Thursday, 7 March 2024 - Volume 774 Sitting date: 7 Mar 2024 THURSDAY, 7 MARCH 2024 The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m. KARAKIA/PRAYERS ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): E te Atua kaha rawa, ka tuku whakamoemiti atu mātou, mō ngā karakia kua waihotia mai ki runga i a mātou. Ka waiho i ō mātou pānga whaiaro katoa ki te taha. Ka mihi mātou ki te Kīngi, me te inoi atu mō te ārahitanga i roto i ō mātou whakaaroarohanga, kia mōhio ai, kia whakaiti ai tā mātou whakahaere i ngā take o te Whare nei, mō te oranga, te maungārongo, me te aroha o Aotearoa. Āmene. [Almighty God, we give thanks for the blessings which have been bestowed on us. Laying aside all personal interests, we acknowledge the King, and pray for guidance in our deliberations, that we may conduct the affairs of this House with wisdom and humility, for the welfare, peace, and compassion of New Zealand. Amen.] LIST MEMBER ELECTED Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand—Dr Lawrence Xi Xu-Nan SPEAKER: Members, I have been advised by the Electoral Commissioner that under section 138 of the Electoral Act 1993, Lawrence Xi Xu-Nan has been declared to be elected a member of the House of Representatives to fill the vacancy created by the death of Fa'anānā Efeso Collins. MEMBERS SWORN SPEAKER: I understand that Lawrence Xi Xu-Nan is present and wishes to make the Affirmation of Allegiance. Would he please come forward to my right. Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Ko ahau, ko Lawrence Xi Xu-Nan, e kī 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, Lawrence Xi Xu-Nan, 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.] 我，Lawrence Xi Xu-Nan，郑重、诚挚、真实声明并确认，我将依法忠实效忠于查尔斯三世国王陛下、他的继承人和继任者 BUSINESS STATEMENT Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Leader of the House): Today, the House will adjourn, after a four-week block, until Tuesday, 19 March. Legislation to be considered in that week will include further stages of the Road User Charges (Light Electric RUC Vehicles) Amendment Bill, the European Union Free Trade Agreement Legislation Amendment Bill, and the Taxation (Annual Rates for 2023-24, Multinational Tax, and Remedial Matters) Bill, and the Misuse of Drugs (Pseudoephedrine) Amendment Bill. Wednesday will be a members' day, and on Thursday, there will be a one-hour special debate on the report of the Petitions Committee on the petition of Clair Dale, Make mobility parking enforceable on all public-use property and increase fines. Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Labour): Is the Leader of the House saying that we will finally have a sitting week without the use of urgency? Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Leader of the House): Well, that depends on the decisions that the House makes at the time. There's plenty of business to get on with. PETITIONS, PAPERS, SELECT COMMITTEE REPORTS, AND INTRODUCTION OF BILLS SPEAKER: No petitions have been delivered to the Clerk for presentation. Ministers have delivered papers. CLERK: Government Responses to the: Privacy Commissioner's Report: Review of a statutory authority for information matching—Immigration Act 2009, s295 Privacy Commissioner's Report: Review of statutory authority for four Inland Revenue information matches and two unused provisions Report of the Petitions Committee on the Petition of Claire Dale, and Second Interim Report of the Regulations Review Committee regarding complains about the E-Scooters (Declaration not to be motor vehicles) Notice 2018. SPEAKER: I present the report of the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment entitled Urban Ground Truths: Valuing soil and subsoil in urban development. Those papers are published under the authority of the House. No select committee papers have been delivered for presentation. No bills have been introduced. ORAL QUESTIONS QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS Question No. 1—Finance 1. JOSEPH MOONEY (National—Southland) to the Minister of Finance: What recent reports has she seen on the New Zealand economy? Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance): Last week, ANZ released its Business Outlook report and its consumer confidence report, both of which come out monthly. These show that consumer confidence continues to rise, albeit off a very low base, and business confidence is on a strong upward trend, despite levelling out in February. Joseph Mooney: How does consumer and business confidence compare to previous years? Hon NICOLA WILLIS: In 2022 and 2023, consumer confidence fell to the lowest level ever reported in this survey—lower than the global financial crisis and lower than during the COVID lockdowns—and, strike me down, business confidence was also the lowest it has ever been, in 2022 and 2023. Again, it was lower than in the global financial crisis and lower than during the COVID lockdowns. So it is very heartening indeed that consumer and business confidence is rising off the all-time lows recorded under the previous Government. Joseph Mooney: What do the results say about people's own expectations? Hon NICOLA WILLIS: The consumer confidence survey shows that in net terms, people expect that they and their family will be better off financially in a year's time. At present, people are wary about purchasing major household items, but this measure is on an upward trend and is considerably better than it was last year. Joseph Mooney: What do the results say about business expectations? Hon NICOLA WILLIS: The Business Outlook survey saw lifts in most forward-looking indicators, such as businesses' own activity, investment intentions, employment intentions, and profit expectations. Together with the consumer results, this reinforces that New Zealanders are more optimistic about their future under this coalition Government. Question No. 2—Environment 2. MARK CAMERON (ACT) to the Associate Minister for the Environment: What is his most immediate priority in the portfolio? Hon ANDREW HOGGARD (Associate Minister for the Environment): My highest priority is delivering on the Government's 100-day plan to begin stopping the implementation of new significant natural areas, known as SNAs. SNAs are an unjustified and unhelpful intrusion into private-property rights and are getting in the way of productive farming. ACT's coalition agreement with National commits to stop the implementation of new SNAs and to review their operation. I have been working with officials and I intend to take a plan to Cabinet on the most effective way to do that. Mark Cameron: What examples has he seen recently that highlights the challenge farmers and other landowners face from SNAs on their property? Hon ANDREW HOGGARD: Landowners have told me that if you're unlucky enough to have an SNA identified on your property, you are likely to be prohibited from undertaking any new activity or development in that area. I have also seen that these restrictions will be applied to areas that are not very significant. For example, a sheltered gully with some trees—a bit of matagouri which offers a great sheltered area to graze a few sheep after shearing or in a storm. Mark Cameron: What is the effect of those restrictions? Hon ANDREW HOGGARD: Apart from being at a disincentive to voluntarily conserve areas of indigenous biodiversity, farmers know well what happens when the ability to actively manage land is restricted. If SNAs are applied to areas with low-biodiversity value, then without the landowner managing pest and weed - control, it will just go to gorse, broom, and wilding pines. Mark Cameron: What will he do in the long term to restore property rights and protect indigenous biodiversity? Hon Peeni Henare: Oh, this better be good. Hon ANDREW HOGGARD: It is good. Landowners are already voluntarily protecting areas of native biodiversity—over 180 hectares are already protected through QEII National Trust. Put together, that would be our fifth-largest national park, all voluntarily. Many more have committed to enhance biodiversity on their land without formalising it. The way to protect biodiversity on private land is to work collaboratively with landowners, including farmers, foresters, and iwi, to incentivise the sustainable use of land and to show them that their work to protect the biodiversity is valued and then they will want to do more. Hon Damien O'Connor: To the member, is he aware of the EU's requirement to prove that there is no deforestation taking place in areas that are supplying the EU market, and that, in fact, the protection of SNAs will assist farmers to access that high-value market? Hon ANDREW HOGGARD: Yes, I am aware of that clause in the ETA, and what I would say and point to is the fact that there is already— Hon Members: ETA? Hon Members: FTA. Hon ANDREW HOGGARD: Sorry, the EU free trade agreement. But there is already a great number, as I pointed out, of farmers who are voluntarily protecting biodiversity. When I go and visit farms and I see farmers now, they are taking massive pride in the work they are doing on their farm. We will work collaboratively with them to enhance that effort and to do more. Hon Carmel Sepuloni: My question is next; seeing that supplementary questions are over, I'm speaking to the Speakers' Ruling 170/4, which is, "Ministers not only have a right to determine which of them is the appropriate Minister to answer a question, they also have a duty to the House to decide on the appropriate Minister to answer. …". The question I put up today, which is question No. 3, was initially put forward to the Minister for Social Development and Employment and is with respect to the Ministry for Social Development emergency housing grants. It has been transferred to the Minister for social housing, however, it is the Minister for Social Development and Employment that has responsibility for the grants. SPEAKER: OK, OK, OK— Hon Chris Bishop: Speaking to the point of order. SPEAKER: Well, I want to rule. Hon Chris Bishop: Speaking to the point of order. The member makes a good point, but the member may also have missed what I said in the House yesterday, which is that this Government has taken a decision to make the housing-related functions relating to emergency housing the responsibility of the housing portfolio. Those functions have been delegated to the Associate Minister of Housing, Minister Potaka, which is why the question has been transferred into the housing domain. I appreciate that's a difference from the past, but that's been a deliberate policy decision. Rt Hon Winston Peters: Mr Speaker, you're dealing with a point of order before the end of question time with respect to question No. 2. So why did you take that point of order when we still hadn't got rid of the supplementaries for the second question? It's just not the order of business. SPEAKER: That's right, but we're doing it anyway, so—[Interruption] Rt Hon Winston Peters: No, we're not. SPEAKER: Yeah, we are. Don't argue—don't argue. Ricardo Menéndez March: Speaking to the point of order. SPEAKER: Is it the same point of order or not? Ricardo Menéndez March: It's speaking to the point of order, yes. SPEAKER: Well, it better be new stuff because I'm ready to give the ruling on this. Ricardo Menéndez March: OK, so just responding to what Mr Bishop said, there's a difference between the housing side of the— SPEAKER: No, I'm not interested in that. That's not a point of order. I spoke the other day about the need for people to be specific about which point of order they're speaking to. That is not speaking to a point of order; it's offering an opinion. Ricardo Menéndez March: Well, it is speaking to Speakers' ruling 170/4, and— Hon Nicola Willis: That's what Governments do; they change things. SPEAKER: Look, don't interfere when someone is—when someone is taking a point of order, the House is silent. Now, I'd just say to Mr Menéndez March, this is something that I am ready to rule on, so make his point, make it succinct if he wants to, but we will be moving on beyond that. Ricardo Menéndez March: So I'll make it succinct. Ministry of Social Development front-line staff have a direct responsibility to the delivery of emergency housing grants; therefore, the responsibility on both question Nos 3 and 6 sit within the Ministry of Social Development— SPEAKER: You're off beat again, because if anyone reads Speakers' rulings from about 170 right through to 174, there are numerous recommendations from multiple Speakers that make it clear that it is the Government's choice as to who answers the question, not the Speaker's. If I refer particularly to 174/1, it makes it clear that only in very exceptional circumstances would the Speaker interfere, and I don't intend upending those previous rulings. We move now to question No. 3 in the name of the Hon Carmel Sepuloni. Hon Kieran McAnulty: I accept that ruling and I accept the explanation given by the Leader of the House, but it is on the basis of both that I raise this point of order. It is that if, on that basis, questions are transferred to the Hon Tama Potaka, I find it interesting, therefore, that my question, which was originally posed to him has been transferred to Chris Bishop. I refer to Speaker's ruling 173/5. If the Leader of the House, the Minister of Housing, has said that all responsibility regarding emergency housing, social housing, has been delegated to Tama Potaka, I don't believe that there is justification to then transfer my question which relates solely to that to the Hon Chris Bishop. SPEAKER: Well, 173/5 doesn't quite get to that point, but— Hon Chris Bishop: Speaking to the point of order, Mr McAnulty's question has been transferred to me because—and I appreciate that he may not have read the delegations, but the question of funding for income-related rent subsidy places and the structure and funding of the appropriations for Vote Housing are within my delegation. The delegations make it clear that the social and emergency housing delegation sits with Minister Potaka. We have actually clarified what was a, frankly, pretty messy situation before. SPEAKER: Thank you. Question No. 3—Housing (Social Housing) 3. Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Labour—Kelston) to the Associate Minister of Housing (Social Housing): Will the Government's new approach to emergency housing grants result in more New Zealanders living on the streets? Hon TAMA POTAKA (Associate Minister of Housing (Social Housing)): Yes, the Government's new approach is part of a wider response to end largescale use of emergency housing and to get New Zealanders, tamariki, and whānau into homes faster. Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Has he received advice or evidence showing that New Zealanders who will no longer be able to access emergency housing special needs grants under this Government's new approach will all find housing and not end up living on the streets? Hon TAMA POTAKA: We receive advice on housing matters on a regular basis, and the advice that we've received is that we will continue to focus on ending the largescale use of emergency housing and getting whānau and tamariki into homes faster. Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Does he agree with the previous Minister for social development and social housing who introduced the emergency housing special needs grant, Paula Bennett, who stated, "This is the first time any Government has committed ongoing dedicated funding for emergency housing, because we recognise that not everyone has access to a safe and stable home."; if yes, why is he looking to reduce access to that support and pushing more New Zealanders back to sleeping in cars? Hon TAMA POTAKA: We recognise that there are many people with genuine needs that need emergency housing, and we will continue to support those people with genuine needs to have emergency housing accommodation. Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can I ask the Minister as to whether or not he's received any reports that say his task now to solve this problem has been massively exacerbated by bringing in 148,000 immigrants as at December last year? SPEAKER: No. Look, you've got to stop doing this. It's not a fair question because it's not his responsibility. His responsibility is for emergency housing. Rt Hon Winston Peters: I asked has he got a report. SPEAKER: Well, OK, I probably didn't pick that up. The Minister may answer it. Hon TAMA POTAKA: I've not received any reports in that respect, but there is a serious need and a genuine need amongst some whānau and tamariki to have emergency housing. Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Is it now this Government's strategy to make it harder to access emergency housing grants so as to reduce the number of New Zealanders in emergency housing on their books at the expense of more New Zealanders sleeping rough outside our businesses, in our carparks, and in our parks? Hon TAMA POTAKA: We need bold and radical solutions to end the housing crisis that has been exacerbated under the previous Government. We need to get the country back on track, and particularly with housing, and we will do that through a wide series of responses and steps, one of which is prioritising the tamariki and whānau who have been sleeping in emergency accommodation for 12 consecutive weeks or more. Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Does he agree with the Minister for Social Development and Employment that—[Interruption] SPEAKER: Hang on, stop. Your own side is speaking across the House while you're trying to ask a question. Please don't do it. Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Does he agree with the Minister for Social Development and Employment that "I am not saying that it is going perfect; what I am saying is that we will have fewer children in motels, and that is what we are out to achieve.", and, if so, is living on the streets more perfect than living in a motel? Hon TAMA POTAKA: I agree with my learned colleague the Minister for Social Development and Employment, the member for Taupō, in that we do need absolute radical and bold solutions for our housing crisis, and it is tough for those folks, and no one in this House wants to see whānau, tamariki, and mokopuna living in emergency housing for an extended period of time, but that is what we have seen over the last six years. Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Will we see homelessness situations like that of West Auckland tetraplegic woman Tracey Penney, who was living in her van in January 2017—it was widely reported on—arise again because of the changes to the treatment of homeless Ministry of Social Development clients? Hon TAMA POTAKA: Can I please reiterate that we will support those with genuine need to have emergency housing, but our aspiration is to end the largescale use of emergency housing, particularly in places like Hamilton and Waikato, where there are over 500 kids living in emergency housing right now. Question No. 4—RMA Reform 4. DAVID MacLEOD (National—New Plymouth) to the Minister responsible for RMA Reform: What announcements has he made regarding the establishment of a new fast-track consenting one-stop shop regime? Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform): Earlier today, alongside the Prime Minister and the Minister for Regional Development and the Minister of Transport, I announced the coalition Government's new one-stop shop fast-track approvals regime, and, this afternoon, the House will consider that legislation in its first reading. New Zealand has been stuck in the slow lane for far too long when it comes to getting the major projects we need to get our country growing again. We are determined to cut through the thicket of red and green tape holding New Zealand back by fast tracking consents for projects of regional and national significance whilst protecting Treaty settlements and the environment. David MacLeod: How will projects be fast tracked under the new regime? Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Very good question. There are two ways projects can be fast tracked: they can either be referred by the joint decision of the Ministers of infrastructure, regional development, and transport upon an application, or by being listed in Schedule 2A of the bill. Projects in Schedule 2A will be automatically referred into the fast-track process— Hon Grant Robertson: Is there anything in Schedule 2 at the moment? Hon CHRIS BISHOP: And just on Mr Robertson's point, the bill does not currently contain any projects listed in Schedule 2A. The Government will be— Hon Grant Robertson: When will we find out? Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, very soon. The Government will be setting up a thorough and transparent process, a fast-track advisory group of independent experts to provide advice to Ministers on what projects should be included. And, in the coming weeks, we will appoint the group, publish the criteria, and Ministers in the Cabinet will receive advice on those projects. David MacLeod: How will the environment— SPEAKER: Just wait a moment. David MacLeod: How will the environment and Treaty settlements be protected under the new legislation? Hon CHRIS BISHOP: All of the projects— Hon Willow-Jean Prime: How will the Treaty be protected? Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, that was actually the question, and if you give me a chance, I'll answer it. All the projects considered under the new fast-track regime will be considered by an expert panel. And, of course, the expert panel process is not a new one, because that process was set up by the last Government when it came to their own COVID-19 fast-track regime. That expert panel will apply relevant consent and permit conditions. Panels will have a maximum of six months to do so. The projects will then be sent back to joint Ministers to either approve it or decline it, and they'll be able to refer the project back to the panel if the consent conditions are too onerous. The bill contains extensive protections around Treaty settlements and the environment, but we also must make— Hon Willow-Jean Prime: What about the Treaty? Hon CHRIS BISHOP: I've just answered the question about the Treaty. You really need to listen. But we also must make it clear to the world that New Zealand is open for business once again and build a pipeline of projects to grow the economy and improve our productivity. Today's announcement is a step towards that. Question No. 5—Media and Communications 5. Hon WILLIE JACKSON (Labour) to the Minister for Media and Communications: Does she stand by all her statements and actions? Hon MELISSA LEE (Minister for Media and Communications): Yes. Hon Willie Jackson: What actions, if any, has she taken to support the media sector in light of job losses at Newshub and Television New Zealand? Hon MELISSA LEE: The Government is committed to working with the sector on ways to ensure sustainability. As I have previously stated, the Fair Digital News Bargaining Bill is currently before select committee, and I'm awaiting the committee's report. I'm working with officials to modernise the media system in New Zealand to level the playing field for our local broadcasters. I want to encourage more private and international investment in our local content. Reuben Davidson: Does she agree with the comment of David Seymour that, "These are the people that cry, 'Oh you've got to give us sympathy, and you're inhumane and you should be kinder to us.' " and if not, why not? Hon MELISSA LEE: The Hon David Seymour has his own views and he is responsible for his comments. As a shareholding Minister, it would be irresponsible for me to interfere in TVNZ's editorial independence. I believe and honour TVNZ's editorial independence. The media perform an important duty in our democracy, and this should be protected. What I think we should be focusing on is the people who are facing uncertainty over their jobs and livelihoods and not squabbling over he said, she said. It is ironic to actually get this question from that member, considering his colleague, when as Minister, was making comments about a presenter on Q + A. Hon Willie Jackson: Does the Minister think singling out reporters for doing their job is appropriate; and if so—[Interruption] SPEAKER: Wait on. Mr Jackson, if you don't mind, when I ask you to please stop. Hon Simeon Brown: Own goal! Hon Willie Jackson: Throw him out, Mr Speaker! SPEAKER: It's not far off. If we're having a rule—and we are—that questions are asked in silence, observe it. Contain yourselves with, perhaps, a deep breath, and holding until the end of it—something like that. But we're not going to have those sort of outbursts in the middle of questions. Start again. Hon Willie Jackson: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Does the Minister believe singling out reporters for doing their job is appropriate; and if so, has she spoken with David Seymour, who is one of the senior Ministers, about respecting the independence of the fourth estate? Hon MELISSA LEE: I believe and honour all editorial independence of our media because they perform an important duty in our democracy, and that should be protected. In terms of the comment, I think, as I said previously, it is ironic to watch this member ask this question, given his previous interview on Q + A. Hon Willie Jackson: Point of order. We're talking about a shareholding Minister here. We're not talking about me when I was a previous Minister. The question is very relevant. Can you ask this Minister to answer or address the question? SPEAKER: Well, most certainly the question is being addressed. How it's being addressed may not find favour with everyone in the House, but it is also rife within the Speakers' Rulings that it is not unreasonable for Ministers of a successive Government to point out situations that existed in a previous Government. It's the attack aspect that's the problem. Carry on. Hon Simeon Brown: Point of order. I seek leave for the member to