Thursday, 21 March 2024 - Volume 774 Sitting date: 21 Mar 2024 THURSDAY, 21 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.] RESIGNATIONS Hon Grant Robertson, New Zealand Labour SPEAKER: Members, I wish to advise the House that I've received a letter from the Hon Grant Robertson, resigning his seat in this House with effect at 11.59 p.m. on Friday, 22 March 2024. BUSINESS STATEMENT Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance) on behalf of the Leader of the House: Next week, the House will consider the remaining stages of the Taxation (Annual Rates for 2023-24, Multinational Tax, and Remedial Matters) Bill, the Road User Charges (Light Electric RUC Vehicles) Amendment Bill; the first reading of the Fisheries (International Fishing and Other Matters) Amendment Bill; the second readings of the Appropriation (2022/23 Confirmation and Validation) Bill, the Regulatory Systems (Education) Amendment Bill; and the committee stage of the Misuse of Drugs (Pseudoephedrine) Amendment Bill. If debate on the Taxation (Annual Rates for 2023-24, Multinational Tax, and Remedial Matters) Bill is not completed on Tuesday, there will be extended hours on Wednesday, 27 March to complete this bill. There will be a maiden statement on Tuesday. Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I wonder if the member can tell us when we can see some legislation around the Local Water Done Well proposals, given the parlous state of water in Wellington and elsewhere. Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance) on behalf of the Leader of the House: Well, the member will have to wait, and that legislation will come through in due course and it'll be a much better solution than to water issues than the widely condemned three waters proposal of the previous Government. PETITIONS, PAPERS, SELECT COMMITTEE REPORTS, AND INTRODUCTION OF BILLS SPEAKER: A petition has been delivered to the Clerk for presentation. CLERK: Petition of Jennifer Bolton requesting that the House require police to contact mental health services for advice when a person expresses suicidal intentions. SPEAKER: That petition stands referred to the Petitions Committee. No papers have been delivered for presentation. Select committee reports have been delivered for presentation. CLERK: Reports of the Finance and Expenditure Committee on the: 2022/23 Annual review of the Government Superannuation Fund Authority 2022/23 Annual reviews of the Office of the Controller and Auditor-General and the NZ Green Investment Finance Limited Report on the Agreement between New Zealand and The Slovak Republic For the Elimination of Double Taxation with Respect to Taxes on Income and the Prevention of Tax Evasion and Avoidance Briefing on the December 2023 mini-Budget; Half-Year Economic and Fiscal Update 2023, and Second Protocol to the Agreement between New Zealand and the Republic of Austria with Respect to Taxes on Income and on Capital, Done at Vienna on 21 September 2006 Reports of the Social Services and Community Committee on the 2022/23 Annual reviews of: the Ministry for Ethnic Communities the Arts, Culture and Heritage sector the Broadcasting sector the Children's Sector the Social Services and Community sector, and the Sport and Recreation sector. SPEAKER: The reports on international treaties and the December 2023 mini-Budget statement are set down for consideration. The Clerk has been informed of the introduction of bills. CLERK: Insurance Contracts Bill, introduction. Income Tax (Clean Transport FBT Exclusion) Amendment Bill, introduction. Crimes (Increased Penalties for Slavery Offences) Amendment Bill, introduction. Pae Ora (Healthy Futures) (3 Day Postnatal Stay) Amendment Bill, introduction. SPEAKER: Those bills are set down for first reading. TAURANGA MOANA IWI COLLECTIVE REDRESS AND NGĀ HAPŪ O NGĀTI RANGINUI CLAIMS SETTLEMENT BILL Referral to Māori Affairs Committee Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations): I seek leave to move a motion without notice regarding the discharge of the Tauranga Moana Iwi Collective Redress and Ngā Hapū o Ngāti Ranginui Claims Settlement Bill, its referral to the Māori Affairs Committee, and the instruction to the committee. SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that course of action? There appears to be none. Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: I move, That the order of the day for the second reading of the Tauranga Moana Iwi Collective Redress and Ngā Hapū o Ngāti Ranginui Claims Settlement Bill be discharged, and the bill be referred to the Māori Affairs Committee for consideration of Amendment Papers Nos 18 and 19 in my name, and that the committee report back to the House by 8 April 2024, and that the committee have authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting (except during oral questions), during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House, on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House, and outside the Wellington area, despite Standing Orders 193, 195, and 196. SPEAKER: The question is, That the motion be agreed to. Motion agreed to. ORAL QUESTIONS QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS Question No. 1—Disability Issues 1. Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Labour) to the Minister for Disability Issues: Does she stand by her statement regarding funding for disability support services, "They have been trying to deal with that, and we have been working with them to deal with that since they alerted me in December"; if so, on what date was she first alerted to these funding issues? Hon PENNY SIMMONDS (Minister for Disability Issues): Yes, I do. I also stand by my statement yesterday that there has been no reduction in funding for disabled people and no disabled people will lose access to funding for essential services, equipment, or support. The ministry is clarifying what this funding can be spent on to ensure it goes towards the direct needs of the disabled person. Parents and carers will still be able to use the support budget to pay for within-region travel and essential equipment and devices. We have inherited a situation from the previous Government where insufficient funding was provided for the policy settings that were in place. We are taking steps to address that short-term issue, but we will clearly need to address the longer-term issue as well, and I'm taking advice on that. The first I was alerted to the potential issue was December 15, but, at that time, the ministry believed that they could manage potential overruns. I want to offer my sincere apologies to the disabled community. We absolutely accept that the engagement with the community over this change was inadequate and has created unnecessary uncertainty. We have taken that criticism on board and we will do better in the future. Hon Priyanca Radhakrishnan: On what dates did she first advise the finance Minister of a forecast overspend in disability support services that would require a change to the purchasing rules and equipment and modification services? Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: In December, the ministry believed that they could manage this overrun. In subsequent months, that amount continued to trend towards an overspend. The context of this is that since 2018, the number of people accessing disability supports has increased by around 50 percent compared to population growth of 8.5 percent over that same period. The previous Labour Government was aware of this increase but did nothing to address the sustainability of the disability support service budget, but I assure the community that no disabled person will lose access to funding for essential services, equipment, or support. Hon Priyanca Radhakrishnan: Point of order, Mr Speaker. The question was very clearly about a date: what date did she advise the finance Minister? Her answer was long but went nowhere near that. SPEAKER: The Minister might like to consider the question again. Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: The Minister and myself have been discussing Budget process over a number of months, and the Minister of Finance has been very clear that there will be additional funding to maintain crucial front-line disability services; she gave that answer in the House yesterday. Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Point of order. If the Minister doesn't know or can't recall, she should say so, but that again didn't answer the question, which was very clearly: what date did she inform the Minister of the cost overruns? SPEAKER: Well, I think that the addressing of the question is accepted on the basis that she indicated over a number of months they have been talking about increased funding. Hon Priyanca Radhakrishnan: On what date did she first request a pre-Budget commitment for additional funding for Whaikaha to retain flexibility of funding for disability support services? Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: As I've said in my previous answers, 15 December was when I first was alerted to the issue. This is a matter that had been known by the previous Labour Government, and nothing had been done. The ministry thought that they could manage the overrun at that time. From this year onwards, they have been watching that fund engagement trend upwards, and I have been in discussion with the Minister of Finance to do with the budgetary process. Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Point of order. Once again the Minister gave a long amount of information about the problem but didn't actually answer the question, which was: when did she seek additional pre-Budget funding? SPEAKER: Well, with all due respect to your position, the question itself makes an assumption about a process, and therefore I think any answer the Minister gave could be reasonable if it talked about matters that would relate to a Budget process, which she did. Rt Hon Winston Peters: Is the Minister saying that she first learnt about the cost blowout here on 15 December and that, prior to that, no prior warning had come to any Minister in charge of that portfolio? Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: I understand that the previous Government were made aware of the issues, and on 15 December I was made aware of the issues. At that time, the ministry felt they could deal with it, but the trend continued upwards and, therefore, I had ongoing discussions with the Minister of Finance. Hon Priyanca Radhakrishnan: Did she advise Cabinet or the Prime Minister's office that Whaikaha would be making changes to remove flexibility of funding; if so, on what date did she do so? Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: Whaikaha have been dealing with a fund that the previous Government had no settings and no regulations around. That has left Whaikaha in a situation where they were dealing with a fund that absolutely increased enormously over the last few years. They have been trying to work with this. We are now working with them, and we also will be working with the disabled community around putting settings in place to ensure that the funding is directed and focused towards the needs of the disabled person. It is regrettable that there were no settings put in place by the previous Government to assist Whaikaha with the management of this fund. Hon Priyanca Radhakrishnan: Did she or her office sign out a briefing to approve the changes that took effect on 18 March, and, if so, when? Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: Again, I answered this question yesterday. On 14 March, I was advised that these changes would be implemented from 18 March. I absolutely regret that we did not have fulsome engagement with the disabled community and that our communication could have been much better and could have not contributed to some of the anxiety that has occurred in the disabled community. Hon Priyanca Radhakrishnan: Point of order. Again, the question was not when it was brought to her about the changes that took effect on 18 March. It was very specific: did she or her office sign out a briefing approving those changes? And it wasn't addressed. SPEAKER: I think that's a fair point. The question talks about whether a briefing on the changes—look, ask your question again. It's not my job to interpret the question. It's hard enough as it is. Hon Priyanca Radhakrishnan: Did she or her office sign out a briefing to approve the changes that took effect on 18 March; if so, when? Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: Again, as I said both today and yesterday, on 14 March I signed the briefing that the implementation would occur on Monday, 18th. Hon Priyanca Radhakrishnan: What does she say to the mother who emailed her office and said, "Once or twice a year, I have taken myself off for a night when I've been able to find someone to come to my house and look after the children. I do not claim carer support for this but have utilised our respite funding. That's two nights a year I get to sleep undisturbed—that I get to sleep in past 7 a.m. Is this unreasonable?"? Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: The access to that funding, under the settings that were there previously—absolutely nothing wrong was done by the person who accessed that. What we are saying is we need to look at the settings to ensure that the funding support goes to the person with the disability. Question No. 2—Finance 2. GREG FLEMING (National—Maungakiekie) to the Minister of Finance: Has she seen any recent reports on the New Zealand economy? Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance): Great question. Yes. This morning, Statistics New Zealand released the latest GDP figures. These showed that real GDP fell 0.1 percent in the December quarter of last year. Looking a little further back, the release also shows that GDP fell in the December quarter of 2022, the March quarter of 2023, and the September quarter of 2023. So 2022 and 2023 were certainly difficult years for the economy and therefore difficult years for New Zealanders and their families. Greg Fleming: Where is the New Zealand economy right now? Hon NICOLA WILLIS: The member raises a good point, because GDP is reported some way after the event—the release today is about what happened last year. What I can tell members is that when I talk to people and to businesses around the country, they are definitely doing it hard. But economic conditions will improve. GDP is expected to pick up this year, although strong population growth will limit per capita growth. In next week's Budget Policy Statement, the Treasury will say more about its current view of the economy. Greg Fleming: Does today's GDP release have any impact on this year's Budget? Hon NICOLA WILLIS: The Government's plans for the Budget have not changed. These include delivering tax reductions to provide cost of living relief to New Zealanders who have seen no change in personal income tax rates and thresholds for 14 years. Can I reinforce to members that those tax reductions will be funded by reprioritisations, savings, and new revenue measures. This package of measures will not add to debt. I make an observation about those who oppose tax reduction. When the economy is going well, they say tax reduction must not happen because it will be inflationary. When the economy is not going well, they say tax reduction must not happen because we can't afford it. The truth is members opposite believe the Government can spend money better than New Zealanders can on their own families. Well, I disagree. Greg Fleming: Does today's release have an impact on other Government activities? Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Declining GDP in the December quarter does reinforce the importance of the Government's plan to restore fiscal discipline to public spending and to drive more economic growth. I've said a lot about fiscal discipline in the House recently. Last Friday, I gave a speech to the Auckland Business Chamber setting out the Government's growth strategy. This Government knows that a strong economy determines our standard of living, job and business opportunities, and the quality of public services. We are focused on rebuilding the economy after years of economic mismanagement. Chlöe Swarbrick: Does she agree with Deputy Prime Minister Winston Peters, who said that the Sunday Star-Times is "right, of course" when they reported that the Government is facing a fiscal hole of $5.6 billion? Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, the Deputy Prime Minister is right and would prefer that the member opposite, I'm sure, quoted him in the full context, because what is true is that our Government has inherited a fiscal hole from a previous Government who had in place a structural deficit, spending beyond the country's means. What is not the case is that Vernon Small's figure bears any relation to the affordability of our tax package, and I can reassure the member opposite that when the families in Auckland Central get their tax reduction and get their childcare tax rebate, they can be sure it will be funded responsibly through reprioritisation, and I look forward to her explaining to them why she would stop them getting it. Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can I ask the Minister of Finance as to whether she has received, apart from the 100,000 ways of spending the taxpayers' money, one idea from over there on how to make the taxpayers' money? Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Mr Speaker— SPEAKER: Well, yeah, it's—you've got— Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Let me give it a go. SPEAKER: You'd love to give it a go, but you've got no responsibility for any ideas that may or may not exist on the other side of the House. Rt Hon Winston Peters: Point of order, Mr Speaker. There's no proscription as to where the Minister of Finance might get advice or submissions from. She gets them from all around the world—she gets them from the IMF, she gets them from the OECD—so why are you proscribing it? It's a very reasonable question; they'll hate the answer—that's the only problem with it. SPEAKER: Well, let me hear it again. Ask the question again. Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can I ask the Minister of Finance, alongside the 100,000 ways that she has received by way of advice to spend the taxpayers' money, has she received one idea on how the taxpayers may make some money from those parties over there? Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, the Deputy Prime Minister makes two very good points. There have been occasions where the member opposite and I have shared ideas, and the unit title reform bill is an example of that. But the Deputy Prime Minister also highlights something very important, which is that those who wish to spend a country's money should probably also be thinking of ideas for making it. On this side of the House, we are resolutely pro-growth, pro-development, and anti - red tape, and I wish the Greens would join us in that mission. Chlöe Swarbrick: Would the Minister consider addressing that structural deficit in the economy, which she just cited, through recommendations from the Treasury, or even the likes of the IMF, whose recent reports stated—and I quote—that we could achieve a more efficient, equitable tax system with a comprehensive capital gains tax? Hon NICOLA WILLIS: No. No country has ever taxed its way to prosperity, and how wrong-headed is it that the answer to every economic problem that member ever sees is always "Tax them more." Chlöe Swarbrick: Does the Minister, then, disagree with the consistent advice from the Treasury that we would have a more productive economy with the implementation of a capital gains tax, fixing the incentives which currently see far too much money flowing into bidding up house prices? Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I disagree with quite a lot of the Treasury advice, and I also agree with quite a lot of the Treasury advice, and what I think the member opposite should be very careful about is cherry-picking Treasury advice, because I can tell her that Treasury don't agree with her anti-growth, pro-regulation perspective. They know that that's a recipe for disaster in our economy. Question No. 3—Finance 3. Hon BARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana) to the Minister of Finance: Does she stand by all her statements and actions? Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance): Yes, I do, in the context in which they were given. I particularly stand by my statement that hard-working New Zealanders deserve tax relief. Given that data today confirms our economy has experienced a double-dip recession, I know those hard-working New Zealanders will be appreciative of soon being able to keep more of their money. Hon Barbara Edmonds: On what date did she decide not to progress a pre-Budget funding commitment for Whaikaha, as she told Stuff yesterday? Hon NICOLA WILLIS: That's not what I told Stuff yesterday but let me clarify the situation for the member. The Ministry of Disabled people had been invited to submit for cost pressures as part of Budget 2024 as we view the services they provide as critical front-line services and intended to provide them more funding in the Budget, and they did so with the Minister. Subsequent to that request, I was advised in early March that there was a risk of the disability services—Whaikaha— exceeding its appropriation. Treasury advised me at that time that this could be dealt with through the usual Budget process, and obviously yesterday it became clear there are more immediate issues. Hon Barbara Edmonds: Why did the change to disability support happen without warning or consultation with those affected when she made the decision to progress it as a part of a normal Budget process? Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, I can't speak to that because I was not involved in making those decisions. Hon Barbara Edmonds: Does the Minister stand by her comments to Stuff yesterday, "On balance, … we got to was that we would just make decisions as part of a normal Budget process"? Hon NICOLA WILLIS: That's correct, because what I was advised was that Whaikaha had sufficient funding to make it through so long as we made Budget decisions on the time line that we were planning and so long as we did agree to additional funding on that time line. We had been clear that we were providing significant additional funding. We were clear that the decision would be finalised by Cabinet in time for that to give Whaikaha security of funding going forward. Hon Barbara Edmonds: Why did she decide to increase the level of cuts required of Whaikaha to 7.5 percent rather than the 6.5 percent she campaigned on, and is requiring of other agencies, given she received a briefing from the Minister of Disabilities in late 2023? Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I would just assure the member that the ministry for disability services is expected to get vast orders of magnitude more in additional funding for front-line services—vast orders of magnitude more than any small changes they make to ensure their back office is more efficient. We haven't exempted them from the process we are asking all Government agencies to do, because we are conscious every dollar that is saved by not spending it on another policy advisor or administrative person, consultant, or contractor is a dollar that can actually go to support people with disabilities. Hon Barbara Edmonds: Does she stand by her statement that she was "surprised" by this decision, and, if so, is that because the Minister of Disability Issues never alerted her to the situation, or does she just not read the paper setting out the rationale for an early decision? Hon NICOLA WILLIS: In answer to the first part of the question, yes. Question No. 4—Immigration 4. RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Musterer—Green) to the Minister of Immigration: When, if ever, can Palestinian New Zealanders expect her response to their repeated calls for a special humanitarian visa to bring their family members safely to New Zealand? Hon ERICA STANFORD (Minister of Immigration): First, let me start by acknowledging the unimaginable humanitarian crisis in Gaza. Our thoughts are with all Palestinian New Zealanders who have family and friends there. The Government, along with our international partners, are closely monitoring the evolving situation in Gaza. I receive weekly updates on the visas issued and have regular conversations with officials on what other countries are doing. At this time, the evidence is that a special humanitarian visa is not a solution to the current crisis. For example, I'm told that Canada, the only country that have created a special visa, has received 986 applications—on 1 January they opened that—and only 14 of those people have managed to complete secondary screening. It is heartbreaking to hear reports like the one this morning on RNZ of a man whose ex-wife and two children have visitor visas that we granted in December, who have still not been able to get out of Gaza. I do not want to give false hope to people that a visa will enable them to leave Gaza. As and when the situation changes in Gaza, we will reconsider our position. Ricardo Menéndez March: Which option would enable more lives to be saved: the status quo or creating a special humanitarian visa to reunite family members of Palestinian New Zealanders with those that are still in Gaza? Hon ERICA STANFORD: I'll reiterate what I said. New Zealand has already been issuing visitor visas to family members of Palestinians here in New Zealand, and we have not been able to get them out. Unfortunately, the situation is a border situation, and simply issuing visas like the Canadians have done, like we have done, will not mean we can get people out of Gaza. As and when the situation changes in Gaza, we will reconsider our position and we are monitoring the situation daily. Ricardo Menéndez March: Is she aware that since October last year only 10 visitor visa applications by Palestinians have been granted, whilst 13 have been rejected; and that seven times more visas are still being granted to Israeli nationals than Palestinian nationals when both of them are supposedly prioritised? Hon ERICA STANFORD: I don't know if the member has up-to-date numbers. I believe that the numbers of people who have been issued visitor visas are higher than that. The issue that we have, as I've said, is that people are not able to get out of Gaza. Many of the visas that we have issued are for people who are still waiting to get out and cannot get out. Ricardo Menéndez March: Has she requested advice on options to reunite family members of Palestinian New Zealanders beyond just monitoring the situation? Hon ERICA STANFORD: I have asked for that. I asked for that very early on, and I was advised that we have set up a special, dedicated number of staff at Immigration New Zealand who are processing visitor visas for family members. We have a special, dedicated inbox. We are expediting those, and we are taking the humanitarian situation into consideration when we are granting those visas. But the situation remains, like the man who was on RNZ this morning who has an ex-wife and children in Gaza. We have issued them visas, and they cannot leave. As and when the situation changes, we will reconsider our position. Tim Costley: What is the Government doing in response to the situation in Gaza? Hon ERICA STANFORD: Immigration New Zealand has, as I said, a specialist team working on applications. Since 7 October, we've received 71 applications from Palestinian nationals around the world. Of these, we believe 15 applications are from people who, to the best of our knowledge, may have been in Gaza at the time of their application or shortly before lodging. We've issued seven visas to people who are immediate family members of New Zealand citizens or permanent residents, and I would encourage any Palestinian New Zealander who has immediate family members in Gaza that they would like to travel to New Zealand to go to the Immigration New Zealand website to apply for a visa, which will be promptly assessed by the specialist team. Unfortunately, as I've said, that does not guarantee them a way out of Gaza. As we have seen, we have already done this, and many of those people we have issued visas to are still unable to leave. The New Zealand Government has also provided a total of $15 million in humanitarian assistance, including through the World Food Programme, UNICEF, and the International Committee of the Red Cross to address the urgent humanitarian situation in Gaza. Ricardo Menéndez March: Does she agree with MP Erica Stanford, who said, 14 days after the Russian invasion of Ukraine, that "Desperate Ukrainians in New Zealand have been unable to rescue wider family members because Immigration Minister Kris Faafoi has not created a [special] pathway to let them come to New Zealand", and, if so, will she afford the same urgency to Palestinian New Zealanders who are urgently waiting to be reunited with their families? Hon ERICA STANFORD: I do agree with that member in Opposition, and the reason I do is because those people in Ukraine were able to leave. They were able to get on a plane and get to New Zealand. The situation in Gaza is that they cannot leave, and I'm not going to be issuing visas, which is issuing false hope, for people on a great scale who cannot leave, but as and when the situation changes, we will reconsider our position. Ricardo Menéndez March: What further actions beyond monitoring the situation has the Minister explored? Hon ERICA STANFORD: As I said in my primary answer, every single week in my bag I ask for updates on the visas that have been issued to Palestinian nationals. I ask for an update on each individual family situation so that I can see who has been issued a visa and who has been able to leave. I have regular conversations with my officials on what other countries are doing, which is why I was able to tell the member about the situation with the Canadian visa, which is the only country in the world that has issued a humanitarian visa and has not been able to get people out. We are monitoring the situation. We are asking about what other countries are being able to do so that we can closely follow them if and when the situation changes. Ricardo Menéndez March: Does she agree with Minas Al-Ansari, speaking for Kiwi Palestinians with family in Gaza, who said that "Right now, our family members are being killed and we are helpless to save them. One member of our community has lost 120 members of their family. If Erica Stanford, this National-led government had granted special humanitarian visas early, as was done for Ukraine, there is absolutely no doubt lives would have been saved.", and, if so, how many more lives need to be lost before she considers a visa? SPEAKER: No, no, the last part of that question is not acceptable. Just withdraw that last part, because you can't ask someone to comment on a quote and then say "if so"—doesn't work. So put it grammatically correctly to the House, but don't repeat the whole question. It's too long. Ricardo Menéndez March: I can cut the quote then, but does she agree with Minas Al-Ansari, who said, "Right now, our families are being killed and we are helpless to save them."— SPEAKER: Yeah, we got all that; just the last part—just rephrase the very last part of the question. Ricardo Menéndez March: Does she agree with Minas Al-Ansari, who said, "If Erica Stanford, this National-led government had granted special humanitarian visas early, as was done for Ukraine"— SPEAKER: No, sorry—OK, look, that's the end of the question. You can't rephrase it; you're not carrying on with it. Ricardo Menéndez March: Sorry, there's a quote here; I'm trying to shorten it as much as I can. SPEAKER: Well, this is your fourth go at it; get it right. Just take the last part off—it's pretty clear, pretty simple. Ricardo Menéndez March: Yeah, I'll just repeat the quote without this last bit then: does she agree with Minas Al-Ansari, speaking for Kiwi Palestinians with family in Gaza— SPEAKER: Oh, sorry, that's it. Finished—thank you. Move now to— Chlöe Swarbrick: Point of order, Mr Speaker. How is it that a member is supposed to repeat the end of a question by reframing that whilst not offering the question in its full context? SPEAKER: Because you can't ask a question for an opinion when in fact you are finishing the question by inferring that the content is irrefutable, which, effectively, the words "if so" do. I asked him to change it several times. Chlöe Swarbrick: I hear that, Mr Speaker, and I guess, just for sake of clarity for the House, then it would be the most, kind of, due process for the question in its full— SPEAKER: It's never been a problem for others to correct a small part at the end. I'm just not happy that we're now trifling with the House when other people are able to comply with those requirements. Ricardo Menéndez March: Speaking to the point of order. Sorry, Mr Speaker; so just to clarify in good faith, what you had asked me was to shorten the quote altogether, which I tried to do. None of the quotes that I had tried to repeat while shortening it were outside of what I had repeated. So I tried to cut the second bit and just repeat the question as it was. My intention is absolutely not to trifle with the House; it is to comply with what was requested of me. SPEAKER: Well, your intention is not meeting its intent. So can we just drop the "if so" part of the question. Ricardo Menéndez March: Done—I can do that. SPEAKER: Good, thank you. The Hansard will record that; the Minister may like to comment. Hon ERICA STANFORD: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Look, I would say that of course the situation is unimaginable, but I would say that, unfortunately, the comments that that man made are not true. We know that people in Palestine who have temporary visas to get out have not been able to get out. We granted visas in December and people still are unable to get out. It is unfortunately not a visa issue; it is a border issue, and as I've said a number of times, if that changes, we will reconsider our position. Question No. 5—Trade 5. TIM VAN DE MOLEN (National—Waikato) to the Minister for Trade: What actions has the Government taken to support New Zealand trade? Hon TODD McCLAY (Minister for Trade): Today, the House will complete the final legislative process required to bring the New Zealand - European Union free-trade agreement (FTA) into force on 1 May, many months earlier than expected. This legislation is being passed in a record time of seven weeks so that New Zealand businesses can realise benefits as soon as possible. In particular, this early entry into force date means our kiwifruit industry will see $43 million worth of tariff savings this year. We also estimate that 35,000 tonnes of onions will be exported to the EU after 1 May, saving our onion exporters $3 million per season. Without this early entry into force, both the kiwifruit and onion growers would have missed the season's exports and paid many tens of millions of dollars worth of tariffs. Sam Uffindell: Why has the Government moved so quickly to get this agreement into force? Hon TODD McCLAY: Well, the Government's drive to get the legislation passed in record time is to see the immediate tariff savings of $100 million per year on New Zealand's exports from day one. For the first day of implementation, duties will be removed from 91 percent of goods exported. A wide range of sectors will see these immediate benefits: 99.5 percent of fish and seafood trade will enter tariff-free from day one, as will 97 percent of New Zealand's wine and mānuka honey exports. The EU has completed its ratification process last year; it is now up to us to deliver and do our part to bring the agreement into force, and that's what the House will do today. Catherine Wedd: What benefits will New Zealanders see as a result of this agreement? Hon TODD McCLAY: New Zealand will remove all tariffs on imports originating from the EU. New Zealand consumers and businesses will benefit from access to cheaper products imported from the EU, on a range of goods including footwear, apparel, cosmetics, furniture, chocolate, kitchen appliances, machinery, motorhomes, forklifts, and some agricultural goods. The EU is our fourth-largest services trading partner, worth $4.4 billion. We estimate there will be significant savings, between 10 to 20 percent in the costs for New Zealand service exporters that trade with the EU. The economic gains from the FTA will help to soften the impact of the cost of living increases for New Zealanders and helps to rebuild our economy. Tim van de Molen: How was it possible to get this legislation through so quickly? Hon TODD McCLAY: Well, the EU - NZ FTA officially enters into force on the first day of the second month after the legislation has passed through the House. Therefore, it was vital we fast tracked this legislation through Parliament as quickly as possible. I'd like to recognise the work done by the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee and members from all parties, who worked collaboratively to speed up the process while still hearing the views from all submitted. I'd also like to recognise the considerable efforts of the Hon Damien O'Connor, and all parties in this House for agreeing to progress the ratification of the EU FTA legislation so quickly. Hon Damien O'Connor: To the Minister: given the importance and the value of this agreement— SPEAKER: That's not a question word—the member's been here a long time. Hon Damien O'Connor: Sorry, I got it—if this legislation is so important, why did the Government prioritise the removal of smoking protection, over the passage of this legislation? Hon TODD McCLAY: It's no wonder that member is no longer the Minister responsible. But what I would like to do is thank him for his hard work on an agreement that will help deliver for all New Zealanders, and recognise how hard it must be to be a Minister for Trade in a Labour Government. Question No. 6—Health 6. Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Labour) to the Minister of Health: Does he stand by all his statements and actions? Hon MATT DOOCEY (Associate Minister of Health) on behalf of the Minister of Health: Yes, in the context in which they were given, including his action of congratulating the new Minister for Mental Health on his great announcement this morning of rolling out mental health peer support workers in emergency departments. Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Why did he issue a statement on 29 November that said Labour's smokefree changes would have resulted in an illicit market for tobacco when he had been advised that the evidence did not support that statement? Hon MATT DOOCEY: On behalf of the Minister of Health, I take a range of advice, and if that member had read her own regulatory impact statement from the legislation she passed in 2021, she would have seen that advice. Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Can the Minister recall that the regulatory impact statement said that the illicit market in tobacco was decreasing, at a time when New Zealanders had one of the highest prices of cigarettes in the world, and, if so, how can he justify his decision to make a statement that the smokefree laws that Labour put in place would increase the illicit market? Hon MATT DOOCEY: On behalf of the Minister of Health, I can justify that statement from the advice in her own regulatory impact statement in 2021 that said, "Any additional actions that will reduce the supply, availability, and appeal of smoked tobacco products will add to the incentives to import illicit tobacco products." Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: How is it truthful to repeatedly claim that the legislation will grow the black market when, subsequent to the regulatory impact statement and before the Minister made his statement on 29 November, he had been advised that there was no evidence to support that claim? Hon MATT DOOCEY: On behalf of the Minister of Health, I receive a range of advice, including another statement from that regulatory impact statement in 2021 that said organised syndicates were involved in illicit tobacco trade. SPEAKER: I'll just make the point that it's not appropriate in a question to infer that any member of the House is less than truthful. There is another process for that. Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Is it correct that documents reveal his office has been involved with undermining smokefree policies while he has said to health workers this policy has nothing to do with him? Hon MATT DOOCEY: On behalf of the Minister of Health, what is correct is that I've received a range of advice from many different stakeholder groups, including submissions from stakeholders during the process when that bill went to select committee, such as the Food and Grocery Council, who submitted to the Health Committee that limiting retail could create significant additional opportunities for organised crime, including gangs. Question No. 7—Mental Health 7. CARL BATES (National—Whanganui) to the Minister for Mental Health: What recent announcements has he made regarding mental health? Hon MATT DOOCEY (Minister for Mental Health): Today I'm pleased to announce a new mental health and addiction peer support service in hospital emergency departments (EDs). The service will see peer support workers embedded within EDs to provide additional support for those with mental health needs and their families in a time of need. It will also help connect people in crisis to community support. I've heard from many in the sector who want to see peer support specialists playing a greater role in helping to address some of the challenges faced by our mental health services, including using their established workforce to start taking the pressure of our specialist services in EDs. Carl Bates: What actions is the Government taking to grow the peer support workforce? Hon MATT DOOCEY: Today I also announced a $1 million workforce fund over two years that's been set up to provide a level 4 New Zealand certificate in health and wellbeing peer support training and specific training for working in EDs. Peer support specialists play a vital role within this workforce and it's essential that we put in place specific initiatives to grow and support them. Carl Bates: What impact will these new services have on emergency departments? Hon MATT DOOCEY: I've been advised that between 13,000 and 14,000 people present annually to EDs with mental health issues. This service will help provide timely mental health and addiction support for those in need whilst helping relieve pressure on ED staff. This service will also support police, who respond to a number of mental health call outs, and, in many cases, have to wait with the patient for several hours in ED before they can be handed over to a mental health specialist. Embedding peer support workers in ED will allow for a warm handover from police, which will mean they can get back on the street faster to keep our community safe. Ingrid Leary: Will the Minister commit to appropriate levels of care for people experiencing mental health distress from when they arrive in the emergency departments continuously and until after they leave by peer support and medical workers to ensure this programme keeps people safe and can't be exploited to gain waiting time targets for ED? Hon MATT DOOCEY: What I can commit to is this Government will get more money out of the Beehive to the grassroots NGOs that are ready to respond to the needs in mental health. That's exactly what we've done today with uncommitted funding that they left sitting in the Beehive. Carl Bates: What feedback has he received from the mental health sector? Hon MATT DOOCEY: Today's announcement has been described by the sector as a positive move, with the Mental Health and Wellbeing Commission saying people who are experiencing mental distress who arrive at EDs will be supported while they wait. This will be positive for both the department and people seeking help. The peer support workforce has a lot to offer and it's encouraging to see the expansion of these roles. Question No. 8—Courts 8. TODD STEPHENSON (ACT) to the Minister for Courts: What recent policy statements has she made? Hon NICOLE McKEE (Minister for Courts): I recently announced the introduction of the Courts (Remote Participation) Amendment Bill to Parliament, contributing to the Government's 100-day commitment to enable more virtual participation in court proceedings. This bill enables the use of audiovisual link technology, which proved invaluable during the COVID-19 pandemic to support access to justice, and a safer option to attend court for victims. Todd Stephenson: Will introducing audiovisual link courts contribute to more efficient court proceedings? Hon NICOLE McKEE: Yes. Enabling audiovisual link technology in court proceedings offers increased efficiency by providing flexibility in how parties participate. This flexibility may reduce the time and cost associated with attending court in person, including travel expenses and transport security costs. Todd Stephenson: Will the introduction of audiovisual in court support victims? Hon NICOLE McKEE: Yes. The use of audiovisual links in our courts will enable victims of crime to remotely observe criminal trials, if suitable technology is available and remote viewing is deemed appropriate by a judicial officer or a court registrar. This will allow victims to avoid potential re-traumatisation and intimidation often associated with attending court in person. Todd Stephenson: What will this Government do to ensure the use of audiovisual links in New Zealand's court is fit for purpose for the future? Hon NICOLE McKEE: Cabinet has endorsed a first-principles review of the Courts (Remote Participation) Act 2010, given the significant advancements in audiovisual link technology since the Act was passed in 2010. This review will inform possible ways of enhancing and updating audiovisual link capabilities within our court system. The results of this review will be assessed later on this year. Question No. 9—Veterans 9. GREG O'CONNOR (Labour—Ōhāriu) to the Minister for Veterans: Does he stand by his statement that the Veterans' Independence Programme is "a great thing to be able to do"; if so, does he support Veterans' Affairs' move to restrict access to the Veterans' Independence Programme? Hon CHRIS PENK (Minister for Veterans): To the first part of the question, yes. To the second part of the question, also yes. I strongly support the prioritisation of existing resources that are available, particularly to those ex-service personnel who have been injured or become ill as a result of their service to New Zealand. As the situation currently stands, as we inherited, it takes, for example, 361 days, on average, for a disablement pension claim to be processed and provided. Clearly that's not acceptable, and anything that we can do to improve the situation for those veterans is not only the moral thing to do, it is the legally required course of action, in accordance with the Veterans' Support Act. Greg O'Connor: Does he agree with former Minister Craig Foss that "Under the VIP support is available to all veterans with qualifying service, whether or not they have a service-related injury … This means that more veterans will be able to access the services and support provided by Veterans' Affairs than ever before."; if not, why not? Hon CHRIS PENK: I strongly support the idea that, to the greatest extent possible, the New Zealand Government would provide independence-type services to veterans, even those who have not been injured or become ill as a result of their services to New Zealand. That is why, referencing my quote to the New Zealand Herald recently in the first part of the primary question, I stated that it's "a great thing to be able to do". It's not a thing that we're able to do, however, at the moment, in the context of the situation we've inherited to the extent that those resources are taken away from those who have made claims and are waiting up to a year, on average, to receive the help they need, deserve, and are entitled to under the Act. Greg O'Connor: What action, if any, has he taken to retain entitlements to the Veterans' Independence Programme? Hon CHRIS PENK: The scheme continues to exist, and we will advocate as much as possible for its continuation. However, on the current parameters, the resources available and as appropriated by the last Government, it is not feasible to continue those at the expense of more fundamental core and non-discretionary functions. Greg O'Connor: Does he believe suspending entitlements to the Veterans' Independence Programme is acceptable when his Government campaigned on ensuring veterans receive the care, recognition, and support they deserve? Hon CHRIS PENK: Well, it's more acceptable than the situation that has been allowed to prevail, which many people across the country have raised to me and various local representatives, such that they seek the care that they need, deserve, and are legally entitled to under the Veterans' Support Act. Clearly there's a prioritisation that has needed to be made. Obviously, we will improve the situation as best we can, including by improving the processes, potentially working with non-Government agency or organisation partners. For example, I acknowledge the RSA for reaching out and offering such support. And that's work that we're actively engaged in. Question No. 10—Prime Minister 10. 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 is his response to the Mana Mokopuna report commissioned by the Ministry of Justice and the National Iwi Chairs Forum, and the rangatahi surveyed called for harsher consequences for racism? Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: The Government's position, and my position as the Prime Minister, is that I agree with that entirely. When people are racist, they should be called out for doing it, because it's a disaster for democracy. And you know what it looks like and it means, don't you? Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Point of order, Mr Speaker. Can I, please, seek clarity on what the last comment from the Prime Minister meant, when he said, "I know what it looks like"? From my perspective, I didn't understand that they're allowed to ask me questions or answer questions with a question. SPEAKER: Sorry, it's not appropriate to go that way. Ask another question, or ask the question again. Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: What does he see is his role in combatting increased racism being experienced by rangatahi according to the Mana Mokopuna report? Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Well, the most critical thing that's involved, in terms of combatting racism, is to point out the fallacy and the deceit and the lie of one people being superior in their DNA to another. Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I'd like to bring in Speakers' rulings 59/2, 59/4, and 121—the personal reflections. Distasteful and disorderly, as far as not addressing the real issue here, which is our mokopuna wanting to see a Government that addresses racism, not to hear from a Prime Minister who believes that it is his role to tell the person asking the question what a racist is. I don't think that's what the mokopuna in this report were seeking. If we can just say focused, as the Prime Minister said, and keep the decorum to the kaupapa. SPEAKER: Stay on the point, OK? So your point, essentially—well, the point you quote is not something I can rule favourably on. The Prime Minister, in this case, answered the question. Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Point of order. The personal reflection is about a reference that was neither made from this person asking the question or this party, and that is the point that I'm making. SPEAKER: I know that. But my point to you is that he did not make a personal reflection; he made a statement in an answer, and that's what the Hansard will show. Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Does the Prime Minister agree that education-based solutions are key to combatting the increase of racism being experienced by rangatahi at school, and, if so, what is his Government doing to improve education in this space? Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: It is the Government's position that education and every other utility should be used to combat racism in our society, and we're going to go to the ends of the earth to ensure that that happens. Question No. 11—Revenue 11. NANCY LU (National) to the Minister of Revenue: What announcement has the Minister made on the Taxation (Annual Rates for 2023-24, Multinational Tax, and Remedial Matters) Bill? Hon SIMON WATTS (Minister of Revenue): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. Last week, I announced with the Minister of Finance that the coalition Government would be introducing an Amendment Paper to the Taxation (Annual Rates for 2023-24, Multinational Tax, and Remedial Matters) Bill. The Amendment Paper enacts several changes to the tax system to keep good on our coalition commitments to ensure New Zealanders can keep more of what they earn. These changes include restoring interest deductibility for residential investment properties and reducing the brightline test from 10 years to two. Nancy Lu: What other changes are included in the Government's Amendment Paper? Hon SIMON WATTS: The Amendment Paper closes a loophole that enables offshore online casinos to pay less tax than New Zealand operators. Currently, the only tax that applies to offshore online casinos is GST, where casinos in New Zealand are facing much higher taxes. From 1 July, offshore operators will be required to pay a gambling duty of 12 percent on gross betting revenue, therefore closing this loophole. Nancy Lu: When will the other changes come into force? Hon SIMON WATTS: Changes to the brightline test will come into force from 1 July 2024 alongside the gambling duty changes. Interest deductibility will be restored in stages, with 80 percent of a deduction allowed from 1 April 2024 and 100 percent from 1 April 2025. Nancy Lu: Has the Minister seen any reports on the bill's treatment of trust tax? Hon SIMON WATTS: Yes. Originally, the bill required many lower-income trusts to pay the top tax rate of 39c in the dollar. However, I'm pleased to see that the Finance and Expenditure Committee accepted the Government's advice for a $10,000 trustee income de minimis to be introduced. This means that around 87 percent of all trusts in New Zealand are unlikely to be impacted by the change to the top tax rate. This is a sensible and pragmatic change, and I thank the committee for their work. Chlöe Swarbrick: Why is his Government prioritising a $2.9 billion tax cut for landlords over other election promises that would have helped middle-income families and cost less from Crown accounts, like raising the Working for Families abatement threshold? Hon SIMON WATTS: What is a priority for this Government is actually delivering on our coalition agreement and putting downward pressure on rent, and this is what these changes will do. Question No. 12—Auckland 12. SHANAN HALBERT (Labour) to the Minister for Auckland: Does he agree with Christopher Luxon's "commitment to Aucklanders" in the New Zealand Herald today that the Government is "ruthlessly focused on rebuilding the economy and reducing the cost of living so more Kiwis can get ahead"; if so, what actions will he take to deliver cost of living relief for Aucklanders? Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage) on behalf of the Minister for Auckland: Yes, the Government is ruthlessly focused on rebuilding the economy and reducing the cost of living. That is why we are axing the Auckland regional fuel tax (RFT) on 30 June this year, and why the transport Minister is in Auckland today outlining the coalition Government's plan to get Auckland moving again. Shanan Halbert: Is the Government's own analysis of the Auckland regional fuel tax repeal correct that "Removing the RFT is unlikely to have a substantive impact on households"; if not, why not? Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, I think the member will be pretty aware that when he goes to the petrol station and people pay less money for the petrol because they're not paying a regional fuel tax, they will have more money in their pockets. And that's what we're setting out to achieve. Shanan Halbert: What action is he taking on behalf of Aucklanders, who are facing additional public transport costs, registration fees, and tolls and/or pricing schemes following the repeal of the regional fuel tax? Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, I'll be saying to them that they'll be very pleased—well, they'll be very concerned that they're driving around in Auckland, whether they're in cars or on buses, crawling around at 30 kilometres an hour and going over speed bumps everywhere because of the strange priorities of the previous Government, and my message to them is: help is on it's way. You've got a Government that's going to actually help them move around more quickly. [Interruption] SPEAKER: Just wait—just wait. Shanan Halbert: What action is he taking— SPEAKER: Just—hang on. Now you can start. Shanan Halbert: What action is he taking on of Aucklanders who are facing a proposed 23 percent increase in their water rates? Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, he'd be better to ask the Minister for Infrastructure such a question. But we're very focused on ensuring that all Aucklanders get access to things. That's why we're trying to reduce the inflationary pressures in this city by bringing some discipline back to Government spending and by reducing the regulatory burden that many businesses, including the providers of water services in this country, have to deal with. So, long term, we're going to take the pressure off Aucklanders in that regard. URGENT DEBATES DECLINED Banking Sector—Competition Ministry for Primary Industries—Proposed Cuts SPEAKER: I've received a letter from Arena Williams seeking to debate under Standing Order 399 the lack of competition in the New Zealand banking sector. An ongoing situation such as the one the member has asked to debate does not constitute a particular case of recent occurrence. I refer to Speakers' rulings 221/2 and 221/3. The Commerce Commission's draft report was released today, requesting feedback on its preliminary findings. Such a report does not meet the exceptional standard required for an urgent debate—Speaker's ruling 225/7. Should the Government announce a response to the final report in the future, it may warrant a debate by this House, but that point has not been reached today. The application is, therefore, declined. Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Labour): Point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek leave to hold an urgent debate on the proposed cuts to Ministry for Primary Industries staff announced close to noon today that will affect Biosecurity New Zealand, as one of many agencies, and its ability to eradicate Mycoplasma bovis and to protect our primary industries from foot and mouth disease and from fruit fly. I put to you that it is a recent event, it is one that involves ministerial responsibility, and it is important, so, therefore, I seek leave to hold an urgent debate. SPEAKER: It is a matter for leave to be put and I will put the leave, but I would point out to the member that the timing of that announcement would have allowed for an urgent question, and it would have allowed for the submission of an urgent debate letter. I'll put the leave. Is there any objection? There is objection. Leave is not granted. EUROPEAN UNION FREE TRADE AGREEMENT LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL Third Reading Hon TODD McCLAY (Minister for Trade): I present a legislative statement on the European Union Free Trade Agreement Legislation Amendment Bill. SPEAKER: The legislative statement is published under the authority of the House and can be found on the parliamentary website. Hon TODD McCLAY: I move, That the European Union Free Trade Agreement Legislation Amendment Bill be now read a third time. Thank you, Mr Speaker. Thank you to all those who have been involved in progressing the European Union Free Trade Agreement Legislation Amendment Bill this far, from members of Parliament, previous Ministers, select committees, to members of the public, including civil society and business representatives. Your engagement has been crucial in getting us to this point. This is a process which started more than a decade ago when we first launched preparatory talks with the European Union to start negotiating the free trade agreement. Trade Ministers Tim Groser, Todd McClay, David Parker, Damien O'Connor, and now Todd McClay again have all had input into the formation and delivery of this agreement. Now, after many years of work by successive New Zealand Governments, we're poised to bring the agreement into effect, and this is an important moment. The free trade agreement (FTA) will open up significant new opportunities for New Zealand businesses already trading in Europe but by levelling the playing field with their competitors. What does this mean in practice? Well, for example, New Zealand kiwifruit exporters currently pay a tariff of 8.8 percent on their exports to the EU, while their competitors in Chile pay nothing. From 1 May those tariffs will be lifted, saving our kiwifruit industry $47 million per annum, and making them more competitive in the EU market. From 1 May, 99.5 percent of our fish and seafood exports to the EU, including hoki, mussels, and squid, will enter duty free, saving the industry $20 million in tariffs each year. But it's not just existing exporters who will benefit. When this agreement enters into force, the proportion of New Zealand exporters covered by our network of FTAs will exceed 70 percent for the first time. This gives our exporters greater choice about where they do business and opens up new opportunities for these businesses that might be interested in expanding into the European market. We'll also be lifting our remaining tariffs on European goods coming into New Zealand, which is great news for consumers and retailers who will have access to quality European product at a more competitive price. This support we've seen for the bill from across the House means that we've been able to progress quickly through our ratification process. This means that we're able to bring the agreement into effect from 1 May, earlier than expected. It's a great result for New Zealand businesses and for New Zealand consumers more generally. From here, we'll be engaging with the business community to make sure they are poised to take advantage of the agreement and all the benefits that it brings. At this point, I'd like to recognise the work of the House and thank all parties for engaging and agreeing to progress this quickly, and particularly the members who sit on the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee. I had an opportunity to appear before the committee and to speak to a number of them directly, personally, to make the case for why the House should come together in this instance and work as fast as we could. I know the committee met outside of the normal hours, on days when the House was meeting and when it wasn't, including during recesses. In that, I'm grateful for their help and their assistance. I also want to recognise submitters who were called to give their views on this and did so. I recognise that the committee ensured that all submitters were afforded the time they wanted and needed to raise their thoughts so that the process—although shortened from the point of view of Parliament—wasn't shortened or diminished in as far as the opportunity for New Zealanders to have their say. Can I also at this stage, in recognising earlier in my speech all of the trade Ministers who have been involved, and therefore suggesting that this House often can do its best internationally, particularly on trade when we find ways to work together and finding solutions—but the former trade Minister, the Hon Damien O'Connor, who was the Minister that concluded the agreement, went to Europe, and signed it. I know what it's like to have been involved in an agreement that has landed and then the importance of New Zealanders making decisions means that someone else gets to either sign or put it into law, but to recognise the work of Damien O'Connor and to thank him for that. And to say that whilst not all parts of this agreement have met the level of aspiration that everybody in New Zealand has, that this House and Damien O'Connor can go away after this enters into force knowing that we have helped New Zealanders, that we are growing the economy, that it is a high-quality agreement, and that, actually, we will do better with this agreement with the European Union than we would without it. With that in mind, I commend this legislation in the third reading to the House. Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Labour): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker, and can I firstly start and acknowledge the Government's enthusiasm, I guess, to progress this as quickly as possible and to ensure that benefits do flow through to as many sectors as possible for this coming season. As the Minister for Trade acknowledged, all parties in this House were happy to facilitate that through, and so I acknowledge that. Trade is a challenging area. We as a nation rely absolutely on it. In fact, there are few other nations in the world—few other developed nations—that rely so much on trade: 85 percent - plus of everything we produce in the primary sectors, and all other areas, in fact, is traded offshore. We are facing some challenging times, and I have to acknowledge Vangelis Vitalis, the chief trade negotiator, who is spending quite a bit of time travelling around this country actually raising the realities of the world in which we face with people in all sectors, not just the primary sectors. It's a world of increasing geopolitical tension and growing protectionism, and that's not going to change in the near future. So, as a trading nation, we face some headwinds. This negotiation was conducted through some challenging times: COVID, initially, and then, of course, the Ukraine War, which was a huge distraction to the whole of the EU but, in particular, the commissioners. One of them is neighbouring the Ukraine and is acutely aware of the potential for that conflict to escalate and move out into the EU. None the less, in spite of that, they remained committed to work through with negotiators from New Zealand—from a little Pacific nation a long way away from Europe—to come up with an agreement that saw value for both of us. It is value and values, and I've said that before in this House: 450 million people negotiating with 5 million would probably seem to be rather unbalanced and unfair, but what we negotiated was a very balanced agreement, in my view. There was some disappointment in the dairy and the meat sectors that we didn't get everything we wanted; indeed, you never do—not you, Mr Speaker, but us as a nation. Mr Speaker, I'm sure you get most of what you want in this House. The point is that we got an eightfold increase in the volume of high-value beef into the EU market; we got increases in the volumes—significant increases in the volumes—of some of our milk powders and products, and high-value products in particular; and in sheep meat, we've got a huge quota allowance that, arguably, we will struggle to fill. So the opportunities are ahead of us, and the reduction of tariffs across the board means that, actually, we will become more competitive and more exporters will look to that particular market, alongside that of the UK—which we've opened—as a balance to what is a high reliance on China. We acknowledge that reliance and the value in that market, but none the less, because of geopolitical tension, because of pandemics, because of transport interruptions, or who knows what, we need to have a number of opportunities for our exporters, and, indeed, this goes a long way to open the door to real potential as we move into the future. I'm not going to go through the many areas that we needed to change through this legislation. The consumer information standards, country of origin—we acknowledge the EU's request that anything that comes from any of the 27 member States should say that it's coming from Europe, which makes it easier for them to produce something within the EU and then sell into our markets. We changed the Dairy Industry Restructuring Act around the quota access there—very important. Geographical indicators was a particularly sensitive issue at the select committee, where a number of innovators—particularly cheese producers—were concerned about not being able to use some of the traditional terms. That has been acknowledged and legislated for and protected in the EU for a long time. That was a bit of a challenge, but, indeed, the negotiators got it down to just a few—feta being one of them, and I won't go through the others—terms, or geographical indicators, that we will not be able to use in the future. So we're going to have to come up with our own ones, and I think that's quite an exciting opportunity for our primary sectors. We had the Overseas Investment Act, and so we had to extend the quantum from $100 million to $200 million where those people seeking to invest under that level would have right of access, subject to a few constraints, into our market. That was a significant increase, as I say—a doubling of the threshold—which allows investment from the EU into this country. There are always some poor protections, though, and we've had them for farmland. The previous Labour Government introduced protections so that we wouldn't sell all our farmland off to foreigners, and we've had it in core areas of Government infrastructure. But I have to say that I was somewhat concerned to read this morning a statement from the EU ambassador, and I'm hoping that he wasn't made some promise or given some promise from the coalition Government or any of its partners that this is open slather for investment in our country. He said that the free-trade agreement, of course, was very valuable, but he also said, "We're looking forward to the Government's upcoming privatisation of public infrastructure." We did not negotiate, in Government, this agreement so that there was open investment opportunities into Government infrastructure. It was so that we would have good quality investment into new and innovative things and partnerships. But if the Government is going to use this to sell off State assets, then I'm really concerned, and I don't think those were the values and the aspirations of either party when we were negotiating. That's an area where we, in Opposition, will keep an eye on the Government, but there are many other areas of opportunity for Europeans. In the area of science in particular, we have a wonderful agreement that, as a small nation, allows us to work with the science fraternity and industry in the whole of the EU in a way that I think is unbelievable. It was something that perhaps we didn't take on board as one of the key objectives, but it's one of those things that rolled out of what was a high-quality negotiation because we share the same values. Our aspirations towards open economies, towards democracy, and to the protection of labour rights, the protection of animal welfare standards, the protection of biodiversity, the prevention of deforestation—these are the same aspirations that we have as a nation that the Europeans share, and that's why they signed the trade agreement with us. Valdis Dombrovskis, as I say, is someone who was trade commissioner, and before him, the trade commissioner Cecilia Malmström, who worked earlier on with my colleague David Parker, were both enthusiastic, but more particularly, Valdis Dombrovskis had an absolute commitment to drive this through to conclusion and to a success. So I want to thank him once again, as I have done. As I say, to the agricultural commissioner, who was somewhat squeezed—if you have a look at what is happening in Europe now, farmers are out in the streets doing some pretty outrageous things, really. This, I guess, is a sector that is highly subsidised. The Europeans appreciate the value of food security, and we should understand that. We don't always agree with the level of subsidisation, but that was something that was put aside, along with not us demanding equal standards, but equal aspirations. So we didn't want to have the same standards in animal welfare or the same standards around biodiversity protection, because we have different countries and different environments. But to aspire to a better outcome: lower emissions, decarbonising our economies—those are the things that we have committed to work on together through science, through commerce, and through Government procurement, and through goods and services trade. So it is indeed an honour to have been part of this agreement and be able to participate as a Government Minister, and now, in Opposition, to sit opposite the Government that wants to pass this through and ratify this as quickly as possible so that our exporters, our importers as well, and those who aspire to grow their goods and services trade with that high-value market can get on and do the job. So Labour supports the ratification of the EU New Zealand free-trade agreement, and we'd like to celebrate its ratification. Kia ora. Hon JAMES SHAW (Green): Thank you, Mr Speaker. During question time today and in his third reading speech, the Hon Todd McClay made a virtue of the speed at which this legislation is passing through the House. I just wanted to take a moment to address this because, whilst it is a faster process than normal, it's still slower than pretty much any other bill that this Government has passed this year. And it had the luxury of a select committee hearing, which meant that New Zealanders were able to contribute and a select committee was able to review it and to test things, which hasn't really happened so far in this parliamentary term when it comes to the passage of any of the other bills that this Government has passed. So it is on a slower track, actually, than is this current Government's general forte. Now, having said that, actually the Green Party did support a truncated process in this regard, because we've always said that you should use urgency, or truncated debates and so on, when something is actually urgent and there is a material difference that can be made to New Zealanders as a result—as opposed to "We just wanted it to go faster", which is how the Government has been treating the process so far. In this case, we felt that it was warranted to have a truncated process on this bill because it does make a material difference when the agreement comes into effect. So, in this case, we actually felt it was justified, as opposed to pretty much any other bill so far. Because, as a result of that truncated process, we didn't have a second reading on the bill, I just wanted to make a couple of reflections about what we heard in the select committee and some of the things that we interrogated, because I do think it is important that we put those on record. There were some concerns that were raised, I want to say, by Te Pāti Māori in the first reading debate which we did take some time to test with submitters as well—just recognising that, unfortunately, Te Pāti Māori doesn't have a seat on the select committee. Nevertheless, we did still try to represent those concerns and to test them with some of the submitters. Those were around Te Tiriti obligations of the Crown—those were raised in first reading speeches and were raised also by some of the submitters as well. So we wanted to really test—because we also heard from other Māori submitters that they were strongly in favour of the agreement and also wanted it to get passed very quickly because it makes such a difference to the Māori economy. Really, what decided it for me when we were interrogating this kind of tension was that both things can be true at the same time—that there is an assessment that the Crown is continuing not to fulfil its obligations fully under Te Tiriti and, at the same time, that the passage of the bill and the ratification of the agreement and its coming into force would also make a huge difference to the Māori economy. Those two things can be true at the same time. And so certainly where I landed was to say, "OK, well, on balance, given the potential enormous benefit to Māori of the trade agreement, it should be supportable."