of the rules, it's actually quite clear that interests owned by a trust in a company don't currently have to be disclosed. That's also made clear in the relevant form that members have to fill in, form 4, which sets out beneficial interests and trusteeships of trust, and the form says "Do not include the pecuniary interests that the trust itself may have, e.g., the assets of the trust—the exception to which is real property held in a trust, which you should declare in form 6." Now, the reason that there is a different rule for real property is because the Standing Orders make it clear, with a specific rule covering that, that real interests in land held by a trust do have to be disclosed, but the opposite is the case in respect of shares held by a trust. So one of the recommendations of the Privileges Committee is that if the Standing Orders Committee indeed thinks that interests of a trust in a company should be declared, then the Standing Orders should be changed to make that clear. But at the moment, the opposite is true: it is clear that they don't have to be. So to that extent, we disagreed with the reference that had been made to us by the Registrar of Pecuniary Interests, because we thought it was clear unanimously across the committee on the face of the rules that those other interests did not need to be declared, i.e., an interest of a trust in a company is not caught by the disclosure rules. It remains the case, however, that the Hon Michael Wood should have disclosed the interests that he held in his personal name between 2017 and 2022, and that he didn't—and that once he became aware of that error, he shouldn't have just corrected the matter going forward, he should have corrected it looking backwards. I would also note that the committee found that this didn't amount to a contempt. It was a serious breach of the rules that the committee drew to the attention of the House, and our recommendation was that the member be required to apologise. CHRIS BISHOP (National): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Can I acknowledge the chair of the Privileges Committee, who did a good job chairing what was actually—it's been a busy committee—quite a tricky issue that we had to deal with. I think that the chair has done a pretty good job, actually, of traversing the facts which are actually not that contested—including by the member concerned—and in the public domain as it played out over many days and weeks. Feels like it was last year, but it was actually only a few weeks ago. So he's done a good job. I just wanted to pick up on a couple of points. The first is just to make the obvious one, which is that it was and is a serious breach. Members are required to take their obligations to disclose their interests through the pecuniary interests seriously, and there's a whole lot of guidance from the registrar but also Standing Orders about that. I think the relevant paragraph is at page 7 of the committee report: "It is difficult to conclude that he made a genuine attempt to identify his interests or that he sufficiently turned his mind to them when making his annual return over this five-year period. We therefore find that Mr Wood was neglectful of his duties over significant period of time." It's just worth highlighting that, as I think Mr Wood himself concedes, there was essentially a negligence over quite a long period of time and the appropriate punishment as recommended by the committee is an apology. It's not contempt. Members do make mistakes when they are submitting their returns. I think almost every pecuniary interest return has had late filings and subsequent amendments. But in this case, Mr Wood did not make—or it's difficult to conclude he made a genuine attempt to identify his interests. So I think that's the first point. If I could just comment on the second point that Mr Parker raised, which is what became known in the committee as the "trust" issue, which was this quite vexing issue of when do you have to disclose interests in trusts? I hated trust law at law school, and I thought when I became an MP I'd never have to deal with it ever again. Then I found myself on the Justice Committee doing the Trust Act review for about three years, and now I'm on the Privileges Committee. We dealt with that, so anyway, here we are. But I think I will freely admit I—like many members, I suspect—assumed that shares held in trusts had to be disclosed. I think, actually, there's a bit of a widespread assumption around that: that if you were a beneficiary of a trust that had listed shares in it, that they would have to be disclosed. As it transpires, as Mr Parker has pointed out, that is not the case. We actually went through each of the guidance documents issued by the registrar, and Form 4 is the relevant form as Mr Parker says. It explicitly says, "Do not include the pecuniary interests that the trust itself may have, e.g. the assets of the trust. The exception to this is real property held on a trust, which you should declare on Form 6." So I think the assumption that many hold—and I suspect many members have, up until now, held—in the House is actually incorrect. The Privileges Committee has recommended—and rightly so—that this is an issue that needs some more work. This Privileges Committee is very busy, but it's clearly going to be an issue for the Standing Orders Committee of the next Parliament, and we'll wait and see who's on that. But as page 9 notes, "It is crucial the rules are clear and members have a consistent understanding of their obligations." It's a fundamental rule of law issue for members of Parliament: we need to know what the rules are so that we can comply with them. So no doubt the Standing Orders Committee of the next Parliament will be having a look at that. Can I just conclude by saying that we were slightly—perturbed is perhaps too strong a word but we were we were a little bit alarmed at some of the tenor of the language mentioned by the registrar in his report to us. I think the general consensus of the committee—and this is reflected in the report of the committee to the House—is that it's for the committee and then the House to determine the gravity of the offending and decide upon the way in which the issue of privilege will be dealt with. Some of the commentary in the registrar's report to us—well, it was expansive, shall we say, in its commentary on what had happened. Actually, it's a pretty fundamentally simple matter. Mr Wood was required to disclose a series of shares that he held for quite a long time. He didn't disclose them. The facts are actually relatively uncontested. There's a niche issue around the trusts aspect of it, but the actual facts are relatively uncontested, and that's perhaps not apparent from the quite lengthy discursive commentary that was provided to the committee from the registrar. So anyway, with those remarks, the National Party and myself endorse the report of the Privileges Committee. DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Well, thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I rise to join with other members of the Privileges Committee who have spoken so far to endorse this report back from the committee. I think that the chair and other members worked very constructively through what turned out to be more complex and technical matters than perhaps we might have thought at first. I agree with the comments that have been made so far. If I could put a bit more context around it, because people watching this may wonder what the matter actually is, members of Parliament are required to declare their interests, employment, and things that they own that might be seen to somehow influence their decision making as MPs, and I completely endorse that idea. I think it's important in an open democracy that people can see where political parties get their donations from, if members of Parliament are receiving benefits from any individual, or if members of Parliament have specific pecuniary or other interests in a particular thing or person that might influence the decisions they have made, or at least be seen to. I think that's really important. I think it's also important to distinguish, for people who may look at this, and recognise that it's actually quite a separate matter from the declaration made by Ministers in the Beehive. That's a totally different thing where Ministers have to declare their conflicts of interest. That got a lot of publicity in the guise of Michael Wood—actually, for the same shares. But so much for that. I just think it's important to put the purpose and the exact matter in a bit of context here. I agree with what's been said that it's pretty much cut and dried. Michael Wood owned shares in Contact Energy and Auckland Airport. Some of us remarked that he was much more of a capitalist than we would have guessed, and some of us admire him for that, to some extent, but nevertheless he had an obligation to report those shares, in as much as he owned them personally. That's what the Standing Orders require. He did do so from about 2021 onwards, but he failed to follow one of the rules, which is that if you do that, you've got to actually update all previous returns while you're a member of Parliament, so you've got to correct everything. I've done that. For interest, I'd forgotten to declare—I suspect there wouldn't be a lot of people here who haven't either done it, or would be foolish to throw stones from glass houses in case they one day discover they have to as well. But Michael Wood, once he became aware of these shares, he started reporting them in his subsequent returns, but didn't update his previous ones. So that's the first issue. The second issue that arose was perhaps the one that's been discussed the most, is was he also obliged to report on shares that were held in trust. I think this gets us to quite an interesting point, particularly with regard to the way the registrar has conducted himself through this inquiry. You see, it turns out, and it's quite clear from reading the Standing Orders, although as Chris Bishop has said, one could easily be confused. It's quite clear that you do not have to declare shares that are held in a trust. It's clear because the Standing Orders explicitly say you must declare physical property or land or buildings or houses that you hold in a trust—real property—but it makes no such reference to shares in a company. Of course, the Standing Orders Committee in the past has tried to be clear that you don't have to share everything in in a chain of ownership, for example. You know, a farmer might own a farm which might have attached to it co-op shares in a farm supply business. Now, would that, for example, be something they had to report, and what about the land the business is on? So clearly, there has to be a stoppage at some point. They've said that you don't have to declare an interest in shares that you held in a trust, and yet that would seem to be at odds with the purpose of the register, which is to show what sort of entities a person might have an interest in. They could certainly know that they had the interest, it's just the ownership structure that exempts them from reporting it, and, of course, the same exemption is not made for real property, so there does seem to be quite an inconsistency here. None the less, Michael Wood was not in any way guilty, because he was not obliged to report shares that he held in a trust, and he was backed up by the notes that are circulated to MPs that say that you don't have to report shares issued in a trust. However, that was actually contradicted by the registrar, the guy who's supposed to be responsible for overseeing all of this, who said that members must, under circumstances, declare shareholdings in trust, and, as the committee has found, says that we disagree with that. I think that points to something I'd like to close my remarks with, which is a certain zealousness on the part of the registrar where, in my view, he's really overstepped the mark. Chris Bishop mentioned the report into his investigation into Michael Wood, and I just found it was incredibly unprofessional. It, for example, gave blow by blow accounts of playing Michael Wood a video and asking if he could remember saying that. You know, if we want drama, we can go to the cinema; we don't need it in reports to the Privileges Committee. The Privileges Committee, and I'd like to read this in, says "By way of guidance for future inquiries, we suggest that our committee would benefit from reports on inquiries that contain a clear summary of the facts, as the Registrar has determined them, without passing judgement on them beyond the prima facie test of whether a question of privilege is involved. This would be more consistent with the approach taken by the Speaker in determining whether a question of privilege arises under Standing Order 412. The Registrar's report contained comments passing judgement on Mr Wood's actions in critical terms. We consider that passing judgement on members' actions is a matter for this committee rather than for inquiries conducted by the Registrar." I thought that the committee was incredibly reserved and polite in making those comments. I think the committee could have justified going further, given the report we were given, given the, I guess, overzealous assumption that something must be reported when actually the Standing Orders and the registrar's own guidance show that it doesn't need to be reported. I think it raises a question about the accountability of that person in this process that perhaps some future Standing Orders Committee or Privileges Committee might like to consider. Because while it's clear that accountability is important, it's clear that Michael Wood has done wrong in this instance, I don't think that that process was becoming of the office of the registrar or of this House, and I'd like that to be recorded. Without any more to say on that, you know, Michael Woods has made a mistake. He has been asked to apologise to the House, having already apologised to the registrar, and I think that is about where the matter should lie. Thank you, Mr Speaker. GOLRIZ GHAHRAMAN (Green): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise as another member of the Privileges Committee to speak in support of this report. There isn't much to say on the facts that hasn't already been traversed in the report and by others who've spoken this afternoon, but I would like to thank you, Mr Speaker, for sending the matter to us, and for sending us so many matters recently. We do appreciate, as the Privileges Committee, the highlighting of our role in this House's proceedings, and also in the conduct of open democracy in Aotearoa New Zealand. It is the case that we have rules as members of Parliament that we abide by, and some of those rules that this report touches upon are to do with open democracy. The interests that members may have in financial institutions and real property and in other aspects of their lives are of interest to the public, and I think we all do agree that it's important that we uphold those rules in both open and efficient reporting that is required of us. But, also, and equally important for the public, is to know that where there have been breaches of those rules, where open democracy or any other of our rules have been breached, where we have fallen short, that there is recourse. That there is a committee, a cross-party—cross-House committee that will take these matters seriously, that will look into the facts, and will make findings that are consistent with the intent of those rules—which I think has been done in this case. There was no contempt of the House found, but I do want to hold that in terms of the negative findings contained in this report, that they were serious. That it may have been only negligence rather than contempt, but it was negligence of undertaking a duty that's important, for some time. So we did highlight that, and it was appropriate that that finding, that negative finding highlighted that breach, and in a way a type of misconduct though be it not deliberate in terms of what we found. Looking back and updating those forms was important and it and it did amount to negligence that we wouldn't want to see repeated regularly by other members. Then we come to the trust issue, and again, like others have done, without going into too much detail, it is important to send a message, I think, to a future Standing Orders Committee that that is an area that we desperately need clarification on. If these rules, in terms of declaring our interests, are for the benefit of the public, I think we can all agree that out there people would see a beneficiary of a trust that has financial interest and a profit that they may gain from being a beneficiary of a trust that holds shares in various institutions, that that person would be seen as having an interest, a financial interest, that falls under the auspices of these declarations, just as they would if they directly held shares or those interests in property. We, in fact, in