be able to ask his question again. SPEAKER: No, you can't seek leave for someone else. Can I just say that is very disorderly. You cannot seek leave for another member, and that member does know that's the case. Hon Kieran McAnulty: Mr Speaker, point of order. Thank you, Mr Speaker. [Interruption] SPEAKER: In silence. Hon Kieran McAnulty: Regardless of whether you agreed with the point of order made by the Hon Willie Jackson or not, throughout that there was the exact response that you asked the Government not to do whilst questions were being asked. If we're going to require points of order to be heard silence, they should be made to be heard in silence. SPEAKER: Good point. Hon Willie Jackson: What impression does the Minister think she gives out to those who'll be losing their jobs at Television New Zealand and Newshub that at the exact time she was refusing to do media, she was attending a luxury resort on the taxpayers' dollar—what is the impression she gives out to the public and to all the poor people who've been losing their jobs? And here's this beautiful photo for everyone— SPEAKER: Thank you—is that the end of the question? Hon Willie Jackson: —to have a look at. What was the impression that she's giving out to the public— SPEAKER: That's enough. You've gone way over the top. Hon MELISSA LEE: That is the substance of the previous Government. That member does not even know that that photo was taken at the New Zealand Open, and I was there as the Minister responsible funding the Major Events Fund. However, at the time when the announcement was made this morning, I was in my office doing work, but yesterday I did not actually see the announcement alert that came to my office because I was doing an interview with one of the media companies. Hon Willie Jackson: Point of order again, Mr Speaker. The question is clear: what impression is she giving to the public when she should've been doing her job, and— SPEAKER: No, I'm sorry—Mr Jackson, I'm sorry; the problem here is that your question has been refuted in its content by the Minister, so there is no further action to be taken. Question No. 6—Housing (Social Housing) 6. RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green) to the Associate Minister of Housing (Social Housing): Can he guarantee that the increased scrutiny on emergency housing eligibility he announced yesterday won't lead to more people becoming homeless? Hon TAMA POTAKA (Associate Minister of Housing (Social Housing)): E te Māngai o te Whare. E oati ana au ki tēnei Whare rangatira nei e ngana ana te kāwanatanga Haumi me au nei, ao, pō, pō, ao, kia puta ngā tāngata me ngā whānau me ngā tamariki e noho ana ki roto i ngā whare ohotata ki ō rātou kāinga ake. E mihi ana. [Speaker of the House. I swear to this noble House that the coalition Government and myself are endeavouring, by night and by day, to get the people, the families and the children that reside in emergency housing into their own homes. Thank you.] Ricardo Menéndez March: What is the purpose of asking someone living below the poverty line who can't afford a private rental to look for unaffordable housing while waiting for secure, affordable public housing? Hon TAMA POTAKA: As mentioned earlier today, we need bold and radical solutions for our housing crisis, and we are absolutely committed to ending the large-scale use of emergency housing and to help whānau and tamariki in particular get into homes faster. Ricardo Menéndez March: If he can't guarantee that his policies won't leave more people in the street and without safe shelter, why is he going ahead with them? Hon TAMA POTAKA: As mentioned earlier, we're absolutely focused on ending the large-scale use of emergency housing, and there will be some engaging and tough decisions and considerations for officials to make. However, we intend to end large-scale emergency housing, which has been absolutely exacerbated by the previous Government. Ricardo Menéndez March: Is he not able to guarantee that his policies will lead to more people being homeless, because the policies will actually create more reasons for front-line Ministry of Social Development (MSD) staff to deny special needs grants to enable people to be in emergency housing? Hon TAMA POTAKA: What I can guarantee is that this Government and myself— SPEAKER: Sorry, rephrase that. That's not a question; that's a statement of opinion, and we've had a discussion about that already this week. Ask a question. Ricardo Menéndez March: Can he guarantee the public that there will be no increases or incidences of people becoming homeless as a direct result of the increased ability of front-line MSD staff to deny people special needs grants for them to access emergency housing? Hon TAMA POTAKA: I can guarantee that this Government is committed to getting New Zealanders—tamariki and whānau—out of emergency housing and into homes faster. And I can also guarantee that our officials will work hard to ensure that whānau do not end up in emergency housing and end up in alternative housing before they get there. Question No. 7—Prime Minister 7. DEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER (Co-Leader—Te Pāti Māori ) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his Government's policies and actions? Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Deputy Prime Minister) on behalf of the Prime Minister: Yes. Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: What implications will the exclusion of a Treaty clause from fast-tracking legislation have on Māori fundamental rights and interests in resource consents, especially for hapū and iwi who have not settled yet? Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: The fact is that that exclusion will have a very positive outcome for Māori because now things will be based on merit and not just elitism and racism, which ordinary Māori never asked for in the first place. Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: What qualifies a project as having significant regional or national benefits, and how are these economic benefits weighted against environmental costs? Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: All aspects for consideration will be very jealously guarded in terms of the research on them—they'll go through a serious process of examination—but we are a country that needs to get our mojo back and real fast, and not have certain elitists stopping every project that we should be developing. We've got the resources, we've got the people; we just need—and now have got—the leadership. Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: How much money will be set aside to mitigate risks of failed fast-tracked projects, such as we saw with Tamarind Taranaki oil projects, which cost the Government hundreds of millions of dollars in bailout? Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Certain expenditure is always warranted, but none of it will amount to the $1.2 billion that vanished on three waters. Question No. 8—Housing 8. Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Labour) to the Minister of Housing: How many additional social houses will be created as a result of the Priority One category for emergency housing announced yesterday? Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister of Housing): The Government's creation of the Priority One category will prioritise getting families with children out of emergency housing, under stable social housing, sooner. Therefore, more social housing is not created directly as a result of this policy change. We've committed, through our manifesto, to increase the number of social housing places in line with the previous Government's funding track. The member will note that the previous Government left a fiscal cliff of funding for social housing, so any future funding is subject to Budget decisions. The Priority One category is only the beginning of the steps we will be taking to end the large scale use of emergency housing motels and returning them to rarely and briefly needed—as a last resort. Addressing the issue of emergency housing is complex and, as I said yesterday, will require a sustained and coordinated effort over multiple years to achieve our aim. But the key thing is we're not going to sit by like the last Government did and ignore it. We are taking action. Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order. That was a reasonably straight question. It was a question on notice. I'm sure it wouldn't have been accepted if it wasn't a straight question. But throughout that response from the Minister, it was attacking the previous Government, which—you have ruled yourself—is inappropriate. SPEAKER: I have. But when I've said that, it's if the question opens with an attack. But if it's used as a comparison between two positions, Speakers' rulings are very clear that that is permissible. So I'll keep a listen out. I think there was some language used in there, like "fiscal cliff", that was probably unacceptable, but I'm sure that the next question will be better answered. Hon Kieran McAnulty: Why, then, did the Government make an emergency housing announcement without committing to funding more additional social housing? Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, for a couple of reasons. One is that you don't need to do both things at the same time. The second point is that not everyone who goes from emergency housing goes into social housing. Actually, the housing system is extremely complex. The relationships between emergency housing and social housing and transitional are actually not linear. We see private landlords and the wider housing system as a part of the solution, and work is under way across every part of the housing continuum: from home ownership, through the rental market, through the private landlord market, and through the social housing generally. Hon Kieran McAnulty: If they can't stay in emergency housing and the Government won't commit to funding more social housing, transitional housing, or rental places, where are they supposed to go? Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, the member's question is based upon a false assumption. There is more social housing coming. The Budget 2023 increased social housing places by 3,000. That goes on top of Budget 2022. So between now and June 12—between 18 months ago and two years, up until June 2025, there are 6,000 new social housing places, delivered both by Kāinga Ora and by the community housing sector. So there are more social housing places. Decisions around future social housing funding is a matter for the Budget—the member will have to wait. Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order. The previous question, the Minister referred to additional social housing. I too have used the words "additional" and "more". By virtue of that, it is on top of what has already being committed. All the Minister just outlined are social houses that were funded by the previous Government, and I'm asking him about his commitment, that he stated in his answer, to funding additional social houses. It's not appropriate, I believe, for the Minister to point to things that are happening, particularly when it wasn't him that established those. SPEAKER: Well, I'll let you go right through that point of order, because, essentially, you were making a point that is outside of Standing Orders as such. But the answer that I heard relates to the date 2025, where there are more social housing; that's still at least 18 months off and through one more Budget period. So I think the claim is not right and nor is the point of order. Hon Kieran McAnulty: Will he guarantee to the House that his Government will not sell off social houses like what happened the last time National were in Government? Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Ha, ha—ha, ha! Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Why's he laughing? It's not funny. Hon Nicola Willis: You did it! Hon CHRIS BISHOP: [Interruption] I'll just wait for colleagues— SPEAKER: No, no, just answer it. Hon CHRIS BISHOP: The previous Government sold social houses, so let's just be really clear about this. The last Labour Government sold social houses and the policy settings that Kāinga Ora was operating under in relation to the difference between the 2008 period and the 2017 period did not change after the Labour Government was elected. It is true that the National Government from 2008 to 2017—which, by the way, I'm not responsible for but I'm happy to comment extensively on—transferred ownership of some social housing in Tauranga to Accessible Properties. Here's the thing—here's the thing: the people living in the houses were social housing tenants. It's just that the Government did not happen to own the underlying house. And, actually, on this side of the House, we are relatively agnostic about who provides housing to people in need. Unlike the last Government, we do not have an obsession with the idea that the Government should do everything in housing. We back communities, we back the private sector, and we back housing for Kiwis. Hon Kieran McAnulty: If the Minister is unwilling—[Interruption] SPEAKER: Just wait for that silence. Hon Kieran McAnulty: If the Minister is unwilling to provide that guarantee, will he at least guarantee to the House that levels of homelessness will not increase as a result of the announcement made yesterday? Hon CHRIS BISHOP: The fastest way to increase homelessness would have been for the Government to continue with the funding track we inherited, which would have seen 10,000 State houses sold off by Kāinga Ora because of that member's party's woeful mismanagement of one of the biggest companies in New Zealand. Under the funding track we inherited, in writing Kāinga Ora was planning to sell 10,000 State houses. We're not prepared to sit around and tolerate that. That's why we're reviewing Kāinga Ora. Hon Kieran McAnulty: If homelessness goes up under his watch, will he resign? Hon CHRIS BISHOP: I plan on being a better Minister responsible for homelessness than the last one, the Hon Marama Davidson, who saw homelessness skyrocket to record levels and couldn't even spend the money that Megan Woods allocated to her. Question No. 9—Transport 9. CARL BATES (National—Whanganui) to the Minister of Transport: What recent announcements has he made about transport investment in New Zealand? Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Transport): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Earlier this week, the Prime Minister and I released the draft Government policy statement on land transport, announcing that we are focused on investing in new roads of national significance, better public transport, and a well-maintained roading network, enabling Kiwis to get where they want to go quickly and safely. Kiwis around the country voted for our focused transport plan, and now we are delivering. Rima Nakhle: What does the Government policy statement mean for Auckland? Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, 57.8 percent of Aucklanders voted for the coalition Government at the last election and our draft Government policy statement prioritises the projects that we campaigned on: Mill Road, a project that that member of Parliament campaigned on very, very hard; the East-West Link and the north-western Alternative State Highway are listed as new roads of national significance. While Auckland's infrastructure deficit has worsened in recent years due to project cancellations and non-delivery by the prior Government, our Government is focused on delivery. Cameron Brewer: Supplementary: what does the Government— SPEAKER: Wait on, you not called yet. Cameron Brewer: —policy statement mean— SPEAKER: Wait, you're not called yet. Now you stand up, please—Cameron Brewer. Cameron Brewer: What does the Government policy statement mean for the public transport users in north-west Auckland? Hon SIMEON BROWN: Very good news, Mr Speaker. It's great news: the Government is investing up to $4.4 billion on public transport infrastructure and services. We're focused on starting work on the north-west rapid transit corridor to unlock housing and economic growth in Auckland's North-West. We have a strong track record of delivering better public transport in Auckland, the City Rail Link a case in point, and we will continue this legacy. Paulo Garcia: What progress has been made on the Government's 100-day plan commitment to axe the Auckland regional fuel tax? Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, very good news: last night, the Government passed legislation to axe the 11.5c per litre fuel tax for Aucklanders. We're not a Government that will continue to tax Aucklanders to fund cycle lanes, expensive speed bumps, and blanket speed limit reductions. This tax is gone on 1 July. Stuart Smith: What does the Government policy statement mean for the top of the South? Hon SIMEON BROWN: In addition to the Woodend bypass, a second Ashburton bridge, and investment in critically important bridges in the South Island, we've listed the Hope bypass in the South Island as a new road of national significance. This project, paired with the new $500 million pothole prevention fund, will allow motorists in the top of the South get where they need to go quickly and safely. Question No. 10—RMA Reform 10. Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin) to the Minister responsible for RMA Reform: Does he stand by all his statements and actions? Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform): Yes. Hon Rachel Brooking: Why should economic Ministers decide what is worthy of proceeding rather than an expert panel, as suggested in the new fast-tracking legislation? Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Because the whole purpose of the fast-track consenting regime that we are introducing is to fast-track economic development projects. Hon Rachel Brooking: Will the projects yet to be included in Schedule 2A and 2B of the proposed bill be referred to select committee for scrutiny, including the ability for the public to submit? Hon CHRIS BISHOP: No, that's not the intention. Instead, what we're doing is running a process that is independent of the Government. Recommendations will come to Ministers; the projects will then be inserted into the bill by an Amendment Paper—or it used to be called a Supplementary Order Paper. There will be plenty of opportunities for the public to engage on that, and I look forward to that. Hon Rachel Brooking: How will the public be able to engage in the process he just referred to? Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, it's a public democratic process. People who are keen on having the projects inserted into the bill will be able to submit them to the expert panel that we're setting up to consider those projects. Hon Rachel Brooking: Why is the Minister for the Environment not involved in the decision-making process when the Ministers of infrastructure, regional development, and transport are? Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Because, as I say, this is a one-stop shop fast-track consenting regime specifically designed to accelerate infrastructure, housing, transport, aquaculture, mining, the extractive industries—all of the things that New Zealand needs more of rather than less of. The relevant environmental considerations are best handled by the expert panel. They're the experts for it. They're going to be asked to apply the relevant environmental permits and conditions to it, and then those decisions will come back through the process for Ministers to either approve or decline. It's not actually wildly dissimilar to the COVID-19 fast-track legislation set up by the previous Government. We've actually modelled the new law on the old regime introduced by the last Labour Government. We thought it was such a good idea we've taken it the next step further, elevated it up a bit, and gone for national and regionally significant projects. I thank the former Minister and the former Minister for the Environment for the idea. SPEAKER: That's good. Just keep those answers fairly succinct. Hon Simeon Brown: Is the Minister aware of any work done by the prior Government to put forward legislation for exceptions to the Otago regional water plan, National Policy Statement— SPEAKER: No, no—stop there. Hon Simeon Brown: —for Freshwater Management, and Public Works Act in regards to Lake Onslow? SPEAKER: Sorry, when I say stop there, if members don't, then their time in the House will not be very long at all. Question No. 11—Justice 11. RIMA NAKHLE (National—Takanini) to the Minister of Justice: How is the Government progressing its commitments in relation to restoring law and order? Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister of Justice): On Tuesday, we introduced and have now passed legislation to stop taxpayer funding of section 27 cultural reports that proliferated under the former regime, consuming more than $7 million out of the legal aid budget. Yesterday, we introduced legislation to give police greater powers to search for firearms so that they can keep them out of the hands of serious gang offenders and help keep our communities safe. Today, we will be introducing legislation to give police greater powers to deal with gangs, who for too long have been allowed to behave as if they're above the law. Rima Nakhle: What is the legislation that the Government is introducing today going to do? Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: The Gangs Legislation Amendment Bill does four things: we're prohibiting the display of gang insignia in all public places; we're giving the police the ability to require gang members to disperse from gatherings that disrupt the public; we're creating new non-consorting orders to stop specified gang members from associating; and, finally, we're amending the Sentencing Act to make gang membership, on its own, an aggravating factor at sentencing. SPEAKER: Just a small question. So you're asking that question about a bill that's being introduced today. There were no bills introduced today. So the timing is not very tidy on this one. There may be a different way to ask subsequent supplementaries. Hon Grant Robertson: Sorry, Mr Speaker, point of order. Just in light of that ruling, the member appeared to be quoting from an official document—i.e., the bill—and I'd invite him to table it. SPEAKER: No, no. You can't invite him to table it. I can ask him if he's quoting from an official document. Hon Grant Robertson: Can you ask him then? Hon Paul Goldsmith: No, I'm not. Hon Kieran McAnulty: What is it? Hon Dr Megan Woods: What is it, then? SPEAKER: No. That's something you can speculate on, not ask about. Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Why is the Minister pushing his wasteful gang insignia ban when his own department and the Chief Science Adviser has said, "A challenge of this suppression strategy is that there is no strong evidence it works to reduce long-term offending behaviours or eliminate gangs…"? It's science. Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Why? Because we don't agree with that analysis. Actually, we've seen a 50 percent increase in gang membership under the previous Government, and we want to stop that, because we believe that law-abiding citizens should be going about their business without being intimidated by gangs. Rima Nakhle: Why is the Government doing this now? Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Because the gangs have been recruiting faster than the police over the past six years, from 6,000-odd in 2018 to 9,000 at present—a 50 percent increase. They've been emboldened to take over public places and to continue to be associated with crime. That is why a firmer response is required now. Rima Nakhle: How many actions relating to restoring law and order in the 100-day plan has the Government completed? Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, the Government is committed to a number of immediate actions in the 100-day plan, from stopping taxpayer funding for section 27 reports, to abolishing the previous Government's prisoner reduction target, to taking the first steps to ensure prisoners on remand can access rehabilitation programmes, and many other things that my colleagues, Ministers Mitchell, McKee, and Chhour have progressed. The first reading of the Gangs Legislation Amendment Bill and Courts (Remote Participation) Amendment Bill today rounds out the 100-day plan. Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Point of order. The question was how many, and the Minister didn't answer it. SPEAKER: Well, it's a little unusual for the Opposition to be worried about a Government question not being answered, but the Minister might like to address that. Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: I think the member can count for himself. Rt Hon Winston Peters: Could I ask the Minister as to whether he's received reports that suggest he should listen to real evidence, such as is coming out of Western Australia, where they've tried exactly what we're doing here now, as against this academic trivia that is taken as being evidence in this country now? Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, indeed, I listen to a wide range of evidence, and one, of course, of the strongest issues around gang insignia has been the success of the previous bill introduced by the Hon Todd McClay which banned gang patches from schools, hospitals, and public buildings, which has been very successful. Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Why is he pressing on with his insignia ban, given the advice he received from the Ministry of Justice that the reduction in visibility of gangs experienced by Queensland and Western Australia is simply the product of gangs relocating to other jurisdictions that impose fewer restrictions, and New Zealand's unitary nature means there is no alternate jurisdiction to which gangs can relocate? Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, of course, we'd be happy if the gangs relocated somewhere else and cleared out of this country and left our people alone. Hon Nicole McKee: What law and order actions has this Government committed to, beyond the 100-day plan, to protect small-business owners from retail crime? Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, I thank the member for that question. Retail crime has indeed exploded in the previous six years, with reported victims of retail crime up by 110 percent. The Government's committed to restoring real consequences for crime, which is why, as part of the coalition agreement with ACT and supported by New Zealand First, we've committed to adding additional aggravating factors during sentencing where the victim is working solo or adjacent to the dwelling. This will add further protections to small-business owners from retail crime and is amongst the many steps that we have taken to rebuild confidence in the justice system and to restore law and order. Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Why is the Minister pushing non-consorting laws rather than following reliable Australian evidence, such as the New South Wales ombudsman's 2016 review of its anti-consorting laws, which found they required significant use of police resources without a clear benefit to the public interest? Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Why? Because we think it's important to give the police extra tools to deal with gangs in this country, given that over the last five years there's been a 50 percent increase in gang activity. And it's time that we had some extra tools to help the police do their job and keep our communities safe. Rima Nakhle: Does the Minister consider it acceptable to disagree with advice from his officials? Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, yes, I do from time to time. We don't necessarily agree with every piece of advice that we get from officials here in Wellington, and we treat all advice with respect, but, fundamentally, when a Government is elected to deliver on a policy to keep our country safe, we will deliver on that policy. Question No. 12—RMA Reform 12. Hon JAMES SHAW (Co-Leader—Green) to the Minister responsible for RMA Reform: Does he stand by all his statements and policies? Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform): Yes. Hon James Shaw: Does he stand by his statement with regard to the fast-track bill, "I want a thorough and transparent process."? Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Yes. Hon James Shaw: How does introducing legislation with such extraordinary ministerial powers, under urgency, less than an hour before it is due to be debated in the House, with two critical Schedules withheld from public scrutiny, meet the standard of "thorough and transparent"? Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, how do I count the ways. Firstly, the Government announced that we were doing this back in late January, early February. I made that a public announcement, and we published the framework and the design of the scheme. That went out to all and sundry—iwi; post-governance settlement entities; environmental NGOs, who've been voluminous in their criticism of it, but we'll take that as read. The public has had many chances to engage on this. Officials have been working away designing the bill. The bill has been introduced, albeit, yes, under urgency, to meet the 100-day commitment to get it into the House, and the reason why it's under urgency is to send it to a committee as soon as possible so the public can have their say on this extremely important piece of legislation. There are a number of other examples that I could point to. Hon James Shaw: How can he justify limiting public consultation when projects that are on the secret Schedule could include, coalmines, deep-sea mines, and projects that have already been turned down by the courts— SPEAKER: No. Can I just say—you refer to a secret Schedule. We heard earlier in the day there's nothing on the Schedule. So don't use language like that. Hon James Shaw: How can he justify limiting public consultation when projects that will be on the Schedule could include coalmines, deep-sea mines, and projects that have already been turned down by the courts on environmental grounds, whilst overriding protections for fresh water and indigenous biodiversity? Hon CHRIS BISHOP: I justify it in the same way that the previous Government introduced the COVID-19 fast-track regime, which included 17 or maybe 19 projects listed in the Schedule that were automatically referred to an expert panel. That member was a member of the Government that supported that regime in the last Parliament. It's very similar. Actually, we've been even more transparent in the sense that we are running an independent process for projects to be referred to the Government to insert in the bill. In the last Parliament, the COVID-19 fast-track regime, a bill was presented, there were 17 projects listed in the Schedule, and those projects got referred to a fast-track consenting expert panel. Hon James Shaw: Is he aware—[Interruption] SPEAKER: Just give yourself a minute while the House composes itself. Hon James Shaw: Can you advise me whether the House is composed enough? SPEAKER: Well, actually, wrong choice of words—it's never likely to happen. But carry on anyway. Hon James Shaw: Can he confirm that one of the key differences from previous fast-track legislation is that the ultimate decision to approve or decline projects will now sit with Ministers rather than with independent experts? Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Yes. That's a key design choice of the regime. We're proud of it. We're determined to cut through the red tape holding this country back and get on with building things this country needs. Hon James Shaw: Is he aware that rushing legislation with such extraordinary executive powers through Parliament, under urgency, with little public scrutiny— SPEAKER: Sorry. You can ask that again. How many times do people have to be told to be quiet while questions are being asked before some people spend quite a bit of time out of the House? Hon James Shaw: Let me count the ways. SPEAKER: That's not helpful, Mr Shaw—you know that. Hon James Shaw: Is he aware that rushing legislation with such extraordinary executive powers through Parliament, under urgency, with little public scrutiny, creates a risk that any of the projects that are approved as a result of this bill could find themselves subject to future scrutiny, which could include the loss of the consent, possibly without compensation? Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, a couple of points to make there. Firstly, the bill is not being rushed through Parliament. The bill is being read a first time this afternoon, and if it meets with the House's approval, it will be sent to a select committee for consideration. It will go to the Environment Committee. I've got full confidence in the chair of the Environment Committee and, actually, the Environment Committee to do a good job. There will be a full public submission process. Prior to the bill being introduced into the Parliament, there has been extensive consultation on the design parameters of the bill. There's been extensive engagement with iwi and Māori groups; I've been meeting with them regularly over the last few weeks alongside Minister Potaka. The simple reality is that this will be one of the most well consulted on bills and regimes in recent history. To the member's second point, in throwing around language around cancellation of consents without compensation, I would just say to the member he needs to be very careful in relation to comments like that. I think all members in Parliament have an obligation to bear in mind sovereign risk to New Zealand and the way in which projects happen. SPEAKER: Can I just make the point that it is not for the executive to pre-empt Parliament. There is no bill, and so the suggestion that it will be read this afternoon does pre-empt Parliament. It's a fine point, but none the less one that should be taken into account by Ministers. Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can I ask the Minister how seriously he takes the threat, malignant as it is, that people who make, under the process passed by this Parliament, legal application for a permit should be threatened that when the Government changes they will not be compensated for their construction that was allowed and permitted in the first place? Hon CHRIS BISHOP: I think the Acting Prime Minister makes a good point, and I just repeat what I said before, which is that I think members generally need to be careful when it comes to threatening things like the leader of the Green Party threatened in his supplementary question. URGENT DEBATES DECLINED Media—The State of Public Media in New Zealand SPEAKER: I've received a letter from the Hon Willie Jackson seeking to debate under Standing Order 399 the state of public media in New Zealand. For there to be an urgent debate, there must be a particular case of recent occurrence. Several previous Speakers have ruled that continuing problems does not equate to a particular case of recent occurrence. I refer the House to Speakers' rulings to 221/2, by Harrison, Wall, and Mallard. Therefore, the application is declined. Hon Grant Robertson: Point of order, Mr Speaker. SPEAKER: Point of order, the Hon Kieran McAnulty. Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour): No—Grant. SPEAKER: Oh, sorry—Grant Robertson. Sorry. Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Very similar—he's half the man I am! SPEAKER: He certainly is, but he's starting to sound more and more like you. Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I seek leave of the House for a debate to be held on the topic of the future of the news media in New Zealand, using the normal speaking order for an urgent debate, beginning with the Hon Willie Jackson. SPEAKER: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? [Members object] Thank you. URGENCY Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Leader of the House): I move, That urgency be accorded the introduction and referral to select committee of the Fast-track Approvals Bill, the Gangs Legislation Amendment Bill, and the Courts (Remote Participation) Amendment Bill. The urgency motion is required to introduce the last three bills outlined in the coalition Government's 49 commitments in our ambitious 100-day plan. Urgency allows us to have the first readings of these bills today so they can be sent to the select committee, which the leader of the Green Party is so keen on. The fast-track bill creates a one-stop shop fast-track consenting regime, as we've just debated. The gangs legislation bill provides new tools for the police, and the courts bill will allow greater facilitation of remote participation in court proceedings, including the ability for victims to observe a criminal trial and sentencing remotely. A party vote was called for on the question, That urgency be accorded. Ayes 68 New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Noes 55 New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6. Motion agreed to. INTRODUCTION OF BILLS SPEAKER: I understand it's the intention of the Government to introduce those bill. CLERK: Fast-track Approvals Bill, introduction Gangs Legislation Amendment Bill, introduction Courts (Remote Participation) Amendment Bill, introduction. SPEAKER: The Fast-track Approvals Bill is set down for first reading immediately. The Gangs Legislation Amendment Bill and the Courts (Remote Participation) Amendment Bill are set down for first reading presently. GANGS LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL New Zealand Bill of Rights Act Compliance Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Attorney-General): I present my report, under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, on the Gangs Legislation Amendment Bill to the House under Standing Order 269. SPEAKER: That report is published under the authority of the House and may be found on the Parliament website. FAST-TRACK APPROVALS BILL First Reading Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform): I present a legislative statement on the Fast-track Approvals Bill. SPEAKER: That legislative statement is published under the authority of the House and can be found also on the parliamentary website. Hon CHRIS BISHOP: I move, That the Fast-track Approvals Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Environment Committee to consider the bill. This is a momentous day for the coalition Government, which is up to day 99 of our 100-day plan of action since the election. This bill continues the Government's continued commitment to deliver on its coalition agreement with New Zealand First, and, at the outset, I would like to acknowledge the work of Matua Shane Jones, Minister for Regional Development in the development of this bill. I also want to acknowledge the hard work of my colleagues the Hon Simeon Brown, the Hon Tama Potaka, and the Hon Paul Goldsmith. It would be fair to say that Ministers and officials have moved at extraordinary pace to develop this legislation. There were many long nights devising this, and it has been put to me by people who know this sort of stuff around the town that Ministers and officials have done about two years' worth of work in about two months, and it's something that I think is worth commenting on. I would like to also acknowledge the hard work of the officials at the Ministry for the Environment, the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment, the Department of Conservation, Te Arawhiti, the Office for Māori Crown Relations, and the Infrastructure Commission, and almost certainly I have left an agency off there. This has been a joint, team effort, as readers of the Dominion Post will know. We're going to say thank you later on this afternoon. I'm very proud of this legislation. I have believed and the coalition Government has believed for a long time now that it's too hard to do things in this country, and it's not just my belief that that's the case. We know from the facts that it is. To quote the recent Infrastructure Commission report: "The time it takes to consent a major project has doubled across a five-year period."—that's 2014 to 2019. We spend $1.3 billion— Hon David Parker: Who fixed that? Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, you didn't fix it—that's the whole point. That's partly why you were thrown out. We spend $1.3 billion in resource consent fees per year. It is just too hard to do things—too hard to build houses, too hard to build roads, too hard to build public transport, too hard to build geothermal and wind power stations, too hard to build mines for the future, too hard to get aquaculture projects up and running—and this is part of the Government's process of unclogging that. We're viewing resource management reform in three phases. The first was to repeal the Natural and Built Environment Act; we did that before Christmas. The second is to introduce a fast-track consenting regime and make targeted amendments to the Resource Management Act (RMA) that we've returned to to make it easier to do some of the things I've just been talking about. Then the third part of our reform agenda is to replace the resource management regime with one based on the concept of property rights, which some members had previously decided is sort of by definition anti-environment. But, actually, proper respect for property rights and using market-based frameworks can do a lot for the environment and improving things. I'll have more to say about that in due course. But to return to the bill, what it does is set up a process which is firstly a one-stop shop but also a fast-track regime. What we are doing is setting up a process that will put nationally and regionally significant projects in the fast lane. Projects become eligible for the fast track through one of two ways: either through a referral by the joint decision of the Ministers of infrastructure, regional development, and transport upon an application, or by being listed in Schedule 2A of the bill. Once a project has been referred into the fast track, it will be considered by an expert panel. Essentially, we have adopted, with some modifications, the regime of the COVID-19 fast-track expert panel process that the previous Government introduced in its wisdom as a response to COVID. As I pointed out during question time earlier in the day, the difference between our bill and the previous bill is that the bill doesn't actually contain any projects in it. To the contradistinction of what has been some rumours around the town, it does not include any projects in the bill. So projects become eligible either by referral or through being put in Schedule 2A, and then it gets goes to an expert panel. And their job is to apply the relevant consent and permit conditions. I, as Minister for Infrastructure—it's me currently; hopefully for a while. The Minister for Infrastructure will appoint a panel convener, and the panel convener will appoint the various relevant members of the expert panels. The panel convener must be a High Court judge—either current or former—or an Environment Court judge. Notably, what we are doing is we've changed the regime from the COVID-19 legislation—the fast-track—in relation to the expert panels. So, as I understand it, in the COVID-19 framework, expert panel members had a daily rate, and the evidence that's been put to me is that that was a bit of a disincentive for the relevant RMA experts and practitioners and planners and lawyers to participate—the exact sort of people you'd want doing these sort of panel hearings—because, frankly, they could make more money doing other things other than sitting on the panels. So instead what we've gone to is a market-rate system. So simple supply and demand, simple economics—if you let the market clear, then it will clear, and if you let people pay what is required, then we'll get more people into the system to run the regime. I think that's a sensible step forward. So they will apply the relevant consent and permit conditions. We've also set a time frame of six months. The project will then be sent back to joint Ministers. Now, there's been a bit of debate in the Parliament about: is this a constitutional overreach? I see my good mate Gary Taylor going out there saying it's the worst Government since Rob Muldoon and all sorts of other nonsense. He needs to get with the programme, and members who believe that need to get with the programme. We are deliberately making a policy-design decision to give the executive Government more power over this process. So that's not a criticism. That's actually a design-policy choice by the coalition Government, and I believe it's possible to get to a sweet spot where Ministers essentially refer projects to a panel, the panel applies the conditions around the environment and around conservation, and then it goes back to Ministers for decision making. The reason why the schedules don't contain any projects is we felt, on reflection, it was better to run a process that was insulated from Government and insulated from Ministers and where Ministers could have the ability to assess the advice of an independent panel about what project should be included and what projects should not be included, and then, ultimately, the projects will go to the Ministers and go to Cabinet for approval. The bill—it's not, as I say, wildly dissimilar to what the COVID-19 fast-track regime did. That bill included 17, from memory, and potentially 19 projects which were automatically referred. We've also put in place Schedule 2B, which are best described as projects that are shovel worthy but not quite yet ready for consents. What we're trying to do is deliberately create a pipeline of projects. What I would like to see flowing out of the fast-track regime is lots and lots and lots of projects that have resourced consent and are ready to go. They're on the shelf; they're ready to go. What we do in New Zealand too often is we spend all this time and money getting things ready to go, and then we get the money together—whether it's public or private—and everyone goes, "Righty-o, this is good.", and then we go off to get resource consent, and seven years later we wake up, and the resource consent hasn't happened, inflation has improved the cost of everything, and all of a sudden the project's not necessarily viable or economic. What I want to do, and what the Government wants to do, is reverse that. So we have a whole lot of stuff that is consented, part of a pipeline, on the shelf, and ready to go. It may not necessarily be economic right now, it may not be economically viable in five years' time, but it may be economic in the future depending on the people's deployment of capital and depending on the capital deployment of Government. That is part of building a modern functioning 21st century economy with infrastructure that actually works. Part of the problem in this country is we've become the obstruction economy, and what I want to say is that there is a better way. We don't have to become a country which has a "can't do" attitude; we can become a country that says yes to growth, yes to more roads, yes to geothermal power, yes to wind energy, yes to farming, yes to mining, yes to housing growth, and yes to growth, because that's the problem with this country. We've got a slow-growing economy; we've had productivity growth problems for 30 years. It's too hard to do things in this country, and I'm proud to be a member of a Government that is changing the obstruction economy and saying yes to growth. So many problems in New Zealand could be solved by more economic growth, more projects, more roads, more mines, more renewable energy, more building stuff that will actually improve the economy and get things going. I commend this bill to the House. Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin): How about "Yes" to decreased biodiversity and "Yes" to pollution? That seems to be what that other side of the House is interested in—nothing else apart from economics, and shame on them. Now we have heard— Hon Member: You clearly weren't listening. Hon RACHEL BROOKING: I'm told I wasn't listening. I can tell that member that I've been listening very attentively and that I of course will be spending a lot of time with this bill that was introduced only 12 minutes ago. We've had this bill for 12 minutes and we're speaking on it now—that is shameful, like everything else about this bill. Now, we know that there are problems with the Resource Management Act and that it takes too long to consent things. That would be why the last Government did— Grant McCallum: It took you six years to work that out. Hon RACHEL BROOKING: We're hearing about how we had six years to do things—that's right, and we did things. We did the Natural and Built Environment Act and we did the Spatial Planning Act because we need to plan better for infrastructure in New Zealand, we need to do long-term planning, and that was there in the Spatial Planning Act that this Government repealed—repealed under urgency. All stages, urgency—no referral to the select committee. Shame on them. We also, in the last Government, provided for fast tracking, and that fast tracking was put into the Natural and Built Environment Act. And when this Government repealed that Act, the fast-tracking provisions were retained—there is no need for this legislation. We want to keep the fast-tracking provisions of that Natural and Built Environment Act—they are there already—but this Government shows no interest in using those and instead wants to go ahead with this very dangerous proposal that puts far too much decision making into the hands of a select few Ministers. You might think that the relevant Minister—if you're chugging through the Resource Management Act—would be the Minister responsible for that Act, who is, of course, the Minister for the Environment. The "environment" is not a word we've heard in this debate from the other side or in answers to questions today, because there is no interest in the protection of that. This Minister, the Minister for the Environment, is not involved in this process. Instead, it is the Minister for Infrastructure, the Minister for Regional Development, and the Minister of Transport. Now, this is very different—and I want to pause on this for a moment—from the COVID legislation that we've heard the Minister talk about. The COVID— Hon Shane Jones: Siamese twin—Siamese twin. Hon RACHEL BROOKING: Oh, we're hearing it's a Siamese twin. No, no, Mr Jones, it is not a Siamese twin. It is very importantly different, because in that COVID legislation it was very clear that the panel, after Ministers had referred a project—a referral is not a decision. A referral to a panel—not making the decision. They referred it to a panel— Hon Shane Jones: Minor detail—minor detail. Hon RACHEL BROOKING: This is not a minor detail. This is very serious, and it seems that the Ministers on the other side of the House think this is some sort of game. You are not a serious Government and this is not a serious bill. What happened with the COVID legislation is that the panel could decline one of those listed projects. It was very clear that it could be declined on either inconsistency with the national policy statement or inconsistency with the Treaty. There is no such section that I have been able to find in this bill, and in fact we just heard the Minister say that this was very purposeful, that he wants the Ministers to make the decisions, that the executive needs to be involved. If that is the case, then surely there should be a wide range of criteria that specify the sorts of projects that are in the public's interest to proceed. Public projects may be like the ones that were in the COVID legislation, maybe ones that are to do with iwi groups—also in that