Wednesday, 27 March 2024 - Volume 774 Sitting date: 27 Mar 2024 WEDNESDAY, 27 MARCH 2024 The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m. KARAKIA/PRAYERS TEANAU TUIONO (Assistant Speaker): 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.] SPEAKER'S RULINGS Oral questions—Answers SPEAKER: Members, I have been concerned at the number of answers from Ministers being used to attack other parties in the House. This is not permitted by Standing Orders and Speakers' rulings—Standing Orders 205(4), 205(5), and 181(3). Of course, Ministers can comment on activities of the previous Government which they have had to confront while in Government—Speaker's ruling 180/4—but that is not an invitation to make attacks on members of the Opposition. I don't want to have to intervene, but I will do so if the Standing Orders continue to be breached. Having said that, questions with a partisan tone can expect a political answer and there is no point in appealing to the Speaker in those situations—Speakers' ruling 187/1. Questions that ask a Minister how they would respond to a comment from a member of the public fall into this category. Questions that invite comparison with policies of a previous Government also invite Ministers to comment in critical terms. Question time works best when members ask Ministers straight questions. When that happens, members should expect a straight answer, and the Speaker can assist them in getting one. PETITIONS, PAPERS, SELECT COMMITTEE REPORTS, AND INTRODUCTION OF BILLS SPEAKER: There have been no petitions presented. Papers have been delivered. CLERK: 2022-23 annual reports of the Government Communications Security Bureau and the New Zealand Security Intelligence Service report of the activities of the Intelligence and Security Committee in 2023, Budget Policy Statement 27 March 2024. SPEAKER: Those papers are published under the authority of the House. Select committee reports have been delivered for presentation. CLERK: Reports of the Finance and Expenditure Committee on 2022-23 annual reviews of the Kiwi Group Capital Limited Guardians of New Zealand Superannuation New Zealand Productivity Commission Earthquake Commission, and Southern Response Earthquake Services Limited, and on the financial statements of New Zealand for the year ending 30 June 2023 and the 2022-23 annual review of the Treasury, reports of the Health Committee on the 2022-23 annual review of the Ministry of Health on the 2022-23 annual reviews of the Māori Health Authority – Te Aka Whai Ora the New Zealand Blood and Organ Service, and the Pharmaceutical Management Agency the report of the Intelligence and Security Committee on the 2022-23 annual reviews of the Government Communications Security Bureau and the New Zealand Security Intelligence Service, report of the Māori Affairs Committee on the Ngāti Paoa Claims Settlement Bill. SPEAKER: The bill is set down for second reading. The report on the financial statements is set down for consideration. Bills have not been presented. ORAL QUESTIONS QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS Question No. 1—Prime Minister 1. Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Does he have confidence in the Minister for Disability Issues? Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON (Prime Minister): Yes, I do, and the Minister has a very important job to do, fixing a system that is, frankly, not fit for purpose, which she inherited from that member's previous Government, and I am confident she's going to do exactly that. Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: On what date did either Penny Simmonds or her office inform his office that Whaikaha had changed entitlements to disability support services and respite care? Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I found out when it was released in the media. Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Who made the decision to remove Penny Simmonds' ability to make decisions around disability support funding or criteria without Cabinet sign-off? Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: That is not what's happened. All that we have said is that we expect major changes to front-line services across a range of portfolios that impact New Zealanders to be brought to Cabinet for a good discussion. Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Well, was Nicola Willis incorrect when she said, "We've also directed, as a Cabinet, that any further decisions that the ministry makes about changing its criteria, its funding, needs to be properly consulted, properly [sequenced]. It needs to go [before] Cabinet before it's enacted."; if so, who made that decision? Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: That is correct, but we expect all Cabinet Ministers to bring forward issues in their portfolios when they're making significant changes to the front line for discussion in Cabinet. Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: So why didn't Penny Simmonds do that before changing those criteria? Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: As we have said, she didn't bring it to Cabinet, and as a result there was no Cabinet discussion. That is something the Minister has apologised for and she will do going forward. Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Why should the New Zealand public have confidence in the Minister for Disability Issues when he's, effectively, removed decision-making delegations from her? Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I disagree completely. All we're saying is that all Ministers, on their portfolios, need to bring forward to Cabinet conversations around any changes to front-line services that are major and significant and that will impact New Zealanders. That didn't happen in this case; the Minister has admitted that upfront, has learnt from that experience, and we're moving forward. Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Will he commit to restoring full eligibility for carers in disability communities now that the responsibility for that has been taken off the Minister for Disability Issues? Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Oh, look, that is a mischaracterisation of the situation. Rt Hon Winston Peters: Could I ask the Prime Minister as to whether his Government's going to be guided by what may be described as the Roosevelt principle: that we'll try our hardest; we may not always get it right, but we'll keep on trying, other than saying that we're perfect, never apologise, and say we're the podium of truth? Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I think that's right. I think when Ministers make mistakes, they admit them, and then they learn from them and they move forward. But what I'd say to you is important is that this is a Minister that is actually making sure there is more money going in this year than there was last year under that previous Government, and, importantly, in Budget '24 there'll be even more money in place for people who need the disabled support and resource they need. Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Does he believe the Minister for Disability Issues' claim that "since 2018, the number of people accessing disability [support] has increased by around 50 percent compared to population growth of 8.5 percent" is a sign that too many people are claiming disability support? Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: What I'd say is what we have is a Minister who is actually ensuring there's more money going in this year, over and above the Budget that the previous Government left us, and, importantly, is making sure there is more money going into Budget '24. There is a review of disability services to make sure that, actually, money being spent has actually been going to disabled people to get the support and the resource they need. That's a good thing. Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. The question was whether he felt that the Minister's characterisation that the growth of around 50 percent in disability support compared to 8.5 percent over the same period was a sign that too many people are claiming disability support. The Prime Minister hasn't even come close to addressing that. SPEAKER: Well, that's true, but the Speaker's not the adjudicator of the answers, as you'll be aware from your deep understanding of Standing Orders, and— Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. You might not be the adjudicator of the answers, but you do have to ensure the Ministers address the question that was asked. SPEAKER: Well, that is true, and I think he did address it. In the end, that's where it lies. Question No. 2—Finance 2. RIMA NAKHLE (National—Takanini) to the Minister of Finance: What recent announcements has she made on the Budget? Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance): Earlier today, I released the Budget Policy Statement 2024. The Public Finance Act requires such a statement to be presented to the House each year. It contains the goals and objectives that will guide the Government's decisions in the forthcoming Budget and it sets out the Government's short-term fiscal intentions and long-term fiscal objectives. And, yes, I can confirm that the operating allowance will be less than that left to us in the half-year update. Rima Nakhle: What will be in this year's Budget? Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Members will have to wait until Budget day—30 May—and I'm so glad that they're anticipating so eagerly to see the details of this year's Budget. But in terms of the broad parameters— Hon David Parker: You asked that question yourself—it wasn't us. Hon NICOLA WILLIS: —I can tell members that there will be personal income tax relief in the Budget. This tax relief—and Mr Parker will be pleased to hear this—will be funded from within the operating allowance, and the operating allowance will be less than the $3.5 billion allowance indicated in the half-year update. This means the Government will not be borrowing extra to pay for tax relief, and it means tax relief will not be adding to inflationary pressures. Rima Nakhle: What else will be in this year's Budget? Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Tax relief is just one part of Budget 2024. The Budget will also have a strong focus on public services. Spending on front-line services will be reprioritised, despite some people practically fainting at the thought that the Government could do things differently and more effectively, and the Budget will deliver on Government policy commitments, including many of those in the coalition agreements. Rima Nakhle: What are the Government's fiscal intentions and objectives? Hon NICOLA WILLIS: As set out in the Budget Policy Statement, the Government's fiscal strategy is to return to surplus, get debt going down rather than going up, as it has been over the last five years—and as some members opposite want to continue to see it do—and it will reduce Government spending as a proportion of the overall economy. The legacy we inherited of elevated, lazy spending will take several Budgets to fix, but the first steps will be taken in Budget 2024. Question No. 3—Prime Minister 3. DEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER (Co-Leader—Te Pāti Māori) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his Government's policies and actions? Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON (Prime Minister): Yes, and especially today's Budget Policy Statement (BPS), which is setting out the coalition Government's Budget priorities. And they are to deliver meaningful tax relief to low and middle income working New Zealanders, to identify enduring savings, to improve public services, to keep tight control of Government spending while funding high-priority initiatives and urgent cost pressures, and to develop a long-term sustainable pipeline of infrastructure investments. The BPS charts, I think, a moderate, responsible course correction for New Zealand, which will support New Zealanders struggling with the cost of living crisis. Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Does he stand by the Government's decision to only increase the minimum wage by 2 percent when inflation is at 4.7 percent, which is a cut to the minimum wage in real terms? Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Yes. What I support, though, is actually growing our economy and making sure that we do everything we can to end the wasteful spending so we can protect front-line services, do everything we can to give tax relief to low and middle income working families, and make sure that we have growth in our economy. That's what we're focused on. Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: What is his response to the fact that this effective cut to the minimum wage will increase child poverty rates, given that 64 percent of families in poverty are in work? Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I disagree. The real opportunity for New Zealand is to grow our economy. Our economy, for four of the last five quarters, has been shrinking and been in recession. We need to grow our economy. That's how we get to lift wages for all and get people out of the cost of living crisis. Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: How are workers meant to keep up with rising food and rent costs when the Government is cutting their wages in real terms? Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, what they need is a Government that's going to have responsible financial management, rather than an 84 percent increase in Government spending which drove up domestic inflation, which drove up interest rates, which put the economy into shrinking—into recession—and creates rising risk of unemployment. We need to deal with the underlying cause, which is inflation, get spending under control, bring inflation down, get interest rates down, get the economy growing, and keep people in employment. Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Will he commit to delivering annual increases to minimum wage that keep up with rising costs to ensure workers have a liveable income— SPEAKER: Just wait on. Start that again. Someone over there made a comment. That's quite unnecessary during the middle of a question. Please start the question again, and we will have people hearing the question in silence. Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Will he commit to delivering annual increases to the minimum wage that keep up with rising costs to ensure workers have a liveable income to support their w'ānau; if not, why not? Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: What we are committing to is Family Boost, which is a programme to give 100,000 low and middle income working families some relief so they can put that towards their early childhood education centre costs, and we're also committing to tax relief for low and middle income workers—a group, frankly, that the Labour Party and Te Pāti Māori used to care deeply about. Question No. 4—Disability Issues 4. Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Labour) to the Minister for Disability Issues: Does she stand by all her statements and actions? Hon PENNY SIMMONDS (Minister for Disability Issues): Yes, in the context in which they were given. Hon Priyanca Radhakrishnan: When she told this House last week that carers have been able to spend on "such things for themselves as pedicures, as massages, as overseas travel", what evidence or data does she have to base that statement on? Hon Penny Simmonds: I had a paper that was given to me by Whaikaha in February which noted, from providers, that the fund had been used for such expenses. I didn't make any insinuation that those would be inappropriate. That was just stating what the fund had been used for at that time. Hon Members: Table it. SPEAKER: Well, when your own team's quiet, then go ahead. Hon Priyanca Radhakrishnan: Point of order, Mr Speaker. The Minister quoted from a document. Will she table that document? SPEAKER: No, you can ask the Minister if she is quoting from a document that she has in her possession in the House. Other than that—if it's here and she's relying on it, then perhaps you could ask that question. Other than that—do you have the document with you? Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: No. SPEAKER: OK. That's the end of that. Hon Priyanca Radhakrishnan: Supplementary, Mr Speaker? SPEAKER: Yep, just wait for your own colleagues. Away you go. Hon Priyanca Radhakrishnan: Does she agree with her office, who told Newshub that they didn't have any numbers but that the Minister had heard it anecdotally, and, if so, does this Minister make policy decisions based on hearsay? Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: No, I don't make policy decisions based on hearsay. I had a paper from Whaikaha which indicated that providers had stated the fund was being used for such purposes. Hon Priyanca Radhakrishnan: Does she accept that her statements and actions haven't been evidence-based and have led to disability communities losing trust in her as their Minister, and to the Prime Minister stripping her of her major decision-making ability in this portfolio and giving it to Cabinet? SPEAKER: Just a minute. All members in this House should be taken at their word, and what I heard the Prime Minister say earlier is that there has been no stripping of responsibility; there's been, what appeared to be, a return to normal practice. So I'm going to ask the member to rephrase the question. Hon Priyanca Radhakrishnan: Does she accept, based on what her office has told Newshub, that her statements and actions haven't been based on evidence and they have led to disability communities writing in droves, saying that they have lost their trust in her, and to the Prime Minister saying that Cabinet will be making major decisions on her behalf? Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: No, I have not been making decisions on hearsay. I had a paper from Whaikaha that outlined, from providers, what the spending had been spent on. Thank you. Hon Priyanca Radhakrishnan: What is the point of her remaining as the Minister for Disability Issues, if Cabinet is now chaperoning all her decisions in this portfolio, and the very communities that she claims to represent no longer have confidence in her? SPEAKER: No, sorry. Rt Hon Winston Peters: Point of order. SPEAKER: The member should know the system of Government we have in New Zealand. There is Cabinet-collective responsibility for all Government decisions. So the question is not in line with even our system here, let alone in order for the House. Have another try, at no loss to the party's allocation. Hon Priyanca Radhakrishnan: What is the point of her remaining as the Minister for Disability Issues, given that there's been reporting that she will not be making major decisions in her portfolio— SPEAKER: No, no. Look, I'm sorry, you can't do this. You can't infer something that is not correct. No Minister makes decisions outright on matters like this. There would always be a Cabinet paper—[Interruption] I'm still ruling—so just think about how you ask that question; it is possible. Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. SPEAKER: Point of order, Rt Hon Winston Peters was trying before— Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Well, I was first. Rt Hon Winston Peters: No, you weren't. SPEAKER: No, he was trying before, frankly I shut him down. Rt Hon Winston Peters: You'll never be first from now on. SPEAKER: Sorry, can you say it so I can hear it? Rt Hon Winston Peters: My point is very specific. You've got members of Parliament getting up there and then statements which they cannot in any way justify, verify, or authenticate, they're putting it in part of their question over and over, day in, day out. And Mr Speaker, that is not the standard of this House and it should be restored to what it used to be. SPEAKER: And that is what I ruled on right at the start of question time and I'm just gently taking the Parliament to that place. I'll hear the point of order. Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: It's on your ruling, Mr Speaker. The first is that it's actually incorrect. The Cabinet Manual does not require Ministers to consult Cabinet on every decision that they make. In fact, the Prime Minister determines which—[Interruption]. It's a point of order—it's a point of order. The Prime Minister determines which decisions they want the Cabinet to be consulted on or not, so that is absolutely a legitimate question. The second of which is a member claiming in their question something that has been reported is an absolutely legitimate thing to do in a question. The Minister can disagree with the reporting but actually claiming that it has been reported is not out of order and is in keeping with past practice in the House for the entire time that I have been here. SPEAKER: Well, two things. First thing is, I'm perhaps a victim of my own experience which would suggest that if the Minister is going to be making changes to the expenses or incurring greater expense than the Budget has allowed then they would normally take that to Cabinet. I'm not going to argue with you over that. On the issue of how the answer has been given, Speakers' Ruling 207/3 probably helps me get the position I have, as does 4, and you could go right through it. Some of these, I admit, are a little bit conflicting. But I am trying to get to a point where we have a question time that does elicit information and gets it. So would the Hon Priyanca Radhakrishnan like to ask that question again with a little bit of a different focus? Hon Priyanca Radhakrishnan: What is the point of her remaining as the Minister for Disability Issues, given that she has lost the confidence of the very communities that she represents in Government and has made statements about carers that her offices confirmed were based on anecdote; and if so, will she resign? SPEAKER: It just takes time, but sooner or later we get there. Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: First of all, I will confirm that my decisions weren't based on hearsay, they were based on a paper that was given to me by Whaikaha. Secondly, I won't resign because I have inherited a situation where Whaikaha had a budget set by the previous Government that was insufficient for the settings that were in place and so additional funding has had to be given to ensure they can get through the end of this year. A review will be undertaken to put in place the systems, the processes, the settings that should have been put in place by that Government when they set the ministry up. Question No. 5—Health 5. Dr CARLOS CHEUNG (National—Mt Roskill) to the Minister of Health: What recent announcements has the Government made about assisting New Zealanders who need to travel to receive health treatment? Hon Dr SHANE RETI (Minister of Health): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Yesterday, the coalition Government announced an $18 million boost for New Zealanders who have to travel for health treatment. These changes are long overdue for the national travel assistance (NTA) scheme, with its last increase to mileage and accommodation rates back in 2009. During this time, the scheme has been plagued by bureaucratic claiming processes and local variations that have seen families who couldn't afford the upfront costs of treatment having to delay their treatment or choose less-effective options. This needed addressing, and this boost will help to remove those barriers. Dr Carlos Cheung: Why was it a priority to boost funding for this scheme? Hon Dr SHANE RETI: New Zealanders have endured a prolonged cost of living crisis, making it more difficult for those who need to travel for health treatment. We know that the NTA provides critical financial assistance for those who need to travel for treatments relating to cancer, renal dialysis, diagnostics, and other complex care that can't be provided locally. It is important that we support this group of New Zealanders with increased assistance during their time of need. Dr Carlos Cheung: What changes to the scheme will New Zealanders see? Hon Dr SHANE RETI: Those who claim the NTA will see significant changes. This boost allows for increased mileage and accommodation rates, easier prepayment and claiming options, changes to eligibility in order to better target those in need, and better promotion and awareness of the scheme. We expect that around 4,500 extra New Zealanders will benefit from this boost. Dr Carlos Cheung: How will this announcement ease cost of living challenges for those who need to travel for treatment? Hon Dr SHANE RETI: This boost will see the mileage rates rise from 28c to 34c a kilometre, and the nightly accommodation rate change from $100 to $140 a night. More flexible payment options including prepayment and the ability to do more online will also be piloted and phased in. While some districts offer prepayment options, most whānau currently need to fill out paper-based forms to seek reimbursement. For many, this has been a challenge. We will support them with this boost. Question No. 6—Finance 6. 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, in the context in which they were given. I particularly stand by my statement earlier today that in Budget 2024, this Government's spending will be targeted, effective, and within our means. Hon Barbara Edmonds: Did she confirm to reporters yesterday that Cabinet had approved additional funding for Whaikaha until the end of the financial year; if so, how much money was pre-committed against Budget 2024 for that purpose? Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Yes, and that figure is Budget-sensitive, so I won't be releasing it. Hon Barbara Edmonds: Does she stand by her statement that Whaikaha will "get vast orders of magnitude more in additional funding for front-line services"; if so, why was the additional funding allocated not enough to reverse the significant eligibility changes that her Government made without any warning or consultation? Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I've repeatedly confirmed in this House and elsewhere that, in our Budget, more funding to provide front-line support to people with disabilities will be a priority. That member is now asking me to comment on issues that are a matter for the Minister for Disability Issues, and that are matters that that member should put on notice. Hon Shane Jones: Kia kaha for Whaikaha. Kia kaha. Hon Barbara Edmonds: Will the— SPEAKER: Hang on, wait on. [Interruption] Yeah, quite right. I don't know who it was either. Hon Barbara Edmonds: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Will the "vast orders of magnitude more" funding she has promised be sufficient to reinstate funding for respite care; if so, why is she making carers wait until 1 July when she has already committed to more funding? Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I have made myself clear already, and so I'll make it even simpler. We will be increasing funding for disability services in our Budget because we view it as a priority front-line service. If the member has detailed questions about ministerial decisions relating to that service, she should put those questions to the Minister responsible. Hon Barbara Edmonds: Why won't she finalise her commitment to provide "vast orders of magnitude more in additional funding" now, and end the significant distress her Government's changes have caused, or are Budget pre-commitments only prioritized for residential property investors? Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, there's a couple of problems with that statement from the member, which actually are similar to her last supplementary question yesterday, where she also paraphrased things quite inaccurately. Actually, what I said in relation to vast orders of magnitude was that the additional funding going in would be vast orders of magnitude more than the savings that were being asked for. The second part of her question made another false assertion. Just this week, the Government announced significant new money, hundreds of millions of dollars, to ensure that low and middle income families with young children get more money in their bank accounts with our FamilyBoost childcare policy. That's a priority for us. This is Government that understands working people have done it tough for too long with the prolonged cost of living crisis that Government presided over. Our Budget will make sure they get relief in their bank accounts and back pockets, that we target additional spending carefully to the services they rely on, and that we won't waste it like the people opposite did. Question No. 7—Transport 7. GRANT McCALLUM (National—Northland) to the Minister of Transport: What recent reports has he seen on the Brynderwyn Hills? Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Transport): Well, good news for Northland. State Highway 1 across the Brynderwyns will open tonight until 2 April, for the Easter weekend, with work currently under way to ensure the resilience of this critical route being paused to allow holidaymakers to travel north. As Kiwis prepare their travel plans for Easter, the coalition Government is encouraging New Zealanders to support, visit, and explore Northland, as the region is open for business. Grant McCallum: Why is this work happening on the Brynderwyns? Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, weather events last year caused severe under and over slips on State Highway 1 at the Brynderwyn Hills. The recovery works NZTA is undertaking will increase the resilience out of this critical route to ensure that it is able to withstand future weather events. But the reality is this work will only buy a certain period of time and resilience, and long-term planning is also needed, hence why the coalition Government has listed the alternative Brynderwyns as a road of national significance in the Government policy statement. Grant McCallum: How is this work progressing? Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, I was up there yesterday with the good member of Parliament for Northland and seeing excellent progress has been made. Already 113,000 cubic metres of dirt has been moved of the 145,000 cubes which need to be moved, and there is more work to be done. It will be open over Easter and completed in May. This is great progress. Grant McCallum: What will the reopening mean for local businesses and residents? Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, the temporary opening over Easter will mean that people travelling to and from Northland will be able to use the Brynderwyns without having to use the alternative route. This is great news for the Northland economy, but also, at the same time, the temporary closure has allowed this work to be done at pace so that this important State highway can be brought back to a more resilient standard. Question No. 8—Prime Minister 8. CHLÖE SWARBRICK (Co-Leader—Green) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his Government's statements and actions? Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON (Prime Minister): Yes, in the context they were given. Chlöe Swarbrick: Does he stand by his answer to me at question time yesterday that "what we are interested in is actually delivering on our climate … goals", and, if so, how does he intend to do that when his Government has axed the just transitions unit and emissions reductions jobs at the Ministry for Primary Industries? Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: We are deeply committed on delivering our net carbon zero 2050 goals, and one of the ways we're going to do that is doubling the amount of renewable electricity in this country. Chlöe Swarbrick: How many climate change jobs is the Prime Minister comfortable with his Government axing? Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I want to make sure that there are more jobs for people in the New Zealand economy, and what we're doing is wanting to grow our economy. One of the ways we do that is by introducing fast-track consenting. Chlöe Swarbrick: Has his Government paused the appointment processes for the independent Climate Change Commission? Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: That's something that I'm not aware of. Chlöe Swarbrick: Point of order. I seek leave of the House to table an Official Information Act request response from the Minister of Climate Change. SPEAKER: Is it widely available? Chlöe Swarbrick: No. SPEAKER: Has it been released on the website of the organisation it came from? Chlöe Swarbrick: I'm not aware of that, Mr Speaker. SPEAKER: The House will make its own decision. Leave is sought. Is there any objection? The member can table it. Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House. Rt Hon Winston Peters: For the benefit of the country and the House and the member asking the question, could the Prime Minister tell us: what on earth would a climate change job be? Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I'm not sure. I'm really just interested in jobs. Chlöe Swarbrick: Can the Prime Minister guarantee that there will be no reductions in funding for the independent Climate Change Commission? Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: What I can guarantee is that this is a Government that is working incredibly hard to deliver on our climate change commitments. That is what we're doing. We're also a Government that's determined to grow our economy and deliver on our climate change commitments. We can do both those things at the same time. Chlöe Swarbrick: So is the Prime Minister, there, saying that he cannot or he will not commit to reductions in spending for the independent Climate Change Commission? Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: What we're interested in is making sure that spending is delivering on lowering our emissions and spending is delivering a growing economy. That's what our Government's fixated on. Question No. 9—Workplace Relations and Safety 9. CAMILLA BELICH (Labour) to the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety: Does she stand by all her statements and actions? Hon BROOKE van VELDEN (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): Yes, I do stand by my statements. I especially stand by the statements I recently made in my speech to the Auckland Business Chamber outlining my priorities in the workplace relations and safety portfolio. My priorities: to simplify and improve the Holidays Act, increase certainty for those in contracting relationships, reform health and safety, and put in place measures for the performance of front-line services, will help increase labour market flexibility and improve business confidence. And I believe that these moves will be positive steps for both businesses and workers. Camilla Belich: Why did she decide— SPEAKER: Wait on, wait on—there are a lot of commentators in the House. We just need one questioner. Camilla Belich: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Why did she decide not to continue the all-of-Government response to Gloriavale Christian Community in December last year? Hon BROOKE van VELDEN: My understanding is that Ministers across Government will work in their respective portfolios with Gloriavale. Within the workplace relations and safety portfolio, the labour inspectorate is continuing work with Gloriavale, and I understand that other Ministers, where it's related to their portfolios, will also uphold those roles. However, it's not necessary to have more bureaucracy for us to have an overview of what is happening in Gloriavale. Camilla Belich: How will she ensure that the important work of the all-of-Government group continues—namely, that members of the Gloriavale community can work without threat of penalty, receive their minimum legal entitlements, and not face avoidable serious harm, and that those that wish to leave Gloriavale can leave freely, with appropriate support? Hon BROOKE van VELDEN: I will respond in the area that I am responsible for. My understanding is that the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment, within the labour inspectorate, have worked in the past with Gloriavale to make sure Gloriavale are aware of the minimum entitlements and obligations under the Employment Relations Act, and they continue to do so. Hon Willow-Jean Prime: How will the Minister ensure that the rights of children at Gloriavale will be upheld and protected, given the disestablishment of the Gloriavale - West Coast Stakeholder Group? Hon BROOKE van VELDEN: Once again, in the area that I am responsible for, which is employment law under workplace relations and safety, I will speak to the fact that I'm aware that the labour inspectorate has done work to ensure that Gloriavale are working to uphold minimum standards, and I'm advised that they will continue to do so, without the all-of-Government approach. Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. The all-of-Government group that we've just referred to previously reported to the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety. The current Minister has disestablished it and is now refusing to answer broader questions about the work of that group on the basis that she is only responsible for the workplace—basically, the labour component of that. The Minister was previously responsible for the totality of that work and was, therefore, the answerable Minister to the Parliament. The Minister disestablished the group and, therefore, is being asked what she has done to ensure, in making the decision to disestablish the group, that that work is continuing. Her refusing to answer them on the basis that she's not responsible for them can't stand. It was her decision to disestablish the group. SPEAKER: I'm not sure that the question was asked quite so specifically as to get past that point. Clearly, the Minister doesn't have responsibility for something that's disestablished, other than the disestablishment. So I'll ask the Hon Willow-Jean Prime to ask the question again, with no loss to the Labour Party. Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Sure. The question was: how will the Minister ensure that the rights of children at Gloriavale will be upheld and protected, given the disestablishment of the Gloriavale - West Coast Stakeholder Group? Hon BROOKE van VELDEN: Thank you very much for the question. Look, my understanding is that it's very important for us to ensure that members of any group understand their rights and their obligations under the law, and I would expect that across New Zealand. But within Gloriavale, I am aware that the Minister for Education, for example, has members within the education portfolio working with Gloriavale to ensure that education standards are upheld. I am also aware that the Minister for community and social development has members of her officials who are working to ensure that members who leave the group also have support, and within my purview, which is workplace relations and safety, the labour inspectorate is continuing to do work to make sure that the rights of workers are upheld under the minimum standards that we expect of all people across New Zealand. It is not necessary for there to be added bureaucracy to ensure that all of these relations can happen within their respective purviews. Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Will she advocate in Cabinet to ensure that the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment is adequately resourced to work with other Government agencies to protect children at Gloriavale, and, if so, how will they be coordinated? Hon BROOKE van VELDEN: I believe I have addressed the question—that I don't believe that added bureaucracy is necessary to ensure the safety of children within Gloriavale. There are specific areas of law where every one of my Cabinet colleagues who has an area of specific interest for Gloriavale and the rights of children will be working to uphold that within their own agencies. Question No. 10—Space 10. SAM UFFINDELL (National—Tauranga) to the Minister for Space: What recent announcement has she made in her Space portfolio? Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister for Space): Yesterday—[Interruption] SPEAKER: Hang on. At least start with a little bit of reasonable behaviour. Hon JUDITH COLLINS: There's so much excitement, isn't there? Wait till they're calm. Thank you, Mr Speaker. Well, yesterday, the Prime Minister and I announced the establishment of the Prime Minister's two new prizes for space. These will be annual awards to recognise the innovative and rising talent in New Zealand's growing space sector. There will be two prizes: one prize of $100,000 will be awarded to someone who has demonstrated outstanding achievement and contribution to the New Zealand space sector, and a further prize will be awarded to a student in years 12 or 13. The inaugural winner will receive a trip to visit Rocket Lab space facilities both here in New Zealand and in the United States. Space is a vast field with huge potential for the New Zealand economy. Encouraging young people into this exciting area is good for them and it's good for the country—and, by the way, the world. Sam Uffindell: How will this stimulate growth in the sector? Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Woah, what an excellent question! These awards raise the profile and prestige of the New Zealand space sector. They showcase the high-calibre individuals working in our space sector, including academic researchers and industry professionals, and they will inspire the next generation of innovative and talented people to pursue a career in space. There is a great opportunity for New Zealand to capture an even larger share of a sector projected to reach—and wait for this—US$1 trillion by 2040. Sam Uffindell: How does this announcement tie in with other recent announcements she has made? Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Well, yesterday's announcement is just one announcement among others that I have made to show our commitment and aspiration for space. On 31 January, I welcomed an agreement with Australia that will benefit New Zealand researchers to participate in collaborative research projects through Australia's SmartSat Cooperative Research Centre. On 5 March, together with climate change Minister the Hon Simon Watts, I welcomed the successful launch of MethaneSAT, a state-of-the-art satellite designed to accurately detect methane emissions and contribute to global efforts to combat climate change. Just last week, we announced New Zealand's research being sent to the International Space Station. It's so exciting. Sam Uffindell: What is her vision for the portfolio? Hon JUDITH COLLINS: I want to see space and aerospace as key contributors to New Zealand's economy, active participation across manufacturing, spacecraft being launched, and the use of aerospace-enabled data—all supported by a robust regulatory regime that keeps pace with innovation. Next month, I will attend the Space Symposium in Colorado, which will provide an opportunity to hear from representatives of the international space community, and you can be sure I will be promoting New Zealand's space sector to everyone. SPEAKER: Sorry, I'm just composing myself. I was tempted to make a comment, but I won't. Well, I will: so is it from "Crusher" to "Rocket" now or what? Question No. 11—Regional Development 11. STEVE ABEL (Green) to the Minister for Regional Development: Does he stand by his statement in this House that "Seabed mining has a legitimate place in New Zealand's regional economy"; if not, why not? Hon SHANE JONES (Minister for Regional Development): Yes. And given that GNS Science have provided information that the value of so said seabed is one-half a trillion—$500 billion—including phosphate in the Chathams and manganese nodules in the Kermadecs. Steve Abel: Did he stand aside from decision making on the proposed seabed mining projects by Trans-Tasman Resources because of the fishing industry's "serious concern that the marine environment will be materially harmed with flow-on effects for the fishing industry"? Hon SHANE JONES: He is directing that question to the Minister for Regional Development, who did no such thing. Steve Abel: How does it contribute to the Taranaki region to allow an Australian mining company to suck 50 million tonnes of seabed each year for 35 years in a way that harms local fisheries and, in the mining company's own words, "totally destroys the seabed"? Hon SHANE JONES: Obviously the matters pertaining to the application in the activity the member refers to are currently before a panel, chaired by a retired High Court judge. The value of the principle of comity between Parliament and judicial processes should not be underestimated. Steve Abel: Did he raise the concerns of environmental groups and experts, local iwi, and the fishing industry, who have fought against this seabed mining for 10 years, in his four-hour meeting with mining lobbyists Straterra on 23 January? Hon SHANE JONES: Well, obviously that meeting involved me listening to that minerals sector. The minerals extractive sector has a rich, legitimate, and profoundly important place to play as we derive responses to climate change rather than hysteria and alarmism. Steve Abel: Point of order, Mr Speaker. The very specific question was: did you raise the concerns of environmental groups and experts and local iwi and the fishing industry in that meeting with Straterra? Hon Shane Jones: I'll gladly answer that. SPEAKER: Well, we'll have another crack at the answer. Hon SHANE JONES: I can confirm I did describe the behaviour of some of the pixie-like hapū in Taranaki as not reflective of true tikanga Māori. Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can I ask the Minister as to whether he proposed to get a report into how he has been often described—always described in some cases—as being on the side of the fishing industry and now being opposed to it? Hon SHANE JONES: At one level, I am the champion of the fishing industry. I respect the constitutional role I hold because there are many stakeholders in that industry. At the other level, I am the promoter of responses through responsible utilisation of our minerals sector to derive sensible advances in relation to climate change actions that New Zealand will need to take, not the least of which are minerals for electric bikes. Steve Abel: Further to your point about the importance of not interfering in judicial processes, does he think that it is appropriate to override the Supreme Court, the Environmental Protection Authority, and all of New Zealand's environmental protection laws to fast track destructive seabed mining? Hon SHANE JONES: Well, obviously, in the event that the member's referring to the fast-track legislation, it's in the House, it's before the select committee, and I encourage all New Zealanders, either private or public, to bring their concerns, bring their ideas and improvements. Chlöe Swarbrick: You're keeping it secret. Hon SHANE JONES: I don't want to hear from the galah over there—and that's an open process. Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Which activity will the Government support off the Taranaki shore: offshore wind energy or seabed mining? You cannot have both. SPEAKER: Yeah, look, the last part—don't do that with the last part of the question. It doesn't quite fit. Hon SHANE JONES: I thank the member from Taranaki for that question. She would know there's endless amounts of wind from that part of the country. Question No. 12—Statistics 12. REUBEN DAVIDSON (Labour—Christchurch East) to the Minister of Statistics: Does he stand by all his statements and actions? Hon CHRIS PENK (Acting Minister of Statistics): On behalf of the Minister, yes and yes. Reuben Davidson: Does he agree with Dr Kate Prickett of Victoria University of Wellington that "In short, the cancellation of the Living in Aotearoa Survey means the government will escape being held to account for how our most vulnerable children are doing."; if not, why not? Hon CHRIS PENK: On behalf of the Minister, no, I do not accept that observation. The Household Economic Survey is being retained, whereas it would otherwise have come to an end in 2024. That's a more robust, better-quality survey to provide the information that the Government needs on which to base policy decisions in relation to child poverty reduction and other Government aims, and also to monitor the effectiveness of those policies going forward. Reuben Davidson: Is he concerned that this cut will limit the Government's ability to track and reduce child poverty? Hon CHRIS PENK: On behalf of the Minister, there is no cut, and as I've said, I do not believe, on behalf of the Government, that there would be any negative implication in terms of our ability to measure child poverty. Indeed, the chief statistician, who has statutory independence for these operational decisions regarding methodology of collecting data, has assured various Government Ministers that he does not see that there would be such an outcome either. Reuben Davidson: What steps, if any, has he put in place to ensure Stats NZ can comply with its obligations under the Child Poverty Reduction Act to collect data on persistent child poverty? Hon CHRIS PENK: On behalf of the Minister, I reiterate my comment in response to the previous supplementary question that the Government has been assured by the chief statistician, exercising that person's statutory independence, that they will be able to monitor that data, in particular to meet the statutory objectives, the 10 requirements under the child poverty Act, to be able to measure that progress. Reuben Davidson: How, given that the coalition agreement commits to decisions being made using data and evidence, will quality decision-making with and for some of our most vulnerable New Zealanders still be possible when the very measure of their needs has been quietly taken away? Hon CHRIS PENK: On behalf of the Minister, I reject the characterisation of that one particular, relatively new survey as being a sole measure, or the sole measure. Indeed, there are a number of measures—I've referred already to the Household Economic Survey; additionally, there's the use available of administrative data, which, as per the last census, conduct and analysis enables us to fill in gaps, so to speak. There are a lot of Government agencies that contribute to the ability to gain a full picture. In addition, I note that work that's been undertaken by other Government Ministers, for which, on behalf of the Minister, I'm not responsible, but I know it will be very helpfulfor example, digitising Government services will be very helpful in this regard. GENERAL DEBATE Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister for Energy): I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business. It's 121 days since this Government came to office, and what a mess we are having to clean up, left behind by the last crowd on the other side. We have an economy which is in a challenging position, interest rates which have gone up sharply, an enduring cost of living crisis, the Government books having dived into red, debt has soared, and times are tough for New Zealanders. That's why the Government today released our Budget Policy Statement on the Budget, which outlines that urgent tax relief for New Zealanders is needed, and this Government will provide hard-working New Zealanders with the tax relief that they need in this year's Budget. This Opposition over there on the other side have left this Government with a mess to clean up, but we have the Government priorities and we have the Government outcomes that we know are needed to fix that. So our priorities for Budget 2024 are very, very clear. Number one, this Government will deliver meaningful tax reductions for working families to address the cost of living crisis facing New Zealanders. We will identify enduring savings across Government. And you hear them on the other side; every time we find savings, they complain, while the reality is they left this Government with hundreds of millions of dollars more being spent on consultants and contractors, and nothing to show for it. We will improve public services by ensuring that we focus on the front line. We will keep a tight lid and control on Government spending, and we will develop a pipeline of sustainable infrastructure for New Zealanders. We have been listening to New Zealanders, and we understand the priorities that matter to New Zealanders, and our Budget Policy Statement for the Budget outlines very clearly what needs to be done. But then you listen to what the people on the other side keep on talking about. Well, they say it this way: when the economy is good, what's the answer? More tax. And when the economy is bad, what's the answer? More tax. They haven't learnt. But the answer to every single question by the Labour Party is: more tax. I can tell you that New Zealanders up and down this country are feeling the cost of living crisis. They're feeling the pain of the challenges that they're facing, and they want a Government which will provide tax relief. They voted for a Government which will provide tax relief, and this is a Government which will deliver tax relief for New Zealanders. But we now hear the Leader of the Opposition saying the next election is going to be about tax. Well, we know what that's going to mean: more taxes for New Zealanders by that party on the other side. But it's not just the Leader of the Opposition; the new finance spokesperson, Barbara—and I congratulate her on her ascension to the role. Not only is it more taxes, but saying that Labour would also consider taking on more debt. Because, of course, that's the answer! After $100 billion more debt being taken on by the last Government with very little to show for it, their answer is more debt as well. And, if you've got a problem, just ask Jan Tinetti. Just allocate it! Just appropriate it! That's the answer to every problem: if there's a challenging financial situation in a department, like we're facing across Government because of the reckless spending by the last Government, just appropriate it! There's a magic money tree; just appropriate it! That's the culture that's been left behind by the other side of the House. But wait, there's more—there's more. There's the public meeting in Auckland Central—"Labour Party economic myths"—which is coming up. The Labour Party economic myths public meeting that's coming up. Well, I'll tell you about a Labour Party economic myth, and I'll tell the members on the other side of the House: you can't tax yourself to prosperity—you can't tax your way to prosperity. You need a plan for growth. You need a plan to grow the economy. You need a plan to grow incomes. You need a plan which grows businesses and opportunities in our country. But all we hear from the other side is more taxes, more debt, and a failure to actually think about the challenges facing New Zealanders and the opportunities that we have. So, on this side of the House, we're going to grow the economy. We're going to provide tax relief. We're going to get Government expenditure under control. We're going to make sure that public services are delivering value for money for New Zealanders. We are up for the challenge left behind by the other side, and we will deliver for New Zealanders. Hon DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Thank you, Mr Speaker. You know, a wise woman once said the problem with socialism is you run out of other people's money. And along came the New Zealand Labour Party and they proved her correct for only $100 billion. You shouldn't joke about it, but the way this country has been left by the Labour Party, if you didn't make the odd joke, you'd cry. Even Chris Hipkins is now telling New Zealanders that the country is in an awful state. Well, we know that, Chris Hipkins, we watched you do it. The problem was you didn't know it and if you had, we'd all be a lot better off. I want to talk to the people who believe in building a country where your efforts can make a difference. Those people who get up early and take their kids