Tuesday, 30 January 2024 - Volume 773 Sitting date: 30 Jan 2024 TUESDAY, 30 JANUARY 2024 The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m. KARAKIA/PRAYERS SPEAKER: Almighty God, we give thanks for the blessings which have been bestowed on us. Laying aside all personal interests, we acknowledge the King and pray for guidance in our deliberations that we may conduct the affairs of this House with wisdom, justice, mercy, and humility for the welfare and peace of New Zealand. Amen. RESIGNATIONS Golriz Ghahraman, Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand SPEAKER: I wish to advise the House that I have received a letter from Golriz Ghahraman resigning her list seat in the House with effect at 5 p.m. 18 January 2024. LIST MEMBER ELECTED Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand—Celia Wade-Brown SPEAKER: I have received from the Electoral Commission a return declaring Celia Wade-Brown to be elected a member of Parliament to fill the vacancy created by the resignation of Golriz Ghahraman from her list seat. I understand that Celia Wade-Brown is present and wishes to make an affirmation of allegiance. Would she please come forward to the chair on my right. MEMBERS SWORN CELIA WADE-BROWN (Green): Ko ahau, ko Celia Wade-Brown, e kī ana i runga i te pono, i te tika, i te ngākau tapatahi me te whakaū anō ka noho pirihonga, ka noho pūmau ki a Kīngi Tiāre te Tuatoru me tōna kāhui whakaheke e ai ki te ture. [I, Celia Wade-Brown, solemnly, sincerely, and truly declare and affirm that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to His Majesty King Charles III, His heirs and successors, according to law.] RESIGNATIONS Hon Rino Tirikatene, New Zealand Labour Party SPEAKER: I wish to advise the House that I have received a letter from Hon Rino Tirikatene, resigning his seat in the House with effect at midnight, Sunday, 28 January 2024. LIST MEMBER ELECTED New Zealand Labour—Dr Tracey McLellan SPEAKER: I have received from the Electoral Commission a return declaring Dr Tracey McLellan to be elected a member of Parliament to fill the vacancy created by the resignation of the Hon Rino Tirikatene from his seat. I understand that Dr Tracey McLellan is present and wishes to make an affirmation of allegiance. Would she please come forward to my right? MEMBERS SWORN Dr TRACEY McLELLAN (Labour): I, Tracey Lee McLellan, solemnly, sincerely, and truly declare and affirm that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to His Majesty King Charles III, His heirs and successors, according to law. OBITUARIES Sir Michael Hardie Boys Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON (Prime Minister): I seek leave to move a motion without notice on the death of former Governor-General of New Zealand Sir Michael Hardie Boys. SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that course of action being followed? There is none. Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I move, That the House express its sympathy and its condolences to the family of Sir Michael Hardie Boys, and pay tribute to the outstanding contribution he made to this country. The Rt Hon Sir Michael Hardie Boys died in Waikanae on 29 December 2023 at the age of 92. It was with sadness that I heard of the death of this eminent New Zealander, respected jurist, and constitutional expert who guided New Zealand during its transition to an MMP electoral system. Sir Michael had a distinguished career in law, and practised in his home town of Wellington before being appointed a High Court judge in 1980. He was appointed to the Court of Appeal and became a Privy Councillor in 1989, and in 1994 he was elected an Honorary Bencher of Gray's Inn, London. He was a council member of the Wellington District Law Society, and president and a council member of the New Zealand Law Society. He was also a member of the legal aid board, and its chairman. Sir Michael was appointed as New Zealand's 17th Governor-General in 1996, ahead of New Zealand's first MMP election. Sir Michael saw public education as vital if confidence in the electoral and political system was to be maintained, and in the lead-up to that election, he spoke widely on the constitutional role of the Governor-General under MMP, having examined proportional representation systems all around the world and overseas. With a distinguished background in the law his constitutional knowledge and adept stewardship proved invaluable in an extraordinary period of change for New Zealand. Following his term of office as Governor-General of New Zealand, he continued to concentrate on supporting young people and community groups; Sir Michael was an enthusiastic volunteer in Kapanui School's literacy programme for over a decade. He was a trustee and later chair of the New Zealand Portrait Gallery as it was settling into its new premises in Shed 11, and at an age when most others would consider retiring, Sir Michael served on the Court of Appeal of Kiribati. For his dedication to public services, Sir Michael was appointed New Zealand's first Knight Grand Companion of the New Zealand Order of Merit when it was established in 1996, a Knight Grand Cross of the Order of St Michael and St George, an additional Companion of the Queen's Service Order, and Knight of the Order of St John. For his coat of arms, Sir Michael chose the Latin motto "Certus et Constans", meaning "sure and steadfast". This was the motto of the Boys' Brigade, an organisation I belonged to—a youth organisation—and which Sir Michael helped to establish in Wellington, and which he supported in many various decades as a result. Sir Michael will be remembered as sure and steadfast in his many areas of service to New Zealand. He brought intelligence and he brought calm thoughtfulness to his official roles, as well as generously giving up his time and his talents to support a range of community organisations. The thoughts of the Government are with Sir Michael's family, and I hope that they feel incredibly proud of the contribution and the legacy that he leaves New Zealand. SPEAKER: The question is that the motion be agreed to. Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the Opposition): On behalf of the Opposition, can I join with the Government in extending our condolences to the family of Sir Michael Hardie Boys and also acknowledge his significant service to the people of New Zealand. Sir Michael Hardie Boys was a man of firsts. He was, of course, our first MMP Governor-General, selected for that role because of his legal background and training and because of the new and potentially challenging circumstances that a Governor-General under MMP may face—or perceived challenges that a Governor-General under MMP may face—as they were envisaged back in 1996. Now, of course, for the political tragics in the House now, this may not seem as significant, but back then there was great concern about what would happen following our first MMP election if no Government had achieved a majority. Of course, there's actually only been one one-party majority Government in the entire history of MMP in New Zealand, but there was concern back in 1996 about whether or not this would politicise the role of the Governor-General and that they may have to chose who got to be the Government—of course, it turns out that the man who gets to often chose the Government is still here. But no crisis was ever established, and we have successfully had MMP Governments, and Sir Michael Hardie Boys led us through the process of Government formation not once but twice after our first two MMP general elections. He was also our first Knight Grand Companion of the New Zealand Order of Merit—something many people would be unaware of. His career was underpinned by a pretty common theme: change. He was on the Court of Appeal when the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act was enacted by the Parliament. He's been described as astute, gentle, fair, and courteous. He did, as Governor-General, on occasion challenge the Government of the day. I want to reflect on one of his final contributions during his departure speech as Governor-General, and I want to read a quote from him: "Our very identity as a people requires us to commemorate our beginnings. How can we build a nation if we treat our founding as unworthy of celebration? How can we properly understand our present or intelligently plot our future without an understanding of our past?" Sir Michael Hardie Boys was a very thoughtful Governor-General who challenged New Zealanders in a very polite and gentle way, and I'm sure that his words will continue to do that well beyond his passing. Hon JAMES SHAW (Co-Leader—Green): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I would like to extend condolences on behalf of the Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand to the family, friends, and community of Sir Michael Hardie Boys on his passing. He was, of course, as has already been noted, the first MMP Governor-General, which was when the Green Party entered Parliament, first as part of The Alliance and then under our own steam in the 1999 election, and so we have that connection to him. I also want to acknowledge, of course, that an entire generation of voters has been born, gone to school, and come of age and got the right to vote since he left that post as well. So for many New Zealanders and many current voters, they won't have that connection to him, and so there are some things that I would like to acknowledge at this moment. Sir Geoffrey Palmer said that Sir Michael Hardie Boys was a judge of rare distinction, a man of enormous dignity and human qualities, and I think that it's hard to go past much higher praise than that. As the Leader of the Opposition just pointed out, Sir Michael did believe that Governors-General actually had a duty to speak out about the community's concerns, and he frequently did so on issues such as inequality, family violence, and child abuse, which, of course, are issues that we are continuing to grapple with in this Parliament and at this time. He was, as we made that transition from a first-past-the-post political system to a mixed-member proportional political system, a very steady hand during a period of time when we had no prior culture of how to do this, and I think it put us in very good stead. So I do want to acknowledge Sir Michael's wife, Mary Zohrab, and their four children and several grandchildren. He dedicated his entire life to public service, and outside of that managed to fit in interests like gardening and travelling and so on. We here are very grateful for his service. Hon DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Thank you, Mr Speaker. On behalf of ACT, I wish to join with other leaders in supporting this motion to offer condolence and sympathy to the family of Sir Michael Hardie Boys, and admiration for 92 years tremendously well lived. As other leaders have shared, he is somebody who excelled to the top of his profession. But he was also somebody who gave back throughout his career, whether that was being a member of the Law Society in early days, as Governor-General, or helping children's charities. Long after most people had turned to playing bowls at their village, he was out there helping people, helping as he had throughout his life. As others have mentioned, he helped New Zealand navigate what could have been, and what many thought would be, a tumultuous time in our constitutional history. Perhaps the fact that that period of uncertainty is such a distant memory, rarely if ever thought of or acknowledged, is actually a tribute to how well the Governor-General of the time was able to handle that situation and reassure the public. To those who survive him, we give our deepest condolences, and to his memory, we give our greatest admiration. May he rest in peace. Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First): Mr Speaker, on behalf of New Zealand First, we would like to join the rest of the members of this House to extend our sympathy and condolences to the family of Sir Michael Hardie Boys. You've heard that he had a very distinguished career, becoming member of the highest court back in 1989 in this country and being made a Privy Counsellor. He was appointed as the Governor-General, as you know, in 1996, and that was critical at a time when we were entering a new environment in widened politics and engagement in this country. He set out, in a series of speeches, conventions around Government formation that still hold force today. Indeed, on one occasion in 2020, when we wrote to the then Prime Minister about delaying that year's election due to the varying COVID alert levels operating around the country, his wisdom helped inform that constitutionally important letter. He was a great New Zealander, and one who, through his lifetime of service to the judiciary and our wider constitutional system, leaves us a living legacy of measured guidance and constitutional insight. Now, it's common in this forum, more often than not, for people to get up and say all sorts of grandiose things about a personality, but in this case, on this particular occasion, these words have a special significance. His wisdom will be missed, but we welcome the chance and the opportunity to remember a great New Zealander. TĀKUTA FERRIS (Te Pāti Māori —Te Tai Tonga): E te Māngai o te Whare, e te Pīka, tēnā rā koe. [To the Speaker of the House, Mr Speaker, thank you.] Te Pāti Māori also adds its voice to conveying condolences on the passing of Sir Michael Hardie Boys. Nō reira tākiri tū ko te ata, e kōrihi ana te manu, koia te wā e rere kau nei te wairua, ka whiti ki ōna otinga. Nō reira ko tēnei te mihi maioha, te reo aroha e tukua atu ana i runga i te rau aroha me te ngākau iti. Ki te whānau tonu o Tā Mikaere, rātou kua mahue mai ki muri, nō rātou te haepapa nui, he pīkau i tēnei āhuatanga, te mate. I roto i te ao Māori, ka tukua rātou ko te hunga wairua kia okioki i roto i te hāneaneatanga o te wāhi ngaro, ahakoa te whakapono, ahakoa te whakapae. Nō reira tēnei rā te whakatairanga ake i te matenga o Tā Mikaere Hardie Boys, me te tuku i a ia, otirā rātou katoa te rārangi mate o te tau kua taha ake nei, kia oti atu i roto i ngā atawhaitanga o te wāhi ngaro. Waiho mai ko tātou, e hika mā, e pae nei i tēnei rangi, me ngā mahuetanga iho o tēnei rangatira o tātou, e mihi, e tangi mō rātou kua ngaro. Nō reira tēnā tātou katoa. [And so the dawn breaks, the birds sing, that is the time that the spirit takes flight, and transcends to its culmination. And so these are my kind regards, and condolences that I impart with compassion and humility. To the family of Sir Michael, they who are left behind, who have the great responsibility of bearing this phenomenon, of bereavement. In Māori society, they, those who are now spirit, are sent on to rest in the comfort of the beyond, whatever the faith, whatever the belief. And so I would like to honour the passing of Sir Michael Hardie Boys, and to send him on, indeed all of the ranks of dearly departed of the year that's passed, to spend eternity in the benevolence of the beyond. Leave us, my friends, that sit here today, and the legacy of this noble leader of ours, to acknowledge and to grieve for those who have passed on. And so greetings to us all.] SPEAKER: I thank members for those comments. For those of us who knew him, he was truly a great New Zealander. Motion agreed to. MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS New Zealand Defence Force—Deployment of personnel to protect Red Sea shipping (30 January 2024) Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Defence): Mr Speaker, I wish to make a ministerial statement. Thank you. I rise to make a ministerial statement in support of Cabinet's 23 January decision to deploy six New Zealand Defence Force (NZDF) personnel to support any future military action against Houthi targets in Yemen and the Red Sea, as part of coalition efforts to uphold maritime security in the Red Sea. The decision to deploy NZDF personnel was made in response to Houthis' actions which threaten commercial shipping, and it represents the commitment of the Government to defending our national interests and supporting our international partners. The Houthi attacks against commercial and naval shipping are illegal, unacceptable, and profoundly destabilising. More than 50 nations have been affected in more than 30 attacks by the Houthi on ships in recent months. The international community, including New Zealand, has repeatedly demanded the Houthi cease their attacks on Red Sea shipping to no avail. The coalition response is an inevitable consequence of the Houthis' very deliberate actions in the face of these warnings. New Zealand's interests are global, and include vital trade and economic interests. Freedom of navigation is an integral part of New Zealand's national prosperity and trade security. Disruptions to shipping in the Red Sea and Suez Canal mean higher costs for New Zealanders—in fact, nearly 15 percent of global trade flows through this shipping lane. The NZDF personnel being deployed will support coalition forces to carry out precision attacks on identified Houthi military targets. They will be in roles in operational headquarters in the wider Middle East region and elsewhere. None of our personnel will enter Yemen. Our personnel are highly trained, and this latest deployment will see them work alongside our traditional security partners to defend our values and protect our vital interests. New Zealand's contribution has already been appreciatively welcomed by coalition partners. Such collective action demonstrates our commitment to support efforts to address a serious threat to international stability. New Zealand cannot enjoy the benefits of global security without making a contribution when we can and when it is in our clear security interests. This deployment to the international coalition is operationally very separate, but complementary to, New Zealand's longstanding and enduring contribution to the combined maritime forces in Bahrain. Both deployments support New Zealand's interest in the freedom of navigation in the Middle East region. Finally, I would like to conclude by again acknowledging our NZDF personnel and their families. I know that I speak for all New Zealanders when I state how appreciative and proud I am for their sacrifice and their service. Hon PEENI HENARE (Labour): Any Government that makes the decision to deploy NZDF personnel does not make those decisions lightly. It's always made with a clear decision-making framework and a clear rationale. I can speak with experience with this particular matter, and my time as the former defence Minister. My colleagues and I made the decision—and that was the right decision—after the fall of Kabul to evacuate. In those circumstances, in August 2021, the rationale was quite clear. Then again, of course, the conflict in Ukraine where we as a Government at the time decide that we would train, we would also supply, and we would also focus on humanitarian support in that conflict. With that having been said, with respect to humanitarian support, there is the urging of this side of the House for this Government to never turn their back on the need for humanitarian support across the wider Middle East during this time. The Labour Party has made their position clear: that we should not be involved in this conflict. There's no UN resolution in favour of such actions and there are countries in Europe and Scandinavia that are against joining this conflict. We have to be very mindful about getting involved in such conflicts, and I don't believe that the Government have made a clear case for it. The New Zealand reputation is respected worldwide. This, however, cannot be taken for granted and neither should the New Zealand support. The Government need to have a clear answer for New Zealanders who share in this belief that we should not be getting involved. With that having been said, I acknowledge that there are many of our NZDF personnel who are deployed right around the world and we wish them safety and all the best in those deployments. My questions to the Minister will continue to flesh out that rationale and making sure that this Government makes a very clear case for this particular deployment. With that having been said, my first question to the Minister is: given the Minister's ministerial statement, and I quote, "Cabinet's 23 January decision to deploy six New Zealand Defence Force personnel to support any future military action against Houthi targets in Yemen and the Red Sea, as part of coalition efforts to uphold maritime security in the Red Sea." My first series of questions to the Minister is: how long is this deployment intended for? Is it costed, and when can the families of these personnel expect them home; sooner or later? Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Defence): Thank you very much. Very happy to advise the member in the House that the deployment will be finishing before or on 31 July this year, so that's when, after that, I'd expect families will be able to see their loved ones again, and the costing is around $500,000, and that's being paid for within NZDF baselines. Hon PEENI HENARE (Labour): In light of those answers, the Minister in media statements today also said that "we are going to need money in the future."Does this send an indication to New Zealanders, and indeed to the House, that further NZDF deployments in the Middle East will be in the pipeline in the future? Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Defence): No, the member should not take it as being that. What he should take it as is being that the New Zealand Defence Force has been left in a very difficult position after six—well, actually the last three years of neglect—and that, clearly, promises that were made by a previous Minister himself, to New Zealand Defence Force , around capital funding have not been complied with, and so it is outrageous that this debate is being used to attack Defence on funding when, in fact, he's left Defence in the position that they are. I'm really proud of what Defence has been able to do with what they have and clearly the economy was left in a state pretty similar to what Defence was. Hon PEENI HENARE (Labour): Given that the Minister raised that particular matter, is the Minister now then committing to all of the capital projects that this Government—the Labour Government in its time—committed to, in the past six years? A second to that, the other questions that this House has is: what were the other options that the Cabinet Minister presented to Cabinet for consideration with respect to the US and the UK's bombing of Yemen? SPEAKER: Might I just say at this point that while this exchange is free flowing, it is related entirely to the ministerial statement and all commentary from both sides should relate to that ministerial statement. Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Defence): Well, I'm sorry but there was so much noise coming from the other side that I actually missed the last part of the member's question that might have actually related to the statement. SPEAKER: We'll hold the time and you could ask the question again. Hon PEENI HENARE (Labour): Thank you. My question was: what other options did the Minister present to Cabinet for consideration with respect and response to the US and the UK's bombing of Yemen? Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Defence): I'm sorry, it was in relation to what? Hon PEENI HENARE (Labour): What other options— Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Defence): Options. Hon PEENI HENARE (Labour): What other options might the Minister have presented to her colleagues? Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Defence): Oh, right. Well, there are two options: one was to deploy a number of personnel, and the second was to deploy six, so those were the options and Cabinet agreed. Hon PEENI HENARE (Labour): In the Minister's statement she talked with respect to adding hugely inflationary costs to New Zealanders. My question to the Minister is: what evidence does the Minister have to suggest that attacks in the Red Sea and Panama Canal are indeed adding to inflation and cost of New Zealanders, and if that is the case when can New Zealanders expect a relief in the cost of living that currently impacts this country? SPEAKER: That's slightly wide at the end. Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Defence): Sorry, but the member clearly wasn't listening to the statement I just read out. I didn't actually make that statement. I'm happy to remind him that 15 percent of world trade goes through there and if anyone really wants to know what happens when our shipping lanes and our supply chains are interrupted just think back to what happened to New Zealanders and to their lack of buying power when we had the COVID-19 situation. Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: That contradicts Nicola Willis; she said it was all our fault. SPEAKER: Well, hang on—good on you. Hon PEENI HENARE (Labour): Just to remind the Minister, in her own statement today she clearly sets out that this means higher costs for New Zealanders, which is the thrust of my question. My final question to the Minister with respect to this statement is: given the challenges that she even pointed out in this question, in the line of questioning that I've presented to her, given the challenges to the New Zealand Defence Force, does the Minister think that this is indeed the priority for the New Zealand Defence Force? Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Defence): Yes, can I just tell the member and the House that the New Zealand Defence Force are delighted to be trusted to undertake this deployment; that the morale seems to be improved, they are getting to do he work that they came to New Zealand Defence Force to do, and they are so happy that they've got a Minister who's on their side. The country is coming back on track. [Interruption] SPEAKER: It was all going so well. Hon MARAMA DAVIDSON (Co-Leader—Green): I promise I'll keep that vibe going. Mr Speaker, thank you very much. Aotearoa has a proud and long custom and history of being a voice for peace and humanitarian concentration and efforts across world conflicts. We the Greens consider that we need our actions to continue to be focused on de-escalation of violence instead of supporting further fuelling of conflict where it is ordinary people who will be most affected. This Government's denial—which will lead to some of our questions that I have—that this conflict in Yemen is connected to the war in Gaza is naïve and dangerous—at best, wilfully ignorant—because we have seen, quite clearly across the world, that the Houthi have stated that their attacks on shipping are in response to Israel's bombardment of Gaza and will only stop when a ceasefire is reached. This Government is getting drawn into a situation with complex interests from a range of parties, without sufficient consideration and without a public mandate. Most importantly, this threatens the long standing and robust agenda of an independent foreign policy approach rather than hooking our trailers up to States and nations of the world who are furthering and risking escalation of violence. This decision to send the New Zealand Defence Force personnel to the Red Sea has already been agreed, by many different, global, international relations experts, here and around the world—that is has every chance of escalating violence. Now, that is not even up for debate. That seems to be something that people, both in support of deployment and people against deployment, are at least agreed on that particular notion: that there is more than a 50 percent chance that violence and conflict will escalate. So I am putting to the Minister of Defence: why is our country wanting to be involved in escalating further violence when our country needs to remain and actually protect our long held independence and our long held values and tradition of focusing our efforts on peace keeping and enduring justice? This is now going to one of the statements I have been referring to—I have been referring to this Minister's statements the whole time, but one particular one that I do want to pick up is: the Minister said just now that "collective action demonstrates our commitment to support efforts to address a serious threat to international stability." and to uphold legality. Is there nothing quite as threatening to stability and legality as the ongoing violence and genocide that is happening to Gaza, where we have actually withheld our discretion to make massive mandate deployment decisions so far and have not sought to use everything possible to call for a ceasefire? And yet, for this, for these attacks on the shipping, from Yemen in the Red Sea, we are then using discretion? How does the Minister decide when to be concerned about threats to security and stability, and when to be concerned about legality? Where does she cherry pick and choose to not be concerned about threats to stability? My first question there. Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Defence): Well, I think I found a question in there. I think the point, really, the member needs to remember is that decisions are made on the best interests of New Zealand and New Zealanders, and every New Zealander who is going to be finding that the costs of this extra 10 to 15 days sailing and the extra insurances, being paid for and demanded to be able to have any shipping coming through, is going to be paid for by New Zealanders. So we also look to the legality; we look to principles that we have around making sure that New Zealand does what we can to be able to help ensure that New Zealanders are better off than we would be if we didn't. I'd also remind the member that New Zealand has been involved in matters around the Red Sea since 2013. It's been going on for quite a long time, and no matter what the Houthi's may say is their reason for doing what they're doing, there are 50 other nations that are affected by this. And she's also asked some statements, somewhere in there, around independent foreign policy. Well, I suggest to her that she looks at that, compared to her statements about how global commentators should be, obviously, influencing our foreign policy. Of course New Zealand has an independent foreign policy. By the way, so does every other State and territory that I'm aware of. We are one of many countries with an independent foreign policy, and I don't note that it's going to be set by commentators who like to comment from the sidelines and are not prepared to actually pull their weight when it comes to being a global citizen. Hon MARAMA DAVIDSON (Co-Leader—Green): What is the Minister's end game? Does she believe that this deployment into the Red Sea is what is going to find enduring peace in the Middle East? Does the Minister believe that our association with the US and the UK—who are already seen to be meddling right around the world—will de-escalate violence, and does she believe that escalating violence is truly in the best interest of New Zealanders? Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Defence): I'm very happy to tell the member that I absolutely support the New Zealand Defence Force and what they're doing. This is the right decision. New Zealand is not a freeloader. New Zealand is not going to—and the member may wish to, as she has today—express support for the Houthis. I do not, and nor does this Government. We do not support piracy; we do support New Zealanders' freedom of navigation, being good citizens of the world, and we're very proud of the people who are doing that. Hon MARAMA DAVIDSON (Co-Leader—Green): Does the Minister support calls to end genocide and have a ceasefire and to end further harm, and, on that, then, where was the public debate? If the Minister feels truly and confident that she has New Zealanders' best interests at heart, where was the big debate? Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Defence): Look, I don't think any of that has anything to do with the statement that I've made today. But I would say to that member that we all love world peace, we'd just like to see a bit more of it. MARK CAMERON (ACT): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of ACT in support of the ministerial statement from the Minister of Defence the Hon Judith Collins, and as part of the coalition Government. The ACT Party supports the deployment, announced 23 January, of the six New Zealand Defence Force personnel to the Middle East to help and assist our partners with current and future military actions against the Houthi targets based in Yemen and the Red Sea. The multiple Houthi attacks against merchant naval shipping is both highly illegal and extremely damaging to our freedoms and that of international trade furthermore. Freedom of navigation is a core tenant of the international rules-based order. The attack on vessels in the Red Sea by the Houthi rebels is eroding the sovereignty afforded to all law-abiding countries that transit the Red Sea, the Suez Canal whilst in international waters. ACT fully supports the deployment of our military personnel to help aid and assist our allies and our international partners nullify this threat. New Zealand, like so many other countries, rely heavily on our trading relationships and our ability to access markets around the world. The disruptions in the Red Sea are having a profound effect on the 15 percent—and I clarify that nearly 15 to 16 percent of all the global trade that uses these traditional shipping lanes. ACT stands proud in support of the New Zealand Defence Force personnel and those that have been deployed to assist in this vital mission. We, as a country, cannot wish the evils of the world away. We must stand as a partner in a global society and play our important part in it. This deployment signals our commitment to our shared values of protecting all things democracy, global security, and the importance of global trade. SPEAKER: Thank you. Other speakers? In that case, the Minister has a brief right of reply. MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS New Zealand Defence Force—Deployment of personnel to protect Red Sea shipping (30 January 2024) Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Defence): Mr Speaker, I wish to make a ministerial statement. Thank you. I rise to make a ministerial statement in support of Cabinet's 23 January decision to deploy six New Zealand Defence Force (NZDF) personnel to support any future military action against Houthi targets in Yemen and the Red Sea, as part of coalition efforts to uphold maritime security in the Red Sea. The decision to deploy NZDF personnel was made in response to Houthis' actions which threaten commercial shipping, and it represents the commitment of the Government to defending our national interests and supporting our international partners. The Houthi attacks against commercial and naval shipping are illegal, unacceptable, and profoundly destabilising. More than 50 nations have been affected in more than 30 attacks by the Houthi on ships in recent months. The international community, including New Zealand, has repeatedly demanded the Houthi cease their attacks on Red Sea shipping to no avail. The coalition response is an inevitable consequence of the Houthis' very deliberate actions in the face of these warnings. New Zealand's interests are global and include vital trade and economic interests. Freedom of navigation is an integral part of New Zealand's national prosperity and trade security. Disruptions to shipping in the Red Sea and Suez Canal mean higher costs for New Zealanders—in fact, nearly 15 percent of global trade flows through this shipping lane. The NZDF personnel being deployed will support coalition forces to carry out precision attacks on identified Houthi military targets. They will be in roles in operational headquarters in the wider Middle East region and elsewhere. None of our personnel will enter Yemen. Our personnel are highly trained, and this latest deployment will see them work alongside our traditional security partners to defend our values and protect our vital interests. New Zealand's contribution has already been appreciatively welcomed by coalition partners. Such collective action demonstrates our commitment to support efforts to address a serious threat to international stability. New Zealand cannot enjoy the benefits of global security without making a contribution when we can and when it is in our clear security interests. This deployment to the international coalition is operationally very separate, but complementary to, New Zealand's longstanding and enduring contribution to the combined maritime forces in Bahrain. Both deployments support New Zealand's interest in the freedom of navigation in the Middle East region. Finally, I would like to conclude by again acknowledging our NZDF personnel and their families. I know that I speak for all New Zealanders when I state how appreciative and proud I am for their sacrifice and their service. Hon PEENI HENARE (Labour): Any Government that makes the decision to deploy New Zealand Defence Force (NZDF) personnel does not make those decisions lightly. It's always made with a clear decision-making framework and a clear rationale. I can speak with experience with this particular matter. In my time as the defence Minister, my colleagues and I made the decision—and it was the right decision—after the fall of Kabul to evacuate. In those circumstances, in August 2021, the rationale was quite clear. Then again, of course, in terms of the conflict in Ukraine, we as a Government at the time decided that we would train, we would also supply, and we would also focus on humanitarian support in that conflict. With that having been said, with respect to humanitarian support, there is the urging of this side of the House for this Government to never turn their back on the need for humanitarian support across the wider Middle East during this time. The Labour Party has made their position clear: that we should not be involved in this conflict. There's no UN resolution in favour of such actions and there are countries in Europe and Scandinavia that are against joining this conflict. We have to be very mindful about getting involved in such conflicts, and I don't believe that the Government have made a clear case for it. The New Zealand reputation is respected worldwide. This, however, cannot be taken for granted and neither should the New Zealand support. The Government need to have a clear answer for New Zealanders who share in this belief that we should not be getting involved. With that having been said, I acknowledge that there are many of our NZDF personnel who are deployed right around the world, and we wish them safety and all the best in those deployments. My questions to the Minister will continue to flesh out that rationale in making sure that this Government makes a very clear case for this particular deployment. With that having been said, my first question to the Minister is: given the Minister's ministerial statement, and I quote, "Cabinet's 23 January decision to deploy six New Zealand Defence Force personnel to support any future military action against Houthi targets in Yemen and the Red Sea, as part of coalition efforts to uphold maritime security in the Red Sea." My first series of questions to the Minister is: how long is this deployment intended for? Is it costed, and when can the families of these personnel expect them home; sooner or later? Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Defence): Thank you very much. I'm very happy to advise the member and the House that the deployment will be finishing before or on 31 July this year, so that's when, after that, I'd expect families will be able to see their loved ones again, and the costing is around $500,000, and that's being paid for within New Zealand Defence Force baselines. Hon PEENI HENARE (Labour): In light of those answers, the Minister in media statements today also said that "we are going to need money in the future."Does this send an indication to New Zealanders, and indeed to the House, that further New Zealand Defence Force deployments in the Middle East will be in the pipeline in the future? Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Defence): No, the member should not take it as being that. What he should take it as is being that the New Zealand Defence Force has been left in a very difficult position after six—well, actually the last three years of neglect—and that, clearly, promises that were made by a previous Minister—himself—to Defence , around capital funding have not been complied with, and so it is outrageous that this debate is being used to attack the Defence Force on funding when, in fact, he's left the Defence Force in the position that they are in. I'm really proud of what Defence has been able to do with what they have, and clearly the economy was left in a state pretty similar to what Defence was. Hon PEENI HENARE (Labour): Given that the Minister raised that particular matter, is the Minister now then committing to all of the capital projects that the Labour Government in its time committed to, in the past six years? And second to that, the other questions that this House has is: what were the other options that the Cabinet Minister presented to Cabinet for consideration with respect to the US and the UK bombing of Yemen? SPEAKER: Might I just say at this point that while this exchange is free flowing, it is related entirely to the ministerial statement and all commentary from both sides should relate to that ministerial statement. Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Defence): Well, I'm sorry, Mr Speaker, but there was so much noise coming from the other side that I actually missed the last part of the member's question that might have actually related to the statement. SPEAKER: We'll hold the time and you could ask the question again. Hon PEENI HENARE (Labour): Thank you. My question was: what other options did the Minister present to Cabinet for consideration with respect to and in response to the US and the UK bombing of Yemen? Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Defence): I'm sorry, it was in relation to what? Hon Peeni Henare: What other options— Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Options. Hon Peeni Henare: What other options might the Minister have presented to her colleagues? Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Oh, right. Well, there were two options. One was to deploy a number of personnel, and the second was to deploy six, so those were the options and Cabinet agreed. Hon PEENI HENARE (Labour): In the Minister's statement she talked with respect to adding hugely inflationary costs to New Zealanders. My question to the Minister is: what evidence does the Minister have to suggest that attacks in the Red Sea and Panama Canal are indeed adding to inflation and costs for New Zealanders, and if that is the case when can New Zealanders expect a relief in the cost of living that currently impacts this country? SPEAKER: That's slightly wide at the end. Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Defence): Sorry, but the member clearly wasn't listening to the statement I just read out. I didn't actually make that statement. I'm happy to remind him that 15 percent of world trade goes through there and if anyone really wants to know what happens when our shipping lanes and our supply chains are interrupted just think back to what happened to New Zealanders and to their lack of buying power when we had the COVID-19 situation. Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: That contradicts Nicola Willis; she said it was all our fault. SPEAKER: Well, hang on—good on you. Hon PEENI HENARE (Labour): Just to remind the Minister, in her own statement today she clearly sets out that this means higher costs for New Zealanders, which is the thrust of my question. My final question to the Minister with respect to this statement is: given the challenges that she even pointed out in this question, in the line of questioning that I've presented to her, given the challenges to the New Zealand Defence Force, does the Minister think that this is indeed the priority for the Defence Force? Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Defence): Yes, can I just tell the member and the House that the Defence Force are delighted to be trusted to undertake this deployment; that the morale seems to be improved, they are getting to do the work that they came to New Zealand Defence Force to do, and they are so happy that they've got a Minister who's on their side. The country is coming back on track. [Interruption] SPEAKER: It was all going so well. Hon MARAMA DAVIDSON (Co-Leader—Green): I promise I'll keep that vibe going. Mr Speaker, thank you very much. Aotearoa has a proud and long custom and history of being a voice for peace and humanitarian concentration and efforts across world conflicts. We the Greens consider that we need our actions to continue to be focused on de-escalation of violence instead of supporting further fuelling of conflict where it is ordinary people who will be most affected. This Government's denial—which will lead to some of our questions that I have—that this conflict in Yemen is connected to the war in Gaza is naïve and dangerous—at best, wilfully ignorant—because we have seen, quite clearly across the world, that the Houthi have stated that their attacks on shipping are in response to Israel's bombardment of Gaza and will only stop when a ceasefire is reached. This Government is getting drawn into a situation with complex interests from a range of parties, without sufficient consideration and without a public mandate. Most importantly, this threatens the longstanding and robust agenda of an independent foreign policy approach rather than hooking our trailers up to States and nations of the world who are furthering and risking escalation of violence. This decision to send New Zealand Defence Force personnel to the Red Sea has—as has already been agreed by many different, global, international relations experts here and around the world every chance of escalating violence. Now, that is not even up for debate. That seems to be something that people, both in support of deployment and people against deployment, are at least agreed on—that there is more than a 50 percent chance that violence and conflict will escalate. So I am putting to the Minister of Defence: why is our country wanting to be involved in escalating further violence when our country needs to remain and actually protect our long held independence and our long held values and tradition of focusing our efforts on peace keeping and enduring justice? This is now going to one of the statements I have been referring to—I have been referring to this Minister's statement the whole time, but one particular one that I do want to pick up is: the Minister said just now that "collective action demonstrates our commitment to support efforts to address a serious threat to international stability." and to uphold legality. Is there nothing quite as threatening to stability and legality as the ongoing violence and genocide that is happening to Gaza, where we have actually withheld our discretion to make massive mandate deployment decisions so far and have not sought to use everything possible to call for a ceasefire? And yet, for this, for these attacks on the shipping, from Yemen in the Red Sea, we are then using discretion? How does the Minister decide when to be concerned about threats to security and stability and when to be concerned about legality? Where does she cherry-pick and choose to not be concerned about threats to stability? My first question there. Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Defence): Well, I think I found a question in there. I think the point, really, the member needs to remember is that decisions are made on the best interests of New Zealand and New Zealanders, and every New Zealander is going to be finding that the costs of this extra 10 to 15 days sailing and the extra insurances being paid for, and demanded, to be able to have any shipping coming through is going to be paid for by New Zealanders. So we also look to the legality; we look to principles that we have around making sure that New Zealand does what we can to be able to help ensure that New Zealanders are better off than they would be if we didn't. I'd also remind the member that New Zealand has been involved in matters around the Red Sea since 2013. It's been going on for quite a long time, and no matter what the Houthis may say is their reason for doing what they're doing, there are 50 other nations that are affected by this. And she's also asked some statements, somewhere in there, around independent foreign policy. Well, I suggest to her that she looks at that, compared to her statements about how global commentators should be, obviously, influencing our foreign policy. Of course New Zealand has an independent foreign policy. By the way, so does every other State and territory that I'm aware of. We are one of many countries with an independent foreign policy, and I don't note that it's going to be set by commentators who like to comment from the sidelines and are not prepared to actually pull their weight when it comes to being a global citizen. Hon MARAMA DAVIDSON (Co-Leader—Green): What is the Minister's end game? Does she believe that this deployment into the Red Sea is what is going to find enduring peace in the Middle East? Does the Minister believe that our association with the US and the UK—who are already seen to be meddling right around the world—will de-escalate violence, and does she believe that escalating violence is truly in the best interest of New Zealanders? Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Defence): I'm very happy to tell the member that I absolutely support the New Zealand Defence Force and what they're doing. This is the right decision. New Zealand is not a freeloader. New Zealand is not going to—and the member may wish to, as she has today—express support for the Houthis. I do not, and nor does this Government. We do not support piracy; we do support New Zealanders' freedom of navigation, being good citizens of the world, and we're very proud of the people who are doing that. Hon MARAMA DAVIDSON (Co-Leader—Green): Does the Minister support calls to end genocide and have a ceasefire and to end further harm, and, on that, then, where was the public debate? If the Minister feels truly and confident that she has New Zealanders' best interests at heart, where was the big debate? Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Defence): Look, I don't think any of that has anything to do with the statement that I've made today. But I would say to that member that we all love world peace, we'd just like to see a bit more of it. MARK CAMERON (ACT): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of ACT in support of the ministerial statement from the Minister of Defence, the Hon Judith Collins, and as part of the coalition Government. The ACT Party supports the deployment, announced on 23 January, of the six New Zealand Defence Force personnel to the Middle East to help and assist our partners with current and future military actions against the Houthi targets based in Yemen and the Red Sea. The multiple Houthi attacks against merchant naval shipping is both highly illegal and extremely damaging to our freedoms and that of international trade furthermore. Freedom of navigation is a core tenet of the international rules-based order. The attack on vessels in the Red Sea by the Houthi rebels is eroding the sovereignty afforded to all law-abiding countries that transit the Red Sea, the Suez Canal, whilst in international waters. ACT fully supports the deployment of our military personnel to help aid and assist our allies and our international partners nullify this threat. New Zealand, like so many other countries, relies heavily on our trading relationships and our ability to access markets around the world. The disruptions in the Red Sea are having a profound effect on the 15 percent—and I clarify that; nearly 15 to 16 percent—of all the global trade that uses these traditional shipping lanes. ACT stands proud in support of the New Zealand Defence Force personnel and those that have been deployed to assist in this vital mission. We, as a country, cannot wish the evils of the world away. We must stand as a partner in a global society and play our important part in it. This deployment signals our commitment to our shared values of protecting all things democracy, global security, and the importance of global trade. SPEAKER: Thank you. Other speakers? In that case, the Minister has a brief right of reply. Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Defence): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. Well, it's easy, isn't it, when things happen a long way from New Zealand, to think it's not our problem? But this is our problem. It's our problem because these indiscriminate attacks by the Houthi on ships of all nations are hitting all of us in the pocket, all Kiwis. That's you, me, our family, and our friends. These attacks are actually forcing ships to take the long route around the Cape of Good Hope, and that's adding 10 to 15 days on to that journey—10 to 15 days of extra fuel and of wages—and it means fewer journeys. So what does this mean for a country that sits at the bottom of the supply chain? It means fewer goods, and it means price increases. We saw what happened during and post COVID when supply chains were disrupted; costs skyrocketed, and that was if you could even get the item that you needed. I'm sure none of us wants to have a return to those days, and nor can we afford to at a time when so many people are struggling to make ends meet. But this deployment isn't just about money; it's about doing the right thing. New Zealanders are not freeloaders—certainly not under this coalition—and that's not going to happen. We will not sit back and wait for someone else to sort things out for us. We are fair-minded people, and we want to do our bit, and we want to contribute. We've made it very clear that we've been asked to assist. We are a partner with the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia, Canada, and other like-minded countries when it comes to playing our part. New Zealand has long done this, and it's the right thing to do. We have a defence force for a reason. They are highly trained, and they're ready to step up and do the job they signed up to. We cannot just sit in blissful ignorance and naivety and think that everyone else needs to protect us and protect our shipping lanes. We cannot sit back and wait for someone else to sort it out for us. So, for the benefit of members opposite, I'll say it again: New Zealanders are not freeloaders; we are going to do our bit. PETITIONS, PAPERS, SELECT COMMITTEE REPORTS, AND INTRODUCTION OF BILLS SPEAKER: Petitions have been delivered to the Clerk for presentation. CLERK: Petition of Jas Mcintosh requesting that the House make attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and autism spectrum disorder assessments accessible and affordable for all entitled to healthcare in New Zealand. Petition of Muhammad Dahlan requesting that the House urge the Government to create a temporary special category visa for Palestinians in Gaza who have family members in New Zealand. Petition of Mohamed Soliman requesting that the House urge the Government to limit the diplomatic relationship between New Zealand and Israel. SPEAKER: Those petitions stand referred to the Petitions Committee. Papers have been delivered. CLERK: 2022-23 annual reports of the: Accreditation Council Commerce Commission External Reporting Board New Zealand Green Investment Finance Ltd New Zealand Post Ltd Oranga Tamariki Retirement Commission Te Puni Kōkiri 2023-24 statements of performance expectations for: Callaghan Innovation New Zealand Green Investment Finance Ltd Reserve Bank of New Zealand Monetary Policy Statement and Financial Stability Report reports in relation to selected non-departmental appropriations for the year ended 30 June 2023 for the following portfolios within Vote Business, Science and Innovation: Emergency management Research, science, and innovation report of the Registrar of the Environment Court for the 12 months ended 30 June 2023. SPEAKER: Those papers are published under the authority of the House. A select committee report has been delivered for presentation. CLERK: Report of the Finance and Expenditure Committee on the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Monetary Policy Statement November 2023. SPEAKER: The Monetary Policy Statement is set down for consideration. The Clerk has been informed of the introduction of bills. CLERK: New Zealand Productivity Commission Act Repeal Bill, introduction. European Union Free Trade Agreement Legislation Amendment Bill, introduction. SPEAKER: Those bills are set down for first reading. PETITIONS, PAPERS, SELECT COMMITTEE REPORTS, AND INTRODUCTION OF BILLS SPEAKER: Petitions have been delivered to the Clerk for presentation. CLERK: Petition of Jas Mcintosh requesting that the House make attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and autism spectrum disorder assessments accessible and affordable for all entitled to healthcare in New Zealand. Petition of Muhammad Dahlan requesting that the House urge the Government to create a temporary special category visa for Palestinians in Gaza who have family members in New Zealand. Petition of Mohamed Soliman requesting that the House urge the Government to limit the diplomatic relationship between New Zealand and Israel. SPEAKER: Those petitions stand referred to the Petitions Committee. Papers have been delivered. CLERK: 2022-23 annual reports of the: Accreditation Council Commerce Commission External Reporting Board New Zealand Green Investment Finance Ltd New Zealand Post Ltd Oranga Tamariki Retirement Commission Te Puni Kōkiri 2023-24 statements of performance expectations for: Callaghan Innovation New Zealand Green Investment Finance Ltd Reserve Bank of New Zealand Monetary Policy Statement and Financial Stability Report reports in relation to selected non-departmental appropriations for the year ended 30 June 2023 for the following portfolios within Vote Business, Science and Innovation: Emergency management Research, science, and innovation report of the Registrar of the Environment Court for the 12 months ended 30 June 2023. SPEAKER: Those papers are published under the authority of the House. A select committee report has been delivered for presentation. CLERK: Report of the Finance and Expenditure Committee on the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Monetary Policy Statement November 2023. SPEAKER: The Monetary Policy Statement is set down for consideration. The Clerk has been informed of the introduction of bills. CLERK: New Zealand Productivity Commission Act Repeal Bill, introduction. European Union Free Trade Agreement Legislation Amendment Bill, introduction. SPEAKER: Those bills are set down for first reading. ORAL QUESTIONS QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS Question No. 1—Finance 1. DAN BIDOIS (National—Northcote) to the Minister of Finance: What recent reports has she seen on the cost of living? Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance): Last week, Stats New Zealand released the Consumers Price Index for the final quarter of last year. This showed that inflation was 4.7 percent in the year to December. While that is an improvement on the 5.6 percent inflation in September, it is still far too high. What is really striking is when one looks over a longer time frame: the Stats NZ figures show, for example, that over the last three years, prices have risen a total of 19 percent. That 19 percent in only three years represents a cost of living crisis that has eroded the real value of people's incomes and savings and has made their lives much more expensive. Dan Bidois: Is New Zealand's inflation rate being driven by overseas factors? Hon NICOLA WILLIS: To some extent, yes— Hon Grant Robertson: Judith Collins just said yes. Hon NICOLA WILLIS: —but to a greater extent, no. Hon Grant Robertson: Oh, you'd better tell Judith. Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Mr Robertson should listen because I think he'll learn something. Inflation is influenced by global disruptions that raise the price of imports. Right now, for example, supply chains are under considerable strain from the Red Sea attacks and the Panama drought. But global factors are not the main contributors to inflation. The Stats NZ figures from last week show that tradables inflation, covering goods and services that are imported or that compete with foreign goods, has dropped significantly. On the other hand, non-tradables inflation has stayed stubbornly high. So domestic factors, rather than global factors, are playing the greatest role in driving inflation right now. Dan Bidois: What has the Government been doing to help bring down inflation? Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Last year, the Government introduced legislation which this House passed to bring back a single mandate for monetary policy—that mandate is price stability. Having a single price stability mandate has served New Zealand well since its introduction more than 30 years ago, and the experiment of the last five years of having a dual mandate failed spectacularly. This Government went back to a single mandate to ensure that monetary policy decision makers and those observing them have no doubt that busting inflation is our goal and that they are to have an unerring focus on achieving price stability. Dan Bidois: What else is the Government doing to help with the cost of living? Hon NICOLA WILLIS: The Government's 100-day plan contains a number of measures to help New Zealanders hit by large increases in the cost of living. Nothing— Hon Grant Robertson: Nothing—that's right! Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, nothing can instantly make up for a 19 percent increase in costs, but New Zealanders will welcome measures such as cancelling fuel tax increases for the remainder of this term and removing the Auckland regional fuel tax. They will also appreciate the steps our Government is taking to ensure maximum value for every taxpayer dollar spent. Later this year, Kiwis can also look forward to a personal income tax reduction that will put more money in their back pocket. Question No. 2—Prime Minister 2. Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his Government's statements and actions? Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON (Prime Minister): Yes, I do, and particularly our Government's statements on education—of course, that member was the Minister of Education for 5½ years. The Government is particularly concerned about the state of kids' school attendance—we have 55 percent of our kids not going to school regularly. So I am very proud of our Government's statements and actions around education, particularly banning mobile phones; making sure we have one hour of maths, reading, and writing every day at primary and intermediate schools; and, importantly, reviewing the curriculum. We care about our kids. We want them to get well educated so they can have a great future. Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Does he agree with Christopher Luxon on recent changes to smoke-free legislation: "We've been really supportive. Anything to remove, you know, smoking harm I think is a good thing."; if so, what's changed? Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: We're very pleased to see that the current legislation which we're reverting to has actually driven daily smoking down by two points, back to 6.8, and we're on track to deliver Smokefree 2025. Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Will projected Government revenue from tobacco sales increase or decrease as a result of his Government's decision to wind back changes to smoke-free legislation? Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: This Government's very committed to continuing to lower smoking. We don't believe that that Government's legislation was actually the right way forward. We believe that we can achieve lower smoking rates with the legislation that exists today. Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. That may well be the Prime Minister's opinion; it didn't relate to the question that I asked him. SPEAKER: Well, in the end, all ministerial answers are opinions of the Minister. You can ask the question again and we'll see what happens. Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Will projected Government revenue from tobacco sales increase or decrease as a result of his Government's decision to wind back changes to smoke-free legislation? Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Revenue forecasts are Budget-sensitive, but we want lower smoking rates across this country—that's what we're going to do. Rt Hon Winston Peters: Supplementary question. Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Supplementary question. SPEAKER: I'll go there—sorry. Rt Hon Winston Peters: He's had three. Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Does he agree— SPEAKER: Hang on a minute. Wait on—wait on. Yes, I know he's had three, but I'm the one who calls. Rt Hon Chris Hipkins. Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Does he agree with Nicola Willis— Rt Hon Winston Peters: Point of order, Mr Speaker. Let's get things started right in 2024. SPEAKER: Well, that's what I'm trying to do, and, believe me, I'm going to be the one who wins here. Rt Hon Winston Peters: Not if you're going on principle. Principles should win, not personalities. Can I just say this: he's had three questions already and the next time he's interrupted, this should have been given to the other side of the House, surely. SPEAKER: One of the things that became a convention in the last Parliament was that where the primary questioner continues to ask for supplementaries until their allocation runs out, they're able to do that. If they sit down and hold one back, that's fine, but the Rt Hon Chris Hipkins wants to get his all out at one go, and I think that's reasonable, given the way that we've operated over the previous three years. Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Does he, therefore, agree with Nicola Willis, who said, "Coming back to those extra sources of revenue and other savings areas that will help us to fund tax reduction, we have to remember that the changes to smoke-free legislation had a significant impact on the Government books - with about $1 billion there."; if so, why does he think that more people smoking or smoking more is an acceptable way of funding tax cuts? Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I disagree completely. The legislation that we are reverting to is the same legislation that has seen a consistent decrease in daily smoking. If you just look at the last year, it's gone from 8.6 percent in 2022 down to 6.8 percent in 2023. The legislation was working. It was driving smoking rates down, and that's what we'll continue to do in Government. Rt Hon Winston Peters: Could I ask the Prime Minister as to whether or not it's axiomatic that if there is a dramatic decline, which is now the world's leading decline in tobacco smoking, then it's quite possible that the instance of tax will go down as well; and, second, that the legislation about which the Leader of the Opposition is talking was not constructed by him but by New Zealand First, which led to the dramatic fall in tobacco smoking in the first place? And that's a fact. Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I agree that the legislation we are wanting to put in place has actually driven smoking rates down and will continue to do so going forward. Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Has the Government requested any advice on freezing tobacco excise; if so, why? Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Not that I'm aware of. Hon David Seymour: How much revenue would the Government get from illegally smuggled and sold counterfeit cigarettes that are now dominating the Australian market, with organised crime taking over and the situation getting out of control? Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I think the member raises a very good question, which was the problem with the previous Government's proposed changes to legislation—that it would encourage a black market and would actually lead to increasing levels of crime and ram raids. Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: If any Minister or Ministers in his Government have received donations from anyone associated with the tobacco lobby, would he regard that as a conflict of interest and exclude them from decision making on any future changes to smoke-free legislation? Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I'm not aware of that. Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I didn't ask him whether he was aware; I asked him whether he would regard it as a conflict of interest they received— SPEAKER: It's a fair question. Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Yeah. I would expect that all Ministers would comply with their reporting obligations. Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. The Cabinet Manual makes it very clear that the Prime Minister determines whether or not they have a conflict of interest. I've asked him whether he would regard that as a conflict of interest or not, and he still hasn't answered it. Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I expect all Ministers to comply with the Cabinet Manual and to declare conflicts of interest. Question No. 3—Prime Minister 3. TAKUTAI TARSH KEMP (Te Pāti Māori —Tāmaki Makaurau) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his Government's statements and policies? Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON (Prime Minister): Yes, I do, in the context they were given. Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke: Supplementary, Mr Speaker. SPEAKER: Supplementary question—sorry, having to go to my sheet. My deep apologies—I'm sorry about this. Sorry, I'm lost here; someone's going to have to help me here. My apologies. Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke: Hana-Rawhiti. SPEAKER: Hana, my sincere apologies. I do apologise. Please ask your question. Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke: Does he agree with the Ministry of Justice that his Government's Treaty principles bill to redefine Te Tiriti o Waitangi goes against the spirit of the Treaty, or the text of the Treaty? Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: The Government hasn't received any Cabinet paper or any draft Treaty principles bill legislation. Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke: If he has no intention of supporting the Treaty principles bill beyond the select committee stage, why has he appointed a new Associate Minister with specific responsibility for the bill? Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: So that the programme can be progressed. Takutai Tarsh Kemp: By delegating ministerial responsibility for the Treaty principles bill to an ACT Party minister, is he attempting to distance himself from division that this attempt to erase Te Tiriti o Waitangi has caused, while at the same time leveraging off it? Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I reject the question. We're not changing the Treaty of Waitangi, nor Treaty settlements. What we have is a coalition agreement which we are actioning. [Interruption] SPEAKER: No, no comments; just a question. Takutai Tarsh Kemp: If he believes the Treaty principles bill is unhelpful and divisive, will he commit to voting against it after the select committee stage? Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: As has been well canvassed, there is no commitment to support the bill after first reading. Question No. 4—Housing 4. RIMA NAKHLE (National—Takanini) to the Minister of Housing: What recent concerns has he raised with Kāinga Ora regarding vacant homes? Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister of Housing): Mr Speaker, thank you. Earlier this month, I announced that I had written to the board of Kāinga Ora—Homes and Communities to make it clear that the number of social houses sitting vacant across New Zealand is completely unacceptable. As of late last year, the total number of vacant social homes in New Zealand was 3,906—5 percent of New Zealand's total public housing stock. Twenty percent of new public homes delivered by Kāinga Ora—Homes and Communities between June 2022 and October 2023 were still sitting vacant in October last year. Kāinga Ora has been planning and building these new homes for years. They were not a surprise. My expectation is that months out from a new home's completion, they should be getting organised with new tenants who need these homes, and I'm sure they'd much rather be moving into a brand-new home rather than sitting in an emergency housing motel room. Rima Nakhle: What else was in the letter to Kāinga Ora—Homes and Communities? Hon CHRIS BISHOP: The letter outlined my disappointment with the numbers, and it made clear my expectation that with over 25,000 families on the social housing wait-list—20,000 more than six years ago—social housing homes should not be left empty for a day longer than absolutely necessary. Rima Nakhle: What does this announcement mean for New Zealanders on our social housing wait-list? Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Kāinga Ora—Homes and Communities' performance impacts every New Zealander—none more so than the thousands on the wait-list living in motel rooms, or sometimes even worse. My letter and the announcement earlier this month instruct Kāinga Ora to focus on efficiently placing tenants into social housing across New Zealand and to work with greater urgency to do so. We are committed to getting Kāinga Ora—Homes and Communities working well so that it can serve those in the greatest need. Hon Ginny Andersen: Can the Minister please tell me why he is unable to answer how many people in Lower Hutt are presently on the social housing waiting list? Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, that number is publicly available. From memory, without checking my information, as of 30 September 2023—again, from memory—the number in Lower Hutt City of people on the wait-list was 623, and I would note that that is a fivefold increase compared to October 2017. Rima Nakhle: What other plans does the Government have for Kāinga Ora? Hon CHRIS BISHOP: As I've mentioned previously in this House, the Government has commissioned an independent review into Kāinga Ora—Homes and Communities, which is currently under way. We're looking at financial situation, procurement, and asset management, and I'm looking forward to receiving the report in March. As I say, it is critical to the Government that Kāinga Ora—Homes and Communities operates efficiently and effectively and delivers taxpayers value for money. Hon Ginny Andersen: It's a point of order, Mr Speaker. I have in response to written question No. 30561 that the Minister stated he advised he was unable to provide the information on the Lower Hutt waiting list. So it is news to us now that he suddenly has that— Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Speaking to the point of order, I know the precise question the member is referring to. The issue is that the member asked for the number as of a certain week, Mr Speaker. The numbers, as the former Ministers in the Opposition know so well, are not broken down on the social housing wait-list by week; they are broken down as at the end of a month or at the end of a quarter. The information is published monthly and quarterly. If the member is specific about exactly what she is asking, she will get that information. And the other point I would note is that the information is publicly available every quarter. The member just needs to learn a little website: www.google.com. Question No. 5—Finance 5. Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour) to the Minister of Finance: Is the reported statement from Treasury correct that the 6.5 percent or 7.5 percent savings that are being sought from Public Service agencies include both departmental and non-departmental spending; if so, has she set any criteria beyond that for what spending is included or not included in the savings? Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance): Agencies have been asked to make savings from an eligible baseline which includes departmental and non-departmental spending with some adjustments and a range of exclusions. For example, in the case of Health and Education, those agencies have had non-departmental spending excluded from their baseline. In looking for savings, agencies have been asked to focus on low-value programmes, programmes that don't align with Government priorities, and non-essential back-office functions including contractor and consultant spend. The member should note that not all proposals put forward by agencies will necessarily be progressed by Ministers. Ministers will exercise their judgment to ensure that we deliver on our goal to deliver better front-line services for New Zealanders. Hon Grant Robertson: Why has she chosen to include the Defence Force in the Public Service cuts after originally not doing so? Hon NICOLA WILLIS: We have chosen a broad range of agencies to take part in the exercise on the basis that we think everyone should be looking to see whether there are areas where they can do things more efficiently and better. In the case of Defence, I would note that we have recognised they face critical cost pressures and, as such, they have been invited to bid for more funding in this Budget round. Hon Grant Robertson: Can she guarantee that the cuts to the Defence Force will not affect the wages of Defence Force staff? Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Yes. Hon Grant Robertson: Well, we're on a roll, then. Will she rule out cutting non-departmental funding allocated to Whaikaha - the Ministry of Disabled People? Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I can assure the member that non-departmental spending has been excluded from the baseline for that agency. Hon Grant Robertson: How can she reconcile the inclusion of Corrections in the departments to be cut with the commitment in the coalition agreement with ACT to increase its funding, or is this going to be another example of David Seymour's political impotence? Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Both can be true—and they are. And this actually goes to the fundamental issue, which is that we are asking the Department of Corrections to look at what resources may have become tied up in the back office so that we can move them into the front line in our prisons. It is the case that, in fact, we can both make savings in one area, increase funding in another. And I'd also point this out to the member, and it's something I would urge members opposite to reflect on: you shouldn't simply conflate spending more money with getting results for the people we serve. This Government will not fall for that mistake. Stuart Smith: Why is the Minister embarking on the savings programme across the Public Service? Hon NICOLA WILLIS: The core Public Service headcount has grown by almost 30 percent since 2018, and Government spending is also expected to have increased by around 80 percent between 2017 and 2024. We have far too few results for New Zealanders to show for that huge increase, and our Government is determined to restore respect for taxpayer money by stopping wasteful spending, improving value for money, and driving resources out of the back office and into front-line public services. Our savings programme in Budget 2024 is designed to find around $1.5 billion in savings per year, which we'll use to deliver on our policy commitments and fund critical cost pressures. Hon David Seymour: Minister, how did the Government manage to spend so much more money and yet get so much worse results, and is that an example of the previous finance Minister's fiscal incontinence? [Interruption] SPEAKER: Wait on, wait on. No need to go further. That last comment was greatly out of order, as was the question. Hon Grant Robertson: Has the Minister spoken to the Hon Judith Collins in wake of her comments that she is "going to need money for Defence", and what specifically in the Defence Force is she aiming to cut? Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I've had many conversations with the Minister of Defence, who shares with me how ignored the Defence Force felt by the last Government. And I can assure New Zealanders that in Minister Collins, the Defence Force has a very good advocate indeed. Question No. 6—Prime Minister 6. Hon MARAMA DAVIDSON (Co-Leader—Green) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his statement, "The Government has no plan, and never has had plans, to amend or revise the Treaty, or the Treaty settlements we have all worked so very hard together to achieve"; and if so, why is he proposing to introduce a Treaty principles bill that officials say "is not supported by the spirit of the Treaty or the text of the Treaty", and for which there has been a lack of consultation with the public? Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON (Prime Minister): In answer to the first part of the question, yes, the Government has no plan to change the Treaty or Treaty settlements, and in answer to the second part, it's part of our coalition agreement. Hon Marama Davidson: Does he have confidence in the ability of his Associate Minister of Justice David Seymour to engage with iwi and hapū on matters relating to the Treaty principles bill? Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, we are yet to see a draft Treaty principles bill. Hon Marama Davidson: Does he think it's acceptable that the Minister leading this bill who has called for a discussion on Te Tiriti, didn't even show up to Tūrangawaewae and didn't show up to Rātana where Tiriti kōrero was actually happening? Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I note that the Minister will be at Waitangi this weekend. Hon Marama Davidson: What will he say to iwi and hapū leaders on Waitangi Day next week about his plans to introduce a bill that removes tino rangatiratanga rights under Te Tiriti? Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: What we will be talking about is actually how we improve outcomes for Māori. To have two-thirds of Māori kids not in school regularly, to see Māori disadvantaged economically, to see poor housing stats, with Māori making up half of people on the social register, those are the conversations that we're actually having with iwi leaders and with Māori across the country. That's what they care about. Hon Marama Davidson: Is he concerned by the assessment of Tiriti expert Dayle Takitimu, who said the Treaty principles bill is "creating unrest, uncertainty, it's creating a whole lot of misinformation amongst the general population that is problematic." and if not, why not? Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, we haven't seen a draft Treaty principles bill, but what I can tell you is people should be concerned about improving outcomes for Māori and that's what this Government is single-mindedly focused on. Rt Hon Winston Peters: Could I ask the Prime Minister as to whether or not he knows of anyone who has said seriously in this Parliament that they're getting rid of the Treaty of Waitangi, and, second, as to whether or not there was a thing called "consultation", it happened on 14 October last year, called the election. Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: In answer the first part of the question, no. Hon Marama Davidson: Does he agree with former National Prime Minister Jim Bolger that a referendum on the Treaty principles is a "bloody stupid" idea, and, if so, why is he introducing a bill to enable this in the first place? Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Part of our coalition agreement, which we've talked about before, is that this Government is going to support the Treaty principles bill through to first reading. Question No. 7—Māori Crown Relations: Te Arawhiti 7. Hon WILLIE JACKSON (Labour) to the Minister for Māori Crown Relations: Te Arawhiti: What plans, if any, does the Government have to discuss its policies at Waitangi next week? Hon TAMA POTAKA (Minister for Māori Crown Relations: Te Arawhiti): He pātai wero hinengaro, he whakaharahara hoki tērā. Kāore e kore ka nui hoki ngā kōrero mō ngā kaupapa here a tēnei Kāwanatanga haumi me ngā mahuetanga pōuri a te Kāwanatanga tawhito, ki te ātea, ki te kāuta, ki te pae kōrero, ki te pari kārangaranga ka rangona e aku taringa, kitea e aku karu rongo. [That is a mind-bending question, and a somewhat terrible one too. Without doubt there will be a lot of discussion about the policies of this coalition Government and the sad leavings of the old Government, on the marae, in the kitchen, on the orators' benches, and echoing off the cliffs that will be heard by my ears, and seen by my eyes.] Hon Willie Jackson: Rawe ki te whakarongo ki tō tātou reo. Mihi ana ki te Minita kei te tautoko i tō tātou reo mā te kōrero i te reo. E mihi ana ki a koe e hoa, engari ka kōrero Pākehā ahau kia mōhio ai te Whare katoa. [It's awesome to listen to our language. I acknowledge the Minister that is supporting our language by speaking our language. I thank you my friend, but I will speak English so that the entire House understands.] I'm just mihi-ing to our Minister— SPEAKER: Yes, I know you have and it's outside the rules. Hon Willie Jackson: —because it's wonderful that he's speaking our language. SPEAKER: Just stick to the question, Willie. Hon Willie Jackson: I'm just saying I want to speak English so everybody understands, and ask him this: who should New Zealanders believe: Minister David Seymour, who says there is no partnership with Māori; or the Prime Minister, who confirmed today that he views the Treaty of Waitangi as akin to a partnership between the Crown and Māori, which has been the position of every Prime Minister since 1984, and will the Prime Minister and the Minister of Māori Development reiterate that at Waitangi? Hon David Seymour: Point of order. Mr Speaker. I hesitate to interrupt, but I don't believe I've ever said there's no partnership with Māori; I have said that the Treaty is not a partnership between races and shouldn't be characterised that way. SPEAKER: That's a fair defence of a position that was put. Put the question again, without that in it. Hon Willie Jackson: From the beginning: who should New Zealanders believe, the Hon David Seymour, who rejects that there is a partnership with Māori; or the Prime Minister, who confirmed today that he views the Treaty of Waitangi as akin to a partnership between the Crown and Māori, which has been the position of every Prime Minister—National and Labour—since 1984, and will the Prime Minister reiterate that at Waitangi? Hon TAMA POTAKA: New Zealanders should take the time to learn about Te Tiriti o Waitangi—the Treaty of Waitangi—and come to their own views. Hon Willie Jackson: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I don't believe the Minister went anywhere near the question or the answer—there was nothing. SPEAKER: Well, with all due respect, you asked him to venture an opinion on two particular positions; he then answered you by saying that all New Zealanders should come to their own position on those, and I think that's not unreasonable. Hon Willie Jackson: Yeah, thanks for that, Mr Speaker. SPEAKER: If you want further clarification, see me later. Hon Willie Jackson: Yeah, kia ora, kia ora, Mr Speaker. Does the Minister agree with the very respectable and well-supported National Party members Dame Jenny Shipley, Jim Bolger, Doug Graham, and Chris Finlayson, who all support the partnership principle and are adamant that we should get rid of the Treaty principles bill, and is he planning on discussing that at Waitangi? Hon TAMA POTAKA: As the Prime Minister has reminded us today, we have not yet seen a Treaty principles bill being brought in front of the members. Rt Hon Winston Peters: Could I ask the Minister as to whether this is the problem about trying to establish what the relationship means, or is it a fact that on 5 February 1840, no one in the British Empire, from which the sun never set, including the people living next to Queen Victoria in Buckingham Palace, was in partnership with the Queen, how could the Māori be two days later? So it's a relationship we're working on now; not the fiction of some people in this Parliament. Hon TAMA POTAKA: My response to that reflection and question by the Deputy Prime Minister is: we reiterate that Te Tiriti o Waitangi, the Treaty of Waitangi, is an absolute sacrosanct document fundamental to this country's past, present, and future, and it will help us get the country back on track after what we've ended up with in the last three years. Hon Willie Jackson: Does the Minister's iwi support the Treaty principles bill, and will he be discussing that with his iwi at Waitangi? SPEAKER: No, no, sorry; that question's out of order. He's only got responsibility for his ministerial position. The member can ask another question inside his allocation of supplementaries. Hon Willie Jackson: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Are the Minister and the Prime Minister planning to attend and participate in any of the forum tents at Waitangi; if so, which one, and, if not, why not? Hon TAMA POTAKA: It is scheduled that I will be participating in the forum tent at Waitangi, and I look forward to the humble hospitality of manaakitanga that Te Tai Tokerau is renowned for. Kia ora tātou. Hon Shane Jones: To the Minister for Māori Crown Relations: Te Arawhiti, can the Minister confirm, during the Waitangi period of time, the Government will be focused on concrete, measurable, key performance indicator - orientated results for our rangatahi, housing, and health rather than transcendental notions contained in the He Puapua United Nations report? Hon Willie Jackson: Point of order, Mr Speaker. That's clearly out of line, isn't it? He can't answer that. It's such a stupid question. SPEAKER: No, no, the problem the member's got is that the Minister is the Minister for Crown-Māori relations; therefore he must have some responsibility for the Government's view on the document cited by the Hon Shane Jones. Therefore, the question stands. Hon TAMA POTAKA: In my Wanganui dialect, ana. Yes, we will be absolutely committed to ruthlessly focusing on the outcomes of education, housing, health, and many other things that have been left behind for our various Māori communities throughout the motu. Tēnā tātou. Question No. 8—Local Government 8. JAMES MEAGER (National—Rangitata) to the Minister of Local Government: What recent announcements has he made about the voting age for local government? Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Local Government): On 26 January, I announced that this Government will not proceed with the previous Government's plans to lower the voting age to allow 16- to 17-year-olds to vote in local elections. Changing the voting age for local government is not a priority for this Government. We want to see councils focused on efficient delivery of local infrastructure and services for their communities. James Meager: What actions has he taken to give action to the Government's intentions on this bill? Hon SIMEON BROWN: I have written to the chairperson of the Justice Committee to inform him that the coalition Government does not intend to support the Electoral (Lowering Voting Age for Local Elections and Polls) Legislation Bill through further parliamentary stages and request that the committee ends consideration of this bill. We intend to focus local government on providing good-quality local infrastructure delivering public services at the least possible cost to their communities and businesses. James Meager: Why is lowering the voting age not a priority for this Government? Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, this would be a distraction for local government when they should be focused on making sure that they are efficiently delivering local infrastructure and services for their communities. Lowering the voting age is not a priority for this Government. Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Who is correct: the Minister when he said it'd be a waste of Parliament's time to be progressing a bill and hearing select committee submissions on a bill that we are not going to be supporting or the Prime Minister when he said, "we will pursue a Treaty principles bill to select committee, and that's as far as it will go."? Hon SIMEON BROWN: Lowering the voting age is not a priority for this Government, but we have made coalition commitments around the Treaty principles bill, which we will progress. James Meager: Does the Minister think that the voting age for central and local government should be the same? Hon SIMEON BROWN: Yes, it is important that there is a clear and constant age for voting in a democracy. A split age would create an imbalance in terms of the voting ages between central and local government. That is not a priority for this Government. Furthermore, the last Government could not conjure up one single reason why lowering the voting age was a good idea. Question No. 9—Health 9. Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Labour) to the Associate Minister of Health: Does she stand by all her statements and actions? Hon CASEY COSTELLO (Associate Minister of Health): Yes—in particular, those that relate to my absolute commitment to the Smokefree 2025 target and to providing practical, targeted help so that smokers who are addicted can quit. Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Is it correct that she indicated she wanted advice from the Ministry of Health on a tobacco excise tax freeze in a document she annotated and signed on 20 December? Hon CASEY COSTELLO: Yes, in relation to a range of advice, there was a component that asked for the implications relating to the excise tax freeze. Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: In that case, why did she deny requesting specific advice on an excise tax freeze for cigarettes in an interview with Guyon Espiner? Hon CASEY COSTELLO: I did not state that I had not requested specific advice. I had sought advice on a range of issues which included that one. Jamie Arbuckle: What do the latest statistics say about the smoking numbers? Hon CASEY COSTELLO: I'm pleased to announce that the latest New Zealand Health Survey figures released in December show that the daily smoking rates among adults have more than halved in the last decade, from 573,000 in 2011-12, to 284,000 last year. Smoking rates have reduced significantly in the last two years; another 55,000 people stopped smoking in the last year alone. This drop in daily smokers is reflected across all ethnic groups, but, significantly, drops have been seen in Māori and Pacific peoples, where we have seen drops from 37.7 percent to 17.1 percent and 22.6 percent to 16.4 percent respectively between 2011-12 and 2022-23. This supports the reasons for continuing on the trajectory that we're on. Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Is she seriously saying that she requested advice on the tobacco excise tax freeze but because the document canvassed other matters, she was being truthful when she denied having sought the advice to the media? Hon CASEY COSTELLO: I was being truthful at the time, in relation to that statement. Being offered something and asking for something are two separate matters. Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Was the Prime Minister wrong when he said in statements to Radio New Zealand this morning that she made a mistake? Hon CASEY COSTELLO: I would never say that the Prime Minister was wrong. Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. Earlier on in question time today, I asked the Prime Minister whether the Government had sought any advice on freezing excise on tobacco, and the Prime Minister indicated that he was not aware of that. We've now had it confirmed by the Minister that in fact she did ask for that advice, and there are media reports where the Prime Minister has been publicly discussing it. The Standing Orders make it clear that if a Minister makes a mistake in their answers, they have to come back to the House and correct that at the earliest available opportunity. Fortunately, the Prime Minister is still in the House and therefore should be able to correct it now, at the earliest available opportunity. SPEAKER: Unfortunately, the answer was that there was a range of advice in the paper concerned, so I think the pedantics of how it was answered are a different matter. I'll hear from the Rt Hon Winston Peters. Rt Hon Winston Peters: Mr Speaker, you've had two questions, and one of them a point of order, that don't seem to be listening to what was said. If you request advice and get other than that advice—extra advice—it does not mean that you requested the second lot of advice that you didn't seek in the first place. It's not complicated, and words do matters in this Parliament. And surely they do matter to the media, who've so badly reported this matter in the first place. Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Speaking to the point of order, no, I believe the issue under discussion here is whether a Minister made a decision in writing to seek advice on a particular matter. It is not a matter of receiving, as the Deputy Prime Minister has suggested, unsolicited advice. SPEAKER: I make the suggestion that people consider the Hansard of all of this, and then take any position they want to take to the Speaker in the usual manner. Question No. 10—Education 10. PAULO GARCIA (National—New Lynn) to the Minister of Education: What is the Government focusing on for the start of the school year? Hon ERICA STANFORD (Minister of Education): As schools start back for 2024, there will be a relentless focus on lifting student achievement. This Government's ambitious target of getting 80 percent of our tamariki to curriculum by the time they finish intermediate by 2030 is our North Star. Recent release of provisional NCEA data showed, for the third year, rates of achievement have declined, and we are going to turn this around. As we begin the school year, I am focused on strengthening our curriculum to be knowledge-rich and underpinned by the science of learning, ensuring we spend enough time on the basics, and that we are removing distractions in the classroom so we set our kids up for success at school. Paulo Garcia: What can parents expect will be in place for students this term? Hon ERICA STANFORD: Well, around New Zealand, students are returning or starting school this week to find new timetables in place that mean that no matter where they go to school or who their teacher is, they have consistent delivery of at least an hour a day of reading, writing, and maths. I'm already starting to hear stories from teachers with their new timetables promoting literacy and numeracy. New regulations are in place around the use of cellphones at school, requiring them to be off and away all day. School policies must be in place for the start of term 2, but it is my expectation that many of these plans will be implemented by the start of term 1 so that students can focus on their learning and interact with their friends. Paulo Garcia: What progress has been made by the ministerial advisory group reviewing the curriculum? Hon ERICA STANFORD: The ministerial advisory group had their first full-day meeting over the Christmas break. This group brings together curriculum and subject-matter experts who will ensure that our curriculum is knowledge-rich, detailed, grounded in the science of learning, and internationally comparable. Their work programme is well under way and on track to be tested with the sector later this year so that we can remain on track with the scheduled curriculum roll-out dates. Paulo Garcia: What feedback has the Minister received about the changes in the 100-day plan? Hon ERICA STANFORD: I've received lots of positive feedback about our plans, but, in particular, an Auckland high school principal wrote to me saying that he is excited about our plans; that the cellphone ban will "remove a major distraction to learning, reduce cyberbullying, and promote social interaction between students"; and that a timetable focused on the basic subjects will ultimately lift educational achievement for all students. Furthermore, Newshub reported the Cashmere High School principal saying, and I quote, "It's not healthy for students to come to school and … sit … and be glued to [their] digital device". Question No. 11—Police 11. Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour) to the Minister of Police: Does he stand by his guarantee that there'll be no cuts or reprioritisations to the Police budget in order to deliver 500 extra police; if so, what advice has he received, if any, on the impact the proposed 6.5 percent to 7.5 percent cut to the Police budget would have on public safety? Hon MARK MITCHELL (Minister of Police): Yes, and none. Hon Ginny Andersen: Is it the Government's policy to deliver 500 extra police within two years as per the coalition agreement with New Zealand First? Hon MARK MITCHELL: The Government's policy is to deliver 500 additional police officers over the term of this Government, which is three years, and we've been very clear that we understand the challenges around that, because, as the incoming Government, we discovered that it was difficult to fill existing recruit wings, that the Australians are here recruiting our police officers, and that we've got lots of senior police officers that are coming up to retirement. Hon Ginny Andersen: Can the Minister be clear that he is walking back on the coalition agreement that is undertaken to New Zealanders that he will deliver 500 additional police within two years? Hon MARK MITCHELL: No, I'm saying that we have, as the incoming Government, committed to 500 additional police officers over the term of this Government, which, yes, is three years, and that— Hon Grant Robertson: No, you haven't. Mark, it's right here. Two years. Hon MARK MITCHELL: Well, if the Minister had listened in the House last year, you would have heard me talking to this issue. The fact is that, as the incoming Government and with the advice that we got, it became immediately apparent that there were big issues around recruiting. They can't fill current recruit wings, the Australians are here recruiting our police officers, and we've got senior police officers that are getting ready to retire. Hon Ginny Andersen: Is this yet another example of broken promises, and will the 6.5 percent cut to the Police budget affect front-line services like it did last time National was in Government and see front-line officers pulled off the street to do non-sworn duties? Hon MARK MITCHELL: No, I think that, as the incoming Government again, it became very apparent that the Police are under severe financial pressure because of the actions of the previous Government. We've been very clear that we're going to deliver world-class front-line services, and the Police, like every other agency, is asked to look at their corporate services and their back-office services to see whether or not cuts can be achieved. Hon Ginny Andersen: Will he commit that any cost savings found in the Police budget will remain with Police as stated in National's Back Pocket Boost policy documents? Hon MARK MITCHELL: Well, I can confirm for the member that we're going to make sure that the front line are resourced properly and are actually delivering the service that this country deserves. We've got a big job to do, and the Police have got a big job to do, in reducing what has been a massive increase in violent crime in this country over the last six years, and we're committed to doing that. Question No. 12—Prime Minister 12. Hon JAMES SHAW (Co-Leader—Green) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all of his Government's statements and policies? Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON (Prime Minister): Yes, in the context they were given. But can I also just extend congratulations to that member for a fantastic career in Parliament here over the last nine years; he announced, obviously, his retirement today. I want to say I hope you know you're leaving here with some pretty lasting legislation in place with the net-zero legislation. You should be very, very proud about it. That's going to be enduring. It's going to last long after you're gone. I just acknowledge, also, it's a very sad day for the Green Party, actually, having lost their last true environmentalist. Hon James Shaw: In response, can I just thank the Prime Minister— SPEAKER: The Hon James Shaw may of course make a short response to that—but perhaps not focused on the last bit. Hon James Shaw: No—thank you, Mr Speaker. Can I just thank the Prime Minister for his kind words, and say in response, "Good luck." Is his Government reversing New Zealand's commitment, which it pushed for and agreed to as last year's conference of the South Pacific Regional Fisheries Management Organisation (SPRFMO) to protect 70 percent of high-biodiversity areas, including seamounts, in the South Pacific? Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I'm not aware that we've made any change to that yet. Hon James Shaw: Is he concerned about New Zealand's international reputation, when organisations like the Deep Sea Conservation Coalition have said that "The New Zealand government may now be the main obstacle to a proposed conservation measure that its own scientists spent the past year developing"? Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I disagree with that characterisation. This is a Government that's going to be focused on lowering emissions and making sure we meet our climate change commitments. Hon James Shaw: Does he agree with the previous National Government's Minister for fisheries, who said that when the SPRFMO convention was ratified under the John Key National Government that "We need to protect these important fisheries for future generations. Ratification shows our strong commitment to sustainable management and ensures [that] we have an important influence on the work of the SPRFMO.", and, if so, is he concerned that New Zealand is the only country still bottom trawling in the Pacific? Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: This is going to be a Government that will balance sustainable fishing along with good economic opportunity. Hon James Shaw: How can he justify the proposal by New Zealand to allow bottom trawling in the South Pacific to catch up to three years' worth of total allowable catch in a single season, up to 200 percent above annual catch limits, when this is far more than the 10 percent annual carry-over allowed under New Zealand's domestic law? Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Again, as I said before, this will be a Government that will balance environmental goals with making sure we maximise commercial opportunities. Hon James Shaw: Does he have confidence in his Minister for Oceans and Fisheries' ability to represent New Zealand's long-term bipartisan positions, including those advanced by previous National-led Governments, on international fisheries management, when the World Wide Fund for Nature have said that "There is a lot of concern about New Zealand resigning from the [international] rules-based order. Historically New Zealand has been seen as a good-faith operator, and [then] for a country to turn away from a decision taken by consensus, is quite significant"? Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Yes. URGENT DEBATES DECLINED United Nations Relief and Works Agency—Government Funding SPEAKER: I have received an urgent debate request from Hon Marama Davidson and Ricardo Menéndez March seeking under Standing Order 399 to debate the Government's decision on funding for the United Nations Relief and Works Agency. This application did not make out a convincing case for setting aside the business of the House to debate this matter. The application is therefore declined. ADDRESS IN REPLY Debate resumed from 19 December 2023. PAULO GARCIA (National—New Lynn): Mr Speaker, I'm rising for the first time to be able to speak for 10 minutes in the House again. It is such a privilege. I also have the first opportunity this year to congratulate you on your new role. The Speakership is a very immensely complex role, and I can imagine the need for such experience and knowledge and patience and, actually, a lot of good humour to keep so many amazing members of Parliament ticking along in this House. I also stand to preface my contribution with the fact that while I am not so new, I remain to be a new member of this House. I feel like I'm starting all over again, still with the jitters when coming up to speak and getting ready. So I wanted to just look back briefly on the fact that I became a member in the middle of the 52nd Parliament, the first Filipino ever to be in sitting as a member of Parliament, which was a great, great honour for not just myself but a recognition of the very many thousands of Filipinos who have come to make New Zealand their home. It was also brought about by the fact that large numbers of migrants from the Philippines were coming into New Zealand and occupying roles of significance in the dairy industry, in healthcare, in construction, and in so many areas where workers and professionals were needed. This contribution was recognised and valued and the reason that I am here is because of that value given to this community, and it's such a privilege to be here myself. Then I come to the fact that I have now become an elected member of Parliament, and, after three years of absence, I find myself here again and able to speak, which is such a privilege. It's an amazing privilege. So now, I'm back as a member elected on the backs of the hard work of the very multicultural community that New Lynn is, hearing the voices and understanding what people were largely concerned about. That brings me to this Address in Reply debate, where— ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): I'm pleased we've got there eventually. Maiden speeches will follow, but I would appreciate you spending the rest of your time now on Address in Reply, and welcome back. PAULO GARCIA: Thank you so much, Mr Speaker. So, having been in the community over the past weeks after the start of Parliament last year, I have had the opportunity to speak to communities, both in New Lynn and elsewhere, and New Zealanders have just become wearied and worried on many levels. I rise to speak to say to the public who are able to listen and hear the debates in this Chamber that work is being done to alleviate and to address the matters that concern you. It's just very important to bear in mind that what we are all experiencing at this time is the result of quite some time of deterioration, and so at this stage there is work being done. In the law and order space we had many discussions in the community about how people are concerned about people walking out of Countdowns and New Worlds with unpaid items and they are not being stopped. There is the lack of resourcing for our police to police low-level situations in communities, where people are not helped along or taken away from the trouble that those situations are causing for the community members such as bad behaviour, or drunkenness in public spaces. Police have found that these kinds of behaviour, while intimidating and sometimes even threatening to the communities, are not able to be addressed for lack of resourcing. Our Minister of Police, Mark Mitchell, who has just spoken in this House, has confirmed that efforts to resource the police is on many levels. Resourcing is on many levels, from workforce strengthening to giving them the ability to do their work better to deal with the challenges that they are currently facing. On top of that list of challenges is that the gang numbers have really