COVID legislation. But, no, this is not just about infrastructure—this is about mines, potentially; this is about all sorts of development that has nothing to do with the public good. A lot relies on what is in Schedule 2—Schedule 2, "Listed projects"—and we see that there are no projects listed in that schedule at the moment. I need to say, in my remaining seconds, that it is just beyond-vitally important that there is a public process about what goes into these schedules, and I hope all lawyers will be submitting on this bill. Hon JAMES SHAW (Co-Leader—Green): Well, Think Big is back. For the first time in over 40 years, we have an executive that is granting itself powers—Ministers granting Ministers powers, using their parliamentary majority, through a dodgy process under urgency to override some of the most significant environmental legislation we have. We've gone from unbridled power to unhinged power through the use of this bill. This is one of the most significant assaults on the environment undertaken by any Government in my lifetime. These Ministers are handing themselves extraordinary powers to approve projects that could include new coalmines, mining on parts of our precious conservation estate, and the destruction of the seabed. And if you're denying it and pretending that that's not so, listen to your own Minister of resources, your own Minister of oceans and fisheries, who is certainly saying he hopes that that's what happens. He wants coalmines. He wants the destruction of the ocean floor. He wants the destruction of our conservation estate. He actually wants the extinction of some of our endangered species. He has said so in this House, and this bill grants that Minister the power to make it happen. The Minister responsible for this bill, the Fast-track Approvals Bill, is clearly doing what his coalition partners are wanting him to do on this—despite what otherwise would be his better parliamentary and democratic instincts—and in his own somewhat Potemkin blue-green visage that he's been pretending to have. Some of the key differences between this bill and either the COVID-19 fast-track legislation or the fast-track provisions that that Minister repealed earlier this year—which had been in replacement to the Resource Management Act (RMA), bringing back the RMA—is that this puts the power into the hands of Ministers to finally approve those projects. Under the previous fast-track legislation, Ministers could refer projects to an expert panel but could not decide. And, actually, the vast majority of projects did get approved, and they got approved quickly, and they got approved sometimes with additional recommendations or conditions in order to make them either more sound or less risky or less environmentally damaging. But the vast majority of them went through both under the COVID-19 legislation and under the fast-track provisions that Minister Parker put through. What this legislation does is it gives those expert panels the ability to propose conditions back to Ministers, who can then say, "Oh, we don't like those. Have another crack. Keep coming back until we get an answer that we like." So, yes, you might say, "You have the power to make those conditions" but the point is that the Ministers can then say, "Sorry, those look a little bit onerous to us. We don't like those. Have another crack.", and the project's already been approved. We know that the Ministers want them, and the Ministers get to decide that, so those expert panels are completely toothless. This rides roughshod over not just the Resource Management Act—which everybody in this House, including us, agrees is a very flawed piece of legislation. We couldn't believe that this Government preferred to bring that legislation back into existence. It rides roughshod over the RMA. It rides roughshod over the environmental protections in New Zealand law, including the exclusive economic zone Act, the Wildlife Act, the Conservation Act, the Reserves Act. There is no acknowledgment in the bill of Te Tiriti beyond settlements. It contains weaker environmental conditions for applying for and approving consents. There is no mention of well-established environmental law principles, such as the precautionary approach—no mention at all of that. Consenting panels can give more weight to the purpose of the fast-track bill over having to give effect to Part 2 of the RMA or other relevant legislation. It allows coal mining. It allows other destructive activities on conservation land. It allows seabed mining. It overrides projects that have already been declined by the courts on environmental grounds because they were so destructive they have no place in society. And so my question, really, to those grinning members of the blue-green National Party caucus who are sitting there is: where the hell are you? Where the hell are you? The ghost of Rob Muldoon has inhabited the mind and body of Shane Jones, and he is riding roughshod and exposing the blue-green caucus to be an absolute Potemkin village of toothless, spineless people who have no say whatsoever in this bill. SIMON COURT (ACT): Thank you, Mr Speaker. The ACT Party supports the Fast-track Approvals Bill. New Zealanders have lamented the wasted opportunity left by the previous Labour Government. Lots of talk, lots of wasted time and money, for what? Auckland light rail: $220 million on a business case—not a single metre of track laid. They didn't even try and get a consent for it. That was just spinning the wheels. New Zealand's infrastructure is dire. It's not just what we need to build for growth, it's all of those asset renewals and large-scale replacements, whether it's ports or hospitals or roads which do need a much smoother consenting pathway. We're in a ridiculous state of affairs now. It's so expensive and time-consuming to get anything permitted and consented. The Infrastructure Commission produced statistics that were used as a result to reform the resource management system by the previous Government that it's costing $1.3 billion a year just to get consents. That's not to build the sediment pond, that's not to put in the diversions, that's not to actually replant the site after you've finished building the motorway, that's just to do the paperwork and get a consent—$1.3 billion. The amount of time taken to get a consent has almost doubled in the past five years. All the while, the former Minister Rachel Brooking in the Labour Government was giving advice on how to reform the Resource Management Act. Instead of actually getting on with fixing it, that previous Government wasted five years not fixing it. This Government is different. Now, across New Zealand a lot of major projects—a lot of major projects—are desperately needed and they face giant hurdles. [Interruption] They're desperately needed by people in your community too. The fast-track is the first step in a wider work programme to create an enabling environment for things to be built that deliver wellbeing to communities—wellbeing to communities just like yours. The first step was to repeal the Natural and Built Environment Act and the Spatial Planning Act, which, as many lawyers pointed out—and the Hon Rachel Brooking said, "Bring all the lawyers to the hearing." Many lawyers pointed out to the Hon Rachel Brooking when we were hearing submissions on the Natural and Built Environment Bill, as it then was, it's a terrible idea. So that's why it's gone. First step: Natural and Built Environment Act, el fuego. Second step: introducing the fast-track legislation. The third step, once we've carried out some further targeted amendments to the Resource Management Act, will be the wholesale replacement of the Resource Management Act with a system based on enjoyment of property rights—a system based on enjoyment of property rights. And that underpins this fast-track legislation and the rest of the work programme. This concept of property rights has become an almost foreign concept in New Zealand in recent times. Steve Abel: The Muld-ACT Party SIMON COURT: How profound that people should be able to do with their own property, Mr Steve Abel, what they like, so long as it doesn't affect the ability of others to do the same. New Zealand's lost sight of this with an increasingly precautionary approach to environmental management—environmental naval gazing over actually getting things built. Joseph Mooney: That's right. SIMON COURT: That's right, Joseph Mooney. But I'll tell you what New Zealand thinks of this bill. Infrastructure New Zealand: "We have to be more productive …The link between infrastructure and stronger economic performance is undeniable yet often underappreciated."—Infrastructure New Zealand, the peak body for infrastructure developers in New Zealand, also makes this point, to those members of the Green Party and the Labour Party who've raised concerns about the environment, "The process can move faster without compromising environmental standards." And I know that there are members of the Green Party caucus—and I myself have worked as an environmental professional, we know how to deliver projects and stick within environmental limits, and we can do that with fast-tracking. But, oh no, that's not good enough for the Environmental Defence Society, who claims that this bill is the Government's war on nature continuing. Well, that type of unhelpful rhetoric will not get New Zealand moving faster and get things built. This week I was lucky enough to host the political scientist Bjørn Lomborg recently in Parliament last night, who articulates this concept of a cost-benefit analysis and how to best spend time and money to make a positive impact. That is not spending time in the Environment Court or trying to convince council planners why you should be allowed to use your own land and development assets. Hon Rachel Brooking: Yeah, that's right. So you put in the plans, like the Natural and Built Environment Act and you have spatial plans that fixes it, Simon Court. SIMON COURT: This bill is an important—Rachel Brooking, this bill is an important step in restoring the concept of private property rights and getting stuff done. Hon SHANE JONES (Minister for Resources): This bill has longer and wider ramifications than Geoffrey Palmer's Resource Management Act. In another 20-30 years, people will look back to this bill as the day that New Zealand moved from "cancel" economics to "can-do" economics. This bill is to provide a fast-track decision-making process that facilitates the delivery of infrastructure and development projects with significant regional and national benefits. Regions need to benefit from their resource endowments. Gone are the days of the multicoloured skink, the kiwi, many other species that have been weaponised to deny regional New Zealand communities their right to a livelihood, their entitlement to live peacefully with their environment but derive an income to meet the costs of raising families in regional New Zealand. This purpose will overwhelm the decrepit, irrelevant provisions of the Wildlife Act that have caused hundreds of millions of dollars of unnecessary expenditure in projects that, if they're not happening in a timely fashion, they are hobbling the interests of garden variety Kiwis who have been written out of the script as the Resource Management Act has been colonised by green NGOs who have no conception of economic benefit, weaponised by the legal profession, who have turned resource management law into a rich vein of fiscal ore. Let me talk about veins. There are veins of wealth throughout Te Tai Poutini. There are veins of wealth throughout the South Island, and with this legislation, mining will be turbocharged. There are consequences from voting, and the consequence of Kiwis electing this group of politicians is that we are no longer going to tolerate tainting, stigmatising, marginalising of the rich mineral endowment in New Zealand. The echo chamber for my speech is trans-Tasman, it's global. I am already getting messages from North America, from Singapore, from Australia. At long last, New Zealand is open again for business. No more eco-romanticism, no more colonial guilt, but a very focused, a very direct level of interest upon causing Kiwis to be more resilient, causing Kiwis to be able to afford to live in their own country, not watching their sons and daughters go to Kalgoorlie and dig up Australia whilst parliamentarians on that side of the House oppose, daily, the mining industry. They quietly hide as we bring Indonesian coal into New Zealand every month to keep the lights on, because they know that the most important thing in a modern economy is a secure, resilient energy system, something that was destroyed as our sovereign risk collapsed after the unwise decision made about oil and gas. Gas will be around for at least another 30 years. Gas, under this bill, where it's needed, will be processed in a professional, timely fashion. There will be those who exaggerate, those who worsen the prospects under the rubric of climate change. Climatologists, climatarians, join the fray. These are items of debate for the development of our country. Our country is going to grow at long last, because this bill will not only build dams, open mines, develop infrastructure; it has the Ruataniwha clause. Kia ora tātou. DEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER (Co-Leader—Te Pāti Māori ): Tēnā koe e te Māngai. Look, the previous speaker, Shane Jones, has proven one thing: you cannot take capitalism out of colonisation. That is what we're hearing—those who cannot think of anything else but the life of a typical capitalist. What we need to be thinking about—and I need to share a story. I come from the vein of these areas which are promised all this richness, the wealth of the white gold, the black gold. And not once—not once—as an iwi with the largest amount of oil companies in its backyard, have we ever seen the fruits of the economic profits that this side of the House continues to promise our people. Not once—not once. We've got to keep remembering, this kōrero about a one-stop shop, the one-stop shop, or the one-stop chop, which we heard today, is full of forked tongues and false promises. I want to really appeal to our people, because what we're seeing before us, there's this belief that there's going to be this Tiriti principles bill that's going to come up and it's going to take everything out. In fact, this is the start of the erosion. And that matua who is just in the eve of his career is trying to promise to our people the richness of economic development—it's not true. It is not true. We have communities who are messaging me, not from Singapore, not from Japan, not from anywhere else overseas—from Taranaki, from W'anganui, from Te Tai Tokerau who are sitting there, saying, "W'aea, we don't want what this matua is promising." We are seeing our rights eroded from a Government that has no respect for tangata whenua—no respect—because their whole idea of growth is sitting there. It's so hard to think about transformation. It's so hard to think about how we look after our communities, how we don't leave anybody behind, how we look after those who are struggling. No, let's go into the communities that are struggling; let's dig them up even more. Let's mine them even more, despite the fact that at their own cost, they have gone to courts to fight seabed mining, fight Trans-Tasman Resources—won five times in the courts, 12 years consecutively. But this Government has taringa mārō [stubborn, no ears]—doesn't want to listen to the arguments and the fights. Let's go back—and they're proposing to cut red tape. Oh, how original! Really, what that spells, w'ānau mā, is that they're going to cut consultation, they are going to cut reference to Tiriti, and they're going to cut corners, because that's what matua does really well, when he comes to the marae—and any matua—making big promises to our whānau: "We've got your back. We're going to grow you. We're going to do everything for you. You're going to be a richer country." But, actually, the shareholders take that, and the shareholders are often not in Aotearoa; they often take their money and go away—go away. Look, I want to talk about some of the things that we have—I wouldn't have a problem, to be honest. I think that Minister Bishop's been as honest as he can, because he's focused on what a lot of our iwi are. We want to remove bureaucracy. We want to build our houses. In fact, we could put some on Premier House if we wanted to; give the land back to the mana whenua. We want to sit there and remove barriers so we can get our land that is blocked unblocked and be able to have papa kāinga. But the reality is, what we have is another Minister—another Minister, Minister Jones—who has said, "We are going to extract the dividend from mother Nature's legacy on the DOC estate in those areas previously called stewardship land." This is a Government that wants to rape, pillage, and take everything they've left on our wā'i—wā'i tapu, on our maunga, by our rivers, by our moana. Whānau, when you go into this document that's barely arrived on the Table 40 minutes ago, you can see some of the things that are being considered. There is absolutely no requirement to consider Te Tiriti—no requirement to consider Te Tiriti. We are already seeing the rewriting of Te Tiriti. We have a Minister, we have officials who were crying about what was being subjected to with this process. We have got experts—experts from post-settlement governance entities, Te Tai Kaha, advisers to the national iwi chairs—and it's quoted here, "It was not possible"—it was not possible—"to be a thorough review of this bill.", and acknowledging its significance, because they were limited in nature in the engagement of the policy proposals. They were insufficiently organised, but they had a Minister who said, "We are removing Te Tiriti and any reference to Te Tiriti." This is the start, w'ānau mā. This is the start of that matua, in the eve of a career, who is sitting here with a legacy of failure, trying to say, "We need to make this work.", at the cost of us, whānau mā—at the cost of us. When we sit there and we see the fact that this Government and all of its supplementary analysis, the Treaty impact analysis, gives reference to the fact that this Government was cautioned as taking the wrong path, but will it listen to you, whānau? Will it listen to you? Kia ora rā. Hon TAMA POTAKA (Associate Minister of Housing (Social Housing)): E tū ana ahau, e taku piki amokura, me te mihi ki ngā raruraru, ngā āwangawanga e tae mai nei i aku hoa whanaunga kei tērā taha o te Whare. Me te mea nei, e tautoko ana au i ngā mahi a te Manu Pīhopa nānā anō i kawe mai i tēnei pire, i tēnei wā ki te tēpu, e kōrerotia nei, ā, kei mua i a tātou. Me te whakatuarā hoki i a ia me tōna kāhui, a Minita Tararā, me Minita Paraone e noho nei ki te kawe mai i tēnei pire ki tua o ēnei komiti whakahaere. Me te mihi anō ēnei āhuatanga. Koinei hoki i whakaritea mai ki te mahere kotahi rau rā, kia whakatere, kia whakahutihuti anō i te haere o ēnei momo take ki runga i ngā whenua me ngā moana o Aotearoa-Niu Tīreni. Me te mea nei, nōku te whiwhi kia kawe mai au i Te Papa Atawhai me Te Arawhiti ki ēnei kōrero me tā rātou tautoko ki te anga whakamua. Āna! Āna! Kua kitea hoki i roto i ngā tohutohu me ngā pepa e tautoko ana Te Papa Atawhai me Te Arawhiti me tō rātou hiahia kia whakahaumarutia hoki ngā take taunga Tiriti i roto i te ture, ā, ko wai ka hua, ko wai ka mōhio, engari kei roto hoki i ngā pire te whakatau, te oati hoki o tō mātou kāwanatanga haumi, ka tū toka, kia tū tika, kia tū māia hoki ngā whakataunga Tiriti i roto i tēnei pire. Nā reira, kei te pakanga tonu ētehi, kāore e kore, engari koinei pea hei āta whakamataara i te hinengaro, hei āta whakamīharo hoki i tā koutou e tohe nei ki taku i wheako atu ki te kamupene o Tainui. Ko tā mātou, e rima tau e whakapau kaha ana i te pūtea ki te whakatārewa i te kaupapa mō Ruakura, ki te kawe hoki i ngā uaratanga o tō tatou iwi o Waikato-Tainui ki te whakatū whekeretere, ki te whakatū whare kaitā, ki reira tū ai hei Logistics Centre ki reira. Engari ko te patu parāoa, ko te taiaha me te tewhatewha o te Karauna ko te RMA. Nā te kaunihera tērā kaupapa i whakatōmuri kia toru tau, kia rima tau, kia toru miriona tāra a Tainui i whakapau i te mea, nā te mea, nā te kaunihera hoki i paopao hoki i te anga whakamua mō tērā kaupapa nā te RMA te take. Ehara i te mea nā te Fast Track Consent, ehara i te mea nā ngā uaratanga o te iwi engari nā te RMA me te kaunihera me te RMA i tōmuri ai, i pōturi rawa te whakatere i tērā waka. Nā reira, ki ahau nei, ki ahau nei kua kite i ngā piki me ngā heke o te RMA—tōna pai, engari tōna kino hoki me tērā wheako i roto i te iwi e tau nei a Waikato-Tainui. Ko te mutunga kē mai nei o te kūare tērā āhuatanga, te rironga mā te RMA te whakapōturi i te anganga whakamua a ngā iwi me ngā ohu o ngā iwi. Nā reira, ko tāku ki Whare nei, kaua e riro mā te tū a te ture ki te kakī o te kamupene Māori. Āe, e tika ana te kōrero kia whakatau tika ngā āhuatanga ki te taiao, ā, te āhuatanga ki ngā mahi ohu, ngā mahi whai pūtea, engari kaua e riro mā te RMA e patu te anga whakamua o ngā iwi. Nui ngā tēpa hāpiapia whero e whakahaukoti nei i te anga whakamua mō ngā pā wai, ngā pā ika me ngā pā hikohiko. E hoa! He pōturi rawa te whenua nei ka pōhara katoa tātou, ka makariri kē ngā kāinga. Te Papa Atawhai kei te tautoko, kei te tautoko i te anganga whakamua. Āe, e kī ana te kōrero e ono tekau orāu o ngā whenua o Te Papa Atawhai kāore i te whai kaha i ngā āhuatanga o te taiao kia riro mā tēnei kaupapa e whakatārewa. Engari, whā tekau ōrau ngā whenua o Te Papa Atawhai kua rāhuitia, kua taea te aha. Kua rāhuitia ki tēnei pire, ka whakahaumarutia hoki ki ngā kararehe me ngā tamariki a Tāne me Hineahuone ki ērā whā tekau ōrau. Te Arawhiti, ko tā rātou, me ngā kāhui rangatira a ngā iwi, kia whakahaumarutia ngā take o ngā whakataunga Tiriti—e tautoko ana. Kei roto i ngā whārangi me ngā kōrero o te kaupapa nei, o te pire nei e kitea ana kei ia taumata whakahaere, kei ia taumata whakatau me toro atu te kaitono me ngā minita me te panel nei ki ngā Māori, ki ngā iwi, ki ngā hapū, āta wānangatia te anga whakamua. Kaua e pōhēhē mā te kōrero noa iho e āta whakatinana hoki i ngā uaratanga o ngā iwi. Tēnā tātou katoa. [I rise, Mr Speaker, to acknowledge the challenges and trepidations that have come from my friendly relatives on that side of the House. And I support the work of Minister Bishop, who brought this bill before us at this time to the table, that we are speaking about, that is before us. I must support he and his team, Minister Jones and Minister Brown who will bring this bill beyond this committee. I must acknowledge this. This is why it was included in the 100 days programme was put into place to speed up, to hasten the process of these kinds of issues that are upon the oceans of Aotearoa-New Zealand. And what's more, it is my honour to bring in the Department of Conservation and Te Arawhiti into these discussion with their support to progress. Indeed! Indeed! We have seen in the advice and in the papers that the Department of Conservation and Te Arawhiti, and their desire to safeguard as well, the Treaty settlement claims in the legislation, and who knows what will happen, but within the bill is the decision and the oath of our coalition Government, that we stand strong, the Treaty Settlement Claims will stand strong, will stand true, will stand brave in this bill. And so, some will still battle, without a doubt, but this may be the this may be the thing that alerts the mind, and brings one to admire that which you are arguing with respect to my experience with the company of Tainui. Our view is that, five years money has been exhausted to delay the Ruakura initiative and to carry the values of our tribe of Waikato-Tainui in establishing factories, and to establish large buildings there as a Logistics Centre there. But the whalebone club and the long staffs of the Crown are the RMA. It was the council that slowed down that initiative for three years, for five years, expending $3 million from Tainui, because the council also impacted the moving forward of that initiative and the RMA was the reason. It was not because of the Fast Track Consent, it was not the values of the tribe but it was the RMA, the council and the RMA who slowed down that ship. And so, to me, to me we have seen the ups and downs of the RMA—its advantages but also its disadvantages and that experience within the iwi that presents here, Waikato-Tainui. That situation is the epitome of ignorance, to let the RMA slow down the moving forward of the tribe and the boards and committees of the tribe. So, I say to this House, don't let a law stand on the throat of the Māori companies. Yes, it is true we must correctly decide the conditions of the environment, the conditions of the working groups, money making opportunities, but don't let the RMA negatively affect the progress of the tribes. There is lots of red sticky tape that is preventing the moving forward for water plants, fishing plants and hydro-electricity plants. My friends! This country is too slow and we will all be poor and houses will be cold. The Department of Conservation supports the moving forward. Yes, it is said that 60 percent of Department of Conservation land is not strictly complying with environmental conditions and this is what is delaying it. But 40 percent of the Department of Conservations land has been put aside, and nothing can be done with it. It has been put aside for this bill and will be protected for animals and the creatures of Tāne and Hineahuone in that 40 percent. With regards to Te Arawhiti, and the leaders of tribes, their view is that the Treaty Settlements issues be safeguarded—agreed. In the pages and discussion of this initiative of the bill, it can be seen that at every management level, at every decision-making level the applicant and ministers and the panel must make contact with Māori, with iwi, and hapū, to discuss in-depth the way forward. Do not think mistakenly that by mere discussion the values of the tribe will be realised. I thank us all.] Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour): I only have five minutes to contribute to this part of the debate—I will try to cover a lot of issues, because there are a lot of hooks in this. For a start, can I say something about the discussion around property rights. Simon Court said that he wants a property rights - based regime for the Resource Management Act (RMA). If you had a property rights - based regime for the RMA, you would not be able to have a non-point source discharge from a farm adding to pollution to rivers. That's not what we'll end up with, though. If you had a pure property rights - based regime, the farmer who was discharging into a river, via an increased number of cows, would be subject to the law of nuisance and could be injuncted for their farming practices. They don't mean that—they don't mean that. The Hon Shane Jones' comments before—with respect, Mr. Jones, you take the issue, the assertion of property rights, too far. It has never been the case anywhere in New Zealand, or indeed anywhere in the Commonwealth, that a private property right to a piece of land in a city that is used for a house can be turned into a foundry. I don't think the member thinks that that should be the case. But it's also true in rural areas. It has never been the case that a private property right to rural land includes the right to kill the last tuatara. What a nonsense it would be if that was the law. So I dislike these simplistic references to public property rights in that sense. In respect of wasted cost on the process for consenting, there has been a problem in this country with that, and we did address that in the last Government and I was the responsible Minister that did it. In respect of the COVID-related legislation, the decision maker was the panel, not the Minister—that's a big difference in in this proposal. Notwithstanding that, the vast majority of projects were consented within a reasonable time. We knocked the average time of consenting back by 18 months and we dropped costs considerably. It did work and was a good model. We carried it forward into the Natural and Built Environment Act with a number of changes. What was the main change? The Minister for the Environment—which was, at the time, me—was no longer the gatekeeper for whether projects could use that process. Why? Because I actually thought it was inappropriate that I had that role. I thought that decision should sit with officials rather than me. In addition, the panels under those fast-track referrals could hold an oral hearing if necessary, and, on occasions, they should be able to. If, for example, it is the first waste-to-energy project and it was put through fast track, I think people should have a right for public submission and to make oral submissions, rather than just written submissions. What is this really about and what will be the outcome? What is the most expensive power project ever built in the history of New Zealand recently? It's the Clyde Dam. It was the Clyde Dam. It was an appalling waste of money. It was forced through by the Clutha Development (Clyde Dam) Empowering Act 1982. It was actually one of the things that led to, eventually, the RMA. It was an appalling waste of money, and you should avoid those sorts of mistakes, through due process. You've got to be careful that you don't go too far with processes that are too shortcut. Now, what clause 25 of this bill says—that when the panel refers back to Ministers, the Ministers must not decide to deviate from the panel's recommendation unless they've undertaken analysis of the recommendations and any conditions in accordance with the relevant assessment criteria. I'm not sure what that means, and I find it inconsistent with the next subclause, (5), which says that the Ministers may go back to the panel and give any directions the Ministers think appropriate as to the reconsideration of whole or part. So they can, effectively, tell the panel what to do. If this is going to survive as legislation, that has to be limited because, if it's not, the threat—and it was a threat from the Hon James Shaw—is that there will be investment uncertainty in New Zealand because those consenting decisions will seem, on occasions, to be tainted by allegations of corruption, as allegations of special favours, and they will lack legitimacy. Accordingly, you will find that the other side of politics will react the other way and you will create investment uncertainty. In some of those consents, there is a risk that they will not last. The final point I will make is that there are two things that this bill needs to do that it doesn't yet do, and this is relevant to aquaculture and to wind farms at sea. Sometimes you need a spatial planning approach where a high-level decision is taken as to where things can happen, and then you work through later details. That's the way to sort out wind farms and aquaculture, not through individual consents. GRANT McCALLUM (National—Northland): It's with pleasure that I rise to speak about the Fast-track Approvals Bill, because ultimately one of the biggest challenges we have is addressing the climate change challenge, and what has been holding us up in doing that is the Resource Management Act, because it's taking far too long to get projects approved so we can create more sustainable energy. It's for that reason, I take a Bluegreen approach and I commend this bill to the House. Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Labour): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I'm very pleased to have the opportunity to speak against this bill today. Everyone in this House, if they haven't personally confronted situations like this, they certainly would have had representations from constituents, about the frustration of long and drawn out consenting processes. There's no doubt that the Resource Management Act (RMA), as it was originally formed, had become costly and it had become cumbersome. I personally think of the example of the proposed water storage scheme in Wairarapa, which, despite getting significant levels of support from the previous Labour-led Government, was unable to get through what was a long and winding consenting process, and I think that is regrettable for the region. But it was still important that a process was followed. It is important that the local community has the opportunity to have a say, and I simply do not accept the argument from the Government that the RMA, which they themselves have decided to go back to, let's not forget—there was a replacement that considered all aspects of planning in this country and took on board the perspectives of those that submitted. They got rid of that, they've gone back to the old system, and now they're saying that the country's being held back by the system that they have reintroduced. It is absolutely counter-productive. I also do not accept that their Ministers are a better process than giving communities a say. What is stopping vested interests from wining and dining Ministers to encourage them to support their application? What is stopping them? Joseph Mooney: Oh, that's— Grant McCallum: Scurrilous! Hon KIERAN McANULTY: And they scoff at that, but they don't have an answer to it. There is a reason that New Zealand consistently rates among one of the least corrupt countries in the world—because we have processes to keep elected representatives away from decisions like this. They are opening themselves up to these accusations, and if they don't like it, don't support the bill, because that is what this bill is doing. And while they're at it, I invite them to speak to the residents of Makomako Road, near Pahiatua, who have been getting in touch with me lately. They are concerned that their views and concerns about the proposed windfarm, right above their properties—they are not going to have their voice heard. And they don't even know if their project is included in those that will be listed in the Schedule, because this Government is keeping it secret. If they wanted to be upfront, if they were so confident that this was a better approach, if they were so confident that they were happy to have public submissions in select committee, why on earth are those schedules not included? They are doing it deliberately, I believe, and I think it is disgraceful. The good people that live near Pahiatua, who have already done their bit, have already got a windfarm near their farms, so close that they can hear them working, are now, potentially, facing another windfarm with turbines twice the size, just as close. The Tararua district, an area just north of Wairarapa, is perfect for windfarms in many places. There are huge swathes of land that don't have people living near them. Why on earth are these people having to face the prospect of having a second windfarm right on their doorstep when there are more suitable places for it? No one here is saying that windfarms shouldn't be built; in fact, there should be more of them. But they should be in appropriate places. They certainly shouldn't be next to people who already have them surrounding them on one side of their farms. I also think of the people of Mt Munro near Ekatāhuna, who now may face the possibility that their views, and the processes that they've been engaging in over weeks and months, mean absolutely nothing, because Ministers on that side of the House want to dismiss their views and think they know best. This isn't about a better process; this is a worse process. This is about doing what they think is better, and what takes no consideration whatsoever of the local views. It would have been very simple if they were that confident. If they really believed that this was a better process, why the hell aren't they publishing the things that are going to benefit from this bill? AMENDED ANSWERS TO ORAL QUESTIONS Question No. 3 to Minister Hon TAMA POTAKA (Associate Minister of Housing (Social Housing)): I seek leave to make a personal explanation. ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): Leave is granted. Hon TAMA POTAKA: In answer to question No. 3 today in the House, the Hansard has me recorded as saying "Yes, the Government's new approach is part of a wider response to end largescale use of emergency housing". I wish to explain that my response of "yes" was to acknowledge the Speaker when it was my turn to respond to the question from the Hon Carmel Sepuloni. My response to that honourable member remains as otherwise recorded. FAST-TRACK APPROVALS BILL First Reading Debate resumed. TOM RUTHERFORD (National—Bay of Plenty): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Last but not least! I'm proud to stand in support of the Fast-track Approvals Bill brought to the House by Minister Bishop. This is a one-stop shop approvals regime which can provide approvals required under multiple legislation. This bill will help those who wish to build in New Zealand do more in a streamlined and efficient manner, while keeping the common-sense provisions and protections associated with a typical consenting regime. We are determined to cut through the red and green tape holding New Zealand back. There is so much we could say, but instead of talking, this side of the Government is about action and delivery. So I'm going to fast track this speech and I'd like to commend the bill to the House. A party vote was called for on the question, That the Fast Track Approvals Bill be now read a first time. Ayes 68 New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Noes 55 New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15;. Te Pāti Māori 6. Motion agreed to. Bill read a first time. Bill referred to the Environment Committee. GANGS LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL First Reading Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister of Justice): I present a legislative statement on the Gangs Legislation Amendment Bill. ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): That legislative statement is published under the authority of the House and can be found on the Parliament website. Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: I move, That the Gangs Legislation Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Justice Committee to consider the bill. At the appropriate time, I intend to move that the bill be reported to the House by 8 July 2024. The bill gives effect to one part of the Government's hundred-day plan to restore law and order and ensure that New Zealanders are safer in their communities. This is a response to gang membership increasing by 51 percent over the past five years, alongside violent crime increasing 33 percent. This Government wants to prevent the current level of violence from becoming a permanent feature of New Zealand society, so we're giving police additional tools to go after the criminal gangs that inflict fear and misery on our communities. The Gangs Legislation Amendment Bill does four things. First, it creates a new criminal offence prohibiting the display of gang insignia in public places. This builds on our 2013 law that prohibits the display of gang insignia in Government buildings like schools and hospitals. This Government is extending these rules to all public places. Prohibition includes gang patches and also covers items such as clothing or vehicles that have gang signs or symbols attached to them. These insignia intimidate law-abiding Kiwis and are status symbols used to encourage others, particularly young people, to become part of the gang. They also make members of a gang identifiable, which may exacerbate inter-gang rivalries that could eventuate into gang violence. It will therefore be illegal to display gang insignia in public places, punishable by fine or imprisonment. Following conviction, the gang insignia used in offending is forfeited to the Crown and can be destroyed or disposed of as the court directs. The bill also creates a new dispersal power which police can use to stop gang members from gathering in public. A dispersal notice will require the group to leave an area and not associate in public for seven days. This tool will enable police to disrupt gatherings that can escalate into criminal behaviour. Gangs gather in public places in order to create fear in our communities and to intimidate law-abiding Kiwis. Time and again, we're seeing criminal gangs block roads, harass the public, and disrupt the lives of ordinary citizens just trying to go about their business peacefully. We should not regard this as acceptable. To ensure the safety of officers, Police can issue the dispersal notice at the time of the gathering, or it can decide it would be more appropriate to issue the notice at a later time. The notice will apply for the next seven days, preventing the group from reconvening again in public. We recognise that there needs to be exemptions, and the dispersal notice will not apply to public meetings of immediate family members or where the people need to associate for a lawful purpose such as work, education, or healthcare. There's also the ability to apply to the Commissioner of Police for an exemption for other lawful purposes. Thirdly, the bill creates a non-consorting order. This order is issued by a court and will require specified people not to associate or communicate for three years. Crimes like the importation and sale of illegal drugs don't just happen; they require coordination and planning. Police often know exactly who these criminals are but are powerless to prevent them from planning and committing these crimes before it's too late. We believe the police should be able to act on the intelligence they have and apply to the court to stop known gang offenders from associating or communicating with one another to keep our communities safe. As with the dispersal notices, our bill recognises that some association or communication may be required for lawful purposes. Exemptions are provided for immediate family and lawful purposes such as work, education, or healthcare. The court can also consider applications for exemptions for other lawful purposes. Finally, the law gives greater weight to gang membership as an aggravating factor in sentencing. This will ensure that courts are not unduly limited in using gang membership as an aggravating factor. I expect this will lead to tougher sentences for gang members and send a strong message that gangs' unlawful activities will not be tolerated. Although these changes will impact on the rights of gang members, we believe the changes are justified. In addition, our human rights laws recognise that individuals' rights can be justifiably limited where this is required to achieve a sufficiently important social benefit such as the prevention of crime. New Zealanders deserve to feel safe in their homes and communities. That means we need to take action to reverse the growth of gangs and reduce their ability to engage in criminal behaviour that endangers the lives and livelihoods of law-abiding Kiwis. Gangs will no longer be able to behave as if they are above the law. I commend this bill to the House. Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Thank you, Mr Speaker. The Labour Party accepts that there is a gang problem in New Zealand, and our work as the prior Government demonstrates that. We have had the Gangs Legislation Amendment Bill to look at for an hour, and we don't want to be hasty with it. I've read the bill once. I've looked at the Attorney-General's report. The Attorney-General's report points out that there are inconsistencies with the rights and freedoms preserved in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. We want to make sure that any actions to suppress the contagion of gangs in New Zealand is proportionate and is reasonable, and that it doesn't impact certain communities in an inappropriate and negative way. We also want to make sure that legislation is workable, and my initial review of this raises some alarm bells. The linchpin of this piece of legislation is what it means to be a gang member. We know that it's already a criminal offence to be a member of a criminal organisation, which is pretty much the same thing, and the definition here in the interpretation clause includes "an individual who is involved in the affairs of a gang for the likely purpose of participating in a criminal activity". Now, that is looking into someone's intention. It's looking into someone's home. It's pretty much impossible to prove why people are hanging out together. So we think those kinds of thing need to be very carefully examined. Of course, the kind of front piece for this is the ban on gang insignia. We know that some are going to be easy. A Mongrel Mob patch which says "Mongrel Mob" is going to be pretty easy. But that's not what the definition says. It says, "a sign, symbol, or representation commonly displayed"—so not a one-off but common—"to denote membership of, or affiliation with, … a gang", so that also is very vague. Any pattern—symbols are often adopted. There's the watermelon symbol for a current movement, and that is a symbol of affiliation with a movement. Now, those kinds of thing are very vague. That kind of vagueness is not really helpful, and there's one other thing tucked away in there. You've got to remember that once you are identified as a gang member, you are subject to not being able to wear your insignia that affiliates you with it and subject to being dispersed and having non-consorting orders placed upon you. It's a very negative outcome, and what's the threshold when these orders come to be made or these dispersal orders are re-examined? Well, that's set out a bit later on in the bill, and it's balance of probabilities. So these very significant infringements of human rights are to be determined not on the basis of beyond reasonable doubt—"We're sure you're a gang member."—but on the balance of probabilities, and I raise concerns there because these are quasi-criminal impediments to someone's freedom. The other point is, in terms of dispersal notices, in clause 9 of the bill, the trigger is not that the person is a gang member, which would be one thing, but simply that a constable suspects that the person is a gang member—again, a very low threshold. Now, as I said when I started this speech, we've had this bill for a little over an hour now. We agree there's a problem. We don't want to dismiss solutions out of hand. We are a constructive party, so we are going to support this bill going to select committee, but I do want to make it clear that that is not to say we're going to support this through the House. But we want to work as constructively as we can to see if a good balance can be struck between protecting the public and making sure we address the issue of gangs in an effective and appropriate manner. Kia ora, Mr Speaker. TAMATHA PAUL (Green—Wellington Central): Kia ora, Mr Speaker. I grew up in a town called Tokoroa, where there are many gangs, blue and red, all different colours. I have whānau and friends who are in gangs and I know I'm not the only one in this House. Maybe you are ashamed of your whānau, but I know that you cannot choose the family or the place that you are born into. I know that this isn't a black and white issue. People aren't good or bad. People are products of the society that we in this House have created and maintained. This week I did something that I'm pretty sure nobody on the other side of the House has done, and that's actually talk to people who are former and current gang members about what is happening in the House this week. Because talking to the people directly affected by the bills that go through this House is a basic principle that we all agree to, except when it's about gang members. I heard stories about the violent abuse that these men experienced when they were meant to be safe in State care because their home environments were too dangerous. But instead of being safe within the State, they were abused—physically, mentally, sexually abused by people that were meant to keep them safe. If you look at the royal commission inquiry into abuse in State care, you find testimony after testimony about the horrendous abuse experienced by people who would go on to join gangs. And guess what! It was that abuse in State care that taught those children to be aggressive, antagonistic, and violent. So it's no surprise that they would go on to join gangs. These victims of abuse in State care joined gangs in the first place because it was the only group in society who they could talk to and relate to about the cruel and callous treatment that they experienced as children and safety in numbers after being abused by people who are meant to care for them. But this bill further marginalises, further excludes, and further radicalises a group in society for whom nobody claims responsibility. We are all culpable. We can't and won't arrest ourselves out of the gang problem. Throwing people into prison does nothing but further marginalise people. It doesn't make people reflect on their actions or the harm that they've caused. People in prison are the most marginalised, most disenfranchised, one of the only groups in society who are not allowed to vote for the people that are meant to represent them, and the most exploited people in this country who contribute enormous amounts of free labour. And the majority of those people are Māori. A majority of those people have been abused at the hands of the State. A majority have got physical disabilities and mental health and addiction issues, and a majority come from the most impoverished, deprived, and neglected communities in New Zealand, like the place that I grew up in: Tokoroa, Whakatāne, Kawerau, Whanganui, Hawera. These are the communities where gangs are born and it's no surprise when you look at the neglect that they experience. From the cradle to the grave, this Government continues the cycles of colonisation by imprisoning, institutionalising, and objectifying our people. It was colonisation that caused our people to be displaced without a kāinga, without a home to live in, without whenua to thrive on, and without our tikanga to guide us. We as a people have a natural longing for whānau; it is intrinsic to who we are. When everything we have known has been stripped away from us, it is only natural to seek comfort by creating a whānau that can understand our unique trauma and our unique struggle. I'm not trying to undermine or minimise the real harm that is created by gangs. But what I am trying to say is that we do have an obligation to take an evidence-based approach and address the issue at the root cause. Bills like this create more gang members, they fill our prisons, they increase tensions with police, and ultimately they make our communities less safe. That's just not my opinion. That is backed up by what the Minister's own officials told him recently. It's also a slippery slope. Banning what people wear and banning them from meeting together. What's next? You can't do this, can't do this, can't do this? Because that is exactly the slippery slope that you're going down. These things aren't innocuous. It is us that proscribe meaning to those things. And the worst thing that I learnt this week is that gangs were already having that conversation. They are aware that patches are intimidating to people. They were already having conversations about moving on and stopping wearing patches. But this just increases hostility and it's actually going to have perverse outcomes in making the issue a lot worse. ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): The member's time has expired. TODD STEPHENSON (ACT): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise to speak in support of this bill. I just want to make a few brief comments. Gangs are an unwelcome part of our criminal landscape, and I actually do agree with the Hon Dr Duncan Webb, where he says there has been a contagion of gangs. I think we already heard from the Minister, a 33 percent increase in violent crime—you know, more than 3,000 new members, a 51 percent increase in gang members. I think this is the time to do something about this very difficult and really worrying problem in New Zealand. ACT has long campaigned on some of these things. I think that the great thing about this bill is it is actually bringing together and showing the real strength of this Government. We've actually brought together some of the policies that have come from all parties that make up this Government. We've long campaigned on gang control orders, and also wanting to amend the Sentencing Act to make gang membership an aggravating factor. Yesterday, my colleague Minister McKee, obviously, also introduced the Firearms Prohibition Orders Legislation Amendment Bill. So this needs to be seen in the context of a wider justice policy and law and order policy that this Government is putting in place. As has already been kind of covered, there are four main parts to this bill: you know, the gang insignia ban; the dispersal powers; the non-consorting orders; and, of course, the very important changes to the Sentencing Act to make it an aggravating factor. I want to thank the Labour Party for actually supporting this to the select committee. I think we've got a very good select committee that can constructively work through some of the issues they have raised. But it is very important for ACT and for this Government that we get on top of this gang problem and actually make Kiwis feel safer. I commend the bill to the House. Thank you. JAMIE ARBUCKLE (NZ First): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak on the Gangs Legislation Amendment Bill. Today is a great day because we're here to reduce the harm caused by gangs. That harm that is caused by gangs makes communities feel unsafe, so today we're here to try to make our communities safer. During the election campaign, you heard a slogan, and in that slogan you heard "Let's take back our country." That slogan from New Zealand First is very much about what this legislation is about; we want to take back New Zealand and we don't want gangs. Gangs are intimidating. This bill sends a clear message to the gangs: your behaviour that has shut down streets and made people feel unsafe is no longer going to be tolerated. We often hear from the members of the public that they feel unsafe due to gang presence which has involved standover tactics and harassment, and that they want something done. Our communities do want something done. This bill empowers police to order gang members to be dispersed. This bill also sends another clear message to the gangs: your membership in the gangs will be taken into account when you're sentenced for a crime. And a major thing New Zealand First has always campaigned on—and we start to deliver that promise today—is we amend the Sentencing Act 2002 to make gang membership an aggravating factor at sentencing. We also heard from the Rt Hon Winston Peters today about leadership. And on this side of the House, we are showing leadership, and we are going to show leadership around gang management. We will give the tools to the police—what they require—to control the gangs. We will not be like that last Government that gave gangs millions of taxpayers' dollars; what was totally unrequired and unneeded and something that the majority of New Zealanders totally disagreed with. New Zealand First will support this bill. We support it going to the Justice Committee and we support seeing the gangs disperse and gangs out of our communities. Today is about safe communities giving and taking back New Zealand from gang behaviour. I commend this bill to the House. Thank you. RAWIRI WAITITI (Co-Leader—Te Pāti Māori): I've never heard so much rubbish in my life. I just want to just make mention of your catch phrase, "Let's take our country back". I'll tell you what, if that was a Māori Party catch phrase for a campaign heading into any election—I'll tell you what—there'd be hell to pay, eh. "Let's take our country back"; let's take Aotearoa back. Yeah. Anyway, this bill, here, is another form of fishing expedition on our people. Let's understand—let's just understand where this has come from. In this last election, I have never seen so much social theory being used by the other side of the House than I have ever in any political election in Aotearoa—never. Now, social theory was used by Hitler. Social theory has been used by Trump to create moral panic and fear in people. Yes, elderly Pākehā deserved to retire with dignity and in peace, but to allow this type of rhetoric to run rampant across the country and to scare people—people who have never ever met with gangs, people who have never ever seen a gang, people who have never ever probably seen a patch. But to see it on TV, built up by the media, in places like Ōpōtiki, places like Tokoroa, places like Whakatāne—none of them have ever been there to talk to those particular gang members or those communities. I'll tell you that right now. If this Government has taught us anything, it is that not every criminal is a gang member, but not every gang member is a criminal. But I want to make mention—during COVID-19, they played their part. I visited gang pads, I was there for the vaccination—they did their bit. So when you say that it's all bad, I don't think so. I was reminded by my colleague here, who talked about how the gangs were actually the first ones to bring lunches into schools, in Huntly—the Huksters. Mark Cameron: And screwdrivers. RAWIRI WAITITI: So all of those things—oh, don't worry, I went to a Pākehā school and it wasn't gang members bringing screwdrivers into that school. Let's get reality here—let's get reality here. This is going to disproportionately affect Māori. We are already the highest incarcerated peoples in this country: 50 percent of the male prison population are Māori, 64 percent of the female prison population are Māori. Actually, you're wasting so much resource on this. There are 5.1 million people in this country, yet there are, according to your statistics, 8,000 gang members. What a waste of resource. That's 0.1 percent of the population. Let's work it out: 0.1 percent of the population that you're focusing on here. Of the whānau in gangs, 80 percent to 90 percent have come out of State care. You created them—sorry, Mr. Speaker, not you. The Government created them with their military schools, with their board schools, and with their State theft of our tamariki. This is the truth; and this is where gangs have come from. The only time Māori received any special treatment in the justice system is when we've been profiled. We are being profiled—because the majority of people in gangs are Māori. Associates—am I an associate? I have whānau in gangs. Am I an associate? Am I going to be affected by this bill? Is it because I don't wear a patch? Do whānau who have members in gangs—you're going to just charge into their houses? They have tamariki; they have pakeke. This is how absurd this particular legislation is. And you've already committed them to a crime before they've even committed a crime—for wearing a patch. It's absurd. It's a waste of resource. And what—you're going to rely on an under-resourced police department? Already under resourced, and now you want them to go around and chase people for wearing different clothes. This didn't work in America—this didn't work in America—or in Aussie. They just moved from one region to another—they've banned gang patches. And then I heard the Minister today say, "I wish I could do that here. I wish they could relocate to another country and leave us alone." E kī rā, if the majority are Māori, you've got the manuhiri kicking tangata whenua out. This Government needs to wake up. This Government needs to wake up. This is not about gang patches. Let's look at the ultimate cause. The greatest violence you can inflict on anybody is poverty—that's the ultimate cause; stop looking at proximate causes. We will not be supporting this bill to the House. Kia ora tātou. JAMES MEAGER (National—Rangitata): Can I acknowledge the previous speaker, Rawiri Waititi. He is wrong on many counts, but I do acknowledge his passion and his views on this. Can I thank the Minister of Justice, who is putting people first with this package of reforms, which will restore law and order in New Zealand and give the people of Rangitata a sense of security they have lost over the past few years. This is not about putting people in jail. It is absolutely about rejecting gangs and replacing what they stand for in our communities. We must reject their presence—that is what this bill does, that is what my community did when it bulldozed their pads, but it is only one part of the solution. We must also replace what gangs stand for. We must replace whatever it is that they offer and whatever it is that they use to entrap vulnerable young men and women in the evil and destructive gang lifestyle. It is a social investment approach that will eliminate those factors. It's an approach that this Government will take, eliminating poverty, abuse, substance abuse, welfare dependency, lack of access to good education, good healthcare, and good jobs. I commend this bill. I look forward to it going to the Justice Committee, where we will work collegially and make sure it is the best bill that we can. Thank you. Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. Let's be honest—this is politics. This is politics right here and right now, and that's what we're doing. We all agree right now in this House that gangs cause huge harm to our communities. We all agree on that. I grew up in Linwood in Christchurch. I went to school with children who were from families from the Mongrel Mob and from Black Power. When I was at high school, one of my former classmates was a victim of a retribution-style shooting in Woolston between the Mongrel Mob and Black Power. I grew up in a neighbourhood that had gangs in it. I've seen firsthand the harm, the destruction, the violence, the drugs, and what that does to a community. We all agree that gangs do harm to New Zealand. The big question is: what do we do about that? And the answer we have today is to hide that under a rock—it's ugly and we don't want to look at it. It scares us. It's not nice—"Let's push it over the border. Let's cast it into the sea. Let's forget about it. Let's eradicate them." These are the words we hear, and the interesting thing is that history repeats itself. If you go back to the debate 10, 20, 30, even 40 years ago and look at the debates on this issue, the same speeches we have just heard from members opposite have been made time and time again. Gangs scare us, we don't like them, we want to get rid of them. Is there any reason that they keep asking for them to go away? So I think that now is the time to have a grown-up conversation about what we do about the harm that is caused by criminal organisations in our community, and it is for that reason and only that reason that we support this bill to select committee so we can continue this discussion. I lay down a challenge—that any member speaking on the second reading read 13 pages, the abridged version, just 13 pages, of Towards an understanding of Aotearoa New Zealand's adult gang environment. Let's have an informed debate at the second reading. Let's take this bill to the select committee and hear the submissions, but when we come back to this House for the second reading, if everybody could do their homework I'd be really appreciative to have an informed, mature debate about the actual issues that we are discussing. Boot camps are the same. I know that's not in this bill but it's the same issue. It's hiding something and pushing it away. It gives you an immediate feeling of gratification but it doesn't actually address the underlying problems that continue to plague our communities. When I worked in Police—Police under a National Government—police were instructed to not even talk to gangs. Police officers, or anyone, were not allowed to engage. Over a period of time, that changed. It changed so much there were even gang liaison officers who would go in and speak to gangs, understand what was happening when a tangi was happening, and understand greater information when a gang homicide had happened. When I met with those liaison officers, the area commanders and the district commanders all talked about how quickly crime was resolved when we had open communication and we understood things more. They minimised harm within the community when they had better-quality intelligence about what was happening. I saw that police officers who previously would have said, "Yes, let's smash them. Let's eradicate the gangs, get rid of them." saw the benefits of engagement. They saw the benefits of understanding what was driving offending, and they felt that it gave better outcomes, not only for the community but also for those young people growing up within gang families. It gave those young people hope. What this bill does, I'm afraid, in its current form is it takes hope away from young people who want to live without a life of crime, and I fear that what bills like this do is just incarcerate the next generation of rangatahi in New Zealand in another cycle of crime and offending. It's within all our interests to break that cycle of reoffending. It's within all our interests to do our homework to understand what the actual issues are, to stop just scoring political points, and have a reasonable debate about how we make our country safer and about how we work together to achieve this. CAMERON BREWER (National—Upper Harbour): I commend the long-signalled, long-awaited Gangs Legislation Amendment Bill to the House. HELEN WHITE (Labour—Mt Albert): I'd love to take a call on this, but I'd also, first of all, like to say that I will be reading what Ginny Andersen has just suggested I do, because it's a subject that I think we all do need to handle in a way that is as cross-party as possible. I was listening to the speeches from various people who've given substantive contributions, and there are speeches on each side of the House that I respect. This is a really difficult area. I started life in Kawerau. A lot of the people that I started life with had kind of two pathways they could take, and one was into the gangs. I was grateful to not actually grow up in an environment where that was going on, because it was a very severe reality that they faced. I recently went past a big gang funeral and I felt the degree of intimidation, even just in the urban environment, of one of those big meetings. But it also made me think that you had to be careful about the reaction that you had to these things, because what we really need to do is change something very serious that's been going down in New Zealand society, not just make the right noises and make people feel better for 2½ minutes and change nothing, and, in fact, make the problem worse. The gravity of the problem is the challenge to us that we must not dog-whistle; we must actually do what makes a difference here. So I will be taking a very interested role in schooling up between now and the next reading of this, because I want to make sure that whatever happens next really is effective, and the Labour Party will be voting with its conscience in terms of whether what is put up is likely to have a good effect. We can't obviously guarantee that, but it's a really important thing. I also take note of the comments that have been made by the Attorney-General on this. They're serious comments. One of the things I noticed was that there was a serious misgiving about some of the provisions, because other alternatives that might not have breached as many rights had not been examined fully. I hope that the inquiry that happens next at select committee will be an opportunity to look at those. There was a real issue around time frames, I appreciate, and this now going through a process means that we can look at those things and take that seriously, because we always have to be careful what we wish for in a situation where we start to look at these kinds of slippery slopes. That's a real thing; it's not something that liberals say. It's not woke. There are slippery slopes, and we really do have to be careful. So I think we should never apologise for being careful about that. I was concerned, and I have questions about the issue of whānau and the number of people in a group that we're looking at people consorting with, because there is a difference between what I described—a large gathering. Now, ironically, the funeral was one of the exemptions here, but it's a very big difference between the kind of reaction that human beings have when they're in a large group and the need they have for that close-knit support, and I was thinking about the definition that I read of "whānau" here. I was thinking about the people I know who are perhaps a little bit on the edge in my extended family, and those are the very people who wouldn't fit within the group, because the definition isn't large enough to encounter them. They have people who might not be acting as parent but might be acting as family and they are close to them, and they're the ones on the edge. Pushing them out, excluding them, making it difficult to communicate with them, isn't actually going to help a situation; it's going to hinder it in terms of bringing those people back within the fold of a functional family and support system. So these things I take seriously, these things the Labour Party takes seriously, and we do accept we have a problem, so we want to be part of a proper solution, but I respect the need for this to go to a select committee and to be truly ironed out. Thank you. RIMA NAKHLE (National—Takanini): I commend this bill to the House. A party vote was called for on the question, That the Gangs Legislation Amendment Bill be now read a first time. Ayes 102 New Zealand National 49; New Zealand Labour 34; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Noes 21 Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6. Motion agreed to. Bill read a first time. Bill referred to the Justice Committee. Instruction to the Justice Committee Hon SIMON WATTS (Minister of Revenue) on behalf of the Minister of Justice: I move, That the Gangs Legislation Amendment Bill be reported to the House by 8 July 2024. A party vote was called for on the question, That the motion be agreed to. Ayes 68 New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Noes 55 New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6. Motion agreed to. COURTS (REMOTE PARTICIPATION) AMENDMENT BILL First Reading Hon NICOLE McKEE (Minister for Courts): I present the legislative statement on the Courts (Remote Participation) Amendment Bill. DEPUTY SPEAKER: That legislative statement is published under the authority of the House and can be found on the Parliament website. Hon NICOLE McKEE: I move, That the Courts (Remote Participation) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Justice Committee to consider the bill. At the appropriate time, I intend to move that the bill be reported to the House by 31 July 2024. The court system is currently experiencing significant delays, particularly in the criminal and the family jurisdictions of our busiest court, the District Court. The drivers of court delays are complex and have been exacerbated by unpredictable events like pandemics and cyclones. This Government is committed to speeding up court processes so victims and other participants can move on with their lives. We see enabling more use of audiovisual technology as one part of our work to reduce court delays. This bill contributes towards the fulfilment of one of the Government's 100-day plan commitments: to enable more virtual participation in court proceedings. To enable more virtual and remote participation in court proceedings, we need to make three targeted changes that can be implemented quickly. These changes involve allowing a victim and their support person to watch a criminal trial and sentencing remotely. This provides a safe option for victims to attend court, helping them to avoid re-traumatisation and intimidation that can sometimes happen. I anticipate that some victims will want to attend court in-person, and they still will be able to do this. The bill allows the use of audio links such as teleconferences for appropriate court proceedings, and it will be making permanent what was a temporary change to the law made during the pandemic that clarified remote participation in criminal proceedings is consistent with open justice. These changes strike the important balance between providing alternate ways to participate in court proceedings, fair trial rights, and the important constitutional principles of judicial independence and open justice. In 2024, we're living in a virtual world where audio and video technology is part of daily life. This bill has the potential to increase access to justice and the efficiency of our courts, as well as providing a safe option for victims to participate in court processes. Audiovisual links, or AVL, for defendants in custody reduces the possibility of violent incidents either in court or while they are in transit. This bill cements the lessons learnt during COVID and affirms them in law. However, we need to recognise that it may not always be appropriate or even possible for technology to be used in court proceedings. For example, remote observation would not be appropriate if the victim has yet to give evidence in their proceedings. Proceedings that apply to vulnerable parties—for example, those under mental health legislation where a determination as to whether the party needs to be compulsorily detained and treated—are exempt from audio links provisions in this bill. It is also critical that defendants can participate effectively in proceedings that affect them, particularly when evidence is being heard in those proceedings. The threshold is higher for the use of AVL technology when the defendant's guilt or innocence is being determined. Judicial officers are best placed to decide on a case-by-case basis whether remote participation is in the interests of justice. Currently, audio technology such as teleconferences is already widely used in the courts, but it is not used for proceedings that defendants attend—and this will continue to be the case under this bill. As I have mentioned, it is critical to the delivery of justice that defendants can engage effectively in proceedings that affect them. However, in some cases, judges will need to be able to actually see the defendant during a court case to make sure that they understand what is happening and to determine their credibility. In this regard, the bill maintains the important constitutional principle of judicial independence and it recognises that judges must be able to control the conduct of court business in their courtrooms. The targeted amendments in this bill will improve and clarify the law around remote participation in court proceedings. The changes allow victims and their support people to watch a criminal trial and sentencing remotely, reducing the stress and the anxiety that victims often experience. This bill is an initial step in advance of an upcoming first-principles review of the Courts (Remote Participation) Act. This bill is just one step towards the wider goal of enabling more virtual participation in court proceedings. I just mentioned that we're about to undertake a more comprehensive look at the Courts (Remote Participation) Act so that we ensure it is fit for purpose into the future. Because the Act has not been substantively reviewed since it was passed in 2010. There have also been considerable advances in technology and the use of technology since the Act was first developed. The Ministry of Justice is also working on initiatives to address delays, including improving case management, reducing adjournments, and increasing the use of text messaging to ensure participants turn up in court. But we're not doing this alone: the police and the judiciary are also focused on court timeliness. We intend to develop a modern and fit for purpose regime that enables an increased use of remote participation in courts and also upholds core constitutional principles, including the separation of powers and the defendants' fair trial rights. This work will require the involvement of the justice sector and other relevant agencies as well as the judiciary. We will be working together to make sure legislation works for the justice sector as a whole. I look forward to the Justice Committee's consideration of this bill, and I note that the Courts (Remote Participation) Amendment Bill is the last legislative item on our 100-day plan. I commend this bill to the House. Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Thank you, Madam Speaker. The enthusiasm with which the Minister for Courts congratulated herself for having the last piece of their 100-day plan tabled a little under two hours ago is a little concerning. I'm standing here having to express my party's view on the Courts (Remote Participation) Amendment Bill having had only less than two hours to look at it, and this isn't something that should be rushed. The idea that we should be using technology to assist the courts goes without saying, but the balance to be struck between fair trial rights and the expediency at which the court system can churn through its workload is actually really, really important. I've read the bill once, having spoken on an earlier bill today, and much of it seems to have merit. Certainly allowing victims to observe proceedings through audiovisual or audio-only links is a good initiative, and I congratulate the Minister on that, because we know that being in the same room as an offender, perhaps at a sentencing or trial, is problematic, but at the same time the victim's choice to be part of the proceeding is an important one that may be important to that victim in their own journey. Again, the suggestion that there is use of technology in civil proceedings—important, deserves examination, but clearly doesn't quite reach the same threshold when it's someone's liberty at stake. As someone who has practised law over a long period of time, I'm always cautious about the substantive procedural distinction. The idea that technologies can be used because it's only procedural is kind of an easy escape, because all we are considering is whether or not to admit a piece of evidence—"It's procedural."; "It's just a routine question." Lawyers take those procedural points because cases stand or fall on them, and in many a case it's really important that the defendant is there in person with their lawyer, providing instructions and giving context, for many reasons but also for the pretty fundamental reason that the right to a fair trial and the right to open justice is one that is very hard to translate to the virtual sphere. Let's be honest. Let's just understand what virtual participation means for an accused, and I've seen it. I've been to Christchurch Men's Prison and seen where they do it. It means sitting in a little cubicle with a screen in front of you, where the camera is pointed, usually, at the person who's speaking. Now, if you're in a courtroom and you're looking around, you can see a whole lot of things and understand a whole lot of things. You can see the Crown lawyer raise an eyebrow in disbelief at an argument that's being made, and that's important because it enables you to understand what's going on. You can hear the sigh of a judge whilst the Crown prosecutor is speaking, and it tells you what is going on in the courtroom. Now, I just want to be clear: I'm not saying that this is a bad thing, but we've got to be really, really cautious because we are dealing with open justice and the right to a fair trial. So, yes, we want to look at this. We absolutely want this to go to a select committee—absolutely. But I just want to express here in the House that we want to make sure that the balance is struck between an absolutely fair trial, the right of a defendant to be an active participant, and the pressing need—and I'm glad the Minister recognises it—to address the backlog of cases in both our Family Court, in particular, and our criminal courts, because justice delayed is justice denied, and justice at the present time is absolutely and most certainly delayed. Thank you, Madam Speaker. DEPUTY SPEAKER: I was supposed to say at the beginning of the Hon Dr Duncan Webb's speech that the question is that the motion be agreed to, but I'll say it at the end, and I'll call Tamatha Paul. TAMATHA PAUL (Green—Wellington Central): Kia ora. Tēnā koe, Madam Speaker. Oh, it's so nice to be able to stand up and support one of the bills going through the House this week; it's been a really long week. And it's really simple and straightforward for the fact that, as the Green Party, and having had the very first Minister for the Prevention of Family and Sexual Violence, we know that we have a justice system that often fails the needs and the rights of survivors. To me, this bill goes a way to centring those rights of survivors and their safety and their experiences within the justice system. It makes complete sense that we would make the justice system more accessible for survivors and that we wouldn't contribute to re-traumatising those survivors. Just this morning, at the Justice Committee, we heard from survivors about how traumatising it can be going through the justice system and having to prove the harm that has already been caused to them and that contributes to that harm. And this goes some way to creating some slightly more positive experiences within our justice system. I think, just to wrap up, this bill is good because it shows that that side of the House is capable of thinking about and implementing justice policies and laws that centre humanity and empathy. I just wish they would do it a little bit more often. So I encourage this approach, and in the same way that I believe in the potential of people to change and, you know, would encourage that we took that view for people who have committed crime and caused harm in their communities, in the same way that I believe in the potential for those people to change their behaviours, I believe that everyone of us in this House can take humane and empathetic responses and approaches towards where harm has been created in our community. So I commend this bill to the House. Kia ora. JAMES MEAGER (National—Rangitata): A justice hat trick—we look forward to considering this bill in the Justice Committee; I commend it to the House. JAMIE ARBUCKLE (NZ First): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak on the Courts (Remote Participation) Amendment Bill. This bill enables more virtual participation in court proceedings, and it will contribute to the Government's objective of improving court performance generally. What I'd like to say is this bill will help victims, and helping victims and supporting victims through the court process is something that we all should want to achieve. We all realise there are delays in our court systems at the moment, and when we have delays, we have costs. And those costs are something that this Government wants to be more efficient on. Allowing participation by virtual means is a way of delaying delays, and it's also reducing the cost of court proceedings. It's also about giving justice to our victims. On that case, New Zealand First will support this to the Justice Committee, and I commend this bill to the House. HANA-RAWHITI MAIPI-CLARKE (Te Pāti Māori—Hauraki-Waikato): Tēnā rā koe e te Pīka, otirā tēnā rā tātou e te Whare. Ae e tika ana ngā kōrero a tōku tuahine i konei, koinei te pire tuatahi e tautokotia ana e te Pāti Māori mō tēnei Kāwana, heoi anō e mōhio ana au kei te huri te ao. Koinei tētahi āhuatanga e āhei ana ētahi o ngā tāngata ki te kuhu mai ki runga i tētahi matahiko hei akiaki i a rātou i roto i te justice system. Ēngari mēnā e tiro ana mātou ki te whakapapa o tēnei pire, e mōhiotia ana e te Pāti Māori ko ā mātou wawata ko ā mātou tino maruāpō nui kia whakatūngia tētahi o ā mātou ake Māori justice system. Hei aha? Hei whakatinana i tō mātou tino rangatiratanga. [Thank you, Mr Speaker, and greetings also to the House. Yes, what my sister here has said is correct, this is the first bill by the Government that Te Pāti Māori supports. However, I understand that the world is changing. This is one of the ways in which people are able to join in via technology to support them within the justice system. But if we look at the origin of this bill, Te Pāti Māori understands that our aspirations and our dreams is to establish our own Māori justice system. What for? To implement our true sovereignty.] To take self-responsibility—that keeps getting directed over to this side of the House. That is what we want. So, i roto i tēnei pire, ae e tautoko ana te Pāti Māori [yes, this bill is supported by Te Pāti Māori], but when we look at the whakapapa of this bill, I think the issue, though, is that, yes, this Government is going to need a faster system—to its victims, but more so that they can lock Māori up. So I think that with the different bills, with the different laws that are being particularly impacted on Māori, it is so that they can do it faster. Ae e tautoko ana mātou i runga anō i te mea, mō te remote participation pire. Heoi anō, ki te wherawhera i tēnei o ngā kaupapa, ko te wawata nui kia whakatū a Te Pāti Māori i tētahi Māori justice system. [Yes, we support it because of the remote participation bill. However, if we inspect this matter closely, it is Te Pāti Māori's wish to establish our own Māori justice system.] Nō reira, tēnā koutou katoa. PAULO GARCIA (National—New Lynn): I am standing in support of the Courts (Remote Participation) Amendment Bill. The bill seeks to address issues in the court process that will facilitate the process. We, currently, in the Justice Committee—after having multiple hearings in respect of how the process of justice begins from when an accused is brought to court, through the court process and into corrections—have found that the time element that a case goes through from when an accused is brought to court is so long and protracted. There are many issues behind why the court process takes such a long time. The bill seeks to address that process and to facilitate the time involved. One of the main issues that we see is the difficulty that victims are faced with in terms of coming face to face with an offender, an accused in court. Understandably, there are many situations where a victim would hesitate and could be re-traumatised in having to go through that process of being there in the presence of the offender. A lot of the detail of the court process is very confronting, and being face to face is understandably difficult and a huge hindrance for victims and witnesses to be ready and willing to go through the court process. The bill wishes to provide an avenue of safety to witnesses and victims so they may be present, even if they're not actually face to face. That, undoubtedly, will facilitate more readiness and willingness to come into the court process. Doing so, and allowing victims and witnesses to be present and to participate and to actually, essentially, be present without the face to face with the offender, will facilitate the process. There will be less hesitation; there will be more willingness to do so. The effects of delay in the process are felt throughout the system. The courts are just a part of that, and the whole justice system, all the way to remand and corrections, where the accused have to be in remand waiting for the court process to finish, is, itself, another issue that demands the process of the courts to be facilitated and move more quickly. The bill also wishes to address the fact that the victims must be given and provided some level of comfort to be able to face the people that they have suffered an injury or pain from. This will give them that confidence to be able to come and be there and go through the process themselves, without hindering the timing of the process. This is a very worthy amendment bill. We in the Justice Committee are very pleased to see this now in the House, and to go over it in due course, and we commend this bill to the House. HELEN WHITE (Labour—Mt Albert): I would like to first of all congratulate Nicole McKee on her ministerial role. I just haven't had that chance to do that formally yet. And it was an interesting contribution because it showed a lot of thought in terms of the balancing of this. Those assurances met the contribution from the Māori Party today, where there was a real concern about what that would mean in reality. I think that's a very natural tension that happens over legislation. I remember when there was a movement towards community care for mentally ill people, and that was seen as a very ideologically pure thing, but there was a real concern that it would become something that was done, because it saves some money. And there were consequences, when it was used to that end, that were not good for our community. So it is always a case of moving with the times and doing things differently. There is nothing wrong with moving in this direction, except if we are not mindful of the negative use of it. I guess my experience is not in these arenas but in employment law. But I even became aware of it when we moved to mediation that was remote. It did exactly what Duncan Webb has talked about. It was very difficult to read the signals of people. It meant that it was easy to be dismissive when you were trying to move people, and they needed to trust each other. So there are limits to the use of this, but there's also a great opportunity for even—and I don't think we should be ashamed of it—getting rid of some of the delay in our systems. The delay in our court processes and the cost of them is very real and very hard on ordinary people. And I can see the use of this, with regard to victims, as having that plus, so long as it is safeguarded by the ability of the victim to take a different course if they want it. So I would love to see this, again, teased out in as cooperative a way as possible in a select committee. I think there's a lot to discuss here. I am interested in this idea of the trial that actually took place during COVID. There were lots of things like that that happened in COVID, where rules got set aside and things got done in a different way, and we really do need to make sure that we make the most of what was a traumatic experience but was also one where people were innovative, because they had to be. So I'm not at all opposed to this, but I share the concerns that have been raised by my colleagues in the House, and I think those are very much ones that have been made in good faith. I don't think anybody is trying to be destructive in this situation. I think the issue about consulting with the legal profession is one I'd raise. The Minister and I share a friend, actually. I was in a chambers with two defence attorneys who taught me a lot quite quickly about the difference in that area between what they were doing and what I was, and how important it was to safeguard the rights of defendants in that situation, and how delicate it was and how different it was, because of the conditions that people were living in, often, who were the defendants in those cases. So it's a very different thing if you're in a salubrious house in Devonport with a pool if you're being put on home detention, from if you are in a very small space, sharing with others. That is the sort of thing that I would love to see taken into account, and I think that you might get a rich contribution from the lawyers in this situation who are defending people, and actually also from the victims organisations. Those are the places I'd love to see contribute. And I'd love to see victims given a very special place in that process, because the harm that has been done often means that they are quiet; they don't necessarily even want to participate. So I would love to see some encouragement of those voices in this situation, because being heard is so important to the healing process. Thank you. I commend the bill to the House. RIMA NAKHLE (National—Takanini): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise to speak to this bill that we're having a conversation about today, the Courts (Remote Participation) Amendment Bill. It's been interesting experiencing what we have this afternoon, where for the one of the first times since some of us newbies have been in the House where there's a kind of basic agreement across the House, and it's really lovely, actually. So thank you to Helen White, the member just before me, and thank you Tamatha Paul and Dr Duncan Webb for what you shared, which was that, yes, you will support this bill to select committee, and then we can have those deeper conversations— James Meager: Great committee—excellent committee. RIMA NAKHLE: —excellent committee with an excellent chair, my mate here, James Meager—about the concerns that you rightfully raised. Dr Duncan Webb is not in the House right now, but we really appreciated what you added as well. ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Barbara Kuriger): Sorry, the member's not allowed to refer to somebody who's not here. RIMA NAKHLE: I'm not allowed—that's right, yes. Yes, thank you. I tested you—you passed the test! ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Barbara Kuriger): I'm still listening. RIMA NAKHLE: So we really appreciated those concerns you shared, and I'm looking forward to having deeper conversations about those during the select committee stage. Now what I will say—Madam Speaker, I'd like to add, if I may—is that as a student when I was studying law, I also worked in the Magistrates Court in Sydney. I remember very distinctly what I'd observed with victims with witnesses that just felt physically sick because they had to be there in person in court. The anxiety was real, the dread was real, and, like I said, they talk about feeling physically sick. So with victims of crime that do have to go through this process—and we want it to be a fair process. With the victims, this helps to alleviate some of those feelings of anxiety that they do find themselves in when they're going through the court process. To the Hon Nicole McKee, thank you very much for bringing this to the House—it's important. There's three main changes that we want to make that we're proposing, and as a Government we agree about these. But as I said, we will discuss them more deeply during the select committee phase. Madam Speaker, as I said, it's great to stand here and find some form of consensus around the House. I commend this bill. GREG O'CONNOR (Labour—Ōhāriu): Criminals hate going to court. It's a place that when they are messing around or committing crime, they actually, in the process—the thing that they are most scared of, it's often not going to jail, it's often not going to the police cells; it's going to court, because that's the one place where it's all on display, where what they've done, they are called to account for it. Now, I'm always wary of anything that takes what is the centre point of the criminal justice system, which is the court, out of being the centre of that very thing. I'll give you a really good example of that. In about 2012, the then National Government instructed the police to reduce the number of entries into the criminal justice system by 19 percent over 12 months. The police were very successful. They brought in a system called pre-charge warning, and whereas before, people who were picked up on the street would end up having to go to court on Monday or Wednesday morning—number one court—and face it, that stopped happening and all of a sudden that consequence was gone. Police embraced it. It went to 25 percent very quickly, and the behaviour changed over time. I coined a phrase then, "tag and release", which it became, because you would get the police going around on a Saturday night picking up people, putting them in the cells, but they would go out and there was no consequence; they didn't have to go to court on that Monday or Wednesday morning. That has affected behaviour of a new generation of criminals coming through who are never called to account by standing in court. So while I'll be supporting this, and we'll be supporting this to select committee, we have to be very wary at the same time that we're not, for the sake of maybe cutting down the number of people we will need, the number of buildings we will need, that we're actually not taking away the essence of the criminal justice system. Now, criminals sitting at home, I can just see it now—"I was at court, I appeared, and I was sitting there with a joint sitting next to me." It will become a joke because there will be other people sitting there watching, sitting and standing—or, more importantly, standing in front of a judge in number one court is a very important point. We put the judges at the centre of our system too, and we give them the authority—incredible authority—to take people's freedom away, to take their bail away. So having to front up at court and be part of that system is an incredibly important part of this whole system. So I know this bill is going to be about enabling more work to be done remotely, but I just say: be very careful, because it will work fine for about one or two years, but all of a sudden, in five years, like we did with the tag and release, we will actually start to regret this. So yes, use the system. You've only got to be part of the court system to see that it is pretty primitive. The paper-based system is only just moving on to electronic, because one of the problems with that, of course, is you've had to have the judges, you've had to get the lawyers, you've had to get the police, and even now you're going to have to get the criminals involved in the electronics, and someone, a flash salesman from an IT company will come and tell you that you can join all these things up, and will call it INCIS, but it's very hard to make it happen. So having now another player in putting these three, now four parts of the system together electronically, and still keep the essence of an important part of the criminal justice system—it's not that easy. So I'm quite happy that we will support this, but I'd encourage particularly those members of the Justice Committee who'll be hearing this to take a wider view of this and see how this will look, how this will change behaviours. It's a short-term measure. It will certainly, hopefully, make the process a little bit cheaper and maybe less courts, less people will be needed, but just think, as a Justice Committee—and I know there are lawyers who will be on that Justice Committee who may end up standing in number one court again at some stage. They will see the impact of these behaviour changes that will come about as a result of more electronic use of the court system. They will see those changes. They won't see them instantly; they will see them in about five years' time. So never take that number one court on a Monday morning—never take that out of being the centre point of the criminal justice system and make sure, as I said at the start, that criminals don't want to go there and they will think twice before doing some of the things they do. I'll support this to select committee. Thank you, Madam Speaker. CAMERON BREWER (National—Upper Harbour): I also stand in support of the Courts (Remote Participation) Amendment Bill. And why don't we just dial it back a bit. It certainly seems to have been engaging a few of the Labour Party here, but let's have a look at the purpose of this bill. I might have to dial it back. The bill makes targeted legislative changes, designed to boost remote participation in court proceedings, including the ability for victims to observe a criminal trial and sentencing remotely. Hon Grant Robertson: If only this member was remotely participating. CAMERON BREWER: Reducing court delays is a key priority for this Government, Mr Robertson—it's a key priority. As our justice Minister Goldie—colloquially known as Hon Paul Goldsmith—says, justice delayed is justice denied. As Derek Cheng from the New Zealand Herald said not so long ago in an interview: 500 days for a jury trial, 18 months for victims of serious crime before they get their day in court. So this Government is very, very focused on addressing the court delays. It's one of the priorities for our justice Minister. And this sits amongst six law and order priorities in the 100-day plan. The Hon Dr Duncan Webb asked, "How many points do you have in your 100-day plan?" Well, there are six law and order points. And I know that you're always keen for me to keep focusing back to the bill, so as well as the Courts (Remote Participation) Amendment Bill, this Government has introduced legislation to ban gang patches as one of its law and order priorities. As well as the bill we're discussing now, we've introduced legislation to give police greater powers to search gang members for firearms. As well as this bill, we're stopping taxpayer funding for section 27 reports. Hon Andrew Bayly: This is a great speech. CAMERON BREWER: We're extending the eligibility for remand prisoners to access rehabilitation, Mr Bayly. We're introducing legislation to crack down on serious youth offending, and we are now introducing legislation to enable more digital participation, remote participation, in court proceedings. I commend this bill to the House. A party vote was called for on the question, That the Courts (Remote Participation) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. Ayes 123 New Zealand National 49; New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8; Te Pāti Māori 6. Noes 0 Motion agreed to. Bill read a first time. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is, That the Courts (Remote Participation) Amendment Bill be considered by the Justice Committee. Motion agreed to. Bill referred to the Justice Committee. Instruction to the Justice Committee Hon NICOLE McKEE (Minister for Courts): I move, That the Courts (Remote Participation) Amendment Bill be reported to the House by 31 July 2024. A party vote was called for on the question, That the Courts (Remote Participation) Amendment Bill be reported to the House by 31 July 2024. Ayes 68 New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Noes 55 New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6. Motion agreed to. MAIDEN STATEMENTS SPEAKER: Members, in accordance with the determination of the Business Committee, we now have maiden statements. Following the maiden statements, the House will adjourn until 2 p.m. on Tuesday, 19 March 2024. I now call to make his maiden statement to the House, Reuben Davidson. REUBEN DAVIDSON (Labour—Christchurch East): Kia ora koutou. Ko Reuben tōku ingoa Nō Ōtautahi ahau I tipu ake ahau i ngā tahataha o te Ōpāwaho I tipu ake ahau i Ngā Kōhatu Whakarakaraka o Tamatea Pōkai Whenua Ko toku kainga noho inaianei Ōrua Paeroa Ki au nei ko Te Tiriti, te mana motuhake o Aotearoa. Ahakoa e ako tonu ana au i te reo Māori, he aroha tonu ō āku kupu. I acknowledge you, Mr Speaker, and congratulate you on the elevation to the only role in the House that apparently comes with a sheepskin seat. Just don't let them pull the wool over your eyes. I acknowledge Christchurch East. Thank you. I feel lucky every day to be your MP, and I will work hard to serve you. We swear an oath to become an MP. It's a few short words, delivered in the language of our choice on a taonga that we choose. It's a pretty succinct contract—one of the many things about this place that seems more Harry Potter than Aotearoa. But I see the role of this, the maiden speech, as the fuller oath. It's my opportunity to tell who I am and to tell you why I'm here. And I also ask that you hold me to this—my longer oath, my maiden speech. In the late 70s, my parents left Auckland with my brother, in a van, with a tent. They put a pin in a map, and they stopped in Christchurch. My dad rode his bike to work shifts at Boon's Bakery, and my mum worked as a delivery driver for the gas works. I don't know why that's emotional. After my sister and I were born, they capitalised their child-support entitlements and bought our family a home in Woolston. It was a combination of good Labour Government policy and good luck—I'll come back to that. We have a family history of hard work. My grandparents were coal miners, nurses, and teachers. My father, John Davidson, trained as a teacher, dedicating his life to education across New Zealand and Australia and coming to this very House to ensure special character schools survived. My mother, Glyn Abott—she will kill me for this—is hospitality royalty. She's an amazing baker who opened incredible cafes, and this meant friends were always too scared to ask us over for dinner, but she was always in demand to come and cook on our school camps. Hard work is in our family DNA. My parents separated, and our family grew. New relationships brought new siblings. There are a few of us—a coalition if you will—and I'd like to thank and acknowledge them all—the siblings, not the coalition—and it's safest if I do that by order of age. So, Michelle, Delaney, Naomi, Jessie, Marina, Francis, Carlos, and Joseph, thank you for your support, your friendship, and your love. Now, when you tell people you're from Christchurch, they always have one question. Hon Members: What school did you go to? REUBEN DAVIDSON: That's the one: "What school did you go to?" And my answer is often a little bit of curveball, because I went to the Christchurch Rudolf Steiner school. So the next question is usually: "What's that all about? How long have you got?", and that's best explained, succinctly, by Rudolf Steiner himself, who said, "Life as a whole is a unity, and we must not only consider the child but the whole of life; we must look at the whole human being." That education shaped my life and, in part, my approach to politics—to look at the whole issue and to look at the broader solution. Now, the Steiner philosophy also meant I grew up in a house without a television—most of the time. We were allowed to watch Gloss. The 80s were full of contradictions. We all did things that we regret in the 80s—even Labour. At high school, I was elected onto the board of trustees as the student representative, campaigning for equality, arguing that it wasn't fair that the teachers could smoke on the school grounds but the students couldn't. [Laughter] Some allies in the House tonight. It didn't seem fair to have one rule for teachers and another for students. It really didn't seem right that anyone smoked at a school. The result was a win: smoking was banned on the school grounds—a great way to endear yourself to those teachers who smoked and marked your work. So, after a blissful TV-free childhood and a successful smoke-free crusade at high school, I left school, got a broadcasting degree, and became a TV producer that smoked. True story. And it gets better and worse, because I stopped smoking and I started producing TV shows especially for children. I spent almost 20 years working with children and animals. A few people have suggested that that might help me in this place. I worked with so many talented people to produce What Now and create shows like Fanimals and Brain Busters. A huge thanks to Janine and Jason for the belief, the support, and the freedom. I loved creating content for children. They tell you what they like, what they don't like, they tell you why, and they don't wait until an election to do it. You don't have to take my word for it; I've bought evidence: "I'm writing to tell you that the Muppets do not live in Sesame Street. Elmo and his friends live there! Kermit lives in the Muppet studio. Please, if you're going to ask any more Muppet questions, make the answers true. From Billie." And The request is pretty clear: make your answers true—good advice for this place. And another, which ends "Thanks so much for the amazing experience, prizes (and the food!) I will never forget it! From Lola." People know when you care, and they will never forget it. That's the same in this place, for the decisions we make and for the people we are here to serve. And our kaupapa in serving children was a simple one: first, do no harm, and, second, ensure our tamariki and rangatahi leave walking taller. Dame Whina Cooper put it best: "Take care of our children, take care of what they hear, take care of what they see, take care of what they feel, for how the children grow, so will be the shape of Aotearoa." It's the same here, in this House. We need to take care, we need to show care, as we work to grow Aotearoa. I was originally going to deliver this speech on 22 February. It's an anniversary. Christchurch people all know where they were at 12.51 on 22 February 2011, because it's the day that everything changed. It's the anniversary of the earthquake that took 185 lives and changed the future for everyone in Christchurch. This is the first year I didn't spend that anniversary back in the car park that we ran to as the ground literally roared and the building buckled underneath us. We lost a lot: lives, homes, large parts of the central city, and whole suburbs erased into a red zone. But we actually gained something too. Our communities came together and many got stronger. Strangers helped each other, hugged each other, dug liquefaction out of homes, and shared stories, tears, and the contents of our defrosting freezers. There was an energy and a spirit that got us through and gave us strength. I think that spirit is called "community". And there was a challenge to community—that challenge was called Government. Because, whilst locally there was a willingness to work together, to reimagine, redesign, and rebuild our city, too much was done to us. Top-down decision making often didn't hear or respect our strong and proud communities. The answers weren't always true; the care wasn't always shown. In Christchurch East, we lost eight schools, thousands of homes—thousands. Our roads and bridges were broken, some still haven't been replaced. Many people felt like they were left behind or forgotten—some still do. I want to acknowledge the hard work and care from Lianne Dalziel, the local MP for Christchurch East at the time, and later as the Mayor of Christchurch. And I celebrate Poto Williams—and her team, Heather and Leeann—who took up the baton as the MP for Christchurch East for a decade, with a proud legacy of earthquake recovery, strengthening our social services, and an enviable set of completed shovel-ready projects that will serve the community for decades. You leave very big—and fast—shoes, and I am so grateful for your work, your advice, and your support. Thank you. No one ever gets elected on their own. [Blows nose] They blow their nose on their own, though. Thanks to my family who helped with (fund-raising, deliveries, doorknocking, and such good food. It means a lot to have you stand with me. Thank you to the amazing team who worked so hard on my campaign for the opportunity to represent and serve this community. There are so many to thank, but I'll try and do that now: Joe Davies, Tim Baker, Omer Shadich, Alana Pidgeon, Douglas Shaw, Jenny Hughey, Sarah Whitcombe-Dodds, Bebe Frayle, Yani Johanson, Jackie Simons, Paul McMahon, Simon Lawrence, Maryanne and Craig, Roland and Jackie, Chris and Ken, Emily Caygill, Joe Sole, Tracie Palmer, John and Mary, Norm and Chris, Liam Bateman, Colleen Philips, Jackie Simons, Kirsty McNab, David Close, Ihorangi Reweti Peters, Anne-Marie Reynolds, Alex Hewison, and Jen Miller. David, Jenny, and Sarah for that very long meeting this time a year ago—thanks for digging in. To Ruth and Martin, for your rock-solid guidance and constant support. David Lawrence, for being an unstoppable doorknocker. Hugh Perry, for your wisdom as campaign chair. And especially to Libby Caygill for being the best campaign manager a candidate could ever wish for. A huge thank you to every deliverer, caller, sign waver, and hoarding host across our campaign. I am so grateful for all of the love and hard work we put into this campaign for Labour and, most importantly, for the people of Christchurch East. Because that's what we worked for: the opportunity to serve the people of Christchurch East. [Voice wavers] The mighty Christchurch East—I don't know what one gets me. The mighty Christchurch East. Communities with diversity, opportunity, energy, and passion. Communities that need more warm, healthy, dry, and safe homes that people don't just call home but actually own; that recognise that schools are at the heart of community—they're about so much more than an hour a day of reading, writing, and maths, without a cell phone, and that they're better with a healthy school lunch. Amazing entities like The Loft that provide wraparound services for families who need help and support. Community organisations like the Aranui Community Trust Incorporated Society, and the Shirley Village Project that set targets of a 100 percent family violence - free community—because how could we aim for anything less? And why should we? We shouldn't be making cuts to our social services—the scars will outlive the cuts. We need to work with community, not against it. That's what I'm here to do for Christchurch East: to serve you, to work for you by working with you. I talked at the beginning about my parents having good Government policy and good luck to be able to buy our family home. Today is day 99 of the first hundred days of this coalition Government. Take the time this weekend to compare the last hundred days with the first hundred days of our last Labour Government. The actions taken in your first hundred days means that there are already people in New Zealand who will now need good luck to make it through the day—good luck to make it through the day. You can shrug and blame your coalition agreement—but know that you will be held responsible. Because it's not about the people in power; it's about the power in the people. I'm proud to be here as part of a united, Chris Hipkins - led Labour team that will work hard to serve people—I know we can, and I know we will. A team that doesn't divide but that brings people together. A team that understands the immediate challenges, like how we ensure local media survives the current crisis so that democracy thrives—and so they can report on our plans to deepen our commitment to Te Tiriti, act with pace on the climate crisis, ensure fairer tax, deliver better health and education outcomes, and look after workers and people that can't work. Because people don't fall into poverty; they're pushed there—and you are pushing. I commit to ask the right questions, for true answers, and, through my actions, show that I heard and that I care—because I do. When my mum was growing up in Waitomo, her family was often joined for dinner by Wiremu Te Tau Huata. He wrote a song for his children, a song about working together, seeking knowledge, love for others, and always staying united. I want to finish with a song—but, don't worry, I'm not going to sing it. We can do that together at the end. But I will read it as my oath—in te reo Māori first. E Winiata, kaua e mataku. Tūtira mai ngā iwi Tātou tātou e Tūtira mai ngā iwi Tātou tātou e Whai-a te māramatanga Me te aroha, e ngā iwi Ki-a ko tapatahi Ki-a kotahi rā Tātou, tātou e Line up together All of us Seek after knowledge And love of others—everybody Be virtuous And stay united All of us All of us Nō reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa. Waiata—Tūtira Mai Ngā Iwi [Applause, hongi, and harirū] CUSHLA TANGAERE-MANUEL (Labour—Ikaroa-Rāwhiti): Where we live, The grass is green, The water's pure, And the air is clean. And if you wondered where heaven is on earth, We're telling you, yes, telling you, It's our place of birth. Ko Hikurangi te maunga [Hikurangi is the eponymous mountain] Ko Waiapu te awa [Waiapu is the glistening river] And we are, we are, Ngāti Porou children. Aha Ngāti Porou children. E te Māngai o te Whare, tēnā anō koe. Ko taku mihi tuatahi ka tika ki tō tātou nei runga rawa nāna nei ngā mea katoa. Ka mihi hoki au ki ngā mate huhua o tēnei wā. Koutou mā haere haere hoki atu ki te wā kainga tuturu mō tātou te hunga tangata. Otirā ki taku whānau Reipa, tēnā koutou, aku hoa katoa o tēnei whare ahakoa nō tēhea pāti tēnei te mihi atu ki a koutou, ki a tātou. Huri noa ki a tātou katoa, aku hoa, aku whānau aku kaitautoko katoa. Tīhei mauriora! Kei te aha? Ā, mō taku whānau Paniora—adelante para siempre! [My first acknowledgement rightly so is to our most high for he is the creator of all that exist. I acknowledge also the many who have recently departed. Return back to our true home. Also to my Labour family, thank you all, all my friends of this house no matter which party you're from, I express my utmost respect to you all. Also to our friends our families and all our supporters, let the force be with you! How is it? And to my Spanish family—adelante para siempre!] Now, let's see what I've got written on this paper. It is truly humbling to stand here as a member of the 54th Parliament of Aotearoa New Zealand, and I actually want to start by saying thank you to the people of Ikaroa-Rāwhiti who brought me to this House: the whānau who created unprecedented queues in Ruatōria to vote and those of you who deemed me worthy of your first ever vote. Tenei te mihi ki a koutou. [Here is my expression of gratitude to you all.] You did this. You brought me here; the mana of your voice. I runga i tō mana i tō reo kua tae mai au hei kanohi mō koutou i roto i tēnei Whare. [Due to your support and your honour I am here to represent you all in this house.] My earliest memory of delivering a speech is in the primers class at Tapere-nui-a-Whatonga. I was nudged to the front to deliver a thank you speech. It was your stock-standard "On behalf of Room 5, I would like to thank you for …", and ever since then, whatever I've done in life, it's been "On behalf of". Reuben, I'm catching your tangiweto. A life of service is what we were born into by our parents, affectionately known as Cina and Nunu. Our father was a reverend, historian, farmer, kura kaupapa tumuaki, but—more importantly—the best dad and papa who was always present and extremely tolerant. He demonstrated the balance between taha Māori and Christianity, and loved to quote the Desiderata. One of his favourite lines was, "Avoid loud and aggressive persons, they are a vexation to the spirit." Sorry, Dad, I walked right into this one. He'd often say to me, "You can do whatever you want. You're your own boss." My mother, on the other hand, frequently reminded that, in fact, I was not—sometimes by means since outlawed in this House. The education system hadn't been ready for my mum. Encouraged into secretarial work, she was far more at home on horseback or in any machinery Dad made the mistake of leaving keys in. When people needed land for a papa kāinga at the height of her own illness, Mum jumped on the tractor, hooked up a slasher, and cleared the land. Houses are still being delivered to that whenua this day—ka pai, Labour. Mum normalised women in the workforce for our whānau, remaining a loyal employee of the Waiapu Farmers' Co-op in Tikitiki until its doors closed in the early 1990s. Our parents seemed to have enough of everything, for everyone—time, love, kids! We shared them, and they shared us. Mum and Dad gave me everything I needed to prepare for this journey, including the nurturing of a whole community. The Waiapu Valley is known as Waiapu kōkā huahua—Waiapu of many mothers—and I was fair game. My mother issued a warrant to the whole community to tune me up if I needed it. But, to the contrary, I nurtured, mentored, and loved by my community. Raised on the shoulders of PEP workers and privileged to sit at the feet of our elders. I am number eight of nine of Cina and Nunu's children. Edward stole my thunder as baby of the family when I was five, even charming his way into my godparents' lives, who I am so happy to have here today—Ollie and Eddie. But, clearly, I'm over that! My siblings always keep my feet firmly on the ground, never letting me get carried away and think I'm too neat. Once, when we were planning our mother's 60th, I stood, hand on hip, and declared that we should all learn a song. Patrick and I always do the speeches, and we always sing the song. My eldest brother, Paul, stood up and he said, "OK, I'll sing a song. You kill the mutton." I sang the song! But the point is he knew my lay—they all did—and they've supported me in everything I've done. So to Materoa, Paul, Anne, Ruvae—who I know is watching and hopefully not crying—Patrick, Hiria, Dorothy and Edward, who were all taken too soon, thank you. And also, thank you for heckling me all my life so that I'm prepared for it in this House. I loved my primary school education at Tapere-Nui-A-Whatonga in Rangitukia—so much so that I haven't left, now serving as the presiding member. My brother is the principal, and my sister is the other teacher—very hard! When I came time for high school, my parents decided I'd be educated at home and attend Ngata Memorial College. I'm so glad they did. At the time, I felt like we were "Dial-a-Pō'hiri", but that's only because we were! But to be entrenched in my Ngāti Poroutanga [in my being Ngāti Porou] right up to adulthood set me in really good stead for the rest of the world. It also set a frame for a pretty good campaign, but we'll talk more about that later. To the current students of Ngata Kāreti who are here today, nau mai ki tēnei ō Whare—welcome to your House. From there, as predetermined by my whānau, I moved here to Wellington to attend Victoria University. The whole time, my eyes were firmly fixed on getting back to Rangitukia. On arrival, my Uncle Cassidy gave me a pep talk: he said, "Now, make sure you don't leave university with your BA—'Bugger All' ". Well, technically, I'm still on a gap year, but I certainly didn't leave with bugger all. It was a defining time where I made lifelong, non - Ngāti Porou friends, and some dear friends who are here, which gave me a true appreciation of the richness of my upbringing and the value, the skills, and knowledge bestowed upon me have in our society. That said, it was time to get back to Rangitukia. As a founding student of kōhanga reo, I went full circle and became a kaiako at Ngai Tāne Kohanga Reo while doing voluntary youth work. That evolved into mahi with Paraire Huata's Te Ngaru Learning Systems. Teaching Māori models of practice and affirming and sharing mātauranga Māori is something I remain committed to. When Mum passed away in 2003, I decided it was time to revisit my childhood dream of getting paid to talk. My brother said he'd pay me to shut up—still waiting! That led to a very fulfilling career in the media, and I'm so happy to have some of my hoamahi here this evening. Unfortunately, there was actually much more to it than merely talking, but I loved it, capturing stories for generations to come. It also afforded me the opportunity to—you guessed it—move back to Rangitukia. Living the East Coast dream, Russell and I headed to the 2012 Ngāti Porou East Coast Heartland rugby final versus Whanganui with his parents, Ma and John. You know the game—the one where Ngāti Porou East Coast made the best comeback of all time. On the trip there, my father-in-law, "Big John"—the guy who rode the blue horse—noted that East Coast were looking for a CEO. I thought, "Well, that's not really a TV story.", but I let him finish his kōrero. "Nek minnit", I'm attending the New Zealand Rugby Union AGM as CEO of Ngāti Porou East Coast Rugby, the only female CEO or chair in New Zealand Rugby at that time. Coming from Ngāti Porou, that was a far bigger deal to everyone else than it was to me. That's where the people decided I could be of service at that time, so that's where I was. It was one of my most challenging and rewarding phases. It was never merely about the oval ball; it was about pride—it's still about pride—value, identity, setting pathways, and daring to dream. Again, lifelong friendships were established, and I thank my provincial union, New Zealand Rugby, and New Zealand Māori Rugby Board colleagues present tonight. By the way, rugby and politics—not so far removed. But there is a saying that life is what happens when you've made other plans, and when I answered a call in June 2023, I was not expecting, "Caz, I want you to be the next Labour candidate for Ikaroa-Rāwhiti." Adequate greasing up ensued, but it was not flattery that swayed my decision; it was legacy—the legacy of my parents, whānau, and community, and the legacy of Parekura Horomia, who was truly an MP of the people and became synonymous with this seat and the seat of Ikaroa-Rāwhiti. So to the Horomia whānau and all you "Hauitians", you are a force of nature. Of course, it was the legacy of Tā Apirana Nohopari Turupa Ngata. I said yes in that very phone call, and I couldn't help but imagine Mum and Para—old mates from those PEP days—having a chuckle up there, and Para saying, "Finally got her, Cina." Then came those three words: "Push for Cush". I wasn't initially a fan, but, boy, did it work. I imagined myself getting pushed all over the place. Nobody seemed shocked by my announcement. Like my siblings, you were confident that this was my lane. Strangers who have now become trusted friends, who are too many to name, from Wainuiōmata, Wairarapa, Heretaunga, Ahuriri, Te Wairoa Hōpūpū Hōnengenenge Matangi Rau, Tūranga-nui-a-Kiwa, tae noa atu ki Pōtaka [all the way towards Pōtaka] saw hope in me, and you formed a formidable campaign team and pushed for Cush, trusting that I would push for you, and I will. I thank you for your confidence and your aroha. Another group of campaigners who quite literally rose out of the wīwī were my irāmutu, who went from not giving two hoots about politics and elections to now being budding political analysts. My name even became "Push for Cush" to the mokos: "Who's that?" "Push for Cush." Again, my irāmutu are too many to name, but I want to acknowledge those who are here in person: so Tina-Mei, Krisynthia, Paks, and my mokopuna taku ingoa Kushla, Fusion, Hone Hayes, and Donny Hunaara Russell. You guys are pretty meke. I might keep yous on for the next campaign. If I said, "I love you.", they would think I was ill. I framed my campaign on the whakatauākī of Tā Apirana Ngata's "E tipu e rea", and I'm so proud to have brought the hou, the seat home to te Riu o Waiapu for the first time since he held it 80 years ago. The wisdom and relevance of the message of "E tipu e rea" of walking in both te ao Māori and Pākehā naturally resonated with everyone throughout my campaign, and it's been demonstrated in this House that it resonates with that side as well. Recently, a few misguided souls have sought to appropriate Tā Apirana's thoughts on the Treaty of Waitangi a hundred years ago—mischief-making. His whānau, iwi, and Māoridom are concerned by this, but I have it on good authority from the Ngata whānau that Tā Apirana would have offered the offenders a wry smile, tamped down his pipe, and got on with winning everyone over to his ultimate cause—as will I. On the note of development, some of the key issues which arose consistently were recovery and slash. I'd like to thank our leader, Chris Hipkins, for heeding the call of our people and allocating me a spokesperson for cyclone recovery, forestry, and tourism and hospitality—all areas of opportunity for Ikaroa-Rāwhiti. There's a bit of a theme developing here, too. On the date that I asked my first question, it was the anniversary of Gabrielle, and today is the anniversary of Cyclone Bola, so ka hokinga mahara. So how do I serve you best from Opposition benches? Mahi tahi relationships. I acknowledge our incumbent Labour MPs Ginny Andersen and Kieran McAnulty, and I thank you for your support during the campaign. To the National MPs who hold seats throughout my electorate—Mike Butterick, Catherine Wedd, Katie Nimon, and our resident Coastie, Dana Kirkpatrick—tēnā koutou. I trust we will see beyond politics and prioritise our people. I'm pretty awesome to work with too, even in Opposition. That's why there's some Opposition heartland unions here today. During the campaign, I said I was raised by the village, and on that note, I want to acknowledge my Uncle Boydie and Auntie Bonnie, who are here, and my Auntie Taina—siblings of my mother and father—and acknowledge my two aunties watching from Darwin and Melbourne, Auntie Goosey and Auntie Dette: tēnā korua. I said I was raised by the village and I'm accountable to the village. This remains true. The village has just grown to become the whole of Ikaroa-Rāwhiti and, indeed, anyone who feels I'm the right voice for you. Times may seem dark right now, whānau, but I come from the northern end of Ikaroa-Rāwhiti, Te Uranga-o-te-Rā, where each day we are first to see the light, and I will continue to shine the light on the value of our rohe whānui. You will hear your reo. You will hear your stories, hopes, and vision for future generations. I will bring your light to this House and to the Aotearoa whānui. Heoi anō rā e hika mā, tēnā anō koutou katoa i tae mai ki te tautoko i taku kauhau tuatahi, nei rā te mihi ki a koutou katoa, nō reira e te Māngai o te Whare, i raro i ngā manaakitanga o tō tātou nei runga rawa, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, kia ora tātou katoa. [However dear friends, thank you all for been here to support my maiden speech, I express my utmost respect to you all, also to the Speaker of the House, under the guidance of our most high, thank you, thank you, thank you all very much.] Waiata—"Paikea" The House adjourned at 6.14 p.m.