to school with lunch, hoping that they too will learn valuable things so they can make a difference in their life. The people who wake up and they buy a property and they get it ready to rent out to another person to live—mutually beneficial, win, win—cast as villains by the previous Government. Those people who work out on the land get up even earlier to milk cows, feed the world, and make an honest buck, making a difference in their own lives and the lives of their communities. Those New Zealanders who take a chance going from a steady pay cheque to starting their own business, taking that risk so they can pay someone else's pay cheque; villainised for too long as they try and build a country where New Zealanders can make a difference in their own lives. And for too long, those people have rightfully asked, "Who is this Government working for?" That's what they were asking all through the last two terms of Labour. "Who is this Government working for?" they asked themselves, and they got a sense they're not working for people who work themselves, they're working for anybody but. That is the great shame that has sapped the joy and the potential of this country: a Government that was out of touch, out of ideas, and out of other people's money. That's why I'm proud to be here as the leader of ACT, as part of a coalition Government that is committed to the values that people have a right to make a difference in their own lives. I watched Brooke van Velden, our Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety, who says we're going to make it easier for one New Zealander to offer another New Zealander a job—as if it's a positive and beautiful thing to cooperate and create wealth, not something where one party to the contract needs to be treated as a villain who's always kind of up to something, as we saw for too long with employers being beaten up on by the Government. I see Nicole McKee as the Minister for Courts trying to make sure that our courts are unclogged so that when you're a victim of a crime and the police come, the justice system can actually process them and lock them up so that you can feel that your hard-won assets and earnings won't be taken from you in a country where there is no justice. Because there's no point making a difference in your own life if thugs and bullies just take it off you. That's what Nicole McKee is doing in a Government committed to justice for a change. I watch Andrew Hoggard standing up for rural New Zealand, for too long maligned for the simple crime of trying to make an honest buck, care for their land and their people and their stock, and get valuable export receipts for this country. He's making sure the freshwater rules and the on-farm management is fixed up to be more realistic, and respect the fact that farmers actually want to look after their land, they're not trying to destroy their own livelihood. And the people who suggested for too long that they're that stupid have been insulting and frankly ignorant of how rural New Zealand actually works. And then I watch Karen Chhour bringing legislation to Parliament very soon that will say, "You know what, if you're a kid who's been abused we're going to help you and we're going to put you at the centre of the system. We're not going to racially profile you and put you back in a dangerous environment because we think your colour is more important than your essential dignity as a human being." All the while, Simon Court works to design a new resource management law that means the next generation will have a shot, if they do the right thing and make a difference in their own lives, of actually owning a part of this great country themselves because it will be easier to build a home. That is the hope, that those Kiwis who want to make a difference in their own lives day by day actually have a Government that is working for people who work, that is making this country once again a place we can all be proud to be a part of, regardless of who we are or what our background may be. Thank you, Mr Speaker. Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Labour): Our disability communities deserve better. They deserve better than a Minister for Disability Issues who knew that Whaikaha had funding issues on 15 December, did absolutely nothing, did not alert that to her finance Minister or Prime Minister, didn't ask for more money for Whaikaha but, instead, on 14 March signed out a briefing approving changes that were announced and implemented with immediate effect on 18 March—changes that left our disability communities blindsided and, in their own words, "devastated". These are changes that remove flexibility of funding, and I just want to delve a little bit into what that really means, because what this Minister is doing is taking us back to a time prior to when flexibility was introduced to funding pools, like individualised funding, back to a time when it was so prescriptive that carers couldn't access that funding for respite care. That's why that fund was always underutilised. When flexibility was brought in, it's not that need miraculously increased; it's that people could actually meet the needs that they had to be able to take respite, to be able to have capability to then care for the disabled person. And that's what this Minister seems to be missing. And, yet, two years back, almost to the date when she made these changes this year, back in 11 March 2022, the Minister wrote an op-ed—a really good op-ed—that's titled "Who cares for the carers needing respite?" In that article, she talks about the importance of carers and the role of caring. She talks about a survey by Carers New Zealand, and she says, and I quote, "There were also many comments from carers who said access to less respite had affected their wellbeing. These are sobering revelations and make me question how long these family members can sustain this relentless support work before they become sick themselves. It also sends a clear signal to Government that more help is needed for the carers in our community. We cannot ignore their plight, because we simply cannot do without them." So this is a Minister who, two years ago, knew that carers need respite in order to be able to care for the disabled person. Then, logically, one could assume that removing that access to respite will affect the wellbeing of disabled people, the very people she purports to represent in this House and in Government. Many people have emailed all of us across the House about how these changes have been shocking and how their lives have been impacted for the worse in a day. And yet this Minister stands in this House and tries to convince herself and us that no cuts have been made. How can that be true when people cannot access the support that they require and that they need as carers and as disabled people too? Because we know there've been changes to the Equipment and Modification Services as well. Instead of taking responsibility, what the Minister does is to denigrate the work of carers, the same carers, the very carers, that she wrote about so compassionately two years ago. That was received. The implication that many are using taxpayer money for pedicures, massages, and overseas travel has been received like a slap in the face. And so what do we know? This Minister knew, back in mid-December, that her agency needed a funding top-up. She did nothing about it, didn't alert anyone who could provide that top-up, signed out changes that have changed the lives of many, no consultation on those changes, no consultation with those who'd be most affected. Now this Ministers had her ability to make decisions taken off her hands and given to Cabinet. Really all this Government needs to do—this Government can fix this. This Government can top up Whaikaha's funding, reinstate flexibility and do things properly— Hon Member: That's just making it up. Using Parliament to smirch someone else. Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN: —work in consultation with our disability communities if long-term changes are needed. They've done none of that. Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Point of order! I heard a member call out, "She's making it up."— SPEAKER: I've just called you. You were offering your point of order while I was still calling you. Please start again. Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Sorry, Mr Speaker. I heard a member say, "She's making it up.", which must be an unparliamentary remark. SPEAKER: If I was to rule that unparliamentary, then there would be almost silence for many days of the House. "Interjections"—can I just quote a former Speaker—"should be rare, reasonable, and if at all possible, humorous." I don't hold out much hope for any of those, so let's carry on. Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN: Members opposite think I'm making things up on this side of the House. Perhaps they could read the numerous reports where it is said, for example, we've asked the Minister's office for evidence about this claim about pedicures and so on. Her office has said they didn't have any numbers but the Minister heard it anecdotally. Or perhaps the fact that the ability to make major decisions has been stripped from her. The point is they can fix it; they've done nothing. Minister, it's time to go. Hon Dr SHANE RETI (Minister of Health): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I want to start this discourse by thanking our hard-working health professionals, both clinical and non-clinical, for their continued support and commitment to serving New Zealanders and maintaining our health system. Despite the obvious challenges they've had in the past six years, they turn up to work every single day. I met some of them this morning—several hundred of the clinical leaders at a function this morning—and their collaboration and their enthusiasm for a move for change was, by itself, infectious and much welcomed. With the health leaders, this morning, I talked about not only the work that needed to be done but also what we already have done and the success together that we have had in the past 121 days across key enablers for the health workforce, which would be, obviously, your health workforce, targets, and infrastructure. I described to them that, in the health workforce area, we have placed more GP registrars actually out with practice than many of us can recall for many years. I want to say that there are several hundreds of GP registrars now, as we speak, currently out with practices, hoping to ameliorate and it will certainly relieve some of the challenges we have with access and the heavy workload that primary care has. There have been 50 new medical school places filled this year; I believe the split is 30 to Auckland, 20 to Otago. That's a good thing. There has been increased funding for nurse practitioners; huge numbers of internationally qualified nurses have registered with the Nursing Council in the past six months—in fact, it was put to me that it's most number of registrations of internationally qualified nurses in the past decade. This is good for us, also, when we consider that one of the hurdles across all of the health domain has been the number of nurses that we have not had. When we reflect on targets—remember those key