exploded. I would like to ask that people be mindful that when you are around and out and about, you will be able to see that the number of patched bikers have greatly reduced on the road, and we are headed towards increased legislation that will ban—completely ban—patches and insignia in public places. While this may be a strong tool for gangs, it is also a strong tool for the intimidation of the communities, and this just needs to have a stop put to it. The police will be given powers to issue dispersal notices when gangs gather in public spaces. The Government will also strengthen New Zealand's democracy. The object of resourcing the police is extensive. It is aspirational and ambitious because we need to get New Zealand back to the place that we all want to call our home, and not be afraid when we are leaving our houses and out about in public. Also, it is important to note that this situation we find ourselves in is also due to a heightened cost of living and an economy that has been struggling over recent years. There are measures that are to be put in place for the economy to get stronger, including the Reserve Bank being focused. The Reserve Bank's dual mandate, which has not worked, will be amended to make sure that their focus is on price stability alone, and helping the situation with everyone out there who is struggling with day-to-day living and the cost of living, buying food, and getting around and continuing to live. So help is coming. These things, they do take a little bit of time, and I ask people who are out there to be patient and give things time for change. Thank you, Mr Speaker. Hon JO LUXTON (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It's a pleasure to take the opportunity to speak in this Address in Reply debate. It is the first opportunity I have had to speak in this House since the general election and I want to acknowledge and congratulate all the new members to this House, here in Parliament, and in particular I'd like to acknowledge James Meager and congratulate him on winning the electorate of Rangitata. I wish him all the best. It is an absolute honour and privilege to serve the people of Rangitata, and one I know that he will take very seriously. Mr Speaker, I also want to acknowledge you and all the other presiding officers and congratulate you all on your positions. It seems a bit strange to be doing this, this late in the piece given that the election was nearly four months ago but, as I say, it is the first opportunity I've had to speak in the House since we came back after the election. I'm incredibly grateful to be back here in this House, with and as part of the Labour team, a team that is going to be an extremely strong, united Opposition that will hold this Government to account at every opportunity we get. I'll now turn my contribution to the Speech from the Throne that we heard from Prime Minister Christopher Luxon— Tim van de Molen: Great speech. Hon JO LUXTON: Yeah, well, that's debatable. So I went into the Chamber to listen to the speech. I thought, you know, I'll give the benefit of the doubt; I'm open to new ideas and different ways of thinking but I was disappointed. There was no vision; there were no transformative ideas. Actually there were no ideas, no new ideas; it was nothing a speech that was punitive to certain communities and people in New Zealand and it was all about repealing legislation. I wonder if that is because they have no ideas of their own. All they do, or have been doing, is repealing legislation that was put in place by the previous Government for the sake of repealing it, with nothing and no ideas to replace it. So I'm all up for having a change and repealing legislation if there is something that is worthwhile and that it is being replaced with but we are not seeing any of that, and New Zealanders are not seeing any of that either. In fact, I imagine, and I'm quite certain, there'll be people out there in New Zealand who are having a bit of buyer's remorse right now. During the campaign period, Christopher Luxon said that they would have a laser sharp focus on the cost of living crisis, on improving the lives of everyday New Zealanders, and what we heard in the Speech from the Throne outlines the way in which they plan to do it. And I just want to cover off some of those things that they raised as a way of supporting Kiwis. So the first one I want to talk about is repealing the world's first smokefree legislation. I am unsure how that will help improve the lives of everyday New Zealanders but we do know that that legislation is being repealed in order to be able to afford the tax cuts that we do know will benefit the rich and the high-income earners. So, yes, I guess they'll be better off, at the expense of New Zealanders and their health. Hon Kelvin Davis: Most of their rich mates. Hon JO LUXTON: Yep, for their rich mates. I want to talk about the fact that they will bring back the 90-day trials for every business. As a business owner myself I exclude that clause from any employment agreement I have because, actually, I trust in my staff and the relationship that I have with my staff and we can have conversations and I can support them through what is called a probation period I suppose, as well, and you can work together; communication is key to ensure that you are the right fit together for the business. So I just completely disagree with bringing in the 90 day trial because that doesn't help everyday Kiwis with the cost of living; not that I can see. They got rid of the fair pay agreement legislation; legislation that would simply set baselines and paying conditions for Kiwis. They've repealed that so how does that help everyday Kiwis with the cost of living? I sat on the select committee that heard submissions from New Zealanders—these everyday Kiwis that this Government professes to want to support with the cost of living crisis—I sat there and I listened to one submission that will always, always stick in my mind: a big burly bus driver brought to tears—brought tears in front of the select committee—when he told the stories of his working conditions and that he was having to work several shifts, hardly ever saw his family but that is what he had to do in order to make ends meet. And what do we see from this Government? One of the first things that they do is repeal that legislation; the legislation that would quite simply support everyday Kiwis that they purport to support. They want to repeal the affordable water reforms; we've heard that. When Labour was in Government we had a plan to fix all the issues that we're seeing in our water infrastructure but this incoming Government is simply going to repeal it. We're not too sure what they're going to replace with but what this Government needs to do is stand up and be honest with New Zealanders about how much their plan will cost them when it comes to councils having to increase rates for ratepayers in order to be able to fix their water infrastructure. I am not sure how that will help everyday New Zealanders with the cost of living. I want to talk about something that is near and dear to my heart, and that is my sister Teresa, who has Down Syndrome. I listened to the Speech from the Throne because I have hopes and aspirations and dreams for Teresa so I was interested to see what the Government's aspirations, hopes and dreams were for people like Teresa, people with disabilities. What did we hear? Crickets; absolutely nothing. This Government has no hopes, no dreams and no aspirations for people with disabilities. In fact, we learn that Whaikaha Ministry of Disabled People now has to look for 7.5 percent cuts. We heard the Minister of Finance today say it wasn't going to affect delivery of services but that Minister of Finance also earlier indicated those agencies that would be required to seek cuts and Whaikaha wasn't one of them, so how can we believe her when she says things like that; more— Hon Member: Broken promise. Hon JO LUXTON: Yeah, broken promises, completely, from this incoming Government? They talk a lot, as I've mentioned, about supporting everyday Kiwis with a laser sharp focus on the cost of living crisis, and yet when Labour was in Government, Labour did many things to support people with the cost of living. We increased the minimum wage every year, we brought in fair pay agreement legislation, we abolished prescription fees. We did many things like that that would help and did help everyday Kiwis with the cost of living crisis. In fact, we were going to introduce 20 hours for two-year-olds, which meant that many families could both be out working if that is what they chose to do. It would have saved on average $133 per week for families in order to go back to work however that might be, whether for both parents, to be able to bring in additional income to support them. I want to talk about this Government and the issues around Māori and te reo Māori. When Labour was in Government, we did many things. We introduced the first Matariki public holiday, we increased funding for Whānau Ora by 145 percent, we introduced New Zealand histories in schools—an opportunity that too many of our previous generations missed out on, and me being one of them. So I have hope and I have aspirations for my grandchildren. Hon Kelvin Davis: They don't. Hon JO LUXTON: That's right, that's right. But they are dashed by this Government who now wants to get rid of te reo Māori language from all Government agencies. What is that telling this next generation of children who so proudly learn about our history in schools, who so proudly participate in their kapa haka? What is this that we are telling them—that we don't value them, that we don't value their language? This Government is shameful. Hon MATT DOOCEY (Minister for ACC): Just say sorry—that's exactly what the country wants to hear from this Opposition. Just say sorry for what you've done to our country. They've crashed the economy, law and order spiralling out of control, our kids not even going to school, and that's the legacy of that last Government. The first majority Government since the start of MMP, and what will they be known for? Abject incompetence—the failure to deliver. They were a Government of misinformation. They were a Government of disinformation. They were a Government that was a failed socialist experiment. Because there's only one trick in Labour's playbook, and that's to centralise. The health reforms, the polytech reforms, water reforms, three waters; because, under their book, Labour knows best—Wellington knows best. I tell you what the public did at the end of last year: they voted for change. They wanted change because they had had enough. And what I won't stand for now is listening to all these Opposition MPs who have found in themselves a voice. They're a lion in Opposition but a lamb in Government. They sat here day after day last term—zip, zilch, de nada. They didn't say a word on behalf of their electorates when they were ramming through reforms that New Zealanders didn't want. We warned them—we warned them they would die on the hill of things like three waters. That's why, when they look around here today, less of their colleagues are back, because they sat here like lemmings—didn't represent their electorates. It's summed up by one Labour MP who got booted out, and, when he got vox popped out the front of Parliament, his response was, "Oh, my lifestyle's gone from champagne socialism to lemonade." And that's exactly what was happening: champagne socialism while everyone out of the beltway of Wellington was hurting. That's why now we are left in the predicament where this country is facing years of deficits. But they will be forever known of the Government of three waters. They'll be known as the Government of health reforms in the middle of a pandemic that took a wrecking ball to DHBs. Their own Heather Simpson report said to go from 20 to about six to eight, but they went from 20 to zero in the middle of a pandemic. And Kiwis are paying the price now because they're stuck on waiting lists because of their focus of growing the bureaucracy. Think about the lawlessness we experienced in New Zealand: ram raid after ram raid after ram raid. And that Government had its head in the sand. And that's why it's very clear that the New Zealand public voted for change. We're unashamed that we will repeal what that last Government brought in because it took the country backwards. This coalition Government will take the country forward. We won't have all the misinformation like three waters, or the misleading advertising campaigns of turning taps on and green water coming out. When they promised local government they could opt in, but Official Information Act documents revealed it was an all-in from the very start. They misled New Zealanders and they should not be returned back to the Treasury benches for a very long time. It was outlaid very clearly from the Speech from the Throne that we need to grow New Zealand's economy. We've got years of deficits ahead of us. We need to unblock what that last Labour Government did to allow New Zealanders to grow and flourish. Can I also acknowledge the very hard-working people of Waimakariri, who returned me in the last election to my fourth term. People in Waimakariri—and when you look at the history of it since 1996, it's elected Labour and National MPs—they reward hard work. My commitment today to them is I will continue to work hard for them. As I did in my first term, now I will in my fourth term. Can I thank my family for supporting me to be here today, as well as my campaign team and the many people who have supported me over the last nine years, including one gentleman, Roger Bridge, who's up here in the gallery listening today. I want to acknowledge my ministerial colleagues as well, who will make a big difference in this country. Why will they make a big difference? Because our health Minister is a GP, our police Minister was a bravery award - winning police officer, our tertiary education Minister, Penny Simmonds, ran a polytech in a tertiary education institution. The difference is, on this side of the House, we know what we're doing. We don't come here with big, grand slogans that fail to deliver. And nothing worse in their failure to deliver was around mental health. Remember the $1.9 billion, and the Mental Health and Wellbeing Commission came out in its first report and said that despite the $1.9 billion, there was no material improvement. It's very clear, talking to officials, that announcements were being made that even the officials knew could not be delivered. It was all about grandstands; it was all about headlines—putting out the latest slogan of transformation. But what they really did is raised expectations for some very vulnerable New Zealanders and they failed to deliver. I'm very privileged to be New Zealand's first Minister for Mental Health. As the Prime Minister outlined in the Speech from the Throne, we will get money out of Wellington to the front line. Like our announcement of $6 million to Gumboot Friday. We don't believe the bureaucracy of Wellington knows best. The frontline community NGOs know best. They know what makes a difference. They're already delivering, and we will get money to their front line. Another reason why Labour failed to deliver in mental health: they never understood the issues. It was just all spray and walk away—$100 million there, $100 million there. The reality is, you can announce money, but if you don't have the workforce to deliver it, no services are going to open. If they'd really done their job and started a pipeline of workforce six years ago, we wouldn't have a mental health workforce crisis today. The biggest barrier to timely mental health and addiction support in New Zealand is the lack of mental health workforce. As we heard the Prime Minister announce in the Speech from the Throne, our commitment to training more psychiatrists, more psychologists—we'll work through every discipline to ensure that we open up that pipeline to ensure there's workers in our mental health services as well as people with lived experience; the peer support teams that we can roll out who will make a real difference. We need to focus on increasing access to timely support. We've done a great job in New Zealand encouraging a conversation. We've broken down some of the stigma for those who want to come forward. Now they trust us, they take a great leap of faith, and when they do come forward, quite often that timely support is not there. So that's why we've got to focus on getting more money out of Wellington to increase access. We've got to reduce the workforce vacancies to ensure that when services are funded, there's people there to deliver them. But, of course, most importantly, it's not only about treating mental illness, at the same time we need to promote mental wellbeing. We need to focus a lot more on prevention and early intervention, and that is what this Government will do. Because what we will do is actually deliver on our promises. The time for big slogans is over; it's about delivery. And that is the difference with this new coalition Government. Thank you. Hon JAMES SHAW (Co-Leader—Green): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Well, that was a vibrant speech from the from the previous MP—clearly had quite a lot of coffee today, given the subject material and the passion with which that that was delivered. I wanted to—this being a debate—take the opportunity to respond to a few of the points that the Hon Matt Doocey made in his contribution just now. There was a lot of slogans there and a lot of kind of retreading the election campaign from last year—and that's fine; that's kind of to be expected, it's the theatre of the House, and so on. But I do think it is kind of dangerous for the country when we govern by slogans and we don't look at the facts and the data that sits behind some of some of those stories. The Hon Matt Doocey has paid a lot of attention in his parliamentary career to the health system and, in particular, the mental health system, and I commend him for that work. One of the things that he referenced in his speech was around the previous Government's moves in relation to essentially creating a New Zealand health service out of the district health board (DHB) system rather than to go with Heather Simpson's recommendations of reducing it to a smaller number of kind of regional health authorities. Now, the Government did not make that choice—to go further than the Simpson report—because of some kind of socialist centralising instinct. The Government went further than the Simpson report because the experience of trying to get information and to coordinate a pandemic response through the DHBs proved to be so hard and so challenging, so nigh-on impossible, it became clear that we were only going to get a nation-wide response with a nation-wide health service. That is why that decision was taken. So I just want to encourage Mr Doocey to take a bit of time—maybe go back through some of the Cabinet papers that were around at the time—next time he's got the temptation to stand up and expound in the House about the evils of socialism. Because, actually, if you just spend all of your Government's time checking out what the previous Government did because that sounds like a good slogan, then you're not going to leave the country in a better place. That is one of the things that worries me: at the moment, as far as I can tell, the new Government's agenda is basically a Government of revenge to get rid of everything that the previous Government did. And, sure, you can argue the toss on some of the initiatives of the previous Government. Fine. But, surely, having a long-term, stable policy environment and having arguments on the detail around the edges is way better than, every three or six or nine years, completely throwing out all of the work that the previous Government has done? Because you know what's going to happen next time? Next time these guys get on to that side of the House, they're just going to do exactly the same thing in response. And all of those grand plans that you've got, that you're going to spend the next three or six or nine years developing, they're just going to get in and reverse them in the first three months. Because that's apparently what new Governments do, because that's the standard that's been set by this Government. I want to, in particular, draw attention to another thing that the Hon Matt Doocey said, which was around three waters. That, frankly, is an area where the National Party repeatedly got up and said that New Zealanders are concerned. New Zealanders were concerned because the National Party ran a campaign against it—National and ACT parties campaigned against it. And, you know, fine, you can do that—everybody does that in this House. But let's not pretend that a political campaign by a political party is the same thing. And I've yet to discern a clear plan from this Government for what the replacement for three waters is for the more than $100 billion worth of asset replacement that has to happen in this country when it comes to the three waters infrastructure. And let's not forget that the reason why that programme was such a high priority for the previous Government is that people died in Havelock North as a result of poor water infrastructure—people actually died as a result of that. That's why it was a priority. The two key principles that drove that programme were one of balance sheet separation, and amalgamation to the point that it would be able to attract the level of investment required in order to be able to deal with those massive challenges. If the first thing that you do is take six years' worth of work—all of that work by public servants, all of the work that was done by professionals to get that system up and running—and you throw it out and you, as yet, have no plan to replace that programme with anything else other than to say, "Well, we're just going to return it to communities, but also we're not going to provide any additional funding to it because this Government's not about providing additional funding."—OK, again, you can argue the toss on that. How on earth do you square the circle of saying that you're going to fix the problem, but not using balance sheet separation; not using any kind of amalgamation to get scale for outside investment? You're not going to do that, right? So it's absolutely incoherent. Like I said, it's Government by slogan and it deeply worries me. I also want to draw attention to a discrepancy that I perceive between what the Government campaigned on—or what the National Party at least campaigned on—prior to taking office, and what it is saying now that it's in in Government. I remember the slogan—again, Government by slogan—being deployed over and over and over again during the course of the election campaign, that theirs would be a Government that was relentlessly focused on the cost of living to New Zealanders. Relentlessly focused. So relentlessly focused on the cost of living that I have yet to hear a cost of living initiative from this Government. In fact, the one thing I think that we can discern from the media since the Government got elected is that the highest priority of this Government is revisiting the Treaty of Waitangi. That is the one thing that this Government is currently known for, and that is a long way away from a cost of living measure. Whatever your point; whatever your arguments are about that, the idea that you want to rewrite the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi, frankly, that is not going to do anything for people who are struggling to make ends meet, put a roof over their head, keep the power on, and put food on the table. Hon Member: The Government's cutting the waste. Hon JAMES SHAW: Now, one thing that I would like to—I love this kind of intervention. "The Government is cutting the waste." Really? Cutting the waste? Can you tell me what is more wasteful than supporting a Government bill to select committee; getting the Parliamentary Counsel Office to draft it; getting advice from officials, which so far appears to be pretty negative about it; taking it through Cabinet; spending the Minister's time on it; pouring thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of dollars' worth of Government time and resource into developing a bill; and then killing the moment it makes it out of select committee. What is more wasteful than that? How does that reduce the cost of living to New Zealanders? I ask that. Be very careful about your interventions. Maybe rely less on the kind of slogans that you campaigned on in the election campaign, and try and turn yourself to the facts and the data that your own coalition agreements say that you will use as the basis of your of your Government. But facts and data have so far been absolutely absent in any decision that I have seen coming out of this Government. Now, because this is the debating chamber and because it's politics, I'm now going to reverse myself and acknowledge—and I do want to acknowledge the Government on this because I believe in being constructive and credit where it's due—that whilst the Government has essentially poured all of its efforts in the first four months or so of its tenure into getting rid of everything that the previous Government did, there is one area where I do want to acknowledge that this Government and the National Party in particular have held the line, and that is around the zero-carbon framework for this country. I want to draw attention to this in particular, because the acid test for that piece of legislation—I want to acknowledge the efforts of the former National Party leader and climate change spokesperson at the time, Todd Muller, who worked on this with me whilst we were in Government—was that it had to endure changes of Government over multiple decades. That is why a number of compromises were made in that piece of legislation, including things I frankly was not happy with and don't support but ultimately were necessary in order to ensure that it could endure. I think that is critically important in terms of our overall climate change response, and I thank all parties who were in the House who supported it on third reading—which was everyone in the House at the time. But I do want to suggest that, actually, there are other areas of governance where we should try and find common ground and try and work together so that we can create some enduring solutions. Because the kind of activity that we've seen from this Government over the course of the first four months is going in the opposite direction. ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): Manu tiria, manu werohia Ki te poho o Te Rāka Ka tau rērere Ka tau mai i te ruhi E tau e koia Koia, koia Ko tara-rauriki Kī mai i Māui Ehara i te Whitu, Me te Waru e E tau, e koia. Koia! [Bird of the planting time bird of the ground-breaking time upon the chest of Maui's father Landing after a long flight Landing here exhausted, it will land at our kumara digging time. Dig, dig! The first kumara shoots From Maui are already filling out, But don't plant them in November Or in December Settle down and dig. Dig!] I begin with that waiata, that whakataukī, which has been repeated through the generations of Ngāi Tahu since time immemorial. It is a part of the history we as Ngāi Tahu uri tell ourselves and tell to our children. Today, my colleague Rino Tirikatene joins the history of Ngāi Tahu in those things which make us who we are. The Tirikatenes represent three generations of proud Labour MPs who have served this Parliament with dignity, with honour, and with loyalty to their values and to their people. I want to speak more about my colleague Rino. He's been really important to me. He's someone that I held in the highest regard while he served here on the caucus benches with me, and I'll miss him very much. Before I talk to my other colleagues—and I'm getting some ribbing from my colleague here, Kelvin Davis, about not speaking about him—let me first turn to the topic of this debate. Around the House, we have heard since question time those criticisms from this side of the House about what this Government is planning to do and what vision we see, but I want to take us back to 2018. On this day in 2018, I was a young mum. I had a three-month-old baby at the time, and we'd just bought our first house in West Auckland. I was watching the news, and it was the day that the Rt Hon Dame Jacinda Ardern had introduced to this House the legislation that she had talked so much about in her parliamentary career and that she had always wanted to bring to this House, about child poverty reduction. For me as a young mum, I saw that piece of legislation as a moment that articulated everything that Labour stood for, for me. I got involved in Young Labour as a teenager because my family had always been involved in Labour. My dad had been a Labour member since he was at teachers' college at Ardmore. This was a moment where Labour was putting forward a vision for a New Zealand that put children first, that centred the needs of the child, and not just those children whose parents could ensure that they could get to school, not just those children who had a good start in life. This was about an Act to hold successive Governments to account, to ensure that everyone in this Parliament had a set of principles and a set of goals that would hold us to ensuring that child poverty was reduced. Compare that to today, when we're looking at a Government programme that is full of repeal, that, as the Hon James Shaw said, is a revenge Government, that walks back the progress that we have made that was often bipartisan, that around this House we came to agreements on those big picture things like the future of our country when faced with the threat of climate change. We are looking now at a Government with no vision and that is not speaking to those people like me with a young baby in their arms looking for something that we could be proud of in the New Zealand that will be our home for many decades to come. It is a Government of broken promises. Those broken promises are very usefully detailed in the media at the moment: there's a really useful RNZ story, and I'd recommend that everyone go and have a look at it, about the cuts that are proposed for the different Government departments. Those weren't necessarily Government departments that were discussed as needing to look for cuts in the election campaign, so it's useful for all New Zealanders to know just what we're looking at here. And those aren't necessarily just back-office cuts; those are cuts to things like public services that people rely upon. It makes you wonder, when looking at that list and the departments that are up to find a 6.5 or 7.5 percent cut, what kind of services we can expect to be able to rely upon in the future, things that make us pay more for the everyday lives that we already lead. You know, you have to wonder whether things that have made a huge difference in the lives of the South Aucklanders that I represent in Manurewa are going to stay, things like the school donations programme, which means that parents in Manurewa don't have to pay the donations that were actually compulsory payments to our public schools. You know, I believe it's right that everyone should be able to attend their public school regardless of whether they can pay a donation or not, and so that's why the Labour Government introduced that programme. You've got to wonder whether those things are safe and sacrosanct given that all public service departments are being asked to find these cuts. Things like the maintenance of those walking tracks that the Department of Conservation maintains for all New Zealanders to be able to use over the summer. You know, i walked one of those over the summer, and I'm sure many in this House did, and we've got to make sure that those things keep on being maintained in our regions so that people in the cities can get out and enjoy our natural environment and have a connection to those spaces. It's important, then, to look at those broken promises in the context of what New Zealanders can expect as leadership from our politicians, and again here I speak to those 10,000 people who came and made the pilgrimage to Tūrangawaewae when asked by the Kīngitanga to come and have a kōrero about the principles of Te Tiriti o Waitangi. You know, what struck me then wasn't the sheer number of people who came along to Tūrangawaewae—because it was absolutely overwhelming, but it was the number of young people who came just to listen, just to participate in the youth forum, just to swim in the waters of the Waikato, just to talk with each other about why they were here and why they had come and what they were studying at school or where they had come from in what small town. It was an atmosphere of young people expecting leadership from not only elected members but from their iwi leaders, from their local politicians, from the people who seek to make decisions that matter for their lives. So all the politicians there—and I congratulate everyone who made the time to come along—heard the strong message from rangatahi, which was "Be a part of the ongoing conversation. Listen to us." We do not need to relitigate the principles of the Treaty, because we have been having that debate for many, many years. For successive generations, we have been defining, as tangata Tiriti, as Māori, what it means for young people to live in a country where the Treaty is a founding document. What we need is a vision for the future from our elected representatives to move forward and define something that not only honours those principles of the Treaty but also realises the dream of the Treaty to protect our taonga, to protect our natural environment, to have a climate where people can breathe and live in our country. Those are the promises of the Treaty that our rangatahi want elected members to fulfil, and that is the burden we take on our shoulders when we seek election to represent them. I want as well to speak about, you know, the contrast between being in a forum like that and having the vision of these young New Zealanders resting so weightily on my shoulders to then hearing from, you know, what is a shambolic and divided approach to the Treaty of Waitangi from this coalition Government. We hear some members calling for unity and other members acting divisively—you cannot have both of those alongside each other; those two things cannot be true. So it makes me look to those leaders who I admire the most. I got into politics, as I said, when I was a teenager, but it was because of people like Nanaia Mahuta, who I saw carving the way for young wāhine Māori in a forum that was often hostile to her. She led on affordable water, and it cost her personally. She was trying to do a set of reforms that we all know in our heart of hearts need to happen. Someone needs to pay for the pipes. The councils can't pay for the pipes; we should probably pay for the pipes. She paid for it personally, because she had to wear the misinformation, the vitriol, the personal attacks that come with being out in the public eye because you are a wahine Māori. She did that, and I'm proud of her. We haven't yet had the chance to mihi her in here, and I hope that we do. Another leader in our party is Kelvin Davis. He will give me a growling after this, but when I speak of the history that we tell ourselves growing up in te ao Māori about our leaders, about our elected representatives, we will tell his story. I am so proud of Rino Tirikatene and his grandfather and his aunt, who have served in this Parliament too, but Kelvin also stands on the shoulders of his tupuna Karaitiana Takamoana, who was a representative of Eastern Māori in 1871. He has a proud history of leading within his community, within his school. He is someone who is approachable, who is kind, who always has time for his people and those colleagues like me who annoyingly make speeches about him in the House and ask him a bunch of questions. I'm so proud of the work we've done in this House to unite, to bring about a kotahitanga that we can continue to progress and to continue to realise under the Treaty of Waitangi and its promises. I will continue to work for that, and I hope everyone in this House can too. SPEAKER: I now call to make her maiden statement to the House Rima Nakhle. RIMA NAKHLE (National—Takanini): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Ahiahi mārie, good afternoon, masa el kheir. Friends, family, neighbours in Takanini, country men and women, lend me your ears. Lend me your ears, as we take a journey across many oceans, time frames, memories, and faces. Lend me your ears, as we delve into the realm of the here and now, what brought me here, and what's taking me into tomorrow. But first, Mr Speaker, I would love to wish you and all gathered here today, in person or beyond these ceremonial walls, a happy New Year. Thank you, Mr Speaker, for accepting this immensely important responsibility of being our Speaker. In the past, Speakers faced the real risk of execution if the monarch disapproved of a Speaker's message. But rest assured, Mr Speaker, I'm pretty sure that King Charles III will be more reasonable to someone as praiseworthy as you. Allow me to acknowledge our Prime Minister, the Rt Hon Christopher Luxon. Prime Minister, so many Kiwis gave a great sigh of relief once you were announced PM, because of your unshakable determination to take New Zealand and her children forward and upward. Thank you, my favourite. Now, to my genesis, because ancestry is important to who I am. I am a New Zealander, born in Australia to parents who were born in Lebanon. One of five children, my blood traces back to an ancient civilisation known as the Phoenicians. The Phoenicians were seafaring traders who invented the alphabet, a significant contribution to humanity. Skip forward a few thousand years to Lebanon. A fifth the size of New Zealand, Lebanon gave me my parents, John Hanna Fahd Rahme and Dalida Watfa Habib Rahme. I'm the daughter of a welder and a florist, and my parents hail from a small village in the mountains of Lebanon named Ainata al Arz. When Mum speaks of her childhood, it's with mostly fondness, but there's an underpinning of pain. From her depictions I know, even though she doesn't think in these terms, that Mum grew up in poverty. Mum's childhood was hard but loving, and as I go through life, I see very clearly that the blow of poverty and hardship is somewhat softened when there is an abundance of love in the home. In 1973, Dad and Mum got married in Lebanon and migrated to Sydney, Australia—a foreign land with a foreign language. But my parents always taught us to be appreciative and to love their adopted country. I share these pieces of my genesis because to me, one's ancestry is not just an interesting dinner party topic. It is a deep source of intergenerational knowledge from which we can each draw tremendous strength. With all the ups and downs of childhood, I recall feeling mostly loved and safe. But there was a specific time of hardship for my family, and I remember boxes of food being delivered to our home by a woman dressed in a navy suit and a navy hat, who I now realise was a Salvation Army volunteer. But my parents worked hard to get through this difficult time. They opened up their florist business decades ago, and us kids grew up helping mum in the shop after school, whenever was needed: weekends, school holidays, and late into the night. This helped me see, from a young age, that money does not appear by magic but through hard work. My father deeply laments the fact that he can't read and write, and always emphasised the importance of education. I was schooled at St Charbel's College, a Lebanese Maronite Catholic school, where my love for my heritage was cultivated and I was enriched by my Maronite faith. Dad, bayee, thank you for teaching me the importance of education. I was always drawn towards advocacy, which led me to complete a degree in law. I would like to acknowledge my friends in the gallery who perform this old craft so dutifully, including Lady Donna Hall, Felix Geiringer, Dan Hughes, Richard, and Johno. Towards the end of my studies, I met the personification of perfection: Roger Nakhle. We entered marriage 12 years ago, and I am so profoundly grateful for the privilege of being able to call Aotearoa my home since 2012. Like myself, Roger is the son of Lebanese migrants. My father-in-law, Elias Nakhle, came to New Zealand in the late 1960s with very little, and started working tirelessly. He and my mum-in-law, Henriette Nakhle, raised three boys and built a good life for their children while helping many others along the way. Mrs Nakhle's efforts have been recognised with both a QSM and a New Zealand Order of Merit for her services. I would like to thank my beautiful parents-in-law for all their love and support. To my brother-in-law David: you are one of the most intelligent people I know. I love you dearly, and I wish you and the soon-to-be Dr Drae the best. I'm often asked: why politics? By nature, as I said, I've always gravitated towards advocacy, towards service. The way that our society functions and how I can help improve the lives of my neighbours in Takanini, and all over New Zealand, through advocacy and service—this energises me every day. I can't hide the fact that there are some issues which stir passion quite quickly within me, and it's those moments that make me question: why? Why do I feel so strongly about personal responsibility? Perhaps it's because of Mum's attitude—that despite the material hardship she experienced as a youth, Mum says she never had the inclination to steal from or manipulate others to better her circumstances. Mum chose to go without rather than to steal. Why is law and order so important to me? Because people just want to feel safe—it's as simple as that. When order becomes disorder, grandparents stop going out for grocery shopping, parents don't let their kids walk home from school, and dairy owners have to serve people from within cages. Our police should always be given the powers and resources they need to do the job they do best: keeping us safe. Punishments should fit the crime, but we need to intervene early to prevent youth from entering a life of crime. I believe strongly in social investment. Social investment in our youth to help build their mental resilience and protect them from the lure of gangs; social investment to combat youth crime, where positive mentors teach our troubled youth self-discipline. Social investment in housing: when I worked at Te Mahia Community Village, a transitional housing facility in Takanini, I saw the significant drop in antisocial behaviour when social wraparound services are partnered with housing providers. Thank you, Sharon Wilson-Davis and Phil Davis, for STRIVE Community Trust, which does great work in this area. And to the staff at Te Mahia Community Village—Maxine, Oceania, Saras, and the rest of the team—thank you for the amazing work you do, caring for our people and showing what is possible. We often hear that education is the key to breaking the cycles of poverty, unemployment, and crime, but I ask the House: why is education the common denominator? To me, it's because if our people cannot read and write to begin with, they risk being shut out from society and the world. To improve the future of our nation, it's imperative that we place a high value on education. While I strongly commend the traditional school systems, I also place merit in alternative school programmes and alternative education programmes and charter schools, because not every child learns the same way. The outcomes achieved by programmes such as Mātātoa are admirable. Thank you, Frank Haimona, Matua Kingi, and all the team, for your dedication. Our youth are our future, but our seniors have played a major role in building our beautiful country. I believe we must respect and take care of our seniors, as a matter of duty. Freedom of speech is an essential component of a functioning democracy. My view is that as long as this right is exercised in a respectful manner, nobody should ever be vilified for having a different opinion. I am the MP for one of the newest electorates in the country—Takanini—and the outstanding result in last year's election tells me that most of my neighbours have put their faith in the National Party and in me. I will work tirelessly for our electorate and our country. To our volunteers, who dedicated so much time and energy into our campaign—including our Young Nats and not-so-young Nats—many of whom are seated in the gallery today, I am filled with deep gratitude for all of you. Dr Neru Leavasa, thank you for the service you gave our electorate as the former MP. You are a good man with a good heart. To my Takanini National Party committee, thank you for all the hours you continue to give in setting the foundations for our new electorate, and for your friendship. Katrina Stent, thank you for setting the wheels in motion back in 2015 with that one question! Daniel Newman, my local councillor in Manurewa-Papakura and my friend, your guidance over the years is deeply appreciated. Much love to you and Lizzie. Marcus and Danielle Kearns, thank you for the fervent love you have for our country. Takanini is enriched, with over 50 percent of its residents born overseas. I would like to acknowledge all our migrant communities for helping build and grow New Zealand. A few special mentions for the phenomenal work of some of our ethnic community organisations such as the Hindu Foundation, New Zealand Sikh Games, and Takanini Gurdwara that all have representatives here today. And as we gather here in this debating chamber, which is also a war memorial, I pay homage to our ANZAC men and women, and the brave Māori Battalions, many of whom gave their lives to help liberate foreign lands, one of them being Lebanon. Lest we forget. The horrible truth is that Roger and I have had bloodshed in both our families because of war in the Middle East. For there to be peace—a lasting peace—I believe parties will need to swallow a bitter pill and make some concessions not for themselves but for their future generations. Hospitality and togetherness is a very important part of my Lebanese culture, and I also found this in the Māori culture. When I met Anne Kendall, now deputy chair of the New Zealand Māori Council, and Tony Kake, CEO of Papakura Marae, I was touched by the constantly warm welcome I received at the marae. My beautiful Anne, you have shown me what it is to serve one's community faithfully and without judgment. Tony, your dedication to our people knows no bounds, and South Auckland is indebted to you. Tarsh Kemp, now my colleague in the House, thank you for the work you led at Manurewa Marae. I love our Māori people, our Māori culture, and our Māori language. In politics, messages get muddied when spins are attached to them. But I want to make something very clear to my Māori brothers and sisters: if I felt that the National Party was racist, I would not be part of the National Party. If I felt that the National Party was anti-Māori, I would not be part of the National Party. Lebanon experienced hundreds of years of occupation and persecution. The Ottoman Empire tried to wipe out the Arabic language in Lebanon. It was the efforts of the Maronite monks that kept the language alive, so I understand the importance of preserving one's language and culture. I would like to acknowledge Kīngi Tūheitia and thank him for the manaakitanga he always bestows to all who enter the grounds of Tūrangawaewae Marae, as I did recently. To my nieces and nephews, Rima, Silia, Pio, Zara, Tony, Isaac and John, you are my heartstrings. To my brothers-in-law, Archer, Cyril and George, thank you for treating my sisters with deep love and respect. Nagewa, Jenny, Tanya, and Tony, my beloved siblings, you are cushions on which my heart rests and my mind finds sanctuary. Mum, Oummi, thank you for always making me feel safe in the fortress, al3a, of your love. Roger, my wisdom, when I was ready to give up, you said the words my soul needed to hear. You ran the campaign the way you wanted, and in Takanini, I'm proud that we achieved the highest swing of the country. I don't know what good I've done in this world to be eternally blessed with you, but what I do know is that I am in constant awe of you. Prime Minister, colleagues, Takanini, New Zealand, I'm at your service. Now let's get Mill Road done, and let's get our country back on track. I had to put that in. Haka Waiata SPEAKER: I think we now have people moving out of the gallery for new people to come in. If that could occur as quickly and smoothly as possible, that would be much appreciated. CAMERON BREWER (National—Upper Harbour): E ngā iwi, e ngā mana, e ngā reo, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa. [To the peoples, the preeminent ones, to the representatives, greetings and thanks to you all.] I arrived as an MP in October, exactly 25 years after I started at Parliament in the National Party's research unit and then on to the leader's office. Two big changes I've noticed around this place: I have yet to see a drinks trolley being wheeled down a corridor, and MPs can no longer smoke in their parliamentary offices. Today, Parliament is positively healthier, more inclusive, more representative, more supportive, and more family friendly. I congratulate you, Mr Speaker, from transitioning from junior whip to senior Cabinet Minister and now father of the House. I know that you will work hard to ensure Parliament continues to reflect today's norms while upholding the many traditions that not only make Parliament special but effective. My motivation for being here comes from the opportunity to be part of a team relentlessly focused on unleashing New Zealand's potential, and regaining—and, in fact, building on—what we had when we were at our best. Our country is unique here in the south-west of the Pacific Ocean. We are truly ourselves and, what's more, we don't have to be like the rest. In fact, let's not turn into one big monolithic suburb, with all the problems of a big country and a big city. Let's keep being New Zealand and let's get back our revered way of life. Let's grow New Zealand both economically and socially, but let's stay distinctly ourselves. We know how to be a truly great country. We know the ingredients required, and together we will do it again. Our forebears worked too hard for us not to. With the best of intentions, this House has tried many things over the years. The public, however, has now demanded we correct New Zealand's path, and, on this side, we're up for the task. We have a good majority and strong mandate, with 68 MPs in Government and 55 in Opposition. Change is what most Kiwis want and so it's change that we must deliver. So I come to this House in support of correcting and creating a New Zealand where our children and their children want to stay and where we are once again one of the most enticing nations on earth for those lucky enough to live and move to. I would not be here without a lot of people doing the work—the hard mahi. I wholeheartedly thank the electorate committee, electorate chair, my campaign committee, and the many party volunteers who made sure Auckland's Upper Harbour electorate returned blue. Our local victory belongs to them. I was merely tasked with delivering a sensible speech on election night—one job! Can I also thank my wonderful partner and my three children, as well as my parents and my two brothers and their families. In the olden days, three sons meant one on the farm, one in the army, and one in the church. You can only guess where my two older brothers had me! They were good days growing up in rural South Taranaki, near Hāwera, on a West Coast leased sheep farm with local iwi Ngāti Ruanui our landlord. The Brewers were among the early settlers, arriving in Auckland in 1855, with my great-great-great-grandparents buried under the Grafton Bridge. My Scottish first name is a nod to my mother's side of the family, some of whom landed in Waipū, Northland, in 1858, having first tried Nova Scotia. I want to thank the many colleagues and friends who supported and encouraged me when I founded community newspaper Inside Otago in 1996, when I worked in Parliament, in the Auckland city mayoral office, as head of the Newmarket Business Association, as an Auckland councillor, and, more recently, as the owner of a public relations consultancy. The north-west of Auckland has been home for nearly a decade, and, after buying a house, we moved into the heart of the Upper Harbour electorate just last week. Created in 2014, the Upper Harbour electorate stretches from Massey in the west to Wairau Valley in the east, and the likes of Royal Heights, West Harbour, Hobsonville Point, Greenhithe, Bayview, Unsworth Heights, and part of Glenfield in between. It's one of the youngest electorates in New Zealand, and one of most diverse, with an estimated 40 percent - plus of pan-Asian descent. Upper Harbour is rich with Chinese Kiwis, Korean Kiwis, Indian Kiwis, and Filipino Kiwis. As the new MP, I will work hard to represent everyone, and to be accessible and visible. The pressures of population growth and housing intensification mean we need to do more when it comes to transport infrastructure and services. I will be Upper Harbour's number one advocate. With that, I am delighted the Minister of Transport views the construction of the Northwest Rapid Transit corridor—a dedicated busway alongside State Highway 16—as a priority project to help ease Auckland's congestion. Bring it on! And bring on our new Government Policy Statement on Land Transport. National's larger Auckland caucus is strong in its commitment to deliver for New Zealand's largest city and commercial capital, and Aucklanders are up for it. In fact, Aucklanders were up for it over 20 years ago, with an overwhelming number of them happy to pay a toll or for congestion if they meant quicker travel times. That was when the city was just over 1 million people, and by the end of this decade, Auckland will likely be home to 2 million. Aucklanders strongly voted for change in the 2022 local government elections and again in the 2023 general election, and that is what must now be delivered. Again, I am here because I have long wanted to be part of such change. It's great we are getting serious about public-private partnerships (PPPs). That is long overdue, and I believe PPPs should go beyond transport infrastructure. An example of the possibilities is Auckland's Spark Arena. As New Zealand's first major public-private partnership, it was constructed nearly 20 years ago for $94 million, which Auckland City ratepayers partly contributed, but it has since been owned and managed privately. The arrangement is dubbed a BOOT——Build, Own, Operate, Transfer. In the 2040s, 100 percent ownership of Spark Arena will be transferred to Auckland Council. The next generation of ratepayers will, effectively, get Spark Arena in mint condition for free. How good is that? Let's use the balance sheets of the private sector as we continue to build our country's infrastructure and public amenities. In many cases, it's the only way we will do it. New Zealand is at its greatest when we maximise the power of our communities. We used to be known as a can-do country. Remember? Sadly, we haven't heard that term for a while. The foundation of the National Party is built on the values of ambition and success; with lower taxes, reward for hard work, and equal opportunity for all at its core. As a member for 28 years, I am proud to be part of a party where strong families and caring communities is a key value and where our philosophy is to empower community organisations, not to compete with them. Since the COVID-19 lockdowns, many Kiwis have struggled to fully reintegrate both socially and at work, while many of our kids who turned on their iPads have not since turned them off. As parents we all hear ourselves too often say how we used to play much more outdoors, but there are simple things we can do. Sport Waitākere tells me that across West Auckland this summer, at least 17 school pools remain closed—all while