—even whilst acknowledging that the Crown continues to not live up to its Tiriti obligations. Having said that, there were some real breakthroughs here. There were some big advances—not that perfection has been reached, but there were some very big advances—in the way that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade engaged with Māori. They had a specialist negotiating group called Te Taumata, which provided a lot of advice directly but also hosted hui up and down the country, which hundreds and hundreds of people came to, and this agreement has a specific chapter on indigenous trade and so on, which has never happened before. It's a new and unique and innovative provision. So it does, in that sense, also represent an advancement in the way that Māori have been engaged within the development and in the negotiations and in the actual outcome that's represented in the agreement as well. The environmental provisions, it won't surprise you, were an area of particular concern to the Greens. Historically, our trade agreements have tended to pull away from our environmental agreements, and in this case, there are enforceable provisions in this agreement, particularly in relation to our climate change obligations under the Paris Agreement but also extending into other areas around sustainability and environmental outcomes as well. This is, I think, the first time in any trade agreement that we've had enforceable provisions, where, if we fail to live up to our agreements, we can be held to account by our trading partners, and that actually brings— Hon Member: That was the UK. Hon JAMES SHAW: Oh sorry, I'm just being corrected—the UK free-trade agreement; I'd forgotten where that was in the process. But, yes, that did sneak through before this one. So this is second time that we've had an agreement like that. That is really important because it actually then means that our trade agreements and our environmental agreements are coming together and can be mutually reinforcing rather than pulling away from each other. That is really important because the social consensus around trade had been fraying over many, many years as a result of, essentially, people seeing that trade provisions were being used to undermine our environmental commitments. So to bring those things together in this enforceable way is really significant and quite different from previous trade agreements. So we tested that as well, because I said in my first reading speech that I was a bit worried that there might be language that suggested that it could be enforceable, but we wanted to test that with officials. And their view was that, yes, it is properly, fully, legally enforceable in that regard. So that is significant. Other concerns that we had around previous free-trade agreements—the most contentious of all is investor-State dispute settlement mechanisms, which had been used in a number of cases overseas to undermine environmental provisions and outcomes. Those are not included in this agreement. So something that had meant that, essentially, for us previous trade agreements hadn't been supportable—that barrier was removed there. Some of the concerns we had, in previous trade agreements, around needing to ensure that the Pharmac model was protected—that's kind of safe here as well. The previous concerns around intellectual property, and so on—that was quite well aired in the select committee. So, ultimately, where we land in the Green Party is that this agreement is substantially different from previous trade agreements that our country has entered into, in a number of ways that are very, very favourable. So it's a breakthrough not just for New Zealand exporters and people who want to buy in goods and services from the EU, but it is also a breakthrough in the nature of free-trade agreements here in this country and, potentially, around the world as well. It's a good model for others to follow. Now, the Hon Todd McClay said, and the Hon Damien O'Connor said, it's not perfect. No one gets everything that they fully want in any agreement, and there are certainly areas that we would like to push out in future free-trade agreements as well. But, ultimately, this is a very different agreement, and that is because—and I do want to acknowledge the Hon David Parker, who's here as well, because, when he was the Minister for Trade in our first term in Government, he put an enormous amount of work into the Trade For All programme, talked to New Zealanders the length and breadth of the country to say, "Well, what do you want from our future trade agreements? What are your concerns and your worries about them?" And that was then pulled forward into these negotiations in a way that means that you have almost complete unanimity in the House, for the first time in years, on this agreement. So I want to commend that work. I hope that the current Government continues on with that work, because you can see the value of that reflected here in the quality of this agreement. So we do support this bill. Dr PARMJEET PARMAR (ACT): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I'm taking this call on behalf of ACT in support of this bill. We all know the importance of free-trade agreements for New Zealand, especially us being a small nation of only around 5 million people. We want to see that our small businesses are growing and becoming medium sized businesses, medium sized businesses becoming big sized, and big sized becoming even bigger sized. And that will happen only if our businesses are able to offer their goods and services to bigger populations around the globe. And that is what this free-trade agreement is about. It is about giving those export opportunities for our businesses here in New Zealand. Despite this agreement not being exactly what New Zealanders would have desired to see in this agreement, the importance of this cannot be undermined. We can see the potential that this agreement offers by looking at the current two-way trade that is there between EU and New Zealand for goods and services at the moment; that just gives us the potential, the imagination of the potential that this agreement offers. And as I said, we are a small nation of only 5 million people, and this gives us access to that high-value $450 million market. That is huge for us. Like previous speakers, I also want to acknowledge that yes, the dairy and the meat sector didn't get exactly what they wanted. I also wanted to acknowledge that there were some concerns about geographical indicators, the regime, how that would be handled, and some our names—brand names losing that ability to carry on under the names that they have been trading under, but we cannot underestimate the opportunity of economic diversification that this free-trade agreement offers. In one of the opinion pieces that I wrote and was published in National Business Review in August 2022, I said something like this—these are not the exact words, but something like this: that currently most of our eggs are in two baskets, that is Australia and China. So it's not just about looking for more baskets but it's also looking for demand for more eggs. So what I mean there is that it's not about just looking for more markets, but it's also about looking for opportunities for the sectors that we have through these free-trade agreements, giving them the opportunity to grow. So I'm really hoping that, yes, while I fully acknowledge that our dairy and meat sector is not that happy, there are other sectors that are getting quite a reasonable and favourable terms in this free-trade agreement and there is this opportunity for these sectors to grow through this free-trade agreement. The ACT Party supports trade deals which are well-thought-through and as we have heard from the Minister, the Hon Todd McClay, this has taken over 10 years, and I want to acknowledge everybody who has been involved in this trade deal, and it started under National Government but given final form by the previous Labour Government. I want to acknowledge that, and we all can be sure that all sides involved in getting this free-trade agreement signed did their best to get the best deal that was possible for the time the negotiations were going and for the time being for New Zealand. So we need to acknowledge that and this bill is to align New Zealand's legislations and regulations with what has been agreed in the agreement so that these changes can be implemented to meet our obligations under the agreement so that FTA can come in force. I also want to acknowledge that there are some sectors—they can take advantage of this bill going through Parliament in this speedy manner. And we want to make sure that these sectors—our fresh produce sectors—because of the remaining season in this year, those who can take advantage should be able to take advantage. And that is why I want to commend the way the select committee and everybody involved has supported the speedy manner of this bill going through Parliament. We cannot underestimate the impact of COVID on businesses. Because of COVID, businesses suffered. It wasn't just the domestic market, but international market as well. So it was the export opportunities that also suffered and there are so many businesses we know they have managed to come back on their feet, but there are many businesses, though, who are still trying to work their way back, and this bill will facilitate us to tap that untapped potential. It will improve that interconnectedness between New Zealand and EU and also it will provide the opportunity of this environment to have that trade environment which is going to be beneficial for our businesses. And I'm really hoping that this bill will help our businesses position themselves for that long-term success and prosperity. So we support and commend this bill to the House. Thank you. JAMIE ARBUCKLE (NZ First): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to take this call on the European Union Free Trade Agreement Legislation Amendment Bill. It is quite a pleasure to stand here today where the House is in agreement on something. Being a new MP, it's probably one of the first times that we can actually stand together, and it's actually a congratulations across the House for the hard work in facilitating the progression of this process and the important legislation that's in front of us. New Zealand First expresses support for this bill, reaffirming our commitment to a cooperative and integrated approach to foreign affairs. The intent of this bill is to align with increasing access for our products in large markets and unlocking new opportunities for New Zealand exports. New Zealand is a trade and export driven country. New Zealand First believes our approach to international relations should focus on independence, resilience, and good relations of a diverse group of trading partners. To have greater access to the EU market will bring significant benefit to the New Zealand economy. We are seeing exporters and producers in this country struggling with the cost of living, and facilitating greater access to a market of 450 million consumers will mean good news for many. The new quotas in this agreement represent the improvement on the status quo for New Zealand businesses exporting into the EU. Our world-class products, coming from the hard-working communities in this country, will be enjoyed by a magnitude of new consumers. This is a very, very good thing. As we know, until now many of New Zealand's products have been, effectively, locked out of the EU market as a consequence of high tariffs and restrictive quotas. This free-trade agreement (FTA) with the EU will immediately level the playing field for New Zealand exporters. Achieving this agreement is the result of a longstanding bipartisan effort by successive New Zealand Governments, which started almost a decade ago. It is also a testament to the work of our offshore network, that works day in, day out to maintain and expand our international relationships—relationships that are crucial to our country realising its potential. This agreement is also of strategic importance to New Zealand. The EU is a close and like-minded partner with which we have longstanding historical, cultural, political, and economic ties. The absence of the fair trading agreement has been a major gap in this otherwise substantial relationship. It is a significant outcome for New Zealand businesses, big and small, which we will be able to start taking advantage of the benefits under the agreement in just over a month's time. This fair trade agreement will also promote trade diversification and build economic resilience, as well as helping to address the rising costs of living for New Zealanders. Like the Minister for Trade, we seriously look forward to celebrating the agreement entering into force on 1 May. With a GDP of around $27 trillion and a population of that 450 million consumers, the EU is an important market for New Zealand businesses looking to sell overseas. When finally implemented, the fair trading agreement is set to provide an annual boost to our GDP by up to $1.4 billion and increase our exports to the EU by up to $1.8 billion per year. That will provide tariff savings to New Zealand exporters of $100 million from the first day the agreement enters into force, the highest immediate tariff savings achieved under any New Zealand FTA to date. From the day the agreement enters into force, that 91 percent of New Zealand current trade into the EU will enter duty-free—a combination of tariff elimination and duty-free quotas, rising up to 97 percent over a number of years. There is also significant new quota access for meat and dairy products worth hundreds of millions of dollars if filled. The 27 countries that we will now connect into into the EU, that is significant. These negotiations, as we have said today in the House, have been over a long period of time, and we acknowledge all those negotiations that have taken part, something I think is over 12 rounds' worth of negotiations over the years. What we are here today doing is unlocking economic growth, and that's something New Zealand First, back into Government, is very supportive of, building our exports and unlocking economic growth opportunities. We've heard today from the Minister, and something that I'm very connected to is the horticultural industry, things like kiwifruit and onions being able to earn millions of extra revenue very much right away from this deal taking place. But it doesn't just affect onions and kiwifruit; it's fish, it's wine—another thing that I'm connected with in the Marlborough region; the wine industry will benefit hugely from this—mānuka honey, seafood, our aquaculture industry that we want to grow so much, industrial products. But there is also benefits to New Zealanders as well, as we access better things such as machinery and, I hear, footwear as well and all different other products. It is ironic that in this House we are able to act fast on this legislation, because, obviously, there is concern on the other side of the House on fast-track legislation around the Resource Management Act, but some things need to be acted on fast, and this is something today that is good, that we celebrate together, that we can all agree that this is a good way forward. So, Damien O'Connor, I also want to acknowledge your work, and Todd McClay and everyone who's worked on this to get this to this point. It is a modern, high-quality agreement, and I commend this bill to the House. Thank you. ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): Members, this is a split call; this is the Māori Party's call, I understand. TĀKUTA FERRIS (Te Pāti Māori —Te Tai Tonga): Tēnā koe e te Pīka. E tu ana ahau ki te whakapuaki i ngā whakaaro o Te Pāti Māori mō tēnei o ngā pire e kīia nei ko te European Union Free Trade Agreement Legislation Amendment Bill. Ka hāngai taku titiro ki te rangatiratanga o te iwi Māori, me te takenga mai o taua rangatiratanga i te Tiriti o Waitangi. [Thank you, Mr Speaker. I stand to express the opinions of the Māori Party about this bill known as the European Union Free Trade Agreement Legislation Amendment Bill. My perspective focuses on the sovereignty of the Māori people, and the origin of that sovereignty in the Treaty of Waitangi.] Let me start by acknowledging Mr Shaw's comments with regard to the issues that we raised last time. Whilst I recognise there will be many financial windfalls to celebrate in this agreement, I'm going to focus on some of its constitutional shortcomings. Whilst the agreement includes a Māori trade chapter and a Treaty of Waitangi exception to, and I quote, "ensure the Government can meet its obligations to Māori", much like the United Kingdom free-trade agreement that that we opposed last term, the Treaty of Waitangi exception clause remains unchanged from previous free-trade agreements dating back to 2001, despite recommendations from the Waitangi Tribunal that more effective protections were needed. So, yet again, when it comes to the Crown meeting its Tiriti obligations, it continues to fall woefully short. The Māori trade chapter focuses only on the commercial interests of Māori but ignores wider concerns about the protection of our rights and interests. There are also no provisions to protect mātauranga Māori from exploitation. For example, it does recognise mānuka honey with a macron as a uniquely Māori product, yet allows the importation of Australia's manuka honey, actively undermining the mātauranga Māori, the intellectual property, and the provenance of Māori products, and all of this was purporting to be upholding Te Tiriti o Waitangi. Although this may be a good deal for New Zealand as a whole, Māori continue to be constitutionally marginalised, and it is a failed opportunity to reimagine Tiriti-centric trade policy. Like every free-trade agreement, Māori have been shut out—shut out and had no rangatiratanga over the negotiations. Vague statements by Governments about how Māori will be better off under this trade agreement is not partnership. It is not what Te Tiriti o Waitangi envisaged or intended. They alone decide the negotiating mandate, what compromises are acceptable, and what the final text will be, with no role at the table for Māori that reflects the constitutional relationship embodied in Te Tiriti o Waitangi. Last term, we opposed the UK free-trade agreement because Māori were completely shut out of the negotiations and it failed to adequately protect our rights and interests, particularly over mātauranga Māori and intellectual property. The Māori trade clause in this agreement is unenforceable, and it hasn't been updated for 23 years, since 2001. This is of particular concern for Te Pāti Māori, given many of the actions taken by this Government in their first 100 days have been ruthlessly focused on undermining Māori Tiriti rights. Nō reira, until tangata whenua are properly recognised as the underwriter, the principal partner in Te Tiriti o Waitangi, the constitutional relationship agreement that Te Tiriti o Waitangi is, and the enabling authority it affords this House to exist, we will continue to hold the line for te Iwi Māori and our constitutional rights, as declared in He Whakaputanga, the declaration of independence, and subsequently in Te Tiriti o Waitangi. On this basis, we do not support the bill. Tēnā tātou. Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I would like to mark that this is my first speech in the House, so please do bear with me. The Green Party has been clear about principles that we think underpin any free-trade agreement, which includes strong safeguarding for human rights, labour rights, environmental protection, climate justice, and Ti Tiriti o Waitangi. The provisions that we see in the European Union free-trade agreement, EU FTA, are all significant steps towards these principles, compared with previous trade agreements. Like the Hon James Shaw has mentioned before, this is something that the Green Party supports. In particular, there are few additional points that I would like to highlight. The EU FTA is the first trade agreement to be negotiated under the Trade for All agenda, and this is something that I would like to echo the Hon James Shaw in commending the work of the Hon David Parker as well as the Honourable Damien O'Connor. So the Trade for All agenda includes the democratic scrutiny of trade agreements, and, in fact, democratic scrutiny overall. Isn't it amazing the kind of collective agreement that we can achieve as Parliament, as the House, when we allow for public consultation? In this particular case, we are looking at, from a process perspective, the regular engagement that we see, that the EU FTA includes a new mechanism for public consultation and engagement on matters related to the implementation of the agreement. That is something that we are hoping to see carrying forward. And that includes the creation of the domestic advisory group as well as a civil society forum. Particularly when we're looking at something like this, I would also like to echo what others have mentioned in terms of the benefit that it provides to Aotearoa from the primary sectors. However, I would also like to mention that it also provides opportunities for trade diversification, particularly when it comes to new and improved access for education service providers, including language education. So, with that, the Green Party has been incredibly vocal about the need for Aotearoa to ensure that our trade policies put people and planet at its centre. We would hope that this free-trade agreement will, in particular, uphold our commitment to human rights and labour standards, to indigenous cultural values for both Aotearoa and those in the European Union, for animal rights and welfare, as well as continuing to uphold the importance of food sovereignty and food security. With that, we look forward to how this agreement will eventuate that. Thank you. TIM van de MOLEN (National—Waikato): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Look, a pleasure to take a call on the final reading of the legislation to enact the free-trade agreement between the EU and New Zealand. Now, I'm very pleased with the efficient consideration the House has been able to grant for this piece of legislation. It has proceeded through from first reading right at the end of January until now, the third reading, in a very efficient and effective manner—and I say effective because we still conducted the select committee process. We enabled submitters to come to share their views, to raise concerns, we made some tweaks with officials as well, and I would really like to acknowledge the work from all parties that helped to achieve the deadline we set for ourselves. The Minister, the Hon Todd McClay, generously gave us a deadline of 4 April; we soon discovered that with efficient consideration, we could actually bring that forward 10 days, which would then enable the agreement to come in to affect a month earlier than it might have been, which indeed was still a month or two earlier than it could have been prior to that. And so the end result is, by being