enablers are workforce, targets, and infrastructure—a few weeks ago, the Prime Minister and I announced the five health targets, which will set a key direction for health. Those health targets were: faster cancer treatment, 90 percent of patients to receive cancer management within 31 days of the decision to treat; improved immunisation for children, 95 percent of children to be fully immunised at 24 months of age, that will be a challenge, we have never ever reached that level of immunisation, and I share that observation in the context of comments from epidemiologists, like Michael Baker, who are warning us of an impeding measles epidemic, and we take this very, very seriously, as, I'm sure, does the sector; shorter stays in emergency departments (EDs), 95 percent of patients to be admitted, discharged, or transferred from an ED within six hours; shorter wait times for first-specialist assessments (FSAs), 95 percent of patients to wait less than four months for an FSA. Some might wonder why it's 95 percent. It turns out we could say 100 percent—everyone—but there's always those outliers, who, for reasons that are sometimes not clear, you offer them an appointment but it just doesn't suit, sit outside the measures. So we think 95 percent is more appropriate. And shorter wait times for treatment, with 95 percent of patients to wait less than four months for elective treatment. As well as the five headline targets, there's also been a whole body of work around the 100-day initiatives, which, again, we've completed in this, actually, 121 days. That includes actions and initiatives, such as taking our first steps to extend breast cancer screening for free to those women aged between 70 to 74; opening the 13 breast cancer screening mobile units at Counties Manukau; signing a memorandum of understanding with Waikato University to progress a third medical school; improving security for the health workforce and hospital EDs; turning the sod on the first linear accelerator radiotherapy cancer linear acceleratora—called LINAC—in Northland for the 520 patients a year who travel down to Auckland to receive their treatment. A big thankyou to the Cancer Society and Domain Lodge for housing our Northland people when they've travelled and who may well be able to use the National Travel Assistance, which we've discussed here this morning. Opening the first provincial PET/CT scanner in Whangārei, the seventh—they only exist in Auckland, Wellington, Christchurch, and Hamilton. Imagine there's a PET/CT scanner in provincial New Zealand, the first in Whangārei, and what I heard from the developers was that they are looking to extend them into— Hon Member: Look after the regions. Hon Dr SHANE RETI: —further provincial regions—you're quite right. Ten new chemotherapy chemo infusion sites in Whanganui. The member from Whanganui and I were talking about that. Pharmac has decided to retain the 8.1B exemption for children; this means that children with cancer will be able to receive their medications from Pharmac and have it administered in a hospital. The previous Government put that under review. They reviewed whether or not they would continue free cancer treatment for children. That call has been made and we stand by it. New cancer drugs for acute myeloid leukaemia and metastatic breast cancer. And today, we announced an $18 million a year increase to the national transport allowance. We're proud of our record. Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I was flabbergasted today when I heard Brooke van Velden, the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety, saying that a coordinating agency for the protection of vulnerable people was "added bureaucracy". Gloriavale is not some quant, outdated community. It's an oppressive, backward, harmful, and evil institution, run by a small group of controlling men. They have the temerity to call themselves shepherds. There are 300 children or there abouts at Gloriavale, and that Government is disestablishing an agency whose job it was to coordinate a series of departments to address the harms that are going on there. Progress has been made in dismantling the evil that goes on there. Assistance was being given, prosecutions were being made, and people were being assisted to leave. A Public Service commissioner was tasked with coordinating that work, and that Government is abandoning that work because it's additional bureaucracy. It's shameful. Basic human rights are not a priority for this Government. Children are not a priority for this Government. Preventing an evil blot on the West Coast from spreading its hatefulness is not a priority for that Government. It's a sign of an incompetent Government—a Government that doesn't care, and a Government that's too obsessed with its own chaos to look after people. The history of Gloriavale is a litany of harm, perpetrated at the highest level. The list of crimes prosecuted and convicted is long, but we know it's the tip of the iceberg. In 1995, the very founder was convicted of three charges of indecent assault against a 19-year-old. The overseeing shepherd, Howard Temple, is currently facing 27 charges of sexual offending. In 2023, Jonathon Benjamin was convicted of 26 charges of sexual offending. In 2021, Vigilant Standtrue pleaded guilty to three charges of assaulting three boys. In 2019, an unnamed member of their community was convicted of indecent assault. In 2019, Just Standfast was convicted of sexual conduct with a girl under 12—and the list goes on. People like Clem Ready, who have left the cult talk about the prevalence of sexual offending, the concealment of that offending, the exploitation of women, premised on abuse and submission. These are matters which have been prised out of the cult. What has not seen the light of day horrifies me, and that Government is turning the other way. This evil community sets out its beliefs in "What we believe". At its heart, it doesn't recognise the authority of the New Zealand Government. It dictates that the church does not hand sinners over to secular authorities for judgment. Abuse and subjugation are built into the very fabric of this community. And it's got a medieval approach to the place of women. And it says in that document women must "not question or correct the men." They must "submit themselves unto their own Christian husbands", "show a meek and a quiet spirit". Pervading the entire document is an approach to sex which is deeply concerning. It says, "God made men and women to marry once they reach sexual maturity, and not … some arbitrary age." Look, we need to recognise that the inmates at Gloriavale are stranded. They have no means, physical, financial, or emotional, to leave. In a lesson to young people, are required to sign this declaration of commitment, where they commit to living there for the rest of their lives, giving over all their money and property to the shepherds, and they're indoctrinated to believe that if they do leave, they do so at the peril of their soul. They're cut off from families and loved ones. When they leave, they leave with nothing. No bank account, no documents, no identity. They don't even know how the world works. They're refugees in their own country. And this Government has defunded the coordinating agency because it's added bureaucracy. It's absolutely shameful. SAM UFFINDELL (National—Tauranga): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise to congratulate Minister McClay on the NZ-EU free-trade agreement, which will be gaining Royal assent on 1 May. We made sure that it came into force early, and my goodness, have there been some good wins for our exporters as a result. Now, let me take you through a few of the good points of this. When it comes into force, it will increase our exports via the EU by $1.8 billion annually—a substantial amount from a Government that is focused on trade and trading with the world. And I do, of course, have to acknowledge the other side for their work, but I will congratulate Mr McClay for his work and making sure that we got it into force quickly and efficiently. It notes that we will have 91 percent of duties removed when it comes into force, and 97 percent after seven years. When you consider the incredible amount of primary produce that we export—it constitutes 80 percent of our goods exported; it's the backbone of our economy; it's the way we pay for our way in the world and pay for the goods and services that we need—this is a very good free-trade agreement. The EU is our fourth-largest trading partner, with around $20 billion in two-way goods and services traded on an annual basis—very significant amounts. We're noting tariff savings of $100 million per year on New Zealand exports. Katie Nimon: Game-changer. SAM UFFINDELL: It is a game changer—it is. It certainly is. It certainly is for the people of Tauranga and the Bay of Plenty. It certainly is for the good people of Napier and the Hawke's Bay, and for all exporters out there. We note significant new quota access for beef and sheep meat, butter and cheese products as well, which is very good for our primary producers. I'm going to talk to some of those savings in particular, and in the region where I come from, Tauranga— Hon Member: It's got to be kiwifruit. SAM UFFINDELL: —we have a lot of kiwifruit in the area—you picked it—significant amounts of kiwifruit, and we're looking at around $43 million in tariff savings for kiwifruit growers, which accounts to on average an annual saving of $16,000 per grower. I want to give a little mention to the growers in Tauranga and the Bay of Plenty and surrounding areas because they have had a very challenging couple of years: labour shortages during the COVID era and then some very poor weather conditions last season, which led to damaged fruit and reduction in trays being put out to market. I know the good people in my region will be very, very happy with the crop that's coming through at the moment. Zespri is gearing up to sell 190 million trays this season, which is fantastic, and there are some good savings and tariff reductions coming up. I'll also give a mention to our friends at New Zealand onions, and our onion growers out there are hardworking growers, who will see tariff savings of around $6.5 million a year—now, apple growers, with around $1.3 million per year; wine growers, with about $5.5 million in tariff savings per year; and, of course, mānuka honey as well, getting out there, with about $3.5 million in tariff reductions per year. And while we're doing all of this, a lot of it does come through the Bay of Plenty and through Tauranga, and it's important that we keep upgrading our infrastructure to ensure we can get these goods out to market in a timely and efficient manner. We have some significant infrastructure projects under way: the Takitimu North Link, State Highway 29 bringing our goods over from the Waikato and out through our major export port of New Zealand, the Port of Tauranga, and looking forward to seeing Hewletts, Hull, and Totara hopefully upgraded in the near future, because we certainly need that investment. Before I finish, I want to give a special mention again to Minister McClay, but also to the Rt Hon Winston Peters, because they understand that the way New Zealand gets wealthy is