the last Budget, the Government rightly fixed what we what we might call a loophole in our tax system whereby if people hold interests, financial interests, that garner them in income in trust should in fact be taxed. So it's exactly along those lines that we say financial interests of beneficiaries of trusts come under the same category and should be open to inquiry by the public when they're held by MPs, or when MPs are the beneficiaries of those trust interests. So that is something that surprised all of us. It was not something that Mr Wood was in breach of in any way, but it concerns me that that still remains a hole in our system. So again, I want to commend the work of our committee, and I want to commend you, Mr Speaker, for taking matters of privilege seriously enough to busy our schedules in that committee. But I also want to give assurances to the public that we will continue to work together to take the rules that uphold our democracy, in particular where transparency is concerned, seriously, and that this finding was in fact serious, though contempt wasn't found. So I do commend the report. Motion agreed to. Consideration of Report of Privileges Committee Conduct of Member—Tim van de Molen Hon DAVID PARKER (Attorney-General): I move, That the House take note of the report of the Privileges Committee on the question of privilege concerning a member's conduct toward the chairperson of the Transport and Infrastructure Committee. This is the fourth of four references to the Privileges Committee that we've had in the last couple of months, after having none in the prior 2½ years. This is an unusual event, and I will address both how the Privileges Committee chose to consider the matter and the allegations that were made. Mr Speaker, the reference to the select committee from you arose from a complaint from a member who was present at a select committee hearing, the Transport and Infrastructure Committee, at the end of a meeting of which there was a disagreement between Mr van de Molen and the chair of the committee. The reference to us was to consider whether the actions of Mr van de Molen crossed a line and were inappropriate. The way in which the committee chose to deal with the issue was to employ the services of an experienced King's Council (KC) to investigate the facts of the matter. The— Chris Bishop: She's not a KC. Hon DAVID PARKER: She's not a KC? Sorry; Wendy Aldred, a senior barrister. Sorry; thank you for that correction, Mr Bishop. We already knew at the time that she was engaged, as a Privileges Committee, that there were a number of witnesses to this altercation that had taken place, being two members of Parliament in addition to the chair and Mr van de Molen. In addition to that, there were three select committee staff that were also present. We weren't aware at the time when the reference was made to Wendy Aldred that there was also a backup tape recording of events. When select committees meet and a transcript is taken, there is a primary recording methodology, which had been turned off, but there's also a backup methodology, which was still running. That became apparent a day or two later, and that was also provided to Wendy Aldred. Wendy Aldred then interviewed Mr van de Molen, Mr Halbert, the MPs present, and the staff, and the report from Wendy Aldred—it runs to about 17 or 18 pages, I think, from memory—is appended to the report. Before I come to the conclusion, I will emphasise something that that was emphasised by members during our consideration of the matter, and that is that we have to be very careful in this place that we don't make findings of misconduct too easily. It is a place of robust debate. Sometimes, a number of us, you know, lose our rag a bit. You know, we get a bit angry about how things roll in a select committee, and there are robust exchanges at select committee, quite often when the media are present, and there are complaints made about how the presiding officer chairs meetings of select committees. As the select committee recorded, Parliament is a place of debate. We recognise that this can at times involve conduct that would be unpalatable in other contexts. We considered carefully whether Mr van de Molen's conduct could be considered to fit within the bounds of acceptable parliamentary behaviour. For example, it's not entirely unusual for a member to challenge a select committee chairperson's management of a hearing or for members to exchange views in a hostile tone. There is, appropriately, a high bar for poor behaviour to attract a contempt finding. Nonetheless, as the reviewer Wendy Aldred reported to us as the Privileges Committee, there was quite a bit of evidence that this particular conduct went too far. That included Mr van de Molen walking close to the chair of the committee, who was seated, and saying, in a way that the reviewer found objectively to be threatening behaviour, "Stand up.", which concerned not just the other members of Parliament that were in the room but also the select committee staff, all three of whom told the reviewer that they were sufficiently concerned to contemplate calling the security staff on precinct to intervene. The finding of the committee was that Mr van de Molen's conduct towards Mr Halbert amounted to both threatening him and impeding him in the discharge of his duties as a member. He felt he couldn't stand up without provoking perhaps a physical confrontation and therefore was prevented from leaving the select committee and going about his business, which included coming into this House to conduct his duties as a whip. So the committee, having considered the matter, concluded that in terms of Standing Orders, the definition of a contempt includes an act that impedes a member in the House in the discharge of the member's duties, or "has a tendency, directly or indirectly, to produce such a result." The fact that Mr Halbert was threatened on account of his conduct as a presiding officer has contributed to our finding of contempt. While threatening behaviour is always a serious matter, it is particularly offensive for a member to be subject to such behaviour because of how they discharge their official parliamentary duties. Select committee chairpersons are not immune from criticism or, in the appropriate manner, challenge, but Mr van de Molen's conduct in this case was not appropriate. Accordingly, the committee concluded that Mr van de Molen's conduct in this case could not be condoned as normal or acceptable, and we found—and it's quite rare for the committee to do this—that the conduct of Mr van de Molen amounted to a contempt. CHRIS BISHOP (National): Thank you, Mr Speaker, and my thanks to the chair of the Privileges Committee, the Hon David Parker, for the well-traversed explanation of what happened and the process we went through. I just want to add a couple more points. The first is that we found this a troubling matter to deal with as a committee, for obvious reasons. We were placed in the invidious position of, essentially, being asked to find facts, and we considered right at the start of our inquiry how to do that. There were basically two options: one was to ask an independent investigator to do that for us, which is the path we went down, and the other option was to get the relevant member concerned before the committee, ask other members who were there, and, most particularly, because of the somewhat unusual nature of the alleged offending, also get the relevant staff to submit to the committee. We pondered whether or not that would be a good idea, and I think we made the appropriate decision that it would be unfair on the staff, who, at the end of the day, don't come to work to get involved in political events, as inevitably would happen before a public committee of the Parliament—the so-called highest court in the land. The prefix "powerful" is always appended to the Privileges Committee, and so we felt like that wasn't going to be an appropriate thing to do. So we asked Wendy Aldred, a barrister of some renown, to find the facts for us, and I commend her work, which was done very quickly, actually. There was quite a desire from members to deal with this quickly and as expeditiously as possible, and Ms Aldred provided us with a fairly comprehensive report. Having received that report, the next question was: what to do? Basically, we just applied the facts as had been presented to us by the independent reviewer to the relevant Standing Orders, as the chair has gone through. In doing so—and this is the second point I wanted to mention—we were very cognisant of the ability to have robust debate and criticism in this Parliament. I like to play hard but fair; I enjoy the cut and thrust of debate, and I give as good as I get, and all of that. And I think it's important that we maintain that privilege. That in itself is actually a parliamentary privilege: freedom of speech. I would never want to see this debating chamber, and indeed this Parliament, become a sterile place of non-debate. But there is a line, and the line is that the conduct of the member concerned with this committee—and the Standing Orders are very clear that impeding another member in the course of their duty is a contempt of Parliament. We found, as a committee, that that is what had happened, with the assistance of Wendy Aldred, barrister, and we applied the facts to the law. That is what we have concluded. I'd also make a final point, which is that we were also conscious of upholding Parliament as a good place to work, as well—of being a place that staff and members of Parliament and all who work in this very important building feel safe at work in. The question before the committee was: if this wasn't contempt of Parliament, what is? Our view was that, to maintain the integrity of the Privileges Committee and maintain the integrity of Parliament, it is important that behaviour that Mr van de Molen accepts was inappropriate and wrong—it's important that those facts are laid out cleanly and clearly for all to see and appropriate sanction is meted out. So we considered very carefully the issue of apology versus censure. I think, if you think about the other cases we've dealt with in the last few weeks—the issue of Mr Wood and Mr Court—they can be fairly distinguished from this case. Mr Wood and others have been asked to apologise, and they've done that. This case is the next rung above and, therefore, our recommendation is Mr van de Molen be censured. We endorse that. It's a troubling matter. But, ultimately, Mr Speaker, you referred the matter appropriately to us, and we've acted in a very collegial and bipartisan and consensual manner and, I think, done the right thing in this instance. Thank you, Mr Speaker. DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): I also rise in support of the earlier comments by my colleagues on the Privileges Committee, and, again, I'd just like to acknowledge the way that people from different parties have come together and worked through something that's been quite difficult. We've been quite constructive and innovative in the way that we've done it, and I think that, actually, that's something that gives a bit of hope for the way that our Parliament can function. None the less, we were forced to deal with quite a difficult issue because, on the one hand, as other speakers have outlined, this is a place of vigorous debate. New Zealanders have issues where they strongly disagree with each other and, for most of human history, most disagreements have been settled by might is right, and violence. We have a unique system of Government, or at least a very rare system of Government, that hasn't existed for very long in the wider sweep of human history where we, basically, send some people to settle differences amongst different groups in the community by debate—using words, not violence—under a quite arcane but quite useful set of rules to make laws, and, ultimately, people respect the process enough so that for the most part, people follow the laws that the Parliament makes and pay the taxes that it levies. That's quite an achievement. But the whole thing doesn't work if Parliament goes from being a place of reason and enlightened discussion using logic and facts and persuasion and appeals to people's better angels to try and get a consensus, and it instead becomes a place where might is right and people stand over each other and use violence. So that was the basic problem that we had to overcome, and the question was—[Interruption] My colleague and constituent Paul Goldsmith just said that it wasn't violence, and I agree with him. But the question was whether there were aspects of this particular incident that were troubling because they would somehow impede the House or impede a member of the House from performing their duties, and it was very difficult, because on the one hand—as other members have said—because this place is really designed to resolve conflicts between different groups in society and we strongly disagree and do so peacefully, there's often debate and behaviour that is unlike in any other workplace. It would be unacceptable in any other workplace, and that's actually healthy for society to have this place as an outlet for those conflicts. The question is: where is the line crossed so that it becomes unacceptable, even here? I think the committee, through a useful debate—and it's reflected in the report—got to the point where it wasn't necessarily the fact that the actions were hostile or that they might be offensive or rude or they made someone feel uncomfortable, necessarily. The two issues that the committee really centred on were that the person in this case—Shanan Halbert—was impeded in doing their duties. Specifically, they couldn't leave the room, for a couple of reasons. One was that they felt they were being physically obstructed, and, two, was that they felt that way because, in the words of the person who we took to do the inquiry, they felt like they were being threatened by some of the words—for example, the words "stand up" were taken as an incitement to stand up and perhaps engage in a physical conflict. I think it's really important—and I think the committee's report does a good job—to be clear that the reason this is a contempt and it's totally unacceptable is because of those specific threatening behaviours and that physical blocking and impeding of a member from leaving the committee and being able to go and do their duty. It's important we recognise that, because it means that in the future, when somebody looks at this report from the Privileges Committee and perhaps a forthcoming decision for the House to endorse the committee in a potential censure that the Speaker may end up making, people are clear that it's not because someone was hostile or because they were abrupt or rude or forceful—we need all of those things—but it's because they did things that were objectively threatening and because they did things that created a situation where the person got physically unable to leave the situation, even though they wanted to, and that is completely unacceptable. That undermines the purpose of our Parliament as a place where conflicts can be resolved peacefully. So I just wanted to get those comments on record. Certainly, I share with Chris Bishop the will that Parliament is a place that people want to come to—a wide range of people want to come to—where they feel that they can contribute to New Zealand on behalf of the communities that send them here, and feel that there's going to be more light than heat and that we leave New Zealand as a better place after our three or however many years of service. In order for Parliament to continue functioning, it really needs to be able to keep doing that. Any actions such as those taken by Tim van de Molen, unfortunately, impede parliamentarians from being able to enjoy their job here, and that's why I endorse this decision and report by the committee. Thank you, Mr Speaker. GOLRIZ GHAHRAMAN (Green): Thank you, Mr Speaker. This is a difficult place—it's been said before; it is said often. This was a difficult case for the Privileges Committee to consider, for a multitude of reasons. Obviously, we had the job of deciding, first off, how to protect the integrity of the staff members who had become witnesses, how to protect a complainant, two MP witnesses, and also how to fortify due process for the person accused—one of our own. That is always the case when the Privileges Committee meets and considers these matters, but, in this case, because the concerns were so serious and of a nature that we don't often see, there was some delicate and, at times, really difficult questions to answer. The finding of the fact-finder was not in any way based on the subjective fear or feeling of threat that was felt by Mr Halbert, although that was very clearly noted. It was informed by a number of witnesses and it's been traversed by our chair the fact that even staff members had all independently said they were sitting there in their place of work, contemplating how best to