able to complete the third reading today, we will see this agreement come into force on 1 May. And that's significant particularly for those groups that will be benefiting such as the horticultural sector—kiwifruit, onions in particular, right in the peak of their export window through that period. And so simply that one month increase, let alone the additional couple of months that we've gained has a direct financial benefit. It is one of the more satisfying things we can achieve in this House where we can pass a piece of legislation and we can directly see the tangible benefit it has for New Zealanders. And this is particularly pertinent at a time where we see increasing pressure economically in New Zealand. We are facing some headwinds. We've just seen GDP figures out today showing we are now in recession. And so the impetus we can gain from this, an extra 100 million per year, on day one, once it comes into force, that annual improvement will absolutely be welcomed and accepted within the economy here. But it's not just that, it's the opportunity that's presented by an agreement like this as well. Of course, it benefits existing exporters from New Zealand to the EU and vice versa, but it also opens new pathways, new opportunities for businesses here in New Zealand and up in the EU to open, broaden, expand, create opportunities to export into their respective markets and to grow their local economies off the back of that. That aspiration is something we are very proud of and I do want to acknowledge, particularly, the members on this side of the House, and that side of the House, everyone came together on the select committee to achieve this progress. I also want to pick up on what the Minister said in his speech around the collaboration across successive Governments to deliver on this outcome today, because it has been a long process and that's always the case with free-trade agreements. They are never easy pieces of legislation or agreements to get in place and then enact. It does take time. Understandably, there are a lot of negotiation points across a whole raft of areas, and I really want to acknowledge the team that contributed to the outcome that was reached last July. And then of course the team on the select committee, the officials we had that helped our prompt consideration through that as well. And, as I touched on, submitters shared their views; we heard a range of considerations within that, some to do with dissatisfaction of what the agreement achieved. Obviously, that's outside the scope of what we were considering and the legislation that enabled the free-trade agreement to come into place. But we do hear those concerns and, you know, to my earlier point, you never get everything you want as well. There will always be give and take. That's how it should be in an agreement, but at the same time, it's also important to note that we are always looking to improve, for New Zealanders, the opportunities that they have to export. So this is an exciting step as the new Government to be able to complete a process that has taken many years, but is going to be a direct benefit in a time where it is certainly needed, and I think is a great reflection of the strong increased focus we've seen under the new Government to dial up that level of external engagement. Because it really is critical for us as a small country at the bottom of the world with a very strong export focus to be out engaging on a regular basis, to be constantly building, enhancing, and expanding those relationships we have with other countries and groups around the world, such as the EU. And so on that basis, it's fantastic that we are here only a few months into this 54th Parliament, able to enact this legislation. And I think, as well, given that we are seeing increasing geopolitical uncertainty globally, it's a fitting time for us to deepen those relationships with partners in which we have shared values. And this is a clear reflection of that as well. I was fortunate enough just yesterday to be having a meeting with the EU Ambassador to New Zealand, His Excellency Lawrence Meredith, who's been a strong proponent in only the short few months that he's been here of this agreement, and we're talking about the benefits that would offer to both parties and you know, the ability to grow that relationship to the next step. And that's something we're very much focused on in this Government and this agreement, but also with future ones that we'll be looking to explore over the course of this term and beyond. So it's a real pleasure to be able to commend the European Union Free Trade Agreement Legislation Amendment Bill to the House for its third and final reading to come into force very soon for the benefit of New Zealanders. Thank you. Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour): I join other members in promoting this bill for its passage and its third reading. I want to make a number of comments as to its contents, and then also share with the House and perhaps listeners another matter of negotiating strategy that related to our desire in the Labour administration to achieve an artist resale royalty, which we couldn't get agreement for in this House, except as an adjunct to a trade agreement, which is an interesting bit of history. Can I acknowledge the Minister Todd McClay for bringing this bill to the House and for the comments he made acknowledging the role of earlier Ministers, particularly the Hon Damien O'Connor. I played a small role earlier when we tried to launch negotiations with the European Union. It's long been a source of disquiet in New Zealand that we haven't been able to reach free trade agreements with some of our closest likeminded partners. We still face prejudice on a trade sense in the United States. Not so long ago under the Trump administration, they whacked New Zealand exporters with tariffs on steel and aluminium, which still stand there, unfairly prejudicing the New Zealand economy because the Americans won't walk the talk when it comes to a fair trading relationship with New Zealand. We've had a similar concern for a long, long time with the European Union, but in recent years the European Union reached the view that they needed to actually have a look at political economy matters, not just economic matters in determining who they should have free trade agreements with. This came to a head under the leadership of Cecilia Malmström as the European Trade Commissioner, and we saw a gap, we saw an opportunity to get agreement within the European Commission to actually launch negotiations. And we tried to do it while she was still in that position. Unfortunately, she couldn't quite get it across the line at that time, and we had to wait a little bit longer to launch negotiations. None the less, New Zealand saw the opportunity to take the gap and took a quite strategic approach to what would be within the ambit of that negotiation so that if agreement could be reached in principle, it didn't run into a complicated endorsement process, requiring the approval of individual countries or parliaments of individual countries within the European Union. So the scope of this was designed to be within the remit of the European Commission, rather than requiring ratification by individual countries. There are a lot of very good points to this agreement that have been covered by other speakers. Obviously, there are some very meaningful reductions in tariffs. In addition to that, there is the security of the free-trade agreement preventing rules being changed to our disadvantage, related to the status quo. So there's not just an improvement from the status quo, there is the prevention or it makes it much less likely that the status quo could be changed to the disadvantage of New Zealand, which it could have been more easily before this free-trade agreement was entered into. That's a very, very important level of security for New Zealand exporters. New Zealand does have a strategy of diversifying our export markets. The benefit of this won't be just in the tariff reductions, which save, for existing exports, about $100 million a year on coming into force. They will increase the volume of exports in addition to those existing exports, on which we will save $100 million. There will be more exports as a consequence of this, and the benefits to the New Zealand economy will be greater than that. Some of the non-tariff - related benefits include cooperation around matters that are very important to New Zealand. The world has a problem with many countries in the world subsidising fisheries in a way that actually makes it harder to attain the sustainability of those fish stock in the ocean. And if countries are subsidising their fishers to go out there and plunder fisheries, it's more likely that those fisheries will be fished in an unsustainable manner. We've had great difficulty in New Zealand getting progress on that issue, despite New Zealand leading on that particular issue for many decades. So long, in fact, that the original proposal that was taken into the World Trade Organization (WTO) was taken into a World Trade Organization meeting in Geneva by a then very young trade official in his first official job in Geneva. He's now the head of the trade, Vangelis Vitalis, and he's only just got it across the line in the WTO setting recently, but it's reinforced through the provisions in this agreement. The Hon James Shaw made reference to the fact that the investor-State dispute (ISDS) clauses that were one of the causes of dissatisfaction in society, not just in New Zealand but around the world with trade agreements, are absent from this. And when we were in Government, we reversed the position of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade and told them to oppose ISDS clauses rather than support them, and that's been carried forward into this agreement. There is no ability for corporates to enforce this agreement by suing the New Zealand Government, alleging breaches of the agreement. It has to be Government-to-Government enforcement. That at times is necessary, as we have found recently in respect of the New Zealand Government action against the Canadian Government for their failure to properly bring into force the provisions relating to dairy access into Canada under the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership. I won't repeat my disagreements with the Māori Party in respect of the Treaty clause in this legislation, which I covered in an earlier reading on the legislation. Suffice it to say that our Treaty clause protecting the Government's right to do what's necessary in the name of the Treaty in New Zealand is the best in the world. It cannot be improved upon in practice because, if we reopen it in those negotiations, we won't get it. So it's very good. It may be imperfect but it's very, very good. One of the last points I was going to make was artist resale royalty. Since the Helen Clark - led Labour Government, we have wanted to have a resale royalty where artists—and in New Zealand, because we've got a very small art market, there aren't many people who manage to make a living from their art that is comfortable, even though they work hard at it. None the less, when the occasional ones succeeds, it's generally years after they've sold their artwork. The commission agent or the art house that's auctioning the artwork takes a margin or 40 or 50 percent and the artist gets nothing on the resale. So we've always thought that was unfair and that there should be a resale royalty paid back to the original artist. We've never been able to get it through in a policy sense until we actually acceded to it in the UK agreement and in this agreement, and on the back of both of those agreements, we actually achieved the approval of Parliament to the passage of legislation to impose an artist resale royalty. So on that issue, I would say that I actually had a political strategy that that was the way to achieve it, and it worked. I'm quite pleased to record that. Our political strategy on the other side of those negotiations was that if we gave way on that—and I wanted us to give way on that because I wanted to achieve it at home—it meant that we didn't have to give way on things like extending the term of patent rights, which would have meant a delay to the date on which you can use generics in substitute for patent-protected medicines. Because if we had given way on that, we would have increased the cost of medicines to New Zealanders, including in the public health system as well as for people who acquire those things privately. The last point I'll make is FTAs aren't the be all and end all—well, second to last point—of economic policy. The misallocation of capital in New Zealand is a more pressing problem, in my opinion, than imperfect trade access abroad, and does pain me to see that, once again, we're lurching backwards in respect of interest deductibility rules. Because, in my opinion, whilst there can be a legitimate economic argument as to whether the real component of interest ought to be deductible, the non-real—the inflationary compensation part of an interest payment—ought not to be tax deductible because it is compensating the lender of the money for inflation. At the end of the year, the borrower owns, in real terms, a lower amount by virtue of the inflationary discount that they effectively get a tax deduction for. That's unfair to both the person who makes a bank deposit and is overtaxed and it's not right that the borrower gets an excessive deduction. This is one of the things that leads to the misallocation of capital in New Zealand. It's one of the reasons why our housing prices are so high relative to income, and addressing that would be a very good thing in order to direct investment into the productive sector, which drives the sorts of exports that we then get access to overseas markets through free-trade agreements. We have taken the gap as a country. It's good that we've pushed this through. One final point: it does, though, put up the price of our export products to New Zealanders who face export price parity. It's something we don't talk about, but you can't fix that through trade policy. TIM COSTLEY (National—Ōtaki): Thank you, Madam Speaker. There's been a lot of thank-yous and accolades across the House, so I won't join with them—too many—though I would like to just make one minor correction to my contribution to the first reading, where I'd thanked all of those in the Belgium Embassy in particular for their work with the EU, and I thanked Emma twice, but Andrea not at all, so I would just like to acknowledge Andrea. What I would like to do is, rather than focus just on the benefits of the free-trade agreement, which has been well covered by many speakers so far, is just to capture one of the key points of discussion that came up through the select committee process, and that was around enforcement provisions. We heard from organisations like the Dairy Companies Association of New Zealand, New Zealand Specialist Cheesemakers Association, and we heard their concern that perhaps the enforcement provisions might go above and beyond what was required by the free-trade agreement, and their concern that that would add, not just layers of bureaucracy, but that could ultimately end up punishing New Zealand farmers, New Zealand growers, New Zealand fishers, New Zealand producers. It was a topic of a lot of interest and debate during that select committee process, and we certainly pushed officials on that, in response to those submissions that we heard. It was great to give those people the opportunity to be heard, and to consider those issues more carefully. What we heard was, from Ministry for Primary Industries, that this was the most effective and efficient way that this could be resolved, using food safety officers, but giving them the ability not to create a new position, and bring in another whole army of inspectors that would go on to farms and into factories, but to also give them the additional title of a Geographical Indication officer (GI officer). Those staff are already in businesses for a range of reasons, and this gives them the extra provision so that we can meet the requirements of the free-trade agreement, without burdening Kiwis that we want to see get ahead. We can, we must, we will meet the provisions, particularly—we're talking about article 18.38 of the free-trade agreement, and ensuring that there are "appropriate administrative and judicial steps" in place. But the concern was that perhaps this was going above and beyond, and it could be just left to the courts. We heard from officials that it can't be solely left to the courts, that we have to have this additional measure, but it has to be done in the most efficient—I want to be careful with words like minimalistic—but to meet the intent of the free-trade agreement, ensure that we're letting Kiwis get ahead, get their best competitive advantage. Indeed, as we pressed Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment on this—you know that ultimately their role is to ensure New Zealanders get the best competitive advantage from this without being burdened down. That's how we get ahead. We don't want to see extra jobs in Wellington, we want to see the growth on the farms and the factories. That's what this is about. It's about growing our trade sector, and, in particular, the benefit to the primary producers is a significant part of this free-trade agreement. So, I do want to just record here that we did consider that. The intent behind this is to meet the requirements of the free-trade agreement, but not to burden ourselves with regulation, with whole teams of people. In fact, we were told that it could be done at, effectively, minimal additional cost. I think that is an important point to remind ourselves with. So, without going into the additional benefits, the millions that we're going to gain for Kiwis, it is a fantastic thing to see this free-trade agreement come into force. I think we have got the best of what we could get from this process and through this select committee process, and so I commend this bill to the House. Hon JENNY SALESA (Labour—Panmure-Ōtāhuhu): Kia ora koutou e te Māngai o te Whare. Thank you, Madam Speaker, for giving me this opportunity to contribute to the third reading of the European Union Free Trade Agreement Legislation Amendment Bill. I would like to begin by congratulating the Minister of Trade, the Hon Todd McClay, for all of your work, and with your officials, on ensuring that this trade agreement is ratified earlier than originally scheduled. In June of 2018, New Zealand and the EU formally launched negotiations, and I would like to also acknowledge and thank the former Minister of Trade the Hon Damien O'Connor as well as Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade officials for everything that you did over the years to ensure that this agreement was actually finalised. We know—just by looking across the ditch, for instance—just how challenging and hard these negotiations can be. There are not that many things that we can actually be really proud of, that we can say we were first across the line before our neighbours—this is one of them. The EU is a close and like-minded partner for New Zealand. We have long historical, cultural, political, and economic ties with Europe, and this actually provides a good foundation for the relationship that we have with the EU and for its 27 partner States. The EU is our fourth largest trading partner, and with a combined population, as covered by former Ministers, of 450 million, it is really amazing that such a huge block—450 million—have actually decided to have an agreement with us. Not only are just over 5 million people here, but we're on the other side of the world. It is really fantastic to see that this actually happens. Can I also just say to the Minister of Trade as well as the chair of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee and all members—well, actually, most members of the House. It is really good that on this issue—trade—we usually agree. When we sit in the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee—the current Minister and I were members of that committee last term—most things that come across our committee, we actually agree on. Long may it last—the fact that we always agree that trade is so important for our country. Now, one of the submissions that came through to the select committee was from Zespri—which is, as many of you know, especially those of you from rural New Zealand, 100 percent owned by New Zealand kiwifruit growers—strongly supporting this bill. Zespri exports to more than 50 countries across the world. They have over 2,800 growers, and the EU is one of their largest markets, with $1.2 billion sales in 2022/23. Zespri has incurred $47 million in tariffs on sales to the EU in the season before last, so when this agreement goes into effect and 8.8 percent of the tariffs are removed, that would deliver significant benefits and values to those growers, as well as to Aotearoa New Zealand. Now, in my last minute and a half, I'd like to highlight two provisions in this agreement. The first is the trade and labour provision, which states that New Zealand and the EU have both committed to respect, to promote, and to realise the International Labour Organization's (ILO) fundamental principles and rights at work, as well as to making continued and sustained efforts to ratify the fundamental ILO conventions that they have yet to ratify. Now, both New Zealand and the EU have also agreed to promote the strategic objectives of the ILO's Decent Work agenda. The last provision I'd like to highlight is the trade and gender equality chapter, which includes binding commitment to implement the relevant UN conventions that address gender equality and women's rights. Both the EU and New Zealand have also agreed to strengthen their cooperation on trade-related aspects of gender equality, and this includes CEDAW, which is the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women. We know that the economic modelling suggests that by 2035 this agreement will generate up to $1.4 billion to New Zealand. I strongly commend this bill to the House. MILES ANDERSON (National—Waitaki): I'm pleased to be taking this call on the European Union Free Trade Agreement Legislation Amendment Bill, and I'm really pleased to see that common sense is residing throughout the House and that most members of the House will be supporting this bill. This bill gives enormous benefits to New Zealand and the economy. As a representative of an electorate that relies heavily on our primary production sector, the feedback that I've heard has all been positive. National has always supported our exporters and recognises that one of the best ways to support the primary industries is through free-trade agreements. We're a small trading nation that relies on our food and fibre sector for 82 percent of our export receipts. I'd like to acknowledge the efforts of successive Governments who have fought hard to open the world to New Zealand, to our produce, and to promote our leading food and fibre sector. I'd like to thank the Minister, the Hon Todd McClay, and I'd also like to acknowledge the Hon Damien O'Connor for his work in getting this across the line. I'd like to thank the previous Government as well for recognising the importance of the EU market and free trade in general, and to the hard-working Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade staff, without whose efforts none of this would have been possible. There has been some commentary about what wasn't in the agreement, but I say that perfect is the enemy of good. It's hard to get anything perfect, and the EU is a challenging environment to develop free-trade agreement (FTA) given that they're made up of a large number of independent States. In the Waitaki electorate, we produce worldclass wines. The wine and spirits annex to the agreement will help reduce regulatory burdens and costs, including the labelling requirement for wine, winemaking practices and certification, and certain labelling provisions relating to spirits. So it's a great thought that, through this bill, it will be easier than ever for my son, who resides in Europe, to sip on a Central Otago pinot noir. Hon Todd McClay: He won't be sipping. MILES ANDERSON: No, he might not be! The FTA will encourage an increased trade in services, increased access to the Government procurement of contracts across EU member States, and reduced barriers to trade, which will be of enormous assistance to service providers both within and outside of the primary sector. So, with that, I commend this bill to the House. Hon PEENI HENARE (Labour): Tēnā koe, Madam Speaker, and thank you very much for the opportunity. I, of course, stand in support of this particular bill. We've heard reasons across the House of the need for its haste, and I agree wholeheartedly: the opportunity for our traders to be able to get into the market sooner rather later