temperatures rise to 30 degrees. How crazy is that? It has just got too hard for many school boards with liability and operational costs. Being can-do is actually essential, because being can't-do is costing us and the next generation much, much more. I want to acknowledge the thousands affected by the Auckland floods and the cyclone a year ago. In Wairau Valley, we lost lives. In Tōtara Vale, the second storey of some homes were flooded, and at the bottom of Massey, many homes remain abandoned. As representatives and as communities, we must continue to support these people as the pain and loss continues. The buy-outs in Auckland have begun, but many residents remain in limbo, and many impacted simply don't qualify for assistance. They cannot be forgotten. Education is a major determinant in people's lives. We all know the turn-around job is big, but we've had a world-class State education system before and we can do it again. No one can argue the worsening statistics of the past 30 years, but we must not accept them. I am proud to be part of a Government that's unashamedly about standards, a knowledge-based curriculum, and delivering excellence for our children—a Government that will finally tackle the crippling and unacceptable attendance and truancy rates. With me, I have a "Good Attendance Certificate". It certifies that despite having to ride miles to school every day on her pony in often cold and wet central Taranaki, my eight-year-old grandmother was "present every time the school was open during the period of 12 months ending December the 31st, 1913". We've done it before, and we can do it again. Fast forward to when I was growing up, my parents had a yale key that was permanently in the front door, so you could just turn the key and walk in. When we went away, or as we slept inside, that key always remained in our front door. Also back then, you never lost your car keys, because they were permanently in the ignition! We've enjoyed safe communities in my lifetime, and New Zealand can be one of the safest countries again. However, things need to change, and they will. Kiwis have had enough. They want a Government focused on law and order, and that is another reason I am here. New Zealand is a country of small businesses, and if they weren't cleaned out during COVID, many have folded since. Not only is National the party of limited government and personal responsibility but another key value is competitive enterprise and rewards for achievement. The farmers, the tradies, the retailers, the moteliers, the café owners, and the many others working dawn till dusk in small businesses have kept our country going in recent years and now deserve a break. We value local businesses, and National will always fight for them. Good news: strong economic performance and lifting productivity have returned as key motivators for the Beehive. Our Prime Minister knows that without economic growth, we simply won't have the resources to protect our environment and rebuild our healthcare and education systems, let alone retain our best and our brightest, and attract skills and investment. New Zealand has always been committed to supporting those who find themselves out of work. Tragically, with labour shortages at record highs, a great opportunity was missed in the past few years to get more Kiwis off a main benefit and into a job. Fortunately, getting people who can back into work is once again a key focus. In fact, the very people the previous Government purported to represent were, sadly, the ones who have suffered the greatest. Those hit the hardest by the cost of living crisis are Kiwis on the pension, those Kiwis on the factory floor, those Kiwis trying to make ends meet—it's Māori, it's Pasifika. They've been absolutely walloped. In the first few weeks of the 54th Parliament, we then had to endure the Opposition parties' claim that we are the party for millionaires and even billionaires. I only wish that they had been out campaigning and waving on Glenfield Road with some of us last year. The toots of support were not coming from the rich; they were coming from working New Zealand. Thousands of lifetime Labour voters went for National for the first time ever in October. They felt betrayed, abandoned, and let down. They're now relying on us to deliver for them and their families. Out and about this summer break has shown many of us that this Government and its policy programme have great support across rural and urban New Zealand. The 1.5 million Kiwis who voted for this coalition Government like what they see, and now just want us to get on with it. Kiwis voted for change and unapologetically that is what they will get. Over the coming months, and years, we will dig deep to deliver the New Zealand our children and grandchildren deserve—the greatest country on earth and a place where hard work is rewarded. We've done it before, and New Zealand can do it again. Ngā mihi nui. Thanks so much. [Applause] DANA KIRKPATRICK (National—East Coast): E ngā mana, e ngā reo, e ngā rangatira, tēnā koutou. Tēnā koutou kua huihui mai nei, kia ora koutou katoa. [To the preeminent, to the representatives, to the esteemed leaders, greetings. Greetings to you who have assembled here, hello to all of you.] Mr Speaker, I stand before you today humbled and privileged to be the MP for East Coast, and to represent a region so vast in size and demographics, and challenges and opportunities, with some of the greatest people in Aotearoa New Zealand. Congratulations on your appointment, and thank you for your commitment to the House. May I also please acknowledge Prime Minister Christopher Luxon, the Hon Nicola Willis, and the National leadership team for their support and commitment. Leadership is the central pivot of an organisation, and I am firmly of the view that our leaders will guide this country to a better place, and leave a legacy that we can all be proud of. Can I acknowledge all of those who have made the journey today. None of this would have been possible without you, without the support you've given me throughout my life, my career, and the pathway that brought us all to this place today. I'm grateful for all that you have done for me. Mum, thank you for your support, holding the fort when I'm not at home and picking up the pieces. Your energy knows no bounds, and I am extremely grateful. Andrew, Tracy, Riley, and Jake—thank you for all that you've done. Harold, Jo, Debs, Kaye, aunts, uncles, cousins, friends, and former colleagues—thank you for being here today. It is humbling that there are people who represent all the different parts of my life journey. I would like to acknowledge the Hon Tony Ryall, who is not here today but was a huge support during my campaign. The Hon Anne Tolley and Ian McKelvie,and former National Party President Judy Kirk for their encouragement and support. To those who could not make it but are making their first foray into the gripping world of Parliament TV—thank you for joining us. Today, I am also very proud to have representatives from my Haronga and Ruru whānau of Te Aitangaa-Māhaki here. Collectively the whānau here today covers Mangatu Incorporation, Wi Pere Trust, Te Aitanga a Mahaki Trust, Te Runanga o Turanganui a Kiwa, Toitū Tairāwhiti Housing, and last but not least, our community from Te Karaka who were impacted by the severe weather events nearly 12 months ago, almost to the day. And lastly, to all of the volunteers and party faithfuls across the East Coast electorate, I have no words for the tireless dedication you gave to the cause, the belief you had in me, and the singular focus you had on changing the Government—thank you one and all. I can't thank you enough. It is also great to have my children Anna and Sam in the gallery. You have supported me through career changes and the journey that became "Politics 101" and then the MP for East Coast. Thank you for your patience, your support, and for keeping things real. When I told them I was standing for election, they said, "Well Mum, you've got a loud voice and pretty much an opinion on everything so you may as well have a go". Lastly, to my colleagues: Katie Nimon, who shares part of the southern Gisborne area with me in an extraordinary electorate boundary, and MPs for Ikaroa-Rāwhiti, Cushla Tangaere-Manuel, and Waiariki, Rawiri Waititi. I'd also like to thank Minister Todd McClay for his help throughout the campaign. Our electorate and its regions have significant challenges, and it will take all of us in order to make a difference and have better outcomes for all. I am staunchly East Coast, born and raised in Gisborne, Tūranganui-a-Kiwa, in a small village called Pātūtahi in the valley known as Ngātapa. It is a place I proudly call home and always will. My upbringing was quintessential rural New Zealand. My parents worked hard on the family farm that had been settled by my great-grandfather David Kirkpatrick in 1891, passed to his son David, and then to my father, David. You don't get a prize for guessing names in my family. The first David Kirkpatrick was an astute Scotsman—a leading stud breeder and farmer. His son—my grandfather—was a World War I veteran serving in the Wellington Mounted Rifles in Egypt from 1917 to 1919. On his return from Egypt, he too became a successful farmer. He married Kathleen Mary Walker and subsequently five children were added to the family. At the age of 15, Dad developed osteomyelitis in his ankle, and left school to recover and start his farming life. He and Mum took over the family farm, and Dad cemented his reputation as an award-winning farmer, a man of considerable integrity and fairness, a leader, our mentor. He represented New Zealand in sport, and he had a twinkle in his eye. He was the most hard-working, competitive person I have ever met. Dad's advice always was: be a good person, be fair, humble, and a good sport. If you're going to do something, for God's sake, do it properly and give it 110 percent. On my Mum's side of the family we are descended from an English immigrant family—the Gaukrodgers—and the distinguished Ruru and Haronga families who are proudly Te Aitanga-a-Māhaki. Charlie Gaukrodger was an exceptional farmer in the very back blocks of Whatatutu with his beautiful wife Katerina Ruru, known as Kath. Remote, difficult, high-country farming with five children. They rode their horses to school in rain, hail, or snow. Kath made all their clothes, wove their school kete, and taught them to fend for themselves. I am privileged to have grown up in such an awesome family—hard workers on all sides, with a steely determination and staunch integrity. Our family instilled in us a strong work ethic, a healthy competitive spirit, and the ability to walk alongside people from all walks of life as we encountered new and different experiences. After a wonderful schooling at Patutahi Primary School, I went away to St Matthew's College in Masterton. Despite best efforts, I somehow managed to carefully avoid committing myself too heavily to the academic endeavours expressed in the school motto, "Ad Astra per Aspera". But I made some lifelong friends, some of them sitting up there today. I am now hoping that my efforts as a late achiever will make up for my diminished attention sometime in the 1980s. I just got a text today from my former school principal, John Taylor, wishing me well. I'm pretty sure he didn't see this coming in 1987. My career took me from broadcasting school through a 10-year career in journalism, into local government. Later, I ran my own PR, communications, and fundraising business for 10 years where we focused on local and central government projects, and raised a lot of money for charities. Then, thanks to a late return to University, I developed a new focus and sought my first General Manager role. This was at Eastwoodhill—the National Arboretum of New Zealand—a globally recognised collection of northern hemisphere trees and shrubs—many on the International Union of Conservation of Nature endangered list. It was founded by an eccentric World War II veteran, a nudist, no less, who wore one gumboot so he could use the spade to plant his trees. The environmental opportunity for Eastwoodhill to be a global safe haven for the world's endangered tree species is relevant to this day. Borne out of a fear of nuclear holocaust, it remains an untapped opportunity for New Zealand. I then moved on to Equestrian Sport New Zealand, where I was eventually the CEO in a challenging, high performance sport environment, with 10,000 extremely vocal members. We worked on transformational projects, concussion protocols, drug and alcohol testing, complaints procedures, and the like. I worked alongside a great team at High Performance Sport New Zealand in developing a strategic blueprint for change for elite sport. There is much to do in sport, but I feel really strongly about the inspiration and the aspiration it provides Kiwis at home and abroad. Whether it is sport at the high level or at the grassroots—a local rugby club—it plays an enormous part in weaving communities together, teaching discipline, focus and social skills, and providing opportunities for anyone to succeed, no matter the background, shape, size, or ethnicity. So how come politics? It was during the pandemic that I quite literally found my political voice, and discovered I had begun to shout at the television. During 2020 and 2021, I found myself shouting in frustration more and more at the television, as Government policy and regulation stripped the life out of all of us, and in 2022, it dawned on me: shouting at the television wasn't working and never would, and if I was to make a difference, I'd have to get elected. I really wanted to do work that contributed to a positive, innovative, fair, and united country. A country where my children wanted to grow up and bring up their families, and a country where we honoured our service people, where we have the most inspirational teachers, a health system that is functional, and where everyone has opportunities to be educated and to get ahead. So here we are. A privilege, a new chapter, and one of the most important jobs in the world. The East Coast electorate is enormous and varied. It stretches 13,000 kilometres from Pōtaka to Pātūtahi, Manutuke to Minginui, Murupara and Maketū. Five district councils, two regional councils, many strong and proud iwi, two hospitals, an endless number of wonderful towns and villages, and many hundreds of kilometres of roads—many of them broken. We are home to some of the world's most productive horticultural and agricultural land and New Zealand's best orchardists and farmers. We are proudly 50 percent Māori. We have wonderful ethnic groups, and we are rural communities, isolated, self-sufficient, and the hardest of workers. There are inequities in access to services for Māori and non-Māori in our electorate—particularly those living in isolated rural communities that have gone backwards in the past six years. As a country, it is time we stopped hiffing money around without fixing the core issues. It's time we stopped marginalising the very people who do the work in this country, who grow the food we eat, provide the jobs, industries, goods, and services—the taxpayers who pay the wages of every person in this Chamber today. The National Party's focus on reducing the cost of living and getting our economy back on track is at the core of this country's recovery. It is simply the most important task before us. I'm proud to be part of a Government that has identified policy and legislation that supports our businesses and rural sectors, understands that local solutions deliver for Māori and non-Māori, ensures basic needs are met, and delivers a thriving, successful economy. An economy where we celebrate food producing qualities, where we're not afraid to be forward-thinking, innovative, and clever; where we value our environment and collectively work to improve it in a sensible and sustainable way. A country where we understand and support the incredible role that electorates like the East Coast play in the economic and social tapestry of New Zealand, and one where we do not mistake activity for achievement. Without labouring the point, I'm not sure if I mentioned the roads. State Highway 2 and State Highway 35 are barely a goat track in some places. And I applaud the commitment of the Prime Minister, the Minister for recovery, and the Minister of Transport for travelling Napier to Wairoa and Gisborne by car to understand its real state. I want to reassure the people who live in the eastern part of our electorate that we know how important and significant safe and reliable roading infrastructure is to our region's future. It supports our productive sectors, our tourism, it keeps us in food and supplies for our industries, and it is the link for our families and communities, for wellbeing and access to specialist services. Without a pragmatic, connected approach to transportation networks, our resilience, our economic viability, and our very existence is compromised. Notwithstanding that, there's much to do in the region for cyclone recovery and the land use inquiry. There is no doubt that forestry contributes much to the economic and social outcomes of the region on many levels. But there's also no doubt among any of the players that the operating environment and the options for land use have changed considerably, and a new environmentally conscious focus is required. The approach taken after Cyclone Bola in 1988 has not been the gift we had envisaged. It's time to collaborate, rethink this, and develop a better way forward. There is so much to do in our region. There have been significant investments into areas in the East Coast such as Ōpōtiki, Kawerau, and Whakatāne, and the possibilities for innovation and sustainable sector development are exciting. We must support businesses to grow and find the way to make significant change to the social parameters in places like these to break the inter-generational issues that will hold them back. As I said, so much to do, including for mental health, for education, for housing, and policing. But, above all, for whatever tenure I have in this House and as the MP for the East Coast, I want us to work together. As a country, we have come a long way, but we have a long way to go. We must find a way to work together, where we can respect each other's views, debate with maturity, understand the journey we have all been on and the contributions we have made along the way. As the leaders of Aotearoa New Zealand, it is time to show up. It's time to collectively understand the concept of kotahitanga and that we are so much better in unity. We have to lead the way in treating people better, having mature conversations, and working in partnership. After all, division will break us all in the end. I am proud to be part of the Government that provides for all New Zealanders, that uses practical common sense, that looks after taxpayer dollars, a Government that understands the benefit of infrastructure over ideology, and one that will fix the roads. Finally, I thought I'd leave you with a story from the election campaign. Someone wrote a song about me. It was about the new East Coast MP, Danica Patrick—you know the one? The millionaire, racing car driver, and supermodel. Just in case you're confused, I'm not Danica Patrick—not a millionaire, don't own a racing car, and clearly not a supermodel, and no, never a whippet, actually, for those of you who know. But I am Dana Kirkpatrick—mother, volunteer, community person, businesswoman, hard worker, mental health advocate. Someone who fundamentally believes in authenticity, fairness, and respect. I will work hard, listen even harder, and do my very best for the people of the East Coast electorate, because at the end of the day, it's they who will hold me accountable. I'll do my best to make my supporters proud and my children pleased that their mum stood up for what she believed in: that hard work pays off and you can't make a difference by sitting back and shouting at the television. Thank you, East Coast, for giving me this privilege. Mr Speaker, thank you for indulging me. Nō reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa. [Applause] Waiata CARL BATES (National—Whanganui): [Authorised te reo text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.] [Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.] Greetings Mr Speaker, and congratulations on your election. Congratulations to Prime Minister Christopher Luxon, to our Cabinet, and coalition partners. Greetings to my fellow MPs across the House. Mr Speaker, I grew up with seven of my eight great-grandparents and all my grandparents, including my Nana June and Grandma Shirley here in the gallery today and my Grandad Barry watching from home. I was blessed to learn a lot from their stories of hardship, hard work, and success. In particular, I recall their adage: "Waste not, want not." As I enter this House and consider what I want our legacy here to be, I want it to be more meaningful than merely burdening our grandchildren and our great-grandchildren with our debt. Unfortunately, over the last six years, non - COVID-related spending and borrowing increased at unprecedented rates. This has flowed on to higher inflation and higher interest rates, both hurting New Zealanders daily. I have created companies to achieve outcomes. I believe successful enterprises exist to deliver on a particular promise, to employ people, to pay taxes, and solve problems—and we need more of them. Creating a company, though, doesn't come without risk, nor are they always as successful as entrepreneurs would like their own to be. Every dollar these businesses pay to the Government in tax should be treated with the respect and appreciation for the blood, sweat, and the tears that went into generating it. As should those taxes paid by farmers, teachers, nurses, shift workers, and, indeed, everyone else. As we look to the future, it is imperative that this House is more responsible with New Zealanders' money. This House must make choices between what the role of Government is and what it is not. We cannot, and should not, try and attempt to solve every problem—and nor should we. The story we tell our grandchildren of this post-COVID period must be one of recovery: setting New Zealand up for success and providing a platform for them to achieve anything. It must be the story of how this Government got New Zealand back on track: reduced the burden of the state and made us more productive. I commend the Cabinet's decision to cancel the Interislander replacement contract. It sent a clear message to all those who consider the Government to be a bottomless ATM that this coalition Government will deliver value for taxpayers' money. Prime Minister, I look forward to your leadership through this critical period in resetting New Zealand's economic and social story. I am here be part of making that happen. New Year's eve 2020 saw my wife Candice and I sitting in managed isolation and quarantine. We reflected on the year that was and the economic headwinds New Zealand would face. Six months later I told our team that our business was for sale. Then, with no idea how this journey would end, as I do, I went all in on returning National to the Treasury benches. That New Year's eve, Candice and I also celebrated our fifth wedding anniversary. Since we "swiped right", you have constantly supported and challenged me. Your mum, Sheila-ann, would be so proud of the amazing mum you are to Angus and Logan. You will be an awesome guide to them as they navigate this unique journey. I love you and I know how much you have sacrificed for us to be here. Mum, you have been my biggest promoter and my harshest critic—to the extent you could probably get a job in the press gallery! Seriously though, thank you for always being on the other end of the phone, no matter the time zone, and for pushing me to be my best. Dad, you are an inspiration. Your positive attitude and constant smile, despite everything since your stroke in 2010, is a reminder to us all that life is what you make it. Thank you to electorate chair Andy Jarden, campaign chair Linde Judd, and the entire and phenomenal Whanganui electorate team for all you did to enable us to win in October. You all kept saying "yes", and I will never be able to thank you enough for the countless hours you volunteered. Mr Speaker, 1996 is both the year you were first elected to this august place and the year—as a mere 12-year-old—I started the Whanganui Young Nationals branch with Luke Byers. We vigorously campaigned for the Hon Peter Gresham, who, along with then electorate chair Neil Walker, schooled us in politics. That year the Hon Chester Borrows and I began our friendship. Chester provided significant support and guidance during my selection, even as his final illness robbed him of a long retirement. I acknowledge Chester as the MP for Whanganui for 12 years, and I thank he and Ella for their service to our region. The Whanganui electorate is a microcosm of New Zealand: full of potential and blessed with natural assets and innovative people; businesses that service us locally and make us proud globally; organisations and volunteers that ensure we support each other; and, much like New Zealand as a whole, a rural sector that is the backbone of our economy. The wonderful Whanganui electorate begins at the Whangaehu River and travels through Whanganui and up State Highway 4—which I know we'll fix—past Kakatahi. To many people's surprise, it also runs up State Highway 3 to encompass Hāwera, around Mount Taranaki, and ceases as you enter Ōpunake on the west and encompasses Stratford to the east. Many ask what binds these places together. Well, at primary school we learnt of a Māori legend that tells of our deep connection. Long ago, Taranaki maunga and Tongariro maunga fought for the attention of Pihanga. After Tongariro proved successful in capturing her love, Taranaki fled the central plateau heading for the sea. He left a scar on the land behind him, formed our beautiful South Taranaki coastline, and settled to provide a majestic presence over the region. Two tears then came down from the Sky Father, one forming the Whanganui awa in the path Taranaki had left behind. The people of the Whanganui electorate are connected by our shared history, our economic drivers, and our collective desire to achieve more for the Whanganui, South Taranaki, and Stratford districts. I believe the role of a member of Parliament is to be a facilitator between one's electorate and local and central government. I look forward to working even more with my local and regional councils for the benefit of our region for years to come. Along with many opportunities, our districts also have many critical issues. Today, I will refer to three. Firstly, returning our polytechnic to local control through the disestablishment of Te Pūkenga. I am excited for the potential that this reset holds for our region. Secondly, I recall being taught at Scouts to "take only photos and leave only footprints". I am excited, therefore, by National's commitment to increase renewable energy. For South Taranaki, this could mean the development of offshore wind farms, and I look forward to having input into the creation of a regulatory framework that will enable this. Thirdly, much is said of rural and provincial connectivity. We are not just crying "wolf". In Pātea on Friday, I visited a brand-new business that struggled for connection to simply take payment. Properly addressing this issue will improve education, business, and employment where it is most desperately required. It's because of issues like this that I come here determined to be the best advocate for our region. Born, raised, and educated in Whanganui, during secondary school and into uni I worked at McDonald's—a skillset shared by other outstanding members in this House. At 18, while studying at Massey University, I was appointed as an independent director of a non-profit specialised aged care facility. A critical moment in life that defined my career for the next 20 years. At 20, I was elected as a Universal College of Learning