contact security. It was, of course, reiterated by those MPs that were in the room. I do want to note that we have had reports, over and over again, about the culture of this place, including details of bullying and much worse. Those conversations still have to happen; they have to be active; processes have to be in place in a way that we don't continue to see reports, including from the Privileges Committee. But one of the things that I wanted to highlight is that we have an issue in this place where we are repeatedly faced with allegations of bullying, and that this debate should not only be focused on how to preserve the perceived right that we have to—what has been repeated over and over again—robust debate, but, actually, what impact the scale of aggressive debate, which is, I think, what people mean when they say "robust" sometimes, has on actually silencing other debaters. That is also a huge concern out in society right now. In every forum that political issues are debated, there are concerns that those debates are silenced, that people are excluded, forced out, because the debate is—and we can euphemistically call it "robust", but it's aggressive. In this case, the finding wasn't that Mr Halbert felt threatened, it wasn't just that the witnesses in the room saw the behaviour as threatening, but that it was objectively threatening behaviour. That's what we had to sit with and it does happen that it was at such a high degree of breach that it moved over from aggression—and I don't even know if "bullying", as a word, would have gotten us over the line, but "threatening behaviour" did. So I'm glad that that happened and that we had to ask ourselves where the line is drawn. But I hope that we don't sit back and say, "The line is threatening behaviour; is physically blocking an entrance, is physically standing over a member, is missing the end of the bells"—which happened in this case—"to enter the House.", but we have a conversation that's actually about the ways that we treat each other and the ways that this place can be harmful to democracy, to democratic debate, including in select committees, including in this House, but also out there, because people are watching and they do deserve better of us. So this is a good finding and it's a good process to have had to go through, but it absolutely should not be the end of how we look at debate, how we define "bullying", how we define "aggression", and how we define "democracy" as an inclusive thing. Thank you. Motion agreed to. SPEAKER: Mr van de Molen, the House has resolved that you be censured for threatening a member on account of their conduct as a presiding officer and impeding them in the discharge of their duties as a member. Your conduct was unacceptable in Parliament, which is a place of debate and not threatening behaviour. MOTIONS Parliamentary Precincts—Amendment to the Definition of Parliamentary Precincts Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Minister for the Digital Economy and Communications) on behalf of the Leader of the House: I move, That, under section 25(1) and (2) of the Parliamentary Service Act 2000 and effective on 1 November 2023, this House—replace clause 3(a) of the Parliamentary Service (Parliamentary Precincts) Resolution 2021 with the land and buildings at 147 Lambton Quay, Wellington, contained in record title WN53A/210 and leased by the Parliamentary Corporation as at the date of this resolution, comprising levels 2-6 of the building, being 3,354m² more or less, and 9 carparks in the basement of the building. SPEAKER: The question is that the motion be agreed to. Motion agreed to. NEW ZEALAND BILL OF RIGHTS ACT DECLARATION OF INCONSISTENCY Voting Age in the Electoral Act 1993 and the Local Electoral Act 2001 Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Minister of Justice): I move, That the House take note of the Declaration of inconsistency: Voting age in the Electoral Act 1993 and the Local Electoral Act 2001. We are here to debate the declaration of inconsistency relating to the voting age for both parliamentary and local elections, the Justice Committee's report on the declaration, and the Government's response to the declaration. This is the first time the House has followed the new procedures in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act for responding to a declaration of inconsistency. A declaration of inconsistency is a formal statement by a court or tribunal that an Act is inconsistent with fundamental human rights, protected by the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. In November 2022, the Supreme Court issued a declaration of inconsistency, stating that the voting age as 18, set out on the Electoral Act 1993 and the Local Electoral Act 2001 is inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and the inconsistency had not been justified. The inconsistency arises because the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act sets out to be free from discrimination on the basis of age for those aged 16 and older. I would like to thank the Justice Committee for its report on the declaration. The committee received over 500 submissions and heard from 23 submitters. The committee recommended by majority that the Government amend the Local Electoral Act and investigate lowering the minimum voting age in general elections to 16. The majority said that the right to be free from age discrimination should only be limited by good justifications. Both the majority of the committee and the Supreme Court cited evidence provided by the Office of the Children's Commissioner in its report to the High Court. The evidence cited is that people in their mid-teens are generally able to make deliberative decisions such as voting decisions, even if their ability to make more emotionally charged decisions remains underdeveloped. The majority on the committee also discussed the potential for a younger voting age to instil life-long voting habits. On 14 August, the Minister of Local Government and I tabled the Government response to the declaration. After considering the declaration of inconsistency and the report produced by the Justice Committee, it is the Government's view that the inconsistency should be eliminated to the extent possible. As part of the Government response, the Minister of Local Government introduced the Electoral (Lowering Voting Age for Local Elections and Polls) Legislation Bill. This bill will lower the voting age to 16 for local elections only. There are strong arguments in favour of lowering the voting age: 16- and 17-year-olds are far more likely to be living at home, be connected to their community, and have a stable address than those just a few years older. New Zealand, along with the rest of the world, is facing significant issues such as climate change. Young people need to be involved in conversations about these issues and their views need to be heard, including through the ballot box. I know there are some concerns about whether 16- and 17-year-olds are old enough for this sort of responsibility, but let's stop and think about some of the things we already allow 16-year-olds to do. Sixteen-year-olds can be held criminally responsible for breaking the law, they can choose to leave home, they can choose where they want to live, choose to leave school, choose to refuse medical treatment, apply for a drivers licence, apply for a firearms licence, and get an adult passport, and yet we don't allow them to vote for their local councillor. As signalled by the Prime Minister in March of this year, the Government has decided to focus on lowering the voting age for local elections only. The bill reflects the differences between how the voting age is set out in legislation. The provisions of the Electoral Act that set the voting age at 18 for parliamentary elections can only be amended if 75 percent of members in the House agree or there is a majority in a referendum. Preparing and progressing a bill that has no prospect of being passed into law would be a costly and time consuming exercise that would not lead to any practical change. In contrast, the voting age for local government elections can be amended by a simple majority. That is why the Government has decided to focus on a bill that lowers the voting age to 16 for local elections only. I hope that members will take a rights and evidence - based approach to the future debate on this bill. We stand here as representatives of all our constituents, not just the ones that are eligible to vote for us. Lastly, I would like to acknowledge Make It 16, the advocacy group that initiated this case in the courts and the many other groups and individuals who have been calling on the voting age to be lowered for some time. The advocacy by youth on this issue shows that young people can lead important conversations about the changes that directly impact upon them and I commend them for this work. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is that the motion be agreed to. Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I'm happy to speak on this debate where we're debating whether the House should take note of the Supreme Court's declaration—which we agree the House should note. I do want to start by acknowledging the supporters of Make It 16, who may be here and who may be tuning in to this debate. Good on them for having a go and for making their case and for everything that they threw into it. We fundamentally don't agree with the proposition being put forward, but, in a free and open society, they should be able to and they should be able to make their case, and good luck to them. What we saw through the course of the legal consequences of that was a wide range of opinions, actually, through the court process. In August 2020, the High Court looked at the matter and said that 18 was in the range of reasonable alternatives. It found that there was a reasonable limit on the right to be free from age-related discrimination, and declined to issue a declaration of inconsistency. So that was the High Court. Then, it went to the Court of Appeal in December 2021. The Court of Appeal looked at it. It disagreed with the High Court and said that the Attorney-General had not showed that the inconsistency with the Human Rights Act around freedom from discrimination was justified—i.e., that the Attorney-General hadn't made the case. But, despite its finding, the Court of Appeal declined to make a declaration, noting the political nature of the issue—i.e., it concluded that it was something that the normal political decision-making processes through Parliament should work out for itself, and it wasn't for the courts to get involved. Then, in November 2022, the Supreme Court had its go and it agreed with the Court of Appeal that the Attorney-General hadn't justified the inconsistency with the discrimination of people aged 16 and 17, and that the case hadn't been made. But, in contrast to the Court of Appeal, the Supreme Court decided to make that declaration of consistency. But, of course, within the Supreme Court, there was a dissenting view from Justice Kós, who had a different interpretation, which is to say that he considered that in section 12 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act it referred to the age of 18, and that trumped section 19, which had the right to freedom from discrimination, such as is outlined in the human rights legislation. And so he thought that it didn't need to be justified in that way. So anyway, we ended up with the Supreme Court saying that the rights of 16- and 17-year-olds being discriminated against—which is something that's covered in the human rights legislation—hadn't been justified. Then, we got all the media reports and all the commentary, which is to say that the Supreme Court says it's unjustified—this breach of human rights. And then you got into a bit of a semantics argument, because the Supreme Court, in this decision, was quite clear that it didn't say that it couldn't be justified, it's just that it hadn't been justified, because the Crown lawyers hadn't gone out there and tried to make the case as to why 16- and 17-year-olds should be treated differently. It had, in fact, defended the case on a completely different grounds, which is to say that it's none of the court's business; it's for Parliament to decide the voting age—that was its view. And so it didn't even attempt to justify it. So there wasn't a meeting of minds between the Crown, the Government, and the courts—with the Crown making the argument it's for Parliament to decide what the voting age is, and the court ultimately deciding that it didn't actually make the effort to justify the discrimination against 16-and 17-year-olds. So that's where we're at. So what are we left to do with it in Parliament? I think the appropriate thing to do is to take note of that declaration from the Supreme Court. By the way, it's the first one we've had under this new regime. So it is important that we have this debate, we consider it carefully, and it's absolutely appropriate that we sit down in the Justice Committee, take submissions, and give it proper thought and attention. It's also appropriate that the Government respond. Our fundamental view on this side of the House is that, you know, we're more in the camp of the Court of Appeal, which is to say—well, you can say what you like about whether it was justified or not, but, ultimately, it's something that should be dealt with within the political arena, as it has been in the past and will be in the future. Ultimately, it's democratically elected Governments that are accountable to the public, that have to make a decision about this. When you think about the age of voting, you can make a case for 16-year-olds voting, you can make a case for 18-year-olds voting, you can make a case for 15-year-olds—there's a wide variety of cases, but you've got to draw the line somewhere. We've drawn it at 18. The only point I'd make is that 16- and 17-year-olds are treated extremely differently when it comes to the justice system—in the Youth Court and so forth—and so there is a— Golriz Ghahraman: Seventeen-year-olds are in adult courts—all of them; every single one, actually. Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: And I'm being heckled by the Greens. Well, that's OK. That that's how it should be—that's how it should be—in the Parliament. We should be heckled from time to time, and that's absolutely appropriate. So we think 18 is sufficient. Look, there's a wide variety of views. In fact, going around schools, the group of people who are most opposed to 16- and 17-year-olds voting, it seems to me, are the 18-year-olds, who tend to say quite frequently that "No way—no way—should we be voting at 16. Now that I'm 18, we should be voting."