is important. The other important factor that I think maybe has only been mentioned once, but of course the EU is coming into its election in June, which is why its really important to make sure we ratify this before those elections take place. We know that elections can be radical change or upheaval for such a diverse EU, which is the market that we're looking to enter into. So with that in mind, my job here is to endorse the words of thanks right across the House. I sat on the committee—even disclosed that I'm allergic to onions, but we had a great submission from the onion sector and how important that was. But the point was that it's urgent that we ratify this particular bill to allow those hard-working Kiwis who do export and those who do import into this country can feel the full benefit of what's been negotiated and what's been included in this bill. I endorse this bill in the House. GRANT McCALLUM (National—Northland): It is a great privilege to take the final call on the European Union Free Trade Agreement Legislation Amendment Bill. Over the years we have concluded many trade deals, starting with CER—the CER agreement with Australia, the first-ever trade deal with China, the CPTPP, and most recently the UKFTA. What a fantastic track record for a small country at the bottom of the world, and I want to say thanks to all those trade Ministers and officials who've fought really hard over the years to fight for these agreements. They've done a fantastic job. This trade agreement, while not perfect, will extensively benefit many areas of our primary industries and the wider economy. From day one the estimated tariff savings exceed $100 million and with it growing to $110 million over seven years—and I'm sure it will amount to many more, which makes for the highest immediate savings of NZ FTA. I now want to focus on the electorate that is miles above the rest and the benefits that are going to flow as an example to the Northland economy. In particular, I think I want to focus on the clause where they talk about the benefits to the Maōri Trade and Economic Cooperation. Maōri businesses in Northland are growing and really stand to benefit substantially from this particularly, and we hope in time, as we work closely with Ngāpuhi, that we get to the point where they reach an agreement; it'll really help them gain the full benefits of a settlement. The other sector that will benefit clearly in Northland is the horticultural sector, and in particular kiwifruit. In kiwifruit, in Northland, we have over 400 hectares planted and growing substantially, 90 percent of which is the gold variety—a very high-value variety. The benefits are going to flow through the whole area. We're also developing in Northland at the moment. We're building dams and so forth which can irrigate more land for horticultural products and which will benefit substantially from these gains from this agreement. Another area which is going to benefit Northland substantially is actually the area of the gains we make in the seafood space. Many may not be aware that most of mussel spat for New Zealand's mussel economy comes from the North and it comes off the coast up there. So this will make a really big improvement to the Northland economy and help out. The other area which I'm really pleased to highlight is the benefit it's going to make to the hard-working beekeepers who go out and harvest the honey and the Mānuka honey. Next time I see the beekeepers who store their hives on my farm at home, I will be able to think, "Well they're going to get benefits from a deal like this." and it's great to be able to take that news back to them. So, finally, the potential to the Northland economy is huge and it really creates opportunities for our people, and I look forward to working with the Northland businesses to help with this. So, finally, I'd like to say this agreement really highlights the benefits of trade, and I'm really pleased to be able to come and say to the House, we commend this bill to the House and look forward to seeing the full benefits flowing to the people of New Zealand. A party vote was called for on the question, That the European Union Free Trade Agreement Legislation Amendment Bill be now read a third time. Ayes 117 New Zealand National 49; New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Noes 6 Te Pāti Māori 6. Motion agreed to. Bill read a third time. SPEAKER: I declare the House in committee for consideration of the Taxation (Annual Rates for 2023-24, Multinational Tax, and Remedial Matters) Bill. TAXATION (ANNUAL RATES FOR 2023–24, MULTINATIONAL TAX, AND REMEDIAL MATTERS) BILL In Committee Part 1 Annual rates of income tax CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Members, the House is in committee on the Taxation (Annual Rates for 2023–24, Multinational Tax, and Remedial Matters) Bill. For your information, in accordance with a determination of the Business Committee, the committee will suspend at 4.55 p.m. for the special debate on the report on the petition of Claire Dale. Members, we come first to Part 1. This is the debate on clause 3, "Annual rates of income tax". This is where the debate on the tax rates should take place, but the vote on any proposed amendments to the tax rates will take place in Part 2, which amends the Income Tax Act of 2007. Standing Order 352 requires that the annual taxing provision be considered separately. The question is that Part 1 stand part. Hon SIMON WATTS (Minister of Revenue): Well thank you very much, Madam Chair. Looking forward to the opportunity to have a good, free-flowing dialogue and debate in regards to the tax bill. So Part 1 of this bill deals with the annual rates of income tax for the 2023/24 tax year in reference to Schedule 1, part A, table 1, which outlines the rates of tax. Reasonably narrow in that regard, but looking forward to dialogue in this area. Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour): This is always an interesting debate, the annual rates debate, and although the Minister, the Hon Simon Watts, has said that it's a relatively narrow part of the bill, of course, by tradition the debate on the annual rates clause is actually quite an important constitutional debate. It's a free-flowing debate in which a large number of tax issues in relation to the levels that we set our tax at in this country may be raised. So, even though it looks like it's a very small clause and a very small part of this bill, we anticipate a number of speeches on it from all sides of the House. It's actually a constitutional requirement, not just a technical nicety. So I'm looking forward to hearing what members on the other side of the House have to say about our tax system in general and, in particular, our income tax system. So let me begin, and let me begin by asking—well, actually, I'm going to begin with something that's quite important to the annual rates, and it's something that has been discussed in this House in the last day or so, and that is the International Monetary Fund's (IMF) recent report on New Zealand. I wish to draw the Minister's attention in particular to the discussion of the tax system. I'll read out the paragraph so that the Minister doesn't have to go and hunt it out for himself. It's headlined in bold: "New Zealand would benefit from a more efficient, equitable, and sustainable tax system. New Zealand already has one of the most efficient goods and services tax systems globally. However, tax policy reforms are needed to promote investment, and productivity growth, increase the progressivity of income tax, and mobilize additional revenue in response to long-term fiscal challenges. To achieve these objectives, reforms should combine comprehensive capital gains tax, land value tax, and changes to corporate income tax." Now, that is quite a challenge that has been issued to the Government of this country, and quite a challenge that has been issued to the Minister of Revenue. In fact, it will rest on the Minister of Revenue's shoulders to respond to some of the issues raised by the OECD. So, in the context of this debate, where we actually really do need to engage in discussion about how our tax system works overall, where we do need to engage in discussion about the progressivity of the income tax scale, where we do need to engage in discussion about what is taxed and what is not, where we do need to think about the sustainability of our tax system—and these are things we ought to consider anyway, but especially in the context of the IMF; that well-known left-wing organisation, the IMF, telling us that we need a more progressive tax scale—I'd like to hear from the Minister how he thinks that our income tax scale responds to that. Now, I'd just invite the Minister to perhaps give us a little bit of a kōrero on that. Hon BARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana): Kia ora, Madam Chair. Thank you very much for the opportunity to take a call on the Taxation (Annual Rates for 2023-24, Multinational Tax, and Remedial Matters) Bill. I do want to acknowledge the Minister the Hon Simon Watts for his work on this bill, because, as I said in a previous reading to the House, this bill has had two fathers and one mother, and so I accept now that you've adopted this bill and I acknowledge as well the work that you did to accept the Amendment Paper that we had introduced in relation to the North Island floods. I do want to ask the Minister around his comfort levels in relation to the annual rates—I know we are confirming the 2023-24 tax share—and whether the Minister had actually considered, because I know that very soon in the Budget, they will be tabling their own particular annual rates or changes of tax rates because of the work that they're doing as part of the Budget. I'm not going to ask the Minister to divulge any Budget secrets, given we still have a couple of months to go, but I do want to ask the Minister around very similar lines to what the Hon Dr Deborah Russell had just questioned around parts of the IMF report. I'm just going to indulge the committee: the reason why we're here for the annual rates bills—and it happens once a year, sometimes twice if there's a Budget—is that in order for the Government to actually collect taxes, to be able to impose taxes, it has to be done through this House. It has to be done through an Act of Parliament. There are regulations and sub-schedules for other areas, but, actually, for individual income tax rates, it needs to be done through Parliament. And it's really important that that particular process is allowed to have a select committee process, and I do want to acknowledge both the Hon David Parker and the new Minister in relation to ensuring that there was a select committee process on this. We did get a couple of submissions in relation to the questioning around, actually, whether these rates were correct or not. And some people had provided out of scope because they actually said that we should just have no taxation. As Madam Chair will know, that is out of the scope for this particular part of the bill. But what I really wanted to just give the Minister time to digest is really the question that the Hon Dr Deborah Russell had around the IMF findings and whether he had given any consideration to whether we needed to change Part 1, clause 3, of this this particular bill in relation to that new IMF report. I know it's only been done in the last week, so I understand if he has not yet come to a position on it. The other thing that I wanted to ask the Minister was: was there any consideration, given that we're going to have Budget in a few months' time—had he actually considered whether this was an appropriate vehicle in order to bring in some of that tax relief, as they would like to say; you know, whether this was an opportunity to have a bit more time for the public of New Zealand to be able to see what sort of tax relief that they're going to get. But my question, really, is: how does the Minister respond to the IMF report that has come out quite recently around the progressivity of the rates which the Hon Dr Russell referred to? And just a question as to whether he had actively considered whether the relief changes that they're going to do as part of Budget, whether they had thought about bringing them a little bit earlier as part of this bill. Hon SIMON WATTS (Minister of Revenue): Happy to answer a few of those questions. The first question from the Hon Dr Deborah Russell in regards to the IMF report which the Hon Barbara Edmonds also referenced in terms of her report—if I look at the IMF report, what it actually says as well is it informs and suggests to Government to ensure that it gets its spending under control. What I can say is that this coalition Government is very focused in order to remove wastage of spending, and that was in the IMF report. We've got a large-scale programme in order to do that and ensure that we have fiscal sustainability in order to fund our programme of changes that we will be undertaking. The reduction in spending that the IMF report indicates will, obviously, help us to get inflation under control and other economic factors, and so we're working through that in a very careful and diligent manner, but also at a degree of pace, because this has a big impact. The second question in regards to the annual rates in any Budget changes will, obviously, as the Hon Barbara Edmonds has noted—I'm not going to be talking about any aspects in regards to that. The practicality of considering or using this bill to actually put in place any of those personal income tax changes which will really benefit middle-income New Zealand will be an announcement that we will be doing as part of the Budget process, and it wasn't timely or appropriate for us to put it into this bill, because it's already a very, very comprehensive bill. It's got a lot of elements to it, and I do acknowledge its source of where it's come from. I think, in this case, we have been reasonably considerate around the fact that the elements within this bill are areas that we believe will bring more certainty to the overall tax system, and hence why we've incorporated many of the changes that we did inherit. That's pretty much all I want to say around the IMF report. I thought the member might have asked—and I'm not wanting to probe any questions—why we didn't have any capital gains tax included in the tax bill. And then I remember that this is actually a bill that was put on the Table by the Labour Party, and I didn't see anything about capital gains in here, which is an interesting signal itself. Of course, we don't support capital gains tax, but I thought that was also something that the IMF referred to. Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour): Oh, Madam Chair, I'm just very grateful that the Minister himself raised the issue of a capital gains tax. So it gives us a wee bit of space to talk about that now, too. I really appreciate it, Mr Watts, good on you. Well played. We are laughing, but it's a serious matter. And it's a serious matter because many people in the tax community and working in tax have been inclined to say that we have a broad-based low-rate tax system in this country. Looking at our income tax rates alone, perhaps one might conclude that. In fact, the top tax rate—and it only cuts in at a threshold of $180,000—is 39 percent and, other than that, our tax scale is actually comparatively low. In fact, our tax take overall sits below the OECD average. But there are some issues along this. You see, there is quite a serious issue—and this is an issue that was raised in the Treasury briefing to the incoming Minister of Finance. I'm sure you will all have the slide pack right there in front of you. If you turn to page 9 of that slide pack, there was quite a serious concern about the forecast gap between core Crown expenses and core Crown revenue—so a gap of 1 to 2 percent over the forecast period. Now, clearly we disagree about how that should be met. That side is going to cut spending on critical front-line services, amongst other things; this side would have a different proposal. But, and here's the real problem, it says the gap between Crown revenue and Crown expenses is predicted to go to about 5 percent of GDP by 2061, and that was based on current fiscal settings. Sitting in that Treasury briefing to the incoming Minister was a proposal that the Government needed to consider capital gains taxes. Now, interestingly, we do have a capital gains tax of sorts in New Zealand already. We've got various sittings in the—all sorts of reasons, but introduced by that that Government, of course, in the bright-line test. Now, that is the starting of a capital gains tax. Of course, there's other capital gains taxes sitting in the financial arrangements rules and so on. There are various times when capital gains are actually taxed—we don't have a comprehensive capital gains tax. Nevertheless, Treasury has suggested that we need a capital gains tax in order to meet this ongoing gap between Crown revenue and Crown expenses. The IMF has suggested that we need a capital gains tax in order to balance what we're doing and, in our tax system, have a sustainable tax system. And the Minister here— CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Can I remind the member that this debate is around tax rates, not— Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL: Indeed. Indeed. But I would remind, also, Madam Chair, this is the annual rates debate and, by tradition, it is supposed to be a free-ranging debate around tax. Because it's the one opportunity we have every year to have that free-ranging debate around tax— CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): In Part 2. Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL: The free-ranging debate around tax. Camilla Belich: Point of order, Madam Chair. Sorry to interrupt the member. I just wanted to clarify that from my understanding, the member was referring to the capital gains tax as a result of comments made by the Minister, which I understand is permitted by Standing Orders in a committee stage. CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): And I'm just reminding the members that this part is around tax rates. Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL: Madam Chair, I'm happy to—we'll see how we go on that one because it is, as I said, one of the constitutional requirements: to have an annual debate on the setting of the tax rates. This is the annual taxing Act. It can be done as a separate Act altogether. In this case, it's done as one clause within one Part within this bill. So getting back to it, the second Part of this bill does reverse out all the capital gains taxes. The first Part of this bill sets the annual tax rates around the income tax scale, and we have an ongoing worry that the income taxes we collect will not collect enough revenue over time to sustain the types of goods and services, the infrastructure, the health system, the welfare system, and so on that we expect in this country. In fact, that was growing to a 5 percent gap in GDP by 2061. So I'm going to ask the Minister as to how he thinks he will respond to that challenge. How is he going to meet that challenge that we have, that is now his responsibility? Part of what a good tax system needs to do is to deliver the tax revenue sufficient to meet the needs of the Government. And that, by Treasury's prediction, is— CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The member's time has expired. Hon SIMON WATTS (Minister of Revenue): Well, I could not but help myself to make some comments in regards to what I think was a question there around capital gains tax. It was interesting, I was reflecting on the Labour Party leader's comments on 12 July 2023 when he said that with so many households struggling with the cost of living crisis, now is not the time for a shake-up of the tax system, and ruled out the implementation of a capital gains tax. But it seems that maybe that message hasn't got through in regards to the question that I was being posed by the member, at that point. The point raised in regards to the sufficiency of revenue that the tax system derives—well, as of 2022, the tax system collected just over $120 billion of tax. As many people will know, there's two ways to close a gap: one is to increase revenue through taxation, the other way is to reduce expenditure. On this side of the House, this Government, and this coalition Government, are absolutely committed to reducing wasteful spending, cutting expenditure, and not taxing New Zealanders more. That's the pure difference. You've seen this play out. The question just asked reinforces it. Not only is there fragmentation on that side of the House around what they're planning to do—but, actually, the ideological point around how we get ahead as a country is not through taxing more, it is through growing our economy and reducing wasteful spending. Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green—Rongotai): Tēnā koe, Madam Chair. I'm happy to take my first call in this debate. In responding directly to the comments of the Minister, I think he, right there, struck the very heart of it, which is that his Government has an ideological belief that people should pay less tax, and I think that that's completely at odds with the outcomes that they say they want for New Zealand and that New Zealanders want. The reality is that in most of the countries we aspire to be like that have excellent infrastructure and public services which supports the wellbeing of people and, by the way, better economic outcomes, it is funded through taxes, and that's why the kinds of countries that we aspire to be like almost universally have higher rates of Government expenditure as a percentage of GDP, because it makes sense for Government to invest in infrastructure and it makes sense for Government to invest in public services. But the problem— Carl Bates: Roads of national significance—great infrastructure. Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: Yeah, interestingly enough, it makes sense for Governments to invest in public transport in our largest cities. Every person on the Government benches right now seems to be completely in denial about the actual numbers, and I think it's because they don't actually know what they are. The reality is that the rates that are laid out in this part of this bill—if we were to examine them and ask are they sufficient to invest in the things that New Zealanders aspire to have in their country, like first-class infrastructure that supports people to move around the country and that supports businesses to move their goods—[Chairperson gestures] So the question is—and I am responding directly to comments that the Minister just made, which just said, "Well, we think Government should spend less, and therefore we don't need to have higher rates." Of course, the distributional question around how the rates affect people, so whether or not we have a capital gains tax, which would actually directly support a much more broad-based and productive economy, or whether the rates are more progressive so that those who earn more contribute more—because if we pay it forward like that, we will have a more prosperous society. But I realise that members opposite are of a very—I just think that generosity is not something that they understand. The idea that manaaki, or being generous—if we have done well, we want to give back to our country and ensure that more people can do well—is something that those members just have no concept of. They are just stuck in a kind of religious zealotry around the idea that rich people should pay less tax and that we should spend money on roads, not on things that move more people and goods at lower cost, and that's the heart of it. The sad thing here is that I genuinely believe many of them want better outcomes for New Zealand, but the reality is that when you look at the evidence of what works and what will deliver the outcomes we want, which is good infrastructure, good public services, and good support for the disabled people and their whānau in our country, then we need to spend more money for public good, and the fair way to do that is to have higher rates for those who have more, because allowing incomes and wealth to be concentrated in a smaller and smaller group of people does not result in a country that does better overall. It is just simply not true and it has been refuted by all of the data of the last 30 years, globally, and that's why we're such an outlier. They lament the lack of productivity in New Zealand? If we want to be productive, we should have more broader-based tax and we should have higher rates, like Australia does, for those who earn more. Australia has a capital gains tax, Australia has higher rates and a stamp duty, Australia has a much more progressive tax system with a tax-free threshold on the first, like, 10 or 20 grand of income, and they have higher rates for higher-income earners, and, universally, almost every country in the world that we would aspire to be like does exactly that. But, instead, you just hear this empty rhetoric of absolutely meaningless soundbites saying "Our country and the world must tax itself to prosperity." I call rubbish on that—you know, show us the numbers. Show us the numbers, because most countries that have flatter taxes and lower taxes than New Zealand have worse outcomes in terms of inequality, and that affects the wellbeing of everyone in the country. We end up spending more money on prisons, rather than investing in people to be the best they can be. We end up with a kind of weird, divided society of people living behind walls and being fearful for their security because they're allowing their fellow countrymen to live in poverty. INGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri): Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm really just taking note, Madam Chair, of the interjections and the enthusiasm of the Government members to continue this debate—it's great to see them so engaged in it, and I'm really looking forward to you allowing this to be free range. I'd like to ask three questions, if I may; two of them have come from the Minister of Revenue's own comments, actually. One is around capital gains. He has raised the issue of capital gains, and so I'm wondering how he can reconcile the fact that landlords would be able to get interest deductibility and get the interest deductibility off the interest, but then also not pay any tax on the capital gain. It would appear that it either has to be one scenario or the other. So I do hope the Minister can just tell us what he's been thinking about the fairness of the tax system, how he reconciles it. CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): My apologies for interrupting the member, but the time has come to report progress. Progress to be reported. House resumed. CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Mr Speaker, the committee has considered the Taxation (Annual Rates for 2023-24, Multinational Tax, and Remedial Matters) Bill and reports progress. I move, That the report be adopted. Motion agreed to. Report adopted. SPECIAL DEBATES Petitions Committee, Report—Make mobility parking enforceable on all public-use property and increase fines SPEAKER: Members, we come now to the debate on the petition of Claire Dale to make mobility parking enforceable on all public-use property and increase fines. I call on the chairperson of the Petitions Committee to move that the House takes note of this report, but would say that this is a tight debate, related entirely to the matters canvassed in the petition. GREG O'CONNOR (Chairperson of the Petitions Committee): Thank you, Mr Speaker. As the chairman of the very hard-working and omnipotent Petitions Committee, it gives me great pleasure to be here today to speak on this petition. Now, this is a petition that the work was done by, I understand, an equally hard-working and omnipotent committee in the last Parliament. Having done the work, the mahi, they recommended that we have this debate, such was the interest in the issues raised. Now, the petition was presented to the House on 28 February 2022, requesting that the House of Representatives change the law to substantially increase fines nationally for misusing any mobility parking spaces, including on privately-owned land that is used publicly, and urged the Government to run an education campaign to desist able-bodied people from misusing mobility parking spaces for public use. Ms Claire Dale, the petitioner, is concerned about able-bodied people parking in mobility parking spaces. I have to say, I think many of us have probably been guilty of driving around looking for a park and tantalisingly seeing a mobility park, but 99 percent of us have the common decency and understanding of the issues faced by those of the disability community and don't park in them. But there are always those in our community who think that, firstly, they can get away with it, or they think that the law doesn't apply to them, or are just lazy and do park in those car parks, and that, for members of the disability community, is extremely frustrating. The committee brought together, as the committee does, the New Zealand Police, the Ministry of Transport, and Whaikaha - Ministry of Disabled People with the petitioner to discuss the issues. The extent of the problem: the disability survey of 2013 found 24 percent of New Zealanders identify as disabled and 64 percent of disabled adults have a physical impairment. Whaikaha is aware of instances where mobility parking spaces have been misused but the rules were not enforced. Surveys undertaken by CCS Disability Action indicate that although there had been a decrease in the number of vehicles parking in mobility parks without displaying a permit, few illegally parked cars are ticketed. The enforcement rate is particularly low for mobility parks located on private property. Of course, many of those mobility parks on private property are in supermarket and shopping centre car parks. The legal framework around such things, the Building Act 2004, does not require a specific portion of car parks to be set aside as mobility parks, however section 119 of that Act provides NZS 4121, designed for access and mobility. The standard requires at least one mobility park for one to 20 parks, two mobility parks for 21 to 50 parks, and one additional mobility park for each additional 50 parks. Under clause 6.4(1A) of the Land Transport (Road User) Rule, it is an offence to stop, stand, or park a vehicle in any parking area reserved for disabled people unless the driver or a passenger is disabled and displays a disabled parking permit. Currently, the infringement fee is a mere $150. Also, the petitioner brought to the committee's attention the United Nations convention and also the New Zealand Disability Strategy, which also addressed the issue. The committee, having heard that evidence, then subsequently brought back the follow-up submissions from the Government agencies, after having asked them to head away and actually look at this issue together, rather than separately. They came back with a number of recommendations, and those recommendations, just this week, the committee has received a report from the Government on the progress of those recommendations. Now, my time is coming to an end, but I'm confident my fellow speakers will go through the rest of the contents of this. So a very real issue that will affect us all eventually. Thank you, Mr Speaker. Hon PENNY SIMMONDS (Minister for Disability Issues): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Mobility parking is important to the New Zealanders who rely on it for access to everyday facilities and services like grocery shopping and visiting the doctor. When mobility parking is misused, the lives of those New Zealanders are considerably disrupted. In a recent survey, lack of access to suitable carparking was the most common reason respondents gave for not being able to take trips away from home for day-to-day activities. We welcome the petition by Claire Dale to make mobility parking enforceable on public property and to increase penalties. And we thank the Petitions Committee and those who made submissions to the committee, and we welcome the committee's final report on this topic. Inconsistent enforcement reduces the likelihood that people will actually follow the rules and may lead some people to believe that they can park in these spaces. We know this misuse of mobility parking spaces was reported repeatedly in the submissions that came to the Petitions Committee. We also acknowledge many of the challenges and concerns that were raised by businesses and enforcement authorities in relation to the enforcement of mobility parking law. They raised that they have limited staff availability for enforcement and that they have concerns for the welfare of their staff from aggressive drivers. For the recommendations that were included in the final report from the Petitions Committee, the Government has now had an opportunity to review them and consider what actions we should take. We agree with many of the submissions that the use of new technology could be a vital tool to improve enforcement. Cameras are increasingly providing an affordable option for monitoring mobility parking spots while also being able to document the offences and keep staff safe. I will now outline these recommendations and the Government's response to them. The first recommendation was to significantly increase and index to inflation the fine for illegal parking in mobility parking spaces. The Government agrees that the cost of mobility parking fines is insufficient, with the fees not having been updated since 2008, and this is part of a broader issue with outdated fees that we're seeking to address. The Minister of Transport has directed the Ministry of Transport to undertake a full review of parking fees, and this will include consideration of a mechanism for regularly reviewing the fees so that we don't get that outdated situation again. The second recommendation was to review current mobility parking requirements and research future needs to ensure that an appropriate number of mobility parks are available. It is important that there are sufficient mobility parks to meet current and future demands. Mobility parking requirements are reviewed periodically by local government, and this is often based on the NZ Standard "Design for access and mobility", which is developed by the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment. This standard provides good guidance to those reviewing mobility parking requirements, and the Government doesn't see the need for a fundamental review of approach at this time. The third recommendation is to consider support for road controlling authorities to develop technology for enforcing mobility parking. The Government agrees with the committee that technology is a key tool for greater and safer enforcement, and we are exploring general options for new enforcement technologies, particularly automation of infringement offences. Specifically for this issue, we are encouraged to read one example in the Petitions Committee's report from Queenstown Lakes District Council. The council uses cameras to monitor mobility parks, bus stops, and taxi stands, and the cameras are on at all times. Given the concerns about coverage and staff safety, we encourage local councils to explore and develop these. There will be further work needing to be done with Local Government New Zealand to support road controlling authorities to increase uptake of enforcement technologies. Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green—Rongotai): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Tēnā koutou e te Whare. I didn't have the privilege of sitting on the Petitions Committee that heard this last term, but, as some people might know, I was a public transport and urban planner before entering politics, and one of my specialties was in parking management. It turns out that better parking management is one of the key ways that we can get better outcomes in our towns and cities. Of course, ensuring that there is sufficient provision of mobility parking and that there is sufficient enforcement of mobility parking is essential to ensure that everybody has access and is able to move around our towns and cities. I wholeheartedly agree with the recommendations of the Petitions Committee that considered the petition of Claire Dale. The main point is, of course, to make mobility parking enforceable on all public use property, and increase fines, and recommends that we do more to ensure that we're policing the use of mobility parking and that mobility parking is provided. I think it's really important, because, previously, like many other English speaking countries, we've had planning rules that required developers to over-provide large off-street car parks, which had a huge cost and reduced the amount of land in our towns and cities that was available for the things that people want to be there, like homes and businesses and green spaces and schools and all of the other reasons that people come together and live in towns and cities. Getting rid of those harmful regulations—which was supported by National, of course; the National Policy Statement for Urban Development got rid of minimum parking requirements—was a key opportunity to ensure that we were providing the right amount of parking and not tying up, you know, huge amounts of our urban land in car parks that were underutilised. However, in getting rid of those minimum parking requirements, it is essential that we have provisions in place to ensure that we are providing for mobility parking in a different way. So providing mobility parks simply as a percentage of the car parks that are provided doesn't work if we're not providing car parks for anyone but mobility car parks. So it is important to have a minimum amount of mobility car parking, but that doesn't necessarily have to be site by site. What's important is that the mobility parking is provided around a given area and that it's accessible, it's available, that we have good design between the mobility parks, the footpaths, and the crossings that make it easier for those who are have mobility impairments to cross the road, to get from the car park to wherever they might be going in the nearby vicinity. Because there's not always going to be a car park directly in front of the building that you want to access or the open public space or whatever it is that you're trying to access. So while I completely agree and support the recommendations of the Petitions Committee, and I hope that the Government will take it seriously and will support looking into that, I do think that we need to go a bit beyond that to ensure that there's proper access. Sometimes it's said, "Well, we don't want to get rid of car parking in our urban areas because there might be people who need mobility parking", but, oftentimes, the way the car parking is provided is fragmented, it can be very far away from a destination. That is also of interest and note, because it doesn't provide good access—some people with mobility issues can't actually drive. So making wider, more accessible footpaths, raised pedestrian crossings—all of those things actually make it much easier for those with mobility issues, who may be in wheelchairs or who may have other mobility issues, to get around our towns and cities. The enforcement of parking—I particularly like the recommendations in here, because the enforcement of parking rules is really important. Of course, nobody likes getting a parking infringement—it doesn't feel good. But, then, the whole point of the infringement is to incentivise people to follow the rules. So it is really important that we have good, well-signposted rules, that we have fair and equitable enforcement of those rules. While I can understand wanting to increase the fine—and in some cases that is important to make sure it's a sufficient deterrent—it is important that we look at the way that we apply fines for traffic infringements and for parking infringements, so that it's not penalising those who have less money and who are on lower incomes. There are other countries in the world that have infringements as a percentage of someone's income, and I think that's something New Zealand should be looking to, to ensure that those who are very wealthy don't just choose to pay the infringement and those who are poor are really crippled by making a mistake. We need to ensure there's support for people with the disparity in incomes that we have. With that, I'm very happy to finish my contribution to this debate. Hon KAREN CHHOUR (Minister for Children): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It's a pleasure to stand today and speak to the petition of Claire Dale. I'd first like to start off by thanking Claire Dale for bringing this to the Petitions Committee, because, often, these kinds of petitions can create real change and create the conversation that we need to have to create further legislation. For the disability community, the main thing you hear of the barriers to living their best life is accessibility. So it's really important to acknowledge that and the hard work that it takes to bring a petition, as well. So Claire Dale was concerned that able-bodied people were parking in mobility parking spaces and taking away the opportunities for people with disabilities to access basic needs, like grocery shopping, seeing a doctor, or even being able to go to a movie. Sometimes just being closer to those front doors is quite important. Sometimes it can be embarrassing for somebody who cannot make that distance. I know of someone personally who has a disability, and if they can't park close enough, they just won't bother. They shouldn't have to made that decision: "Do I or don't I bother to go in and get my groceries? Do I or don't I bother trying to get to the doctor today, because somebody may take up that space?" The other concern is that when it is not enforced, people can get quite aggressive towards somebody who just wants to use a space that they're entitled to use. In the notes, I see that there were problems around enforcement, there were problems around people becoming abusive and threatening when asked to move out of the disabled parks. This just is not OK. Actually, one of the recommendations is around a campaign to the public, to let them know what their actions are actually causing for the disabled community. There shouldn't be a fear of saying "I have a disability and I need this park." There shouldn't be a fear of being abused when you are trying to use something that you're entitled to. So I really think we should consider a public education campaign to improve the understanding around someone accessing basic needs. That's what this is about. This is making sure that we enable the disabled community to live their best lives. I'm actually quite proud to stand here and speak to this, because, whilst in Opposition, I heard a lot from the disability community, and accessibility is their biggest issue; it is a barrier to doing basic, everyday life things that they need, and we need to take that into account. Sometimes we take for granted how easy it is to just park in a disability space and say, "I'm just popping in for a moment." That was mentioned quite a bit as well. It's like, "I'm just ducking in for two seconds." But that two seconds could take away somebody's ability to live their best life. If we look at it like that and we educate people to know that they're actually effecting somebody living their best life, I'm sure that that will help. I appreciate the recommendations that have been put forward by the Petitions Committee and I really look forward to the future discussions that this petition has enabled to happen. I hope that it actually directs future legislation and makes people understand how important this small issue is, because sometimes the smallest changes make the biggest difference in somebody's life, and sometimes we need to stop thinking so complicated and realise that these simple, little changes will make a major difference in somebody's life—in your grandmother's life—especially with the ageing population right now, which was a concern that was brought forward to the Petitions Committee. We have an ageing population who need to be able to access these car parks. Some of the solutions may be as simple as: "If there's not enough car parks, how about we open up the parent and pram car parks to be able to be disability car parks too? Share them alongside the disabled community." There are solutions and I am really appreciative of the fact that this has been brought forward for us to discuss so that we can make a real difference in the disability community's lives. Thank you, Mr Speaker. ANDY FOSTER (NZ First): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Look, I want to join with the other members who've spoken in congratulating Claire Dale on the petition, and I also want to congratulate the members of the committee that considered this. What is good to see is the House working collegially on this issue, which is actually really important to many members of our community. I think this is really, really important because it's about helping facilitate the ability to—as we've just heard—live people's best lives to some of the people who are most struggling with doing that: people who are suffering from disabilities. Mobility parking is a really, really important part of disabled people being able to access the facilities and the services that are needed to be a full participant in our community and to live our best lives. It's interesting, when I look at the documentation we've got here in front of us and the considerations, to see that there is a juxtaposition sometimes between the objectives that we try to achieve and certainly those ones around saying, "Look, we want to have more people using public transport and cycling and those sort of things." and then say, "Well, we'll take all these parks out." and suddenly you find—oopsie daisy—the disability community and the aged community are sort of pushing back and saying, "Hang on a moment, we need you to leave some car parks there because we cannot all use public transport. We cannot all get on a bike, and we need to get that balance right." So that's an important thing to consider. But it is good to see the careful and thoughtful consideration that the committee has given to this, and now I think it behoves us to make some progress on this. The wheels sometimes grind slowly—this has come from 2022—and I think we should be trying to make sure that we get some progress now. So I want to turn to the six recommendations that we've got in front of us there. The first one of them is to significantly increase and index to inflation the fine for illegal parking in mobility parking spaces. I was really encouraged to see that the Ministry of Transport had been doing some work on exactly this issue across all parking fines. I think that's the key bit there: they'd stopped that work for other work, and it's really good to hear that the Minister is now going to say, "Hey, look, I want you to get back on to doing that work, to get back on track to doing that work." [National members cheer] I'm sorry, what did I say there? But I think what we should take there is it's actually important not to take the fine for parking in disability space in isolation. We've got to actually take the rest of those fines. So you've got the fines for overstaying a park, that's one lot. But you've also got the fines there—and I looked up the numbers there for parking in a way which is unsafe for pedestrians and other vehicles, i.e. parking on a broken yellow line, for example. That is deemed to be unsafe. The fine for that is $60. So you can say, "Well OK, we're really inconveniencing and we're annoying the disability community, we're upsetting people."—it's $150; "We're being unsafe."