council member, and also appointed to Arena Manawatu's board. At 22, Quality Health New Zealand appointed me acting chief executive to turn it around and that's what I did. Following that, and over the next 16 years, I built a professional services firm along with my mum, Raewyn. Sirdar's focus was guiding boards and growing business, both across the African continent—where I was based for much of that time—and around the world. This provided opportunities for me to serve as director and chairman of a range of small and large companies—including in the primary industries and animal health, food safety, and manufacturing, retail, and education. Real-world skills I bring into this House. Candice tells me, though, that my life and my career is not one that can be easily explained in an elevator pitch—but here goes: I have been an employer and an employee; a landlord and tenant; driver of a diesel vehicle and, at the same time, simultaneously, a diligent recycler; a Queen's Scout and a child of God. I love cooking and red wine, am a chartered accountant—the better of the two professions—and have authored two books. I was named young business person of the year at the 2016 Wellington Regional Business Excellence awards—and got a letter from the wonderful list MP who acted as the local MP at the time, Minister Chris Bishop—and in 2022 became one of the youngest Chartered Fellows of the Institute of Directors here in New Zealand. I believe in lifelong learning. I believe that while our failures do not define us, how we learn from them does. I also believe in hard work and reward for achievement—core National Party values. Door-knocking and calling over 9,000 people during the campaign, I met people like the mum on sole parent support in central Whanganui who was feeling the cost of living crisis hit her every time she went to the supermarket; like the superannuitant in Aramoho who cried on her doorstep at the wasteful spending of "our money" at the same time she was struggling to pay her own monthly bills; like the farmer in Stratford who wanted a Government that has farmers' backs; and like the business person in Hāwera who wanted confidence to employ his next apprentice. My promise is to work hard for them and to work hard for every constituent in the Whanganui electorate. I am humbled by, and full of gratitude for, this opportunity to represent them. Finally, my late grandfather, Ken "the Magic Man" Bates, once said to me that his goal in life was to ensure his children did better than he did. With some sleight of hand, ultimately my goal in this House is to ensure that I can tell my grandchildren that our great nation has the First World healthcare, education, and social services that we deserve, because we built a productive First World economy that enabled us to pay for it. Thank you. Waiata—"Te Aroha" Dr CARLOS CHEUNG (National—Mt Roskill): Mr Speaker, I congratulate you on your election to office. I'm looking forward to learning from you in the next three years. Members of Parliament, ladies and gentlemen, friends and family, kia ora, talofa, mālō e lelei, namaste, salaam, ni hao, 大家好, and good evening. The Bible says, "Trust in the Lord with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding; in all your ways submit to Him, and He will make your paths straight." I speak to you today as the first ever National Party member of Parliament for Mount Roskill, and only the second Chinese electorate MP in NZ history. This is also the first time a National MP has won this seat since its creation. I am conscious of and respect the history we made. I will start by thanking all the people who supported me in making our campaign for Mount Roskill a success. I thank the National Party for the honour and privilege of being its representative. I thank our Prime Minister, the Rt Hon Christopher Luxon, for his leadership and passion in serving our country. His example of service is what New Zealand needs, and I am privileged to be part of his team to bring our country back on track. To our president Sylvia Wood, deputy leader Nicola Willis, and campaign manager Chris Bishop, I say thank you for an excellent campaign. I also acknowledge all the current and former MPs who took time away from their obligations to help us in Mount Roskill. I especially acknowledge my big sister Melissa Lee and Paul Goldsmith. They both encouraged me to stand as a candidate, took me under their wings, and never stopped providing the assistance, support, and accountability I needed. I also acknowledge all the candidates, for all the friendship and support during the campaign. There is no doubt that I had the best campaign team in the country. A special thank you to my campaign managers, Shu Chen and Deane Jessep. They ran an exceptional campaign; unlike anything Mount Roskill has ever seen. Thank you to all the National Party board members, our regional chair Ward Kamo, and my committee chair Diana Burslem, my supporters, volunteers, and the Young Nats—many of whom are right now sitting in the public gallery, and many of them watching on the television in their homes. I also want to take this opportunity to acknowledge my opponent Michael Wood. He ran a clean and respectful campaign, and I am proud to succeed him in serving the people of Mount Roskill as an electorate MP in Parliament. I would like to say a few words to my Asian and Pasifika communities. It is truly a blessing to receive support from different ethnic groups. I feel blessed to be accepted by you, and will raise your voice in Parliament. To my Chinese community, I know many of you have voted for the first time to support me, even if you live outside my electorate—I know a few of have actually texted me and sent me a message saying they can't find my name on the voting paper, but thank you. 感謝大家一直以來的支持, 我會繼續努力為大家服務,將您的聲音和需求帶進議會. 感謝大家的支持,這次的勝利不屬於我一個人，它屬於在座的所有人.我們一起創造歷史, 未來我們還需要繼續努力, 為大家服務. I thank my family: my mum and dad, Teresa Mak and David Cheung; my brother, Dr Antonio Cheung; Rita Tsai; and my in-laws, Chi Ming, Brianna, Joanna, and Victoria Lai, for their ongoing support. Finally, it is well known that behind a successful man, there is often a special woman. I'm lucky to have not only one but two: my wife Fiona, and my little daughter, Renée Cheung. I thank my wife for everything she has done for me. She is my number one supporter, my better half, and my prayer warrior. Fiona had to balance her time on campaigning, with her role in local government, and taking care of family. Thank you. Mr Speaker, today, I want to share with you who I am and what I wish to achieve as the representative of Mount Roskill and the people of New Zealand. I am who I am because of my family and the values I have been taught. I was born in Hong Kong. My parents are hard-working, middle-class people. For them, family has always come first. They always want the best for us. I remember when I was young, my dad was away from home much of the time, self-sacrificing to provide for us. My mother gave up her career to look after my brother and me to ensure we have a firm foundation of education and stay away from troubles. They will explore every opportunity for us to succeed. 謝謝你們對我的栽培和付出,我希望今天的我能讓你們感到驕傲. Here are three things I learned from my parents. Number one: the value of education. Education is the key to a better future. When you invest in it, it can break many cycles and shape lives for the better. Leaving very little for themselves, my parents supported my brother and me to New Zealand to seek for better education. Both of us now have a doctorate degree in biomedical sciences. With investment and sacrifice, every New Zealander can reach the same educational heights, should they wish. Number two: finance management. My parents prioritised their spending, and placed our education as their top priority, even over their own needs and leisure. They never spend more than they can afford. This example has taught me to manage my own money well, just like how we should do in our Government: We need to stop wasteful spending and invest our money wisely. Integrity and kindness: since we were young, they taught us to give to those in need, even though we were not wealthy. From serving as a boy scout to engaging in volunteer work as I grew older, my parents showed me the importance of serving people with a genuine heart. This is why I'm here today. After the election, I have heard and seen many saying, "Why is it that Carlos won? Who is he? Is it because of his high educational achievements? Perhaps his business experience, or maybe his support from the ethnic community?" Though those things are true, it is much simpler to me: I have a heart for service, and, with humility, I display it for all to see and follow if they want. Over the years, I've been serving in various community groups and have worked with different ethnic and religious backgrounds. It breaks my heart to see families and children in poverty. People receiving benefits have not seen their lives improved; they are still struggling. Many of our younger generations are more afraid to dream big than at any time in New Zealand's history. That made me realise the policy is not heading in the right direction. We need to break the poverty cycle. We need a new approach. We need to teach people how to fish rather than giving them a fish. This is why I decided to stand as a member of Parliament. It is time for me to do more for my community, to serve them in the one place where we can make the big changes needed. I have seen our grassroots struggles, and now I want to make a bigger and larger difference for the people of Mt Roskill. We MPs are also here to create inspiration and establish better policies for our nation. As someone who achieved a doctorate, I know that education is critical for firm foundations in life. Our education system should prepare our children for the future and to be globally competitive. This is why our policy of one hour of reading, writing, and mathematics each day is so important; it sets a good foundation for our Kiwi kids. Education, though, isn't just about knowledge; it has a fundamental role in creating good mental health and fortitude. We must ensure our children are mentally prepared for the outside world. They need to learn the fortitude to dream big. Yes, we understand the real world is full of challenges and failures. We must teach them to pick themselves up and carry on. Our kids need to learn how to react, how to be resilient when criticism comes their way. We want our next generation to be fully equipped. Our health system is also failing us. The service needs real change. It should prioritise patient needs, not their race. The previous Government focused on metadata and ideas of diversity, equity, and inclusion but never on the root cause of the problems or the real patient outcomes that mattered. Going to the hospital for treatment is usually the last resort for a patient. Our healthcare system should be focused on both treatment and prevention. I'm proud that our Government are willing to invest our health system by operating a third medical school. We will increase the numbers of healthcare professionals and improve outcomes. We want to build a healthcare system that people can rely on. To the people of Mt Roskill, I am humbly honoured to be their MP. Mt Roskill is a special place for me. It is my family home. Mt Roskill is a unique electorate. It is one of the most culturally diverse in New Zealand, consisting of over 100 ethnicities, well over 150 languages spoken, and many different religions practiced. Nearly half of the Mt Roskill electorate is from the Asian ethnic group, which is one of the highest percentages of any general electorate and over three times the national average. Over half of the population were born overseas, the fourth highest share in New Zealand. I got to meet so many residents during and after my campaign. I heard their voices, listened to their concerns, and shared their fears. In the past 12 months, Mt Roskill has been making headlines for all the wrong reasons, with supermarkets being ram-raided, dairy owners attacked, and many robberies. Just last Saturday, while I was practising this very speech, another sad and unnecessary stabbing happened at one of our local supermarkets. I visited to check on the staff, but, like them, I felt helpless. This is not the Mt Roskill I know, and this is not the Mt Roskill we want. Solutions to these problems must be prioritised right here in Parliament by all of us fellow MPs. None of us can do it alone. We must come together, work together, and make change. We need to be tougher on crime, especially violent crime. People who commit crimes must face real consequences, and, yes, when released back into the community, they also need to be capable of being productive and law-abiding. The police and the justice system must have the support and resources they need to achieve this. Everyone must feel safe living in Mt Roskill. The economy in Mt Roskill can be better. We need to strengthen it by providing more opportunities for our people to succeed. We need to support our local businesses more and, in return, create more good jobs for our people. Everyone should seize every opportunity to be successful, but first we must make sure they have them. We want to see a thriving Mt Roskill where there are vibrant markets and thriving business hubs. Housing intensification is also another important issue in our electorate, especially after the floods and Cyclone Gabrielle. It has been one year now, and many people still cannot move back into their own homes. Many houses are empty and unsafe to live in. Infrastructure must be in place for our growing population. We cannot afford to get this wrong. It requires strong leadership from both local and central government politicians, and I'm committed to working hard on this. People in Mt Roskill must have a place to call home for the long term. Mr Speaker, if you will indulge me, I would like to direct a few words to the next generation in Mt Roskill. Youth of Mt Roskill, you are very talented and gifted, full of energy, and have great potential. You are the future of our country. Dream big and dare to fail. Believe in yourself. Do not be afraid of failures; overcoming them will make you a stronger person, and this is the path to success. Your Government can equip you through education, safety, and opportunity, but it is up to you to seize the day, so back yourself, work hard, and maximise your skills to achieve your highest potential. I commit myself to serving all New Zealanders, both those born here and those who have chosen to make this beautiful and bountiful country their home. I offer my deepest sacrifice and will give tirelessly in service. I only ask that all other Kiwis try their best to do the same. I would like to conclude as I began with a verse from the Bible: "Do nothing from selfish ambition or conceit, but in humility count others more significant than yourselves. Let each of you look not only to his own interests but also to the interests of others." Amen. [Applause] SPEAKER: We have one more maiden speech to go. We are past the time, but the House has, by way of Business Committee, made that indulgence. Could I please ask people to clear the galleries as quickly as possible so that the next lot of audience can take their seats. Thank you. MILES ANDERSON (National—Waitaki): Thank you, Mr Speaker. First off, I want to congratulate you on your election to the Speaker's role. I believe your sense of fair play, respect for democracy, and humour is appreciated by all in this House. All these attributes are essential to the essence of how politics should be played in New Zealand. I wish to congratulate the Prime Minister, the Right Honourable Christopher Luxon, on winning the election and leading this Government. Congratulations also to Deputy Prime Minister, the Right Honourable Winston Peters, and New Zealand First, as well as to Hon David Seymour and ACT. I look forward to playing my part in our coalition Government. I want to acknowledge colleagues from right across the House with whom I've had an association prior to prior to entering politics, Hon Damien O'Connor and Jo Luxton, both of whom I believe share National Party values but have been held hostage by the Labour Party for so long that they suffer from Stockholm syndrome. To Hon Mark Patterson and Hon Andrew Hoggard, I have enormous respect for you both and I look forward to working with you as part of this Government. A special mention to my colleague and the fine representative of the Wairarapa, Mike Butterick, who I've previously worked alongside in Federated Farmers. I also want to acknowledge the numerous new MPs who have a direct link to the primary industries, the driver of our economy, which I believe has been underrepresented in this House for decades. I'm here in this place due to the hard work and support of many people. I want to take a minute or two to thank them to my predecessor, Jacqui Dean, who served the Waitaki electorate since its re-establishment in 2008. Thank you for giving such a large portion of your life to the people of our electorate. I wish you well in your endeavours outside of Parliament. As you know, a campaign requires a campaign team and I was fortunate to have a group of friends and family who stepped up to help. Vanessa Porter, Mary Strachan, Nicky Coleman, Jane-Ann McIlraith and our campaign chair—and my brother—David. I couldn't have had a better group of people to share the highs and lows, joys and frustrations of an election campaign with. It would be remiss of me if I didn't make a special mention of Murray Elliot, an Oamaru legend who was generous with his time and put so much work into my campaign. To the numerous others who put up hoardings, delivered leaflets, organised meetings or gave me encouragement, thank you. We are a nation of immigrants. Our arrival to this beautiful country started 800 years ago and continues to this day. My great-grandfather William Anderson arrived from Scotland in 1875 and eventually settled in Southburn, South Canterbury, and bought the original block that has been farmed by our family for over 130 years. His wife, my great-grandmother, was a Ryan, whose family emigrated from Ireland in 1886. My paternal grandmother's family were fascinating people, a mix of French and English who settled in Akaroa. My French ancestors, the Libeaus and Brochieres, arrived in 1840. My English great-great-grandfather Stephen Hunt arrived in 1858 after serving in the Crimean War. The Hunts of Banks Peninsula were a family of 27 children. Hon Member: Whoa! MILES ANDERSON: That's right, 27 children—no telly in those days—who spread throughout New Zealand and took their love of cards and horse racing wherever they went. My mother's family the Coughlans arrived in Dunedin in the 1880s and were publicans there for two generations before moving to Winchester in South Canterbury in the 1940s to take up farming. The farm my mother grew up on is still farmed by my cousins today. My grandmother Kit Coughlan was a Lynch. The Lynches and Coughlans are well known names in New Zealand's sport. Both had All Blacks in their ranks and my grandfather Maurice Coughlan was a national wrestling referee, whilst his brother used to provide the radio commentary. Mum's family would often talk about Lofty Blomfield and his famous 'Octopus Clamp'. The extended Coughlan and Anderson families have been a large influence in my life and I'm lucky to have come from such family-oriented people. My parents, Jim and Mary, are here today and I am in their debt for so much. I am one of 11 children—only one channel, and black and white, I suppose—and their values have served us well throughout our lives. Mum and Dad worked hard, often going without to provide us with a good home, a good education, and the skills to become productive members of society. Mum and Dad didn't regard our family situation as remarkable. Certainly, there were challenges raising a large family but they regarded parenting as a responsibility that requires sacrifice and total commitment. Coming from a large family means you have more fun, more arguments, more joy, more tragedy, and more tragedy to cope with. I think it made us all more resilient and independent. To my brothers and sisters, I want to say I couldn't have picked better siblings to have fought with and laughed with and shared tough times with. I grew up on the property that, as mentioned earlier, my great grandfather settled. My primary schooling was at Southburn School and I went to St Kevin's College in Oamaru for my secondary education. I'm grateful to have been taught by so many talented individuals. St Kevin's was, and still is, a terrific school. After leaving school in 1986, I moved to Christchurch and worked in what was known as the commercial affairs division of the Justice Department. We dealt with the regulatory functions of company law and bankruptcies and receive and receiverships. It was during this period that New Zealand was experiencing the greatest change in decades, with Rogernomics and deregulation in full flight. I believe that the pace of change was unnecessarily brutal, and this brutality was masked by the bull run that the share market was experiencing at the time. When the crash came in October 1987, the commercial affairs division was dealing with the tidal wave of human misery that came with it. The lesson I learnt was that financial regulation needs to be updated regularly to incorporate new products and financial instruments. There are too many unscrupulous people who are more than happy to take advantage of loopholes at the expense of Joe Public. As I was interested in farming, in 1988 I headed off to Massey University in Palmerston North, initially dabbling with veterinary science but eventually pursuing an agriculture degree. I finished in 1991 with a Bachelor of Agriculture degree and an overworked liver. The employment environment at the time was fairly grim, so I took a job labouring in a seed dressing plant 10 kilometres from home. It was during this time that a group of local farmers were investigating the possibility of using modern ultrasound technology on farm animals to improve production. I was approached to see if I was interested in being involved and the next thing I knew I was running a pioneering business. Today, pregnancy scanning is a common farm practice. Back then, no one was doing it and due to difficult economics, farmers weren't spending money. However, it was inevitable that the use of the technology on-farm in New Zealand would happen regardless, because it was being incorporated into farm management in the UK. Following the first season, I headed off to the UK for six months, where I worked for an established contractor in Shropshire in exchange for further training. It was whilst I was in London that I met the woman who was to become my wife, Kim. Starting with next to nothing, we built a couple of businesses in New Zealand and Australia, raised a family, bought a farm, built a house, and have been each other's champion and critic. Through good times and bad, we've managed to muddle our way through life with a good dose of humour mixed in. Kim, I couldn't have done it without you. Words can't express what you mean to me, and I love you dearly. Also, happy birthday. With marriage comes extended family, and I couldn't have asked for better people. Kim's family, the Wrights, are the best in-laws a man could ask for. Kim and I are also the proud parents of three adult children: Rose and Cara, who are here today, and our son, Joseph, who is currently working in Ireland. Of all the things that Kim and I have ever done or will ever do, you are our greatest achievement. You are our greatest achievement. In 2004, we took over the family farm, and in 2013, we sold our business. After 21 seasons and scanning 4.5 million sheep, it was time to hang up the tools. Then began a long association with Federated Farmers, which culminated in becoming the national chair of the Meat & Wool Industry Group and a board member. Federated Farmers is an incredible organisation that does an enormous amount of policy and advocacy at a local, regional, and national level that goes unnoticed by many in the rural sector. Being on the board gave me a good introduction to crisis management because of the myriad of unplanned disasters that occur in any given year, whether they are climatic, bureaucratic, or biological. When my term ended in 2020, I was drawn into politics, mainly because I feel farming has been given a raw deal by decision makers who, for the most part, don't understand the first thing about the rural sector. Farming sentiment is the worst I have ever seen. Farmers are leaving the industry due to unworkable regulations. These are costing enormous amounts of money, eroding property rights, and are ridiculously time-consuming. It is the family farms that have been most affected the most—generally a husband and wife team who work long hours for not a lot because they love the land, the environment, and have an intimate understanding of their property. To see farmers unfairly targeted by decision makers and NGOs is disgraceful. It has come to a point where a number of my farming colleagues won't admit they are farmers when socialising in urban settings because to the amount of vitriol they receive from people whose information has come from unbalanced media and NGOs pushing a narrative that is far from truthful. The simple fact is that it's hard to be green when you're in the red. I come to this house as the representative for the Waitaki electorate, an incredible part of New Zealand containing a diverse geography that is unmatched anywhere else in this country. From the Southern Alps to the Pacific Ocean, the landscape has been shaped by the last ice age, where retreating ice sheets have left behind an indelible footprint—lakes and rivers, basins and valleys which provide the electorate and New Zealand income from agriculture, horticulture, viticulture, forestry, mining, electricity generation, and tourism, to name just a few. It is water that literally powers our electorate, both in its liquid and frozen states. In researching this speech, I went through the maiden statements of my predecessors. It is not surprising to note that each of them has urged that we use this resource to grow our economy and provide opportunities for following generations. I, too, urge that we utilise the water, create more storage for the primary sector and industry, and generate more hydroelectric power. It is somewhat unsettling to note that the last major project of national significance—and not one that benefitted commuters in either Wellington or Auckland—was the Clyde Dam. The dam was completed 30 years ago and since then, we have collectively hidden behind a curtain of regulation when opportunity has knocked at our door. We have gone from a nation that undertook projects like the Waitaki hydro scheme to a nation that kowtows to activist pressure groups and gives up. Finally, I want to talk about free speech and democracy. New Zealand has a proud history of championing free speech and democracy. I believe that tradition has been subverted in recent years. It seems that any opinion that isn't supported by activists and/or so-called progressives is deemed extremist. Why is it that supposed liberals are so illiberal when it comes to hearing opposing views? As I stated earlier in this speech, a sense of fair play and respect for the another's point of view is the hallmark of democracy in New Zealand. We must not lose this bedrock principle of our democratic society in a rush to either extreme wokeness or due to intolerance. We all should be able to agree to disagree in a mature and tolerant manner, and that includes in this House. I begin my political journey as an unapologetic advocate for the people of Waitaki. I will play my part in free, fair, and frank debate in an effort to carry on the traditions and stand on the shoulders of those who have gone before me. I want to do them proud. Thank you. [Applause] Sitting suspended from 6.24 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.