—and that's appropriate. So, look, we can have these debates, but the primary point I would be making is it speaks volumes, ultimately, for where this Government's headspace is at in the justice area. That, in the last week of Parliament—as in what we hope will be the dying stages of this Labour Government for six years—where, in the justice space, there are real serious issues around violent crime, around youth crime, and huge backlogs and delays to justice, so that people's lives are being kept on hold for years, awaiting justice, we have a Government that is focused on things such as reducing the voting age to 16, which, if you look at where public opinion is at and what the public wants the Government focused on, is not a high priority. Then, we come to the Government's response, where they say, "Well, we basically agree, but we can't change the constitutional arrangements because there is a high threshold for changing the voting age in general elections." But, fortunately, they discovered that they could do it at local elections without having a supermajority—hence they are introducing a bill, which we'll be debating next, on reducing the voting age to 16 for local elections. We can't see any logic at all for having a different voting age for general elections and local elections. The Minister of Justice was saying something about people being more likely to be living at home when they're 16, but I couldn't quite understand the logic behind that argument at all. It makes sense to keep the voting ages aligned. We see no great push, on the part of New Zealanders as a whole, to reduce the voting age to 16 at this time. We would wish that the justice Minister and the justice sector and the justice officials would be focused on those pressing issues that we face in the justice space, around violent crime, around youth crime, and around delays to justice in the court system. They've got more than enough to deal with there, rather than being distracted with this and banning hate speech, and a whole lot of other things that they have been distracted with over the past few years. So I think this has been a useful exercise that we've been through, and it's absolutely appropriate that in Parliament we take any declaration from the Supreme Court very seriously, and we have. So it is an honour to be part of this debate. Thank you very much. SIMON COURT (ACT): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Well, I want to acknowledge the young people in the gallery today—you might be watching or listening at home—who want to participate in New Zealand's liberal democracy and who want to have the opportunity to vote. I really, really appreciate your enthusiasm. However, the law currently says that that franchise is not available until you're 18 years old. I recognise that, for some of you, you feel you want to make a contribution now, to choose with the vote the political party that best represents your interests. And you may question, given what you feel is your maturity and your ability to make that decision about so many other aspects in your life, why is it you're not afforded this particular right. In many ways, voting is the ultimate last rite of passage for New Zealanders, isn't it? It used to be a 21st birthday party, because 21 was the age where you could legally drink. It used to be 15—15 for some of us—which was the age when we could obtain a driver's licence. But 18 is the age that Parliament has decided. Now, even though the various courts have pointed out, quite rightly, that the fact that 16-year-olds are not able to vote is inconsistent with the Bill of Rights Act, I would also point out that that is not uncommon, that much legislation is introduced to Parliament that is not consistent with the bill of rights. Where it is inconsistent, the Ministry of Justice provides a report to Parliament, called a bill of rights assessment. A bill of rights compliance report is often provided where a piece of legislation infringes on rights that are set out, but for good reason, but it's always up to Parliament to balance what that reason is. The Ministry of Justice is responsible for scrutinising proposed legislation to look at whether it meets Bill of Rights Act requirements. The Ministry of Justice advises the Attorney-General on whether all bills—so they do this for all bills, with the exception of appropriation bills, which are the ones that Government uses to legitimise its Budgets. It assesses all legislation to confirm whether it's consistent with the Bill of Rights Act. And if the Attorney-General agrees that there are any issues, then they must notify the House. Now, the section 7 reports, prepared by the Ministry of Justice, are not binding on the House, they're not binding on Governments, but they present very clear alternatives. If there are to be laws passed by this House which infringe on people's rights or treat people differently for any reason, then the bar, the threshold, needs to be very high. But it's up to Parliament, which is sovereign, to make those decisions. In this case, ACT's justice spokesperson, Nicole McKee, who sat on this committee and considered this report, proposed that ACT should not support the conclusions and recommendations that the Government amend the Local Electoral Act 2001 to provide for a minimum voting age of 16 years in local elections. ACT does not agree with that, I'm sorry. And ACT does not agree with the Government investigating lowering the minimum voting age in general elections to 16. There are a number of reasons for that. It's because, firstly, 16-year-olds, ACT believes, have a whole lot of other things that they should be focused on with their lives, such as study, work, sport, community life, community work, and that voting in parliamentary elections is something that can reasonably be delayed until you reach the age of 18 without any risk of infringing your rights in any great way. Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Really—really? SIMON COURT: Yeah, really—really. Hon Julie Anne Genter: It's not what the Supreme Court said. SIMON COURT: Well, ACT disagrees with the Supreme Court. But we do agree with Justice Kós, who explained that section 12 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, which specifically states that 18-year-olds have the right to vote, does trump section 19 of the Bill of Rights Act as to freedom from discrimination. And it is correct that when a bill is set out, the principles and purpose of the bill are in the early clauses—say, 3, 4, and 5—and that the other matters that explain how a bill works are in subsequent clauses, and there is a hierarchy to assessing those clauses. So ACT would agree with Justice Kós that section 12 of the Bill of Rights Act does trump section 19. But, of course, it's up to Parliament to decide, and ACT believes that the status quo is acceptable. We do appreciate your passion and enthusiasm for participating in parliamentary democracy by being able to cast your vote. Eighteen isn't that long to wait. We hope, when you turn up, you'll appreciate the reasoned, rational, liberal arguments put forward by the ACT Party and you cast your party vote for ACT when you get a chance. With, that, I'd like to close our submission. Thank you very much. GOLRIZ GHAHRAMAN (Green): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I just want to rise to notice that this is actually a historic debate. It's a historic day. This is the first time that this Parliament is debating a declaration of inconsistency in legislation with our fundamental rights in the Bill of Rights Act, pursuant to legislation that this same Parliament passed last year unanimously, that we all agreed, that where one of the higher courts in our nation considers our fundamental rights and finds that legislation—even legislation that all supreme method of regulating that has been passed by Parliament, either present or past—that we should stop and take notice. We shouldn't just take notice. We should have a select committee process, knowing that that breach is live to receive a report, as we've done, and to debate that report in this House with the knowledge that we have today that our electoral laws are in breach of the Bill of Rights Act provision on age discrimination. We now get to decide whether we will continue to breach, or whether we will correct that wrong. To say that someone's fundamental right to vote—arguably the right that underpins fulfilment of all our other rights—the right to have a say in the way that all of our other interests are governed is something that we can put off for people, that it's not urgent, that Parliament shouldn't urgently take note and introduce legislation to correct it, is absolutely wild to me. What if it was happening to one of us? If someone said to one of us, "Your right to vote—which you have, as recognised by the Supreme Court—is going to be suspended for two years while we deal with other stuff.", we would find that egregious. So I do commend the Minister for introducing a bill which we will debate after this report has been debated so I don't intend to go too far into the merits of local elections voting rights for young people. I would only say that I wish it was called "extending" or "expanding" the voting right rather than "lowering" the age. But that's what we're debating today. We need to take notice. We're breaching a fundamental right; that for some New Zealanders, we get to either fulfil or delay for two years. Others have talked about the types of other legal rights or obligations—let's face it—that young people have that sit inconsistently with this breach. So anywhere from the ability to leave school, to drive a car, to have sex, to—and I would say, actually, surprisingly, National and ACT overlooking this is something that should be noted—they work and pay tax, guys. Young people are being taxed without a right to representation. How does that sit with the proponents of taxpayers' rights? Well, it doesn't sit right with the Supreme Court or the Electoral Commission. We've had reports over and over again from experts. We know that overseas, where young people can vote, engagement has gone up. We know—and I think this is what the Minister was outlining—that if young people become eligible to vote whilst they're still all at school, living at home in one place where we can introduce civics education, where we can give them their enrolment packs, that they are much more likely to vote in the first election when they become eligible. There is solid evidence to say that those who do vote in that first election will continue to vote. So you're creating voters who are not just young, but lifetime voters. You're strengthening our democracy for generations and generations to come. I will say this about the test that the Supreme Court, and every court, undertakes when we look at fulfilment of our Bill of Rights Act rights: they can be impeded upon only to an extent that's justifiable in a democratic society. The reason that this test needs to be set at a very, very, very high standard is that our rights are universal—they don't depend on us showing any merit, moral goodness, knowledge, level of education. We don't talk about the classic rights to free speech or to have a fair trial, or even the economic and social rights that this other side of the House may not like—like the right to housing, the right to education—and we certainly don't talk about the right to vote is being subject to a necessary test of education, experience, or understanding. That is a slippery slope, and that is why the Supreme Court has found, has stood together with all of the experts on both electoral law, human rights law, and the young people who, en masse, have worked tirelessly to tell us that they are interested, that they know that they have this right, that they want it, and they won't stop until we recognise and fulfil that right. The reason this is limited to local elections is that we need a supermajority for the whole lot. It's not good enough. We won't stop working until all young people, 16- and 17-year-olds, are free from age discrimination in their voting rights. But to say that we can do a little bit when we find out that a fundamental right is breached is absolutely the right thing to do. So I commend the report and we breathe a sigh of relief for this small step, a first step, not only in this House, recognising that the courts get to tell us when we've breached, but to meaningfully debate those breaches and do all we can to fulfil the fundamental rights of New Zealanders we are here as lawmakers to protect. Our mandate depends on our ability to protect and fulfil those rights. So I commend it to the House VANUSHI WALTERS (Labour—Upper Harbour): Thank you, Mr Speaker, for the opportunity to take a call on this extremely important constitutional matter as the chair of the Justice Committee, to whom this first declaration of inconsistency was referred. I will make some brief remarks about our report, but first, given the constitutional significance of this debate, I did want to acknowledge two constitutional personalities. For two glorious months when I was 23, I had the office right opposite Sir Geoffrey Palmer's, where I worked as a graduate solicitor. For two months while I was there, I probably did the least work that I've ever done, because I couldn't help listening to Sir Geoffrey on the phone. It was pure public law theatre. Sir Geoffrey was, of course, the architect of our New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, and since its passage, in 1990, he has repeatedly spoken about the need for our constitution to evolve and mature. So it is a great privilege to be able to speak today at a time when we are considering our first declaration of inconsistency. The second constitutional personality I'd like to acknowledge are sitting, in part, in the gallery with us today. Can I acknowledge the Make It 16 campaign. Your organisation, your engagement, your intellect, and your grit has demonstrated true campaigning prowess. Not only did you campaign but you took your case through every layer of the hierarchy of our courts, and that was powerful to watch. But it also bolstered your own argument that 16-year-olds' voices should be heard in the political space. As we heard submissions, there were a lot of different views, but some very powerful views from young people, including those in Make It 16—also some very robust views from the Children's Commissioner. The committee ended up making two strong recommendations, which we've heard about, one in relation to the Local Electoral Act and the other that the Government investigate lowering the minimum voting age in general elections to 16, taking into consideration the legal consequences, of course, as well. I think it is rather poetic that the very next bill that we will be considering gives effect to the advocacy and the recommendations of the Justice Committee by proposing that change. Because it's the next bill, I won't dwell on many of the arguments that others in the House have, because I will, I hope, have the opportunity to speak to that in the next bill. But, given the significance of the constitutional shift that we're seeing here today, I may make some brief remarks on constitutional process. In the 18th century, it was the Enlightenment philosopher Montesquieu who argued, as the centrepiece for his thinking, that a fair society means that power shouldn't be over concentrated but should exist, as he called it, in a "trias politica". His was a concept of government divided into legislative, executive, and judicial branches acting independently of each other. And, while these three branches are fundamental to our democracy, they don't operate in silos. The change that we made in December last year legislated for the process that we have been going through. It creates a bridge between the judiciary, the executive, and the legislature. It allows important conversations on our constitutional make-up. Although this is the first time we've considered a declaration of inconsistency, the committee, I think, felt that it was an unusual set of decisions through the courts, because it wasn't so much about the substance of the issue itself. In my reading of the courts' decisions, what every single layer of the courts did was point their finger squarely back at Parliament. They were saying this is an important issue for Parliament to consider. The first two courts, the High Court and then the Court of Appeal, did that by choosing not to issue a declaration of inconsistency—ironically. The Supreme Court brought it straight to our door. And, when they do that, we have an obligation to consider the merits of the substantive issues in front of us, not whether the courts got it right, not the detail of those court decisions. We have to acknowledge the fact that the courts were saying, "It is time. It's time to consider whether 16-year-olds should be able to vote in local body and in central." And we did. Committee members across the House were actually very engaged with the number of submissions that came in front of us. And, for the majority of us, we were persuaded by the arguments made by Make It 16 and people like the Children's Commissioner, who made sound arguments for a split age restriction on the basis of hot and cold cognition. We are not the first to do this. We were also persuaded by the arguments from Scotland, who already have this in place but, not only that, have engaged in research that demonstrates that if 16-year-olds vote—if they can vote at 16—they are more likely to continue to vote. I began by talking about the bridge between the arms of government—and today, in many ways, we stand here on the bridge—but this isn't just about referring a matter back to Parliament for discussion. There is a creation, when the judiciary takes steps like this, of an adjacent possibility. What it does is it creates a spotlight on an issue. It makes us consider what to do next. So I'll end there by again saying that I think it is so poetic that the very next bill we consider will be a direct result of your advocacy. Thank you, Mr Speaker. Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Well, I love tenacious people, and you have to say that the Make It 16 campaign has been a lesson in tenacity. It's been one that has gone on for a considerable period of time and went all the way to the Supreme Court. I don't intend to repeat the potted history of the court process that has been covered by previous speakers, but I think it's worth pointing out that, as some have already said, age in law is arbitrary. The Minister of Justice, in moving this motion—which we support, although we don't support the findings of the report—pointed out all of the things that a 16-year-old can do. I'll point out a few things that a 16-year-old can't do, even after any change in legislation. Now, they may sound flippant, but the purpose is to highlight the arbitrariness of age: can't get a full driver's licence; can't buy a Lotto ticket; can't enter into contracts, and I'll come back to that in the context of local council; can't buy alcohol; can't buy firecrackers; can't enter a casino; can't buy cigarettes. Now, some would say that's appropriate, a justified limitation on their human rights; that's the issue we're debating. But I would also point out that the age of majority in law in New Zealand, as I understand it, is 20 years old. The Age of Majority Act 1970 is still in force, which says that the age of full majority is 20 years old. We are going to have these discussions at the boundary, and I was fascinated at the Make It 16 campaign's submission that "the future affects them more than anybody"—that's true; they're going to live longer, on average, than most of us. But why not 15 years old? Now, I'm not being flippant in saying that, because the very same principle applies and is justified on the basis that a 15-year-old— Arena Williams: It doesn't. Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: Well, I'm amazed at the reaction over the other side, just to, one day, potentially, a 15-year-old whose birthday is the day after the election can't vote but a 16-year-old can on their 16th birthday. That's the arbitrary nature of it. But the justification for 15 years old would be that they would turn 18 years old in the term of the subsequent Parliament. It's an easy argument to make, only it wasn't made. Now, the really interesting thing about the case that was made was that it was the Electoral Act and the Local Electoral Act that was a breach of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. But if one takes that to its logical conclusion on the grounds that 18 years old is discriminatory, then we get into this rather odd circular argument that the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act itself is inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, because section 12 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act sets the age to vote in this country. Well, it doesn't actually do that—what it says is "it gives a right to every citizen over the age of 18." So the counterfactual to that is that it removes that right to every citizen under the age of 18. And so the bill of rights Act is essentially inconsistent with itself. Now, that is a legal oddity in my view. Now, I was a member of the Privileges Committee that had referred to it the question of the declaration of inconsistency with the case of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act (BORA) and the Attorney-General and Taylor. Now, I happened, long in the tooth that I am, to have also been in Parliament when the legislation that gave rise to that declaration of inconsistency was passed. It was a member's bill in the name of Paul Quinn, probably back—well, it must have been before 2011, so 2009 or 2010, where the right of prisoners to vote was removed. There is still an arbitrary removal of the right to vote if you're in prison for longer than three years, but this removed that threshold. Now, this is relevant because it goes to what we're actually doing here. The genesis was that case. But the bill itself has a section 7 BORA vet against it anyway, so the House was very mindful that the bill it was considering could be determined by the courts to be a breach of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. It is a measure of the sovereignty of this place that it passed that law, notwithstanding that knowledge, and that's a really important principle. Now, Vanushi Walters talked glowingly of the court's decisions, and she has every right to do that. But Parliament remains sovereign on this question, and when we, as a Privileges Committee, considered this particular point, I stressed—and it did kind of get into the report that led to the legislation that was passed unanimously—that it's a different thing if the courts make a declaration of inconsistency where there has been no BORA vet from one where it has and that a different process should take place, because, actually, what Parliament has done has already considered that. And yes, it's still appropriate to refer it to the Government, the executive, and for a select committee to have a consideration of that declaration. But the process would be different if the Taylor case was declared inconsistent under this new legislation, because, actually, Parliament already considered that point, and it should be a much more expeditious process. In this case, that didn't happen. In fact, the two pieces of legislation that were passed, the Electoral Act and the Local Electoral Act, straddled the BORA—in fact, no, they might both be after it. So they were cognisant of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act when they were passed and there was no vet then, which is really interesting. So it's appropriate that we do have the select committee process that we've gone through. It's not appropriate that the Crown then rollover to the court's decisions. This is a sovereign place. This place decides what legislation comes and goes, not the courts, when it comes to anything other than judge-made law. I'm just a little bit worried about the nature of some of the speeches that we've heard this afternoon that seem to be perhaps less than strident in that vital constitutional principle. We may well decide, either by majority with the Local Electoral Act or with the reserved provisions of the Electoral Act, to make a change, but we do so because this House decides that. Arena Williams: That's what the Supreme Court said. Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: Well, that's right. And it's very interesting that the Supreme Court also made the point that the Crown, in its submission, didn't actually argue the justification; it just said, "Parliament makes laws. Parliament is sovereign." So it kind of may well have convinced the courts if it sought to do so. So in a way, the declaration made itself, because the Crown didn't argue against the position that it was justified in the circumstances. It just said, "Well, Parliament's made the law." Perhaps the defence on the case could have been different. I'll just say it in that way. Now, I'll finish by coming back to the question of 18 years old to borrow money—and the lawyers in the Chamber may correct me—I'm not sure a person under the age of 18, can buy a house, can have real property in their name. Now, that's a very interesting issue on two counts. Again, it's a breach of their human right to own property, real property, but also, ironically, in the local council elections. Ms Walters talks about taxation and representation—and by the way 15 year olds can work and pay tax as well. But local council elections are generally ratepayer elections. And the irony of putting it to 16 years old is that those 16-year-olds will never be able to own a property under current law and therefore won't be ratepayers. Their parents might be, but depending on how many 16- to 18-year-olds are in the household, there may be several more votes than the ratepayer base—some would argue—could justify. That said, this is an important discussion to have. I'm glad we're having it, but I think we should be very, very cautious not to undermine the absolute sovereignty of this place to decide important issues like how old one should be when we vote. ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am taking a short call to address two, just two of the points arisen in this debate. The first point is a point made by the Hon Michael Woodhouse when he said that age in law is arbitrary. He took us through his reasoning in the Bill of Rights Act and the Human Rights Act, and there's an important point here which we need to note, which is in the Human Rights Act there is a group—within age—who can be discriminated against. Those are under 16-year-olds. That's section 21(1)(i)(iii), Mr Woodhouse, that provides for Parliament making decisions about under 16-year-olds which may be different from their counterparts who are 18. That is why, in law, it's wrong to say that age is arbitrary when we're looking at the voting rights of 18-year-olds. In fact, in all of the court's decisions, it was important that this age of 18 was arbitrary, but under 16 one might make a case for a different decision. The point here is that these decisions, when we do draw a line in the sand in Parliament—which Parliament is perfectly entitled to do, around age—they should be made with reason and backed by evidence. The point Mr Woodhouse made about the Crown not advancing a position that the age of 16 was consistent with the Bill of Rights might have something to do with the absolute lack of a case made by the Opposition benches about why 16-year-olds shouldn't be able to vote. There is no case why 16-year-olds shouldn't be able to vote. The evidence is quite the contrary to that. The Minister made that case in her statement when she said, "People in their mid-teens are able to make deliberative decisions, while the capacity to make more emotionally charged decisions is limited." That was the evidence heard by the select committee from the Children's Commissioner in their hot and cold cognitive analysis. The Children's Commissioner presented to the Justice Committee that the evidence shows that cognitive abilities reach adult levels at different ages for different types of decision making. In this regard, the committee found that the distinction drawn between hot and cold cognition was useful, and voting was cited as an example of decision-making processes that utilize cold cognition. That's the kind of decisions we young people can make, a decision about the things which affect them in their lives, which affect their futures and the kind of New Zealand that they want to live in. On this side of the House we believe that young people are perfectly well set up to make those decisions in their lives and for their communities. There is no evidence to the contrary and that's not being advanced by the Opposition in this debate. The second point, and there's only two points because I will be brief, is the point that the Hon Paul Goldsmith raised. He says—when the Green Party was heckling him, he said, "That's how it should be in Parliament, we should be heckled." Who's doing the heckling? When we look around this House, can we say that it is representative of the New Zealand that we seek to serve as parliamentarians? Can we say that the voices here, who we would abrogate their rights, are doing the heckling? Absolutely not, because the 16-year-olds who have made their voices heard—Make It 16 campaign—who have been out there on the streets, petitioning MPs, making their case online, taking it to the schools; they are not here to heckle the Hon Paul Goldsmith, they are not here to participate in this debate, and so I say I support their campaign, and that's why it's been a privilege to speak on this debate. A party vote was called for on the question, That the House take note of the Declaration of inconsistency: Voting age in the Electoral Act 1993 and the Local Electoral Act 2001. Ayes 106 New Zealand Labour 62; New Zealand National 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 9; Kerekere. Noes 10 ACT New Zealand 10. Motion agreed to. The result corrected after originally being announced as Ayes 96, Noes 10. ELECTORAL (LOWERING VOTING AGE FOR LOCAL ELECTIONS AND POLLS) LEGISLATION BILL First Reading Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Minister of Local Government): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I present a legislative statement on the Electoral (Lowering Voting Age for Local Elections and Polls) Legislation Bill. DEPUTY SPEAKER: That legislative statement is published under the authority of the House and can be found on the Parliament website. Hon KIERAN McANULTY: I move, That the Electoral (Lowering Voting Age for Local Elections and Polls) Legislation Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Justice Committee to consider the bill. In November last year, the Supreme Court granted a declaration of inconsistency with the Electoral Act and the Local Electoral Act. The court declared that the minimum voting age of 18 years was inconsistent with section 19 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act: the right to be free from discrimination on the basis of age. This case was brought to the court by the youth advocacy group Make It 16. I would like to acknowledge this group for their effort and determination to stand up and be the voice of young people in the court proceedings. In March this year, the Prime Minister confirmed that the Government would introduce legislation this term to lower the voting age for local elections to 16 years of age, and the Government has done just that. This bill amends the Local Electoral Act to give more young people a voice in who represents them and their communities. It gives them the ability to vote or to stand as a candidate but, more than that, it gives them the opportunity to take a greater part in our local democratic system. To do this, the bill will reduce the minimum voting age from 18 to 16 for local elections. The bill will create a new category of youth electors in the Local Electoral Act. It will also establish a youth electoral roll, which will be maintained by the Electoral Commission to the same high standards of security and integrity as the parliamentary roll. In New Zealand, all voters who are New Zealand citizens can stand as candidates in local elections, so 16- and 17-year-olds will be able to do this too, and, as always, voters will be able to decide who is best to represent them and their communities. The bill does make one distinction: for participating in elections under the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act. These are elections for licensing trusts and community trusts that are included in the triennial elections. In this case, the Government has decided to keep the age at 18 for standing as a candidate or voting in these elections. This lines up with the alcohol purchasing age of 18. The bill is an answer to a call that has gone on for too long. We have been told time and time again by our young people that they deserve to vote and represent the communities they live in, and have a voice in decisions that will have long-term consequences for them. They've made submissions to select committee inquiries, lodged petitions to Parliament, organised protests, and appeared outside this very building. On their fight to vote, they went all the way to our highest court. As we all know, the Make It 16 group won their case in the Supreme Court. The court said that the age discrimination in the Local Electoral Act had not been justified. There has and may continue to be criticism that young people are not mature enough to vote. I do not agree. In its report to the High Court, the Office of the Children's Commissioner cited a 2019 study that people in their mid-teens are generally able to make deliberate decisions comparable to voting. From this study, the commissioner reported that when situations call for deliberation in the absence of high levels of emotion such as voting, the ability of an individual to reason and consider alternative courses of action reaches adult levels during the mid-teen years. The Justice Committee recently completed an inquiry into the Supreme Court's declaration of inconsistency. The committee recommended by majority that legislation should be introduced to lower the voting age for local elections. The majority on the committee noted that the arguments they found persuasive included that 16- and 17-year-olds are likely to be better connected to their communities than 18-, 19-, and 20-year-olds, who often leave home for work or study opportunities; that those who begin voting as soon as they are eligible are more likely to maintain a lifelong habit of voting; and that the evidence shows that when it comes to voting, 16- and 17-year-olds are capable of deliberating, reasoning, and considering options at adult levels. We already have young people with passion, purpose, and an eagerness to lead that are out and active within their communities. They see opportunities for positive change, a chance for something different—something better. One may ask why we aren't looking at lowering the voting age for parliamentary elections as well. While the Government is required to respond to the court's declaration, as the Prime Minister has said before, we can't justify work on a bill that we know will not get the support it needs. It's entrenched, so it needs 75 percent majority support in the House to pass. We know we would not get that level of support in this Parliament, so instead we're focusing on local elections as part of our response to the court's declaration. This is not a simple bill. Changing the minimum voting age for local elections alone is complex. As it currently stands, the Local Electoral Act uses the parliamentary roll as the basis for voter eligibility. It essentially piggybacks off the Electoral Act. With such complexity, there is room for change and improvements, if needed. I look forward to and welcome submissions on these during the full select committee phase. I know we have some great minds across New Zealand, and we will certainly have some passionate young people that should be heard. The bill has a commencement date of 1 March 2028, in time for the 2028 local elections. I know that some will be disappointed that this change cannot be implemented sooner. Local electoral changes are always challenging to implement because they need to fit within two electoral cycles: local and parliamentary. That's particularly the case for this bill because the bulk of the implementation responsibility falls to the Electoral Commission. The complexity of the system changes needed for a local elections - only model and the timing of the electoral cycle means that the Electoral Commission would not be able to design and implement system changes in time for the 2025 local elections, but the bill also includes the ability to bring the commencement date forward by up to a year if the changes can be put in place earlier. We have much work to do. But I am confident that we can work to address the issue of human rights raised in the court's declaration. In conclusion, the Government was required to respond to the Supreme Court's declaration of inconsistency. This bill forms part of that response. It will go through a full select committee process, where New Zealanders will have the opportunity to have their say. The question of allowing 16- and 17-year-olds to participate in local elections will be for the next Parliament to determine, and I look forward to that discussion. But for the time being, I commend this bill to the House. ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is that the motion be agreed to. Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Here we are; we're in the final week of this Parliament sitting in this Chamber. We're about to go to the election. We've got a Government that's been in power for six years, and in the final week, what are they doing? They're worried about lowering the voting age in local body elections, so that tells you what you need to know about the headspace of this Government and where its priorities lie. We don't agree with this bill and we won't be supporting it—not because we've got anything against 16- and 17-year-olds. We love 16- and 17-year-olds and we want them to thrive and do the best, but, ultimately, we have an 18-year-old voting age and we have for a very long time now, and the argument for changing it is based on some very weak foundations. One is that we've had this declaration of inconsistency from the Supreme Court which we've just debated, and the Supreme Court said that the voting age at 18 breached the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act in relation to discriminating against 16- and 17-year-olds, and that that discrimination had not been justified. Now, most people looking at that will say, "Oh, it's an unjustified breach of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act—isn't that a terrible thing?" But that's not exactly what they meant. What they meant is that it simply had not been justified, because the Crown on the side of the Government when it was arguing the case did not make the case. The Crown simply said, "Actually, we don't think it's anything for the courts to decide. Parliament decides the voting age, and we're not going to argue that point." So the Supreme Court didn't say that the voting age of 18 couldn't be justified; it simply said that it hadn't been justified by the Government of the day. Now, we firmly believe it could be justified and it is justified, simply by the fact that that the line has to be drawn somewhere, and the line of 16-year-old rights and 18-year-old rights and 20-year-old rights varies across the spectrum. It's made quite explicit in this bill, actually, because when we come to the local council voting rules where they want to reduce the voting age to 16, they also exclude voting on local alcohol bills, because the alcohol age is 18, and that is discriminating against 16- and 17-year-olds not being able to buy alcohol, but we do that because Parliament and society as a whole, for a very long time, has decided that's the appropriate age. So there are lines to be drawn. You can argue about it. There will be some 16-year-olds who will be fantastically interested in politics and fully equipped. I have no criticisms of the ability of some 16-year-olds to vote, but you've got to draw the line somewhere, and that's for Parliament to decide, and that's perfectly appropriate. So if we've got a voting age of 18 for general elections, I can't see any logic in changing the voting age for local elections, because as the Minister himself has pointed out, that very much complicates the system and creates a vast and expensive apparatus being developed specifically for local elections. One of the arguments that's sort of put forward is that at local elections we've got a problem with not enough people turning out to vote and if we get a few 16- and 17-year-old voters, we might get a few more people voting. Well, I think that's a very long bow, and I have a very simple view in terms of voter turnout: it is the job of candidates to persuade people to come out and vote for them—nobody else. That's right—if you can't get anybody to come out and vote for you, it's not anybody else's fault but your own. So if you're standing for Parliament, that's what you've got to do. You've got to get out and persuade people to vote, and if you're standing for a local council or a local board, it's your job to get out there and persuade people to vote for you—that's your job. So changing the voting age is not going to fix it in particular. My second objection to all this is around the Government's priorities and what it says of the Government's priorities, because this is broadly in the justice space. It also integrates with the local government space. And the point I've been making is: one week, the final week of Parliament, when in the broader justice sector, we've got real problems with violent crime. We've got real problems with youth crime, and the ram-raiders running amok up and down the country, terrorising the retail sector and being of great concern to people. Thirdly, you've got very long delays to justice wherever you look, and people's lives have been on hold for years. There are real, massive challenges, and instead of focusing on that effectively, this Government wants to have all these officials working away on the complicated arrangements in electoral law and spending the next few months trying to figure out how to effectively reduce the voting age and hearing the thousands of submissions. The reality is that every Government has to work out what its priorities are, because you cannot do everything, and so you've got to work out what your priorities are. If this is their priority, what I would say to you is that they've got their priorities wrong. They need to be focused on the things that people really worry about. I'm a very hard-working candidate in Epsom at the moment and I go out doorknocking all the time, and when I'm on those doors and I knock, there are two things that people raise time and time again. They say, "We're worried about the cost of living and we're worried about the law and order." I've never knocked on any door where anyone says, "The number one issue for me is that we've got to reduce the voting age to 16." I haven't heard it—I haven't heard it. So that's what we need to be focused on, and this is a Government that has always had very strange priorities, like I say, in the justice sector around electoral law. It's on violent crime, it's on youth crime, it's around extending the courts, and if you want to get into electoral law, the one useful thing the Government could do is repeal its own Act which moved away from equal voting rights. If you're worried about human rights and you're worried about the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, removing the basic right of New Zealanders to have equal voting rights and an equal say in who governs them has been taken away in the Canterbury Regional Council bill and they should be repealing that if they're concerned about voting rights, not this bill. So this is a muddled and confused Government when it comes to its priorities, and that is why I think we're finding that people are hanging up the hook on this Government and waiting with bated breath over the next few weeks for a change, because they want a Government that is focused on the things that really concern the community. What really concerns the community in the justice and the electoral sector is dealing more effectively with the real, serious violent crime that we see in our community, dealing effectively with the ram-raiders and the youth crime and dealing effectively with the long delays to justice that we're seeing. These are very difficult problems and we should have our officials over in justice and in the Electoral Commission and all those people focused on those issues. The Electoral Commission, rather, should be focused on ensuring that we have equal voting rights in this country, not on this issue that they have given to them today. So on that basis, now my final words will be to the Make It 16 group that started this off. Yep, they'll be looking and saying, "Well, this guy's not agreeing with us. Well, that's no good." That's unfortunately how politics works; you don't win every argument. Good luck to them for the efforts that they've made and good luck to them for the campaigning, and keep trying, and no criticism whatsoever—go for it. Go for gold. You've raised some very good arguments, it's just that we think, when we're dealing with the priorities of New Zealand as we face them today, that this is not the number one issue. Actually, most New Zealanders, if you ask them, are comfortable with the voting age that we've have had for a long time, which is 18. On that basis, Madam Speaker, we will be voting against this bill. VANUSHI WALTERS (Labour—Upper Harbour): Just responding to the previous speaker—God forbid the House of Representatives should be focused on constitutional governance in this country. Very surprising. The member also referred to what else we're doing in the justice space. I hope that member sticks around for the remainder of the week where about half of what we are doing in this week relates to the justice area. It is a pleasure to take a call in relation to this bill. I'm going to use some of my brief time, actually, just to challenge some of what Michael Woodhouse said in his previous speech on the declaration, because it is important. Because for those young people who did raise the issue of Make It 16— ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Order! I'm having a bit of trouble with this, because we are now not addressing the previous item of business; we are addressing the Electoral (Lowering Voting Age for Local Elections and Polls) Legislation Bill. So as the member continues with her speech, can she be very careful that the comments she makes fall within the scope of bill. VANUSHI WALTERS: Thank you, Madam Speaker, for that clarification. Yes, I believe I will address this issue, which is that this bill has arisen because of a declaration of inconsistency that came from the Justice Committee where we made a specific recommendation that the voting age be lowered. There has been comment in this House that if Parliament is supreme, and has already considered a section 7 report, why should courts be able to send a declaration back to the House? It is because we don't always receive the section 7 report at the end of the process. It comes to select committee. The bill that passes through the House may not be relevant in terms of that report. The other is the passage of time. In terms of the setting of age, in 1974, the age of voting was changed for general elections to 18. Nobody is arguing that Parliament is not supreme, but there is a point of difference between legality and inconsistency with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. This is not America, where, if there is an inconsistency, the courts can strike down. The courts have simply said, "reconsider this", which we have. I would say to the Make It 16 campaigners: the fact of your challenge is equally as important as what's proposed in the bill. I look forward to reading your submissions as they make their way into the next Parliament. Kia ora. SIMON WATTS (National—North Shore): Well, thank you very much, Madam Speaker. Here we are, three days to go, in the dying days of this Government; we are talking about the Electoral (Lowering Voting Age for Local Elections and Polls) Legislation Bill. Wow, isn't that interesting? Isn't that an interesting topic? As the local government spokesperson, I tell you what: as I travel round this country, talking to local governments and talking to local councils and talking to local communities, do I hear continuously that this is the fundamental issue that this House should be taking through as legislation today? Well, I'll tell you what, Madam Speaker, I'll give you a little bit of a hint: the answer is no. There is no way that this is a priority for local government; they are drowning under a significant barrage by the "Minister of Reform" that is impacting them significantly. Lowering the voting age is just another piece of electoral burden by this Government on that sector, which is not going to deal with the fundamental issues that they face. The fundamental issues that local government face are not the voting age and the people who can vote in local elections; it's actually around funding and finance, and dealing with climate adaptation and dealing with infrastructure as a result of the disasters and the weather events that we've had in the last seven months—those are the priorities. Yet only in the last 48 hours have we seen the Government actually respond to that; yet they've had officials and other members of their caucus looking at and putting together this bill. Well, what a distraction; what a sideshow. But Kiwis can see through this, can't they, Madam Speaker? They can see through this. They know that this is not a priority. As a result, we've got a Government that's ramming this legislation through the House today, as it does, using its parliamentary majority. But I'll give you a little bit of an insight of what I can expect to occur with this bill under a National-led Government, Madam Speaker: it will not see the light of day. It will not see the light of day, because this is not a priority. This is not an issue in regards to something that's against those who are 16 or 17. I've got young boys coming up; they'll be in this age band before long. It's nothing about that aspect but it is the fact that the age of 18 is widely accepted as the age in which is appropriate in terms of those who should be voting, the age in which those enter into adulthood, and the age in which is appropriate for people to be voting. You've got a Government that has recognised the fact that they cannot get this over the line at an overall general election point of view—they can't get that over the line because they need a 75 percent majority. They think, "Oh well, since we can't get that over the line, let's just actually try and ram this through local government." Well, I think that's disrespectful to local government, because what they are, in effect, saying is that they're going to experiment on local government through a reform on the voting age which they are not able to carry through at an overall national level. Well, I'm sorry; local government are not there to be able to just be pushed upon by such changes that a Government does not have the mandate in order to do across the country. It is inconsistent, and inconsistent in electoral reform is no good for anyone. That is why, on this side of the House, we will be continuing to oppose this legislation as we go through. I don't think that we need to really discuss anything more in regards to this bill. It is a bill which is not a priority. It is a bill that this Government is ramming through in their dying days. I think, when we reflect back on this Labour-led Government in time to come, we will reflect on, say: why did they not use the opportunity that was afforded to them to pass legislation that would have genuine impact for those Kiwis across this country who are dealing with significant and massive issues in their lives? Primarily those issues relate to the cost of living crisis and the impact of law and order. That is a great disappoint. But this Government have a choice; they are accountable for the decisions that they pass through this House and they have made a conscious decision in order to prioritise legislation such as this over and above legislation that will make a fundamental and positive impact for all Kiwis. The good thing is that Kiwis will have the choice in 35 days from now—35; not that long away. Five weeks from now, they'll have the choice. Go to the polls, make your decision, and the future Government will have a mandate in order to execute that. I think that is appropriate and that is appropriate for our democracy. National will be opposing this bill. ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): Tēnā koe, Madam Speaker. This is a bill—it's simple—about who our democracy should be for, whose voices should be represented on the national and local stage when we make decisions about Aotearoa New Zealand's future—issues like climate change mitigation and adaptation; issues like whether out economy delivers for everyone. And on those decisions I say—and my Labour colleagues say—that 16-year-olds should be in that conversation, that they should have their voices heard if they want to participate, and that they're ready to be heard in that conversation right now. I want to thank the people who have been involved both in the Justice Committee's consideration of the declaration of inconsistency and in who will be involved in this bill: the Justice Committee, under the chairmanship of the Hon Ginny Andersen and Vanushi Walters, as well as the Ministry of Justice and Department of Internal Affairs advisers, the clerk of the committee, Anna Platten, and deputy clerk, Jonathan Harris, but also those campaigners who have made their voices heard, who are representing young people at the table: the Make It 16 campaign, Caeden Tipler, Sanat Singh, Thomas, Dan, Ralph—one of my favourite people in the world—and all of those young people who have written to me as a local MP to say that they want to be involved and that their voices matter. I say to them: your voice does matter and that's why I'm voting in favour of this bill. SIMON COURT (ACT): Thank you, Madam Speaker. The ACT Party won't be supporting this bill, the Electoral (Lowering Voting Age for Local Elections and Polls) Legislation Bill. I think what's important is to examine what the basis for this legislation is. What is the problem statement? Because, although Parliament is here to pass legislation, debate legislation, explore it, it's always on the basis that there's a problem that's been defined that only legislation can solve. What I haven't heard here today or from the Minister of Local Government is what is the problem this is designed to solve and how does it solve it. Now, the Minister has talked about if we can increase representation and if we can encourage younger people to vote, then that will increase turnout in local body elections. Well, it may well increase the turnout for people aged between 16 and 18, but the Minister doesn't offer any solution to why so many people have lost confidence in local government that in some places around New Zealand, turnout at local government elections is between 30 to 40 percent of electors. The Minister doesn't offer any link between this legislation proposing to increase the suffrage to 16 and 17-year-olds and how that will restore confidence in local government, although he has made a number of statements in public and in the House at different times that lowering the voting age for local governments to 16 will restore confidence and increase turnout. Well, the ACT Party doesn't believe the Minister's assertions, and there's actually nothing in this bill that clearly defines the problem statement. There's nothing in the explanatory notes. It simply says what it does, as if that explains what the clauses are. What we want to know—what the ACT Party wants to know, what people sitting at home want to know—is what's the problem this is trying to solve? Because the bill does not explain that. We have heard repeatedly that New Zealanders have lost confidence in local government and that has resulted in lower turnouts at elections. There's been concerns that the quality of candidates offering themselves to represent electors at local government level—whether it's at full council or local board or community board—is not sufficient to deal with the complexity of the problems that we face in our communities, whether it's about how we respond and adapt to climate change, how we fund and finance infrastructure so that more land can be made available for high-density housing, so that better public transport services can be offered in a way that meets the needs of communities and groups within communities. None of these problems that local government faces that they are unable to solve, either because they don't have the tools or the funding and financing, or potentially they don't have representatives, elected members, with the competencies and the experience to solve these problems—none of that is described in this bill. It's not described in the problem statement; it's certainly not described in the legislation which follows. So why is it that these problems have developed with councils? Well, councils haven't delivered for their communities in many cases. Councils have said, "Look, we need more sports fields, we need more swimming pools to meet demands that our population growth has put on communities, but we don't have the money to do it." But they keep signing consents and more and more people keep coming to live in communities. That's what I personally experienced in West Auckland. We have one swimming pool for 250,000 people. When that swimming pool was built for the 1990 Commonwealth Games, played in West Auckland, there was only 150,000 people living in West Auckland. So, again, community services, community facilities, have not kept up with population growth. That's one reason why councils are not seen by many communities as actually worthwhile turning out to vote for. Then we have activist policy makers within local government who have taken on the role in many ways that elected members should, by insisting, for example, that if we're going to get more people walking and cycling, rather than making the big calls about where do we build high-quality walking and cycling infrastructure that caters for people at all ages and stages of life, what they've done is they've said, "Well, we just want to run a cycleway through your local town centre, which means taking out all the car parks outside small business, and we don't care. We'll conduct some average consultation and then we'll take out the car parks and paint cycle lanes on the road, and we don't really care what the community thinks." All of these things act to undermine confidence that people have that even turning out to vote for local government is worth their while. And you say, "Well, how on earth could local government get away with doing this for so long?" Well, that's where central government has a role. Central government has been imposing unfunded obligations on to local government in the form of red tape and regulations. All kinds of things like even checking buildings' warrants of fitness, which, it turns out that when they had the terrible fire in a boarding house in Wellington recently, Wellington City Council hadn't even fulfilled its own obligations to check that building's warrant of fitness, even though there were people who depended on the safety of that building when they went to sleep at night—that the sprinklers worked, for example. But Governments imposed these unfunded obligations on to councils, whether they should be doing them or not, whether they should be funded centrally to do them or not. ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Order! Order! I've been listening very carefully to the member's speech, and while I appreciate he is traversing matters to do with local government, this bill has a slightly different focus, and that is the voting arrangements under the Local Electoral Act. In his 3 minutes 33 seconds, I will invite Simon Court to come closer to the bill at hand. SIMON COURT: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Always appreciate your guidance and it will be missed when you are no longer a member of Parliament, Madam Speaker. ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Are you sure, though? Are you sure? SIMON COURT: Yes, it will definitely be missed. This bill, while it lowers the voting age to 16 for local elections and polls, doesn't change the age for elected members to an alcohol licensing trust, for example, or the trustee of the community trust, or serving as a juror. So it's unclear why the mandate is extended to only voting in local government elections to 16-year-olds, although these other mandates are not. Again, it's incoherent legislation that doesn't address a policy problem that itself is not adequately explained. But I do want to offer some hope and encouragement to young people who are not just aged 16 or 17 but potentially even younger who want to become involved in politics. There are plenty of opportunities to join a political party, to join a youth wing, to become a volunteer, to attend debates, to support candidates, to come here and to learn how the parliamentary process works, to make submissions to select committee—as so many young people have when it comes to this bill, not just on a matter of electoral franchise but also on other matters that affect young people. Of course, there is an election coming up. In just a couple of days, Parliament will rise. Many of the MPs here who are seeking re-election will muster teams which include many, many young people to go around their electorates, standing up hoardings and signs, handing out flyers, attending all kinds of events, and asking people would they give their party vote to the party of their choice. And the ACT Party's not alone. We're also continuing to seek young people to join our youth wing, to come along to our events, to hear our MPs speak and share policy ideas, but most importantly to get questions from young people about matters that affect them. So while ACT won't be supporting this bill, we do encourage young people who want to get involved in the political process: you don't have to wait until you're 18; you can join the ACT Party youth wing. You can come along to our debates. We'd be happy to have you in our team. Thank you. GOLRIZ GHAHRAMAN (Green): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise for the second time this afternoon to say that this is a historic day in our Parliament. It was a historic moment an hour or so ago when we, for the first time ever, debated a higher court's finding of inconsistency in legislation with our New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. And it was on this very issue: the discrimination faced by 16 and 17-year-olds in our nation, where they are banned from exercising their fundamental right to vote. The court found that discrimination was not justified, and I do commend the Minister, the Hon Kieran McAnulty, for trying to alleviate that breach in some ways through this bill immediately. Democracy is a fundamental human right. I've said this before, but I will say it again: it's one of the ones that really underpins the whole system. Without a voice in the way that all of our rights, all of our interests, are governed, arguably we can't truly have a fulfilment of any of those rights. It's also important to notice, as the court found, and I think any declaration of inconsistency does, that our rights are universal and inalienable. We hear again and again—we've heard it today in this House—that young people should wait; young people lack the experience, the expertise; they should be doing other things. They should be making tea for the ACT Party while they campaign! Or they should be gaining the life experience that you need to exercise your fundamental rights—whatever else they've been told to do before they get their right to vote. That is a slippery slope. None of us in this House has been elected because we first ticked a box of requisite experience or expertise. Eighteen-year-olds don't need to show a certain level of expertise or experience, and I want us to notice that being young in New Zealand today is expertise. None of us know what it's like for a 16- or 17-year-old today in Aotearoa, trying to access the mental health system, dealing with public transport, dealing with schools, dealing with the justice system. Our decisions in this House are informed by all of our life experience and expertise. They are stronger because we take into account that range of experience, of challenge or privilege, and that is what democracy seeks to bring to all our decision making. That is what young people have fought for. We've got a pretty strong democracy. We celebrate New Zealand as the first nation to give women suffrage. And I do want us to remember that the same arguments were raised against women's suffrage: women lacked expertise; women could busy themselves doing something else that would benefit democracy. In the end, it was only when we could truly vote that Governments and Parliaments became accountable to us as women. Our experiences in all of those systems came to the fore. That is how we update and strengthen our democracy: to notice where there are gaps, to listen to report writers, the Electoral Commission, the Supreme Court, the experts, the select committees, and those who are most impacted. That's the problem statement that this bill seeks to fix. Not one of us would stand for a delay on our fundamental rights, not least to vote, for two years after a Government or a Parliament is put on notice that they are breaching that fundamental right. We've said all of this already, but I'm going to count through it again: 16-year-olds can leave school, they can have sex, they can drive cars, and yes, they can work and pay tax without representation. That's inconsistent with a lot of values on this side of the House. But, for the Green Party, this is about democracy. We fought for MMP, we fought for disabled persons' engagement in democracy, for Māori, and we stand and have always stood against discrimination against 16 and 17-year-olds from the moment it became clear. I could not be more proud to stand with every young person who has led this movement. It has been them who have led it, and we know that they're ready, because we heard from them by the tens of thousands outside this House when they came to tell us we need to take action on the climate crisis. We hear from them all the time in our select committees on mental health, on education, on the roads, and the systems that, let's face it, are going to impact their lives the longest. So I could not be more proud to have stood with this movement for so long. I want to say that, as much as we've been celebrating this bill, I know that 2028 is too long to wait. It's not OK that the Government is putting off implementing this and giving those young people their right to vote for so long. It's a clerical change. It would be amazing to the life force of school age kids right now to be able to engage properly with the next local body election, in 2025—to get to enrol while they're together in school before they disperse off, go to uni, get jobs, have kids maybe. And what we know, what we absolutely know in those reports, from the Electoral Commission, from the Justice Committee, from all the experts, is that the engagement of people in democracy goes up and becomes a lifetime habit if they enrol and vote in the first election in which they become eligible. That evidence—that data—is really clear, and the data is really clear coming from overseas jurisdictions who have extended the right to vote to 16 and 17-year-olds. It's not that new a concept. They've been doing it for a decade elsewhere in the world. And we know that, if local body elections have lower voter turnout, and if young people have lower voter turnout in our general elections, one way of actually fixing that, of creating voters of all ages for generations to come, is to engage young people by providing them their right to vote while they're still at school. We know that. So we're ignoring a moral, legal, and practical imperative to change the law before 2028. Gen Z deserves to get their right to vote now, and, in fact, all young people in New Zealand deserve to have their right to vote in general elections and in local elections. That's their right. I understand that right now this is all we can do. But I do implore parties across the House to take party politics out of democracy, to read those expert reports, to read and engage with the submissions of young people, of experts, of the Children's Commissioner, and say actually—and this is what I'm really excited about with this bill—decisions of those local institutions will be stronger; they will be more enduring, more sustainable, and solve many more of the problems that face their localities, and that that is what should happen here. With the voices of young people; with accountability of lawmakers at every level, to everyone who has a right to vote; with engagement being built into our elections; with those young people who've called on us to give them their right to vote; but, more than that, with every young person while they're still at school—that's what democracy is about, and that's why I'm so, so, so proud of us today, of the whole movement, and to have stood with you, with the Green movement, together for so long. IBRAHIM OMER (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise to take a short call on the Electoral (Lowering Voting Age for Local Elections and Polls) Legislation Bill. I also wanted to add my voice to the speaker who just resumed her seat, Golriz Ghahraman, that this is indeed a significant day. It's a significant day in the sense that these young people have bravely campaigned for this and are here today—and I congratulate all of you for all of your hard work, and shame to the Opposition MPs who talk down this bill. Simon Court—no, Simon Watts, actually—no, Paul Goldsmith said that when he went doorknocking in Epsom, he couldn't find anyone that could tell him that this is an issue. He doesn't need to look for them in Epsom; they are here, he just needs to notice them. This is a very important bill, because the Supreme Court made it clear that preventing these brave young people from their voting rights is inconsistent with the Bill of Rights Act. For us, on this side of the House, we are very proud that we are supporting this. This is a good bill; I commend it to the House. ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Simon O'Connor, five minutes. SIMON O'CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. One of the striking things is if this is such a brave, amazing moment in time for the Government, why they are taking such short calls? I would have thought that such passion would've required a much deeper explanation, but it doesn't. I'll come back to one of the reasons why I think that's the case. But I do want to echo what others have said. As I moved about the electorate of Tāmaki, as I doorknock, or do my coffee meetings, about to do street corner meetings over the coming weekend—people are not talking to me about a voting age. Some do, some of my younger constituents—if I push the issue—will raise and discuss it with me. That's exceptionally welcome. People are much more worried about the gun crime, the breaking into their premises, and just the general cost of living. Why that's important, as we consider this bill tonight, is why, with all the issues which this country faces, is the Government focused on this? I want to be really clear, particularly to young people: it's not that this is not an important issue. I think it's one that's welcome to be discussed and debated. But we have less than two days left in this Parliament. Of all the things, as I say, that we could be discussing—crime, cost of living, our relationship with other countries around the world, agriculture, you name it—we're not; instead we're discussing this. Something was actually pointed out by my honourable colleague Vanushi Walters: this is something of constitutional import. Normally, when we're dealing with electoral changes, there's comity or agreement across the House, but there's not, because this has been rammed through. I want to drive home that point. We have less than two days of this Parliament, and we have–what I would describe as—a very pyrrhic dynamic coming through from this Government. Not only will this not actually pass through; it'll pass tonight, I'm sure, but it's only first reading—this actually isn't going to make a notable difference. Secondly, they're not taking proper and full calls to actually—I would suggest—respect those who've spent a lot of time putting in their submissions and so forth. Turning to the court's decision. The court's allowed to make its decisions. Personally, I think it's –and I've done this once before in Parliament—to remind the court and the courts of this land that Parliament is sovereign. I acknowledge that they see that this is something about discrimination—well, that's perfectly fine as well. Of course, one doesn't need to be a genius to say that the courts themselves are continuing discrimination by making it 16. The make-it-15 crowd are probably feeling a bit upset at the moment. Without being too flippant, this is one of those things that always drives me mad. A lot of people talk about human rights. I'm all for human rights. I think they're really important. But the hint about human rights is in those two words: the rights are for humans, all humans. Again, I'm being slightly flippant to illustrate the point, but where are the rights of three-, five-, 10-, 12-, and 15-year-olds in this decree? So if people are going to start including the judges, throwing around the words like "discrimination", they better have good, rather than arbitrary, reasons to set the line at where they see fit. Because, quite rightly, as other colleagues in the House have pointed out, there are massive inconsistencies around where the age of consent, purchasing property, voting, driving, joining the military, getting married—all of these things are all over the place. Going to a casino–I think you have to be 20. It's all over the place. This doesn't solve that; it just makes it further arbitrary, and I just think that that's unhelpful. So obviously I'm not supportive of dropping it down, for those reasons. The other two—and I pointed it out when I had some wonderful debates with younger ones in my electorate is,—of course, 16- and 17-year-olds are treated differently in the criminal justice space. Now, I don't want to get into a long discussion into that per se, but if we're going to be—as some are—arguing for the rights to vote because it's a human right, well, there's also a human right to justice. That one's, you know, a bit of a humdinger, really. Justice is a human right, it's one of the most fundamental human rights. Perhaps the court and others might want to consider that that should be applied to all humans, without discrimination. The last thing I want to point out—and as some others have done as well—there are many ways that people can express their voices into this Parliament. I said it to a group of young people recently—not around age—is that you don't have to be an MP to actually effect change in this country. It's probably on that note that I want to end. There are so many ways to lobby, to change, to cajole, to contribute to this great realm and to this great democracy. Hon MEKA WHAITIRI (Ikaroa-Rāwhiti): E te Māngai o te Whare. [Authorised te reo text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.] [Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.] I'm pleased to take a call on the Electoral (Lowering Voting Age for Local Elections and Polls) Legislation Bill. Our Māori history tells us that tamariki and rangatahi were always part of wānanga and important conversations that impacted our people—tamariki and rangatahi were taught from a very early age to be critical thinkers. Their presence, contribution, and freedom to observe was integral to succession planning. Tamariki and rangatahi are indeed the vessel of our tīpuna's wildest dreams and they are activators for our future. It was the imposition of colonisation—the western education system that reframed the way we viewed our rangatahi, and instead of seeing them as the bastion of our Aotearoa home, we were conditioned by a Pākehā rhetoric that tamariki and rangatahi are to be seen and not heard. The Electoral (Lowering Voting Age for Local Elections and Polls) Legislation Bill before the House today is the first step towards acknowledging the very real value our rangatahi have in building our Aotearoa home. On every kapa haka stage across this country, our rangatahi are using their voice to raise awareness about political issues that impact on them. They use that voice to call out political parties and politicians for reckless political decisions. Our Aotearoa home demands that we believe in our rangatahi and that we empower them to lead, and that we have the courage to begin our succession planning. It is not acceptable that we sit here making hugely impactful decisions on people and about people when they aren't even in the room to contribute to what that looks like. We sit here with the audacity to believe that it's that this House and the people in it that are the saviours of our world's problems.[te reo Māori] This Parliament does it to Māori, they do it to takatāpui, and they do it to whānau hoa and/or minority communities. The argument that our rangatahi do not engage or participate in voting lacks intellect, and purposely forgets to highlight the fact that the system has been designed in a way to keep people out. The Electoral (Lowering Voting Age for Local Elections and Polls) Legislation Bill begins to address that. With that said, it is all well to lower the voting age, but the Government must commit to further wrapping the right systems around our rangatahi so that they can access education and understanding about civics in Aotearoa. Rangatahi will not engage in any system where they don't see themselves. This is why Te Paati Māori is walking its talk by elevating rangatahi on its list. There is a saying in te reo Māori, [Authorised te reo text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.] Translating as "Our youth are our leaders of tomorrow." Te Paati Māori says, [Authorised te reo text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.] Meaning: our youth are our leaders of today. Te Paati Māori and I support this bill with the preface that we need to pack around specific education and civics, particularly for our youth. I commend this bill to the House. RACHEL BOYACK (Labour—Nelson): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It's a pleasure to take a call on the Electoral (Lowering Voting Age for Local Elections and Polls) Legislation Bill. This bill has come about, partly, because of the declaration of inconsistency in the courts that was found regarding the voting age with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. "Inconsistency" is one of those things we've heard from the Opposition in the House today. I want to point out a few things that young people, that 16- and 17-year-olds, care about. As Mr O'Connor mentioned, there are many things that New Zealanders care about. Well, 16- and 17-year-olds care about the cost of living, 16- and 17-year-olds care about crime, 16- and 17-year-olds care about climate change and our environment. All of those important things that matter to New Zealanders—that many of us out on the doorsteps today are hearing from New Zealanders—16- and 17-year-olds care about those things too. I particularly want to point out some comments from Simon Court, who said he wasn't sure why this bill came about. Well, it came about because there was a declaration in the court. I just want to note that the ACT Party thinks it's OK to give semi-automatic weapons to 16-year-olds, but they don't want to let 16-year-olds vote. Now, that's the definition of "inconsistency" in this House tonight. This is an excellent bill, and I commend it to the House. Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Well, there are a number of ironies emerging out of this debate. Let's start with the first one. We've spent the afternoon debating the importance of the human rights of our young. We debated the select committee report, and now we're debating this bill at first reading. The next bill is a bill that completely undermines the human rights of 12- and 13-year-olds. The Attorney-General has issued a vet saying that that bill is inconsistent with the Bill of Rights Act. So while these members crow about how fond they are of the rights of young people, let's just bear that in mind when we come to that bill after dinner. The other inconsistency and irony is in—I think it was Golriz Ghahraman who implored us to listen to the voices of the young people. Well, I have been here for six years in Opposition while that Government completely ignored the voices on the bills that they were putting through—sitting in select committee after select committee, listening to submitter after submitter saying the bills that they were passing were a really bad idea. The previous speaker, Rachel Boyack's, Plain Language Bill is a really good example of that. There wasn't a single submission that wasn't a friend of Rachel Boyack's who said it was a good idea. They said don't pass it. What did the Government do? They passed it. So when we're talking about listening to the voices of the people, how about we get a little bit more consistent? The last irony—and I think it was touched on by Paul Goldsmith in his first reading speech on this bill—was the priorities of the Government in respect of the Justice portfolio. How many things could the Government be doing right now to protect people in their own homes, street violence, retail crime, ram raids—and what are we doing? We're talking about the age to vote. Important issue, but as, I think, Simon O'Connor said, on the doorsteps of Tāmaki—and right around the country—not a single National member has had this raised as an issue. Actually, in the context of civics education—which I think is a really good idea, albeit that the New Zealand education curriculum makes it perfectly possible for schools to teach civics education and democracy. In fact, in our primary and intermediate schools, there's some really good election material that I hope will be rolled out again in the 2023 election where primary school kids can participate in their own elections: they can form manifestos, they can campaign, and then their classmates get to vote. That's a really good thing to be doing. But two things about that. We're not going to give an eight-year-old the vote—that's fine. But the number one priority in civics education is getting our young people back to school in the first place. Because there are woefully low turnouts even in education, much less in voting. I want to turn to that as the last key point on this. Because as a member of Parliament based in Dunedin and with the University of Otago in the electorate that I stand in, the question of 16- and 17-year-olds being eligible to vote has come up on a number of occasions. I have been very clear that while I think that's a conversation worth having, surely the goal for political engagement right now is to make sure greater numbers of people who are currently, presently eligible to vote actually do so. Because a robust democracy actually relies on active participation. Unfortunately, the rates of turnout in our general elections has gone down and down. So my response to anybody who says, "Well, shouldn't we give 16-year-olds the vote?" is, "How about we actually make sure our 18- to 24-year-olds—and our 25- to 29-year-olds—form sustainable and regular voting habits?" Because, as has been pointed out in this debate, if a person doesn't have those voting habits by the time they are about 25 or 26, they are unlikely to have regular voting habits through the rest of their adult lives. Now, I will note, in the 2020 election there was a rather pleasing uptick both in the overall voter turnout and in the turnout by 18- to 24-year-olds. But it's too early to say whether or not that is a pattern—a sort of a Cnut-like turning back of the tide of ambivalence that has pervaded our electorate right across. Certainly it's ambivalence when it comes to local elections. When I tried to find out the voting propensity of our 18- to 24-year-olds in local council elections, rather surprisingly, the Department of Internal Affairs doesn't actually keep that data; they don't provide an age breakdown of turnout. But there's no doubt that since the local government reforms of 1989, there has been a consistent and inexorable drop in overall turnout in city councils from 52 percent in 1989. The last election—in, what was it, 2022, I think?—had just 39 percent of eligible voters turning out. In our regional councils, just 43 percent turning out. In our district councils, a little bit greater, but still fewer than half—45 percent. So surely if we want to have an active, interested, engaged electorate, let's look at the turnout for those people who are currently eligible to vote before we can contemplate extending the age range down to 16. So there is merit in this, and I'll come back to—I was going to say that was my last point, but there is one more point to make and that is why we're not doing this for the Electoral Act. The Government's been very upfront about that. They've done it because they don't think they'll get it through. By majority, they'll get this bill passed at first reading. But that is highly inconsistent. If it's a good idea, let's have the debate, the discussion, and make it a good idea for both central and local elections and not cherry-pick just because this isn't entrenched legislation. Frankly, it should be, in my view. It should be both entrenched for local and central elections. Nobody on this side of the House is afraid of the conversation. But let's have it in a proper and orderly fashion, and this isn't that. DAMIEN SMITH (ACT): Point of order, Madam Speaker. I'd like to raise the point that Rachel Boyack just said, that ACT wants to give 16-year-olds AR-15s— ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): No, no, no. Damien Smith: She's incorrect. ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): No. the member will sit. The member will sit down. That is not a point of order. Members, the time has come for me to leave the Chair for the dinner break. The House will resume at 7.30 p.m. Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.