—it's $60. What's the fine, for example? Then you look at other infringements that there are. In the mobile area, it's $150 if you go through a red light. Now, when somebody goes through a red light, you know, there's an amber light that's there first. They have every ability to stop and yet going through that is really unsafe behaviour. So I think the message I would say is, "Yes, we want to have a look at the mobility fine. Yes, that may well need to rise. But hey, let's look at all these things and let's make sure that we look at them together so they are coherent." Because otherwise you're going to end up with an infringement regime across both parking and mobile offences which is completely incoherent, and that would not be particularly helpful or in anybody's best interests at all. The other point that's made there is about indexing in line for inflation. From my local government experience, one of the things I can say is that Parliament is really, really bad at setting fines and infringements and all those sorts of penalties. Because what it does is it sets them—in this case in 2008—and then puts them away and says, "Look, one day we'll consider them again." That is not very helpful. Indexing to inflation would be a much better approach right across the board for so many of those areas. In the last minute I've got available, what I would like to say is that I think all the recommendations there are very sensible ones. I think some flexibility built into the way in which those are dealt with and have some guidelines rather than definite requirements in public and private land, because every circumstance will be slightly different. But the one thing I did want to say: education—really, really important. But I did note that there's a thought there about actually going and doing enforcement on private land. The Crown advice there is that's a big, big step which may not go down too well. I was disturbed a little bit to then say that maybe local government should go and do that, which I think will be just as big a step and probably just as unwise. So I commend this work and suggest that we do really need to get on with doing it and respond to the needs of our disability community. HANA-RAWHITI MAIPI-CLARKE (Te Pāti Māori—Hauraki-Waikato): Tēnā rā koe e te Pīka, otirā tēnā rā tātou e te Whare. E tū ana ahau ki te waha i ngā kōrero mā Te Pāti Māori. E kaha tautoko ana mātou i tēnei petihana. E tuku mihi ana, e tuku ana i te reo owha ki a Claire Dale me āna mahi i roto i tēnei petihana. Anā ka tīkina e au te kupu, ehake i te mea ka whakamahia e au i te kupu "whai kaha" nā runga anō i te mea ko ētehi o aku whanaunga kāore i te tino rata ki te kupu "whai kaha". Ko te kupu "whai kaha" he āhua takahi i ō rātou mana nā runga anō i te mea kāore he tangata me whai i te kaha. I roto i te reo o Waikato, ko te "mana hauā" kē. Anā ka tautoko mātou i ngā tāngata mana hauā e whai ana i tō rātou nei mana motuhake i roto i te tūnga waka. Engari ehara i te mea e tautokotia ana tēnā kaupapa anahe, engari kia whai mana motuhake ngā tāngata mana hauā huri noa o Aotearoa, otirā te ao whānui mō ngā take pēnei i te haere ki te wharepaku, ngā mea e haere atu rā ki roto i te whare, i roto i tēnei Whare hoki, o tēnei Whare Pāremata. Anā ka kaha tautokotia e mātou o Te Pāti Māori i roto i tō mātou nei manifesto, our policy, e kaha tautoko ana i ngā tāngata mana hauā, anā ki te whai i tō rātou tino rangatiratanga. Kāore anō au kia whai pēhitanga ki te kore au e haere ki te wharepaku, kore au e haere ki tētehi tūnga waka. Kāore au e mōhio ki tēnā momo pēhitanga, anā ka tino pā mamae au ki tēnei momo āhuatanga. Kua kaha pēhia nei, kua kaha tāmitia tō tātou nei ao hurihuri ki a rātou, te mana hauā. Nō reira ehara nōku ki te pahupahu mō ēnei momo kōrero. Kua tino tau i roto i a mātou te tautoko i tēnei o ngā petihana, engari kia kaha tautokotia e mātou i roto i ngā wharepaku, i roto i te Whare, i roto i ngā momo āhuatanga katoa e pēhi nei i ngā tāngata mana hauā. [Thank you, Mr Speaker, indeed greetings to all of us of the House. I stand to voice the statements on behalf of the Māori Party. We strongly support this petition. We thank and send the voice of welcome to Claire Dale and her efforts in this petition. Now, I will take the word, I will not deem to use the word "whai kaha" due to the fact that several of my own relations aren't enamoured of the word "whai kaha". The word "whai kaha" is something of a violation of their mana because they aren't people who need to acquire strength. In the regional variation of Waikato, it is instead "mana hauā". And thus we support the disabled people that are attempting to maintain their self-determination within car parks. But it is not that this topic alone is supported, but instead that disabled people across New Zealand, indeed the wider world retain their independence for issues such as going to the ablution facilities, those that are entering into buildings, and into this very House also, this House of Parliament. And so this is strongly supported by us, by the Māori Party, within our manifesto, our policy, we strongly support disabled people to pursue their independence. I have yet to experience such suppression should I not go to the toilet facilities, or not approach parking facilities. I do not know that type of suppression, and such circumstances pain me greatly. They, the disabled people, have been greatly suppressed, highly oppressed by our ever-changing world. So it is not for me to prattle on about these statements. Our support for this petition is resolute within us, nevertheless it will be strongly supported by us in the ablution facilities, in the House, and in all situations that disabled people are being oppressed.] Nō reira, thank you, Mr Speaker. That is my contribution to the House today. GREG FLEMING (National—Maungakiekie): [Authorised te reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.] [Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.] Saturday night I was out with Community Patrols of New Zealand in Onehunga. In my electorate of Maungakiekie, we're privileged to have three excellent branches there from Mount Wellington to Ellerslie to Onehunga, and I was in the latter one when we came across, just a half an hour into a patrol, the sight of a vehicle carelessly and flagrantly parked across a mobility parking space. The young man that came out, when we got his attention down there on the Onehunga waterfront, was very pleasant, but he was completely unapologetic. There was absolutely no fear of his consequences there. And I must also note my colleague from Whanganui apparently was out the same night, Carl Bates, who's now more properly known as "Captain Everywhere". When I saw the unapologetic nature of this young man, I was cross. In fact, my thoughts immediately went to Raul Alejandro, the deputy director of Venezuelan parks. And to paraphrase his response in that this context, it would have been "This is outrageous. Where are the armed men who come in to take the mis-parkers away? Where are they? This kind of behaviour is never tolerated in Boraqua. You park like that, they put you in jail right away, no trial, no nothing." But here in New Zealand, I thought, "What could be done?" And I was at a loss, but only for a short period of time, because when I arrived in on Tuesday and saw the speaking list for this week, I saw the special debate sat down, my heart leapt. I have the privilege of sitting on the Petitions Committee, and I have come to love that committee in my short stay in Parliament, because it provides open access to our democratic process across the country. During my time there, I've seen dozens of great ideas, but perhaps none as strong as this. So can I start by adding my thanks to Claire Dale for your relentless advocacy on this front. I eagerly read the reports, the responses, the counter-responses. I particularly appreciated the passion and clarity of you, Claire. I felt like you were advocating for my mother and my mother-in-law, who are both regular users and dependants of those mobility parking spaces. In fact, right now my mother-in-law will be driving down Thorndon Quay, looking for a park to attend my father-in-law's 84th birthday, and as soon as we get out of this, that's where I'll be heading to. So I shall get to my point. And my point is this: the frustration that I felt on Saturday night and that's been well-articulated here by many members already. A law that is not enforced is no law at all. We all know people who do the math and work out that parking fines in this country are so poultry that they may as well never pay them. They're better to just take the risk that one in 20, one in 30 times they receive an infringement notice and they pay that. The reality of it is that that has to change, and that's why it's going to change under this Government, because we've listened to the recommendations on Claire's petition and we've said six clear yeses. Yes to recommendation (1) the Minister of Transport will direct the ministry to undertake a full review of parking fees and fines. Significant change is coming. Recommendation (2) yes. Recommendation (3) consider support for road controlling authorities to develop technology for enforcing mobility parking. We heard the Minister direct councils around the country already to look at the example of Queenstown. We've got them in Onehunga as well. Change is coming. Recommendation (4) work with private sector car park operators to develop a code of practice for enforcing mobility parking. Again, a resounding yes. As with recommendation (5) look at using technology from public parks and private car parks. Finally, recommendation (6) undertake a public education campaign to improve understanding of mobility parking and why compliance matters—yes. In fact, the Minister of Transport in the Government's review has already instructed road control authorities to do exactly that. I repeat, a law that is not enforced is no law at all. It's a foundational belief and principle of this Government, and that's why we say, "Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, and yet." We have listened to your advocacy, Claire. We will make the changes. Justice is coming. Thank you, Mr Speaker. Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Given that the issue that we're discussing during the special debate today is one that disproportionately impacts our disability communities, I just want to take a moment to also recognise and acknowledge that the fact that today is in fact World Down Syndrome Day—the 2024 theme is to end the stereotypes and that is incredibly relevant also to the issue that we are discussing here today. Of course, also, this is a week that has seen a fair bit of debate in this House already around disability issues in Parliament. Unfortunately, most of it has been rather negative and in opposition to some of the sudden changes that were brought about on Monday, announced, and implemented, that takes away flexibility of funding for many within our disability communities. And that is relevant to this debate because one of the main issues that I heard about as the former Minister for Disability Issues was that of barriers. This is a community that is incredibly resilient and incredibly strong. Just because they've had to be. They've had to advocate and fight for a number of barriers to be removed. The ones that we're discussing in this special debate today, of course, is around mobility parking. And I do want to just take a moment to acknowledge Claire Dale and to thank her for bringing this petition to the notice of the House, and also to acknowledge the work of the former Petitions Committee in terms of the very thorough and thoughtful, I'd say, examination of this issue and the various stakeholders they have spoken to about this as well. The crux of the issue or the matter here today is that the petition was calling for legislation to substantially increase fines nationally for misusing any mobility parking spaces, including on privately owned land that is used publicly, and also to urge the Government to run an education campaign. I am heartened to hear quite emphatically from the member who just resumed his seat, Greg Fleming, that the Government will indeed move on all of those. Because I was listening intently to the contribution by the current Minister for Disability Issues, the Hon Penny Simmons, that was unfortunately incredibly lacklustre, and I thought didn't really commit to any of those recommendations, except probably increasing fines. And there was no mention from her about the need for a public education campaign, which would remove some of the stereotypes that many within the disability community unfortunately are marginalised as a result of. In fact, that was something that Whaikaha supported as well in terms of both stricter enforcement measures and also an education campaign that could help to reduce the misuse of mobility parks. And this is actually an issue that I do feel pretty strongly about. I remember just recently, probably at the end of last year, or early this year, taking a bit of a holiday in Raglan, sitting outside their bakery, eating a pie as one does occasionally, and for the 20 or 25 minutes that I was sitting outside right in front of the mobility park, I saw about five people without a mobility permit parking in that park just to pop into the bakery. So I feel that it is something that is misused. There is in the report back from the Petitions Committee a point made by one of the stakeholders that it is reducing—there isn't a huge amount of evidence, I think it was the supermarkets that mentioned there aren't often complaints about it, but people don't complain when they can't actually park and get out and go about their business that they are there for. It's hardly likely that they're going to be complaining about it. The other quick point that I wanted to make on that that I realised from the report of this committee is that one can actually report it to 105. It could be looked into if police have the ability at the point to do so, but there's also an access app that people can use to report the misuse of mobility parks. So just in in closing, what I'll say is that this is an issue that impacts the ability for disabled people and also our ageing population to have the dignity of being able to go about their daily business by being able to park somewhere easily and conduct said business. So this is something that should be taken seriously. I'm pleased to hear the Government's going to act on pretty much all of those recommendations and I'll be looking out to ensure that they do. CARL BATES (National—Whanganui): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I'd like to, firstly, thank the work of Claire Dale in putting this petition together and for the work of the previous Petitions Committee—and, of course, the work of the current Petitions Committee—as we stand here in the House today and speak on the action being taken on the recommendations out of this petition. It's pretty unfortunate and interesting to hear the focus of Labour this week on disability issues when, in July 2023, the then Prime Minister, Chris Hipkins, said that the Government had stopped work into the parking offence review because they had other issues that had taken priority. I stand here today thinking about people like my grandfather, who's a regular user of mobility parks, and my dad, who had a major stroke 12 years ago, struggles to walk, and uses mobility parks on a regular basis, and all mobility park users. And I am excited that the Government has made a commitment to take action. The Minister of Transport will direct the Ministry of Transport to undertake a full review of parking fees and fines. This Government is a Government that will get stuff done. The Government's response also notes that the cost of parking fines is insufficient. We've heard that—that they're insufficient—so I thought I'd just take a look at what insufficiency meant in 2024. And so I took the time period 2017 to 2024—I thought that was an interesting period to look at in terms of what the value of these parking fines has, essentially, gone down by—and, in that period, which happens to be the period of the last Labour Government, a $150 fine would have had to go up to $187.94 due to outrageously high inflation to have the same value. So I'm excited by the fact that this Government has made a commitment to ensure there is a good full review of parking offense costs. It's also great to see recommendation 3, which says the Government is also exploring general options for new enforcement technologies. Not only does this look to ensure the safety of the parking officers and workers who go around our cities—middle-income New Zealanders that voted overwhelmingly for a Government that would get stuff done, and ensure they had tax relief as well—but we are looking after their safety at the same time as thinking about the idea of localism, and rather than prescribing what these enforcement technologies could be, allowing local councils and private parking spaces to adopt these technologies to ensure that there is a more immediate and reactive approach—or immediate and active, I suppose, approach—to ensure that people who park in these spaces get held accountable for not taking personal responsibility. It is great to see the action being taken by this Government, and I have to thank, as I say, the Petitions Committee for their work in bringing this before the House and highlighting again for us—once again for us—that inflation kills the value of the dollar, and we need to change these parking offence rates in order to keep up with that sort of hectic inflation we've had in the last six years. Thank you, Mr Speaker. Hon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I too want to congratulate and thank Claire Dale, who happens to be a constituent of mine in the Western Bay of Plenty, part of the very beautiful Coromandel electorate, and I've had the opportunity to spend time with Claire talking about petition. I want to just acknowledge the petition process because, here we are, in the Parliament of New Zealand, discussing and debating an issue that a citizen decided was important enough to raise to gather together signatures to present a petition to the Petitions Committee, and here we are, ending up debating seriously that issue. Now, to me, that speaks of participatory democracy in action, and I think that's an important part of what we do here as legislators. And it's, I hope, something that will encourage others to equally petition the Parliament on issues that they think are important to them, their neighbours, their communities and their families. I want to—sorry, Mr. Speaker, other participants in this debate have covered off some of the detail of Claire's petition, but I particularly just want to remind the House of what was, I think, in essence, the simplicity of her petition. The intent of her petition was simply this: to increase the fine and standardise the final penalty for using a mobility parking space, no matter whether on public or private property. Now, it's this distinction on what happens between private and public property that is actually quite a stumbling block when it comes to mobility parking. Because if you are a private property owner—let's say that you are a big box retailer, Mitre 10 or Bunnings or Countdown or one of those sorts of organisations—the parking facilities that occur on those sites is privately owned. Yet there is no standardisation of how those private property owners should actually apply any rules at all, other than maybe, perhaps, marking out, as is required by the consenting territorial authority, a number of mobility parking spaces when the supermarket or the hardware store is built. But, after that, there's actually no compulsion, then, or ability for the landowner, the retailer, to actually consistently and appropriately then apply any kind of rules or regulation around that private property stuff. So most of the debate today has been in relation to mobility parking that occurs in public places—parking provided by councils or that sort of thing. So this issue of consistency I know is important to Claire, who is watching this debate this afternoon. I know that she would want me and others to make that point. It's about as much about the fine and the actual appropriateness of the fine and the sort of discipline of having a mobility space, but it's about the consistency between public parking mobility spaces and those that occur on private property as well, that are often administered by big box retailers nationwide. So, on that note, I want to thank again Claire, I want to thank members, on her behalf, for participating in this debate, and to wish Claire well and to let her know that the Government response has been, I think, quite fulsome and will be taken seriously. Thank you, Mr Speaker. INGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri): I'm glad that we all seem to be sitting around, holding hands, and singing "Kumbaya". I apologise if I'm deeply cynical about what the members opposite have said they are committing to, because this is a week where we've seen the disabled community traumatised by the lack of championing of their cause by their Minister. When I heard her speak today, I did not get the commitment to the recommendations as set out in the petition by Claire Dale that she has set and that the other members have said were there. What I heard, in fact, was that, in recommendation number one, it says "significantly increase, and index to inflation, [fines] for illegal parking in mobility parking spaces". We did not hear a commitment to that; we heard a commitment for a review by the Ministry of Transport—that is quite a different proposition. On the second point, we heard about reviewing current mobility parking requirements and researching future needs. I heard the Minister say that she was satisfied that the status quo was suffice and that there was no need to do that. I then heard Greg Fleming say, "No, there is an unequivocal commitment to that." I'm really heartened to hear that. I would like to see the actual wording of the recommendation on that, and I do hope that the Government members will table the list of recommendations as they have just committed to. On the third one, we have heard things around car park operators. I'm really pleased that the previous speaker discussed the importance of private parking. But I didn't hear the Minister herself also talk about the education campaign, because what we are seeking here is a culture change. So she highlighted using cameras and using new technologies; I didn't hear about the more significant work to educate people and to change behaviours. This is really indicative of, in my view, the lacklustre—as my colleague said: the lacklustre—contribution of this Minister to champion the cause of the disability community. If she is indeed going to make all of these six recommendations happen, which I really hope she does, then let's hear that loudly and clearly, because we did not hear that from her; we heard that far more clearly from the member over there—Greg Fleming—who very proudly said that those commitments would be made. So I apologise if I am confused. The need for this to be taken seriously is really important. It's not enough for us to sit here and discuss it and say that there will be reviews or there will be future actions. Action needs to happen quickly—I would like to hear time frames from the Government as to when they are going to make these commitments. I know that when my mother was very ill, in her final stages of her terminal cancer journey, she relied very heavily on the mobility packing ticket that she had that enabled her to be able to get out of the house. She was very lucky in Taranaki that people there did seem to respect it. Certainly I know people in my own electorate of Taieri, where we have high levels of disability, do have a culture of understanding. Now, I'll probably get emails correcting me about that tomorrow, but by and large I do see disability parking spaces respected and honoured because we have a culture in my electorate where there's high levels of visibility of disabled people. Many of us have disabled people in our neighbourhoods, so we understand the importance of enabling our communities to be able to get out and have the best quality of life. But I know in the big cities that is not necessarily the case, and we have heard that today from various members around this House. But I just want to say, again, it's great that these recommendations appear to have been adopted. What I've heard from members opposite is not the wording of the petition. That is what makes me cynical, because I have heard them say that they will go to review, they will go to the transport Minister, they will go to other places. I have heard the Minister herself say in her own words that she thought the current settings for planning were adequate and therefore there was no need to do anything about that. So I would really like the last speaker in the debate, from that side, to be able to clarify all this for us so that we can hear unequivocally these commitments, and to put some time frames around them, please. Because the disabled community has been sadly let down this week. They will be feeling as cynical as I am about this. They need reassurance. So, in honouring Claire Dale, please provide some time-down commitments where they can start to trust again that this House is serving them. PAULO GARCIA (National—New Lynn): I'm lucky last. Firstly, thank you to Claire Dale for her initiative and taking the time to bring this petition to the House and to the Petitions Committee—thank you for taking it through up to this point. I echo the words of the chair of the Petitions Committee, honourable Greg O'Connor, when he said at the start of this debate that we would all be using mobility spaces at some point, some probably earlier than others in this House, clearly. So I'm pleased that this is happening now. In this joy of being able to discuss this petition, I am saddened, actually, that we are here having to discuss how best to get people who do not deserve, or are not eligible, to park in mobility spaces from parking in mobility spaces. We are having to enforce this requirement—it's a sad day. But the facts are there: the spaces are few, they are very attractive, and we want to park where we want to park and we want to be up close. But the fact is that the cost of infringement is also very low, making it all the more tempting. But the object of this petition is clearly to ensure that people with disabilities have the opportunity to park where they are supposed to park. Unfortunately, we have to regulate this. I commend this petition to the House. Motion agreed to. SPEAKER: Members, that concludes business as set down by the Business Committee. The House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. on Tuesday, 26 March 2024. The House adjourned at 5:50 p.m.