if we get out there and we trade with the world. We aren't going to get wealthy trading with ourselves. We aren't going to get wealthy growing mega Government bureaucracies and shuffling paper back and forth. The way we do it is to grow and to export and to innovate and to improve our productivity. We have got a Government here and a Foreign Minister and a trade Minister who understand what we need to do to build our relations and to build our trading networks. There are good times ahead for New Zealand. Thank you, Mr Speaker. LAN PHAM (Green): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Let's not sugar-coat it. These few first months in Parliament have been bleak for all citizens of Aotearoa and our precious te taiao—environment—and I'm particularly disappointed by this, because nature matters. When we feel the fury and experience the devastation of when nature is out of control, we know nature matters. When we understand the true, immense value of protecting and restoring the very thing that sustains us as human beings on this planet, and our responsibility to not screw that up for our kids, our grandkids, and for future generations, we know nature matters. But some serious disconnect happens between what we know to be true, be that through an evidence base, mātauranga, or what some might simply call common sense—a disconnect between that and the decisions of this Government when it comes to nature. Their actions and decisions to date in repealing and dismantling the pretty meagre environmental protections that we did have have been totally disjointed and ignorant to the reality of our climate and ecological crisis, a response to which could either secure or threaten our own existence within nature. They're decisions that span the full gambit of the environmental sphere, that have constituted a blatant attack on nature, Te Tiriti, democracy, and the future of our planet. From the repeal of the Natural and Built Environment Act, the Spatial Planning Act, the abolishing of freshwater improvements through the Water Services Act, and the delay in freshwater regional planning processes to the opening up of our precious environment and whenua to development, this Government has been breathtakingly reckless in prioritising short-term profits over the long-term health and wellbeing of our environment and communities. Now with the Government's proposed fast-track legislation, they're going to the next level—or, as resources Minister Shane Jones so accurately describes it, turbocharging environmental destruction. It overrides key environmental laws, including the Resource Management Act, the Conservation Act, Wildlife Act, Reserves Act, among others. It means almost any project could be approved. From infrastructure to coal to dams to seabed mining, it can be fast-tracked regardless of its environmental impact. And it's not just environmental laws that are being overridden; it's also threatening our democratic principles. By fast-tracking projects and bypassing established legal processes, the Government is undermining the very foundations of our democracy. Equally, they're overlooking the vital importance of te ao Māori, the rights of iwi Māori, and Te Tiriti o Waitangi as the foundation of effective environmental governance and management. The Government act as if they're blind to the fact that the tino rangatiratanga of iwi Māori, hapū, and whānau must be respected and upheld, not sidelined and overridden at the whim of Ministers. In the biodiversity space, we had Associate Minister for the Environment Andrew Hoggard claiming that his Government will protect biodiversity on private land by simply "encouraging the behaviour that has already been happening." Quite astounding when his own ministry reports that over just a six-year period, our country's area of indigenous vegetation cover decreased by over 12,000 hectares, and we currently have the highest proportion of threatened species per capita in the world. The whole point is that we can't keep doing what we're doing. This Government often trots out the vastly outdated rationale that they're balancing the environment with the economy. The Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment points out that only 2 percent of Government expenditure goes toward nature. If only there was balance, because, today, balance would look like wholesale environmental protection and restoration. If the Government bulldozes on with this short-sighted, reckless approach to nature, we will ultimately face dire consequences, and Aotearoa deserves much better. Thank you, Mr Speaker. Hon WILLIE JACKSON (Labour): I'm wanting to help the coalition Government today, so I want to give them a recommendation. It's over their Ministers—and I really think there's a promotion in line for the Deputy Prime Minister—and the position we've been thinking of was broadcasting Minister, because the current Minister is nowhere to be seen. It's ironic, really, that we would be promoting, of course, Deputy Prime Minister Winston Peters, given his long history of warring with the media. Of course, he's blamed them for everything. I want Mr Patterson to tell Mr Peters this, that in fact we will back him for that portfolio because, ironically, he became the best advocate from the coalition Government for the coalition Government when Newshub closed down. Winston Peters talked about it being a dark, dark time in terms of democracy—and well done to Winston Peters—while the Minister of broadcasting was virtually nowhere to be seen. It was sad what she talked about, she talked about the market ruling—it was a cold, sad response. On top of that, not even the Prime Minister now seems to have confidence in Melissa Lee. According to Shayne Currie from the New Zealand Herald, she's been gagged by the Prime Minister's office not to do any interviews. So while the whole entire media industry is crumbling, Minister Lee has disappeared, basically—incompetent. Even if you look at her Facebook, you wouldn't even know that she was the Minister of broadcasting. It's sad watching how this Minister has disappeared off the face of the earth. We're seeing a Minister completely out of her depth. As reported in Newsroom today, apparently Melissa Lee rushed Cabinet proposals through without even consulting the boss. That's Winston Peters, as we've been saying constantly today. The entire media industry has to wait now while Melissa Lee grovels to the boss, that's the real Prime Minister, Winston Peters, in terms of trying to put a media strategy together. She can't even get the basics right. Now, don't get me wrong, we're not nasty people on this side of the House. I'm not calling for the broadcasting Minister's resignation. Hon Member: Why not? Hon WILLIE JACKSON: I'm a good person—you know, Mr Speaker. But in her own words, she won't do media interviews because—in her own words—she's "boring". Her words, not mine. And when she's interviewed by the media, she shrugs her shoulders and blames the free market and she says, "Look, I'm a bit incomprehensible and incompetent.", you know, and I want to help, we want to help her. But we are not, as I said, calling for her resignation; not yet anyway. Because, you know, we think she may have something to offer, but voices within the media industry are asking for her resignation and who can blame them? The industry needs a champion, it needs support and understanding of the media landscape, not a Minister who suggests the alternative to news is to simply watch Sky and who considers media policy as boring. There are solutions in the industry at the moment, solutions like the Fair Digital News Bargaining Bill, which you won't support despite people in the industry crying out for it, the Ashburton Guardian, the Gisborne Herald, the Otago Daily Times. This is a bill that the National Party should be supporting. It could bring hundreds of millions of dollars into the industry, hundreds of millions of dollars. But they won't support it because they're in the pocket of the lobbyists. They're in the pocket—we all know this, they're in the pockets of the property developers and they're in the pockets of the—[Speaker gets to his feet.] They're not, Mr Speaker? SPEAKER: No, no you can't. Hon Damien O'Connor: They are, you're just not allowed to say it. SPEAKER: Mr O'Connor, you'll be withdrawing and apologising too. But just withdraw and apologise to that. You can't suggest that other people are in the pocket of someone else. The member knows himself that such an allegation has had to be withdrawn in his own case. So it's not unusual. Hon WILLIE JACKSON: I withdraw and apologise, Mr Speaker. Certainly, there's some question marks anyway. In terms of why is National not supporting—[Speaker gets to his feet.] Oh Mr Speaker, come on. SPEAKER: The member knows, he's been here a long time. He's probably been the cause of more rulings of these sort of matters than most other members of the House. He will know that you can't withdraw and apologise and then immediately qualify the withdrawal apology. So let's just leave it here. Carry on—I hope your time has been stopped, has it? That's good. So let's make the next 45 seconds something spectacular and wonderful on behalf of the member. Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Well, I was just saying, you know you've got to ask the questions why they're not supporting a digital bargaining bill that will return hundreds of millions of dollars back into the industry. The industry is demanding it. I want to finish off by saying Melissa Lee to the media industry is what disability Minister Penny Simmonds is to the disability seeker sector. Utterly hopeless. Hon Kieran McAnulty: Hopeless. Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Totally agree with Kieran McAnulty there. We're worried, on this side of the House, in terms of where we are with democracy. There's a byline that everybody should know from the Washington Post, which is: "Democracy dies in darkness". And we see from the TVNZ newsroom job losses and massive Newshub job losses and it's apparent that democracy does die in darkness and all broadcasting Minister Melissa Lee is doing is turning off the lights. Kia ora, Mr Speaker. NANCY LU (National): I am so pleased for this opportunity to speak about the National Government's latest policy, Family Boost. It is a policy that so many Kiwi young parents with young children in New Zealand have been waiting for. It is a policy that the National Party campaigned on really hard during the 2023 election, and it's a policy that I campaigned on with fellow National candidates and volunteers through many communities. It is a policy that will bring real help to Kiwi parents. The Family Boost policy is what we need in New Zealand right now, and I will give some context for everyone who is listening in. In the global environment, New Zealand families are paying some of the highest childcare costs in OECD countries. Most OECD countries pay about 14 percent—14—of average income. However, the highest costs are observed in New Zealand where net childcare costs for working families can reach as high as 38 percent of average earnings. So the National Party is working very hard on delivering on the mandate that has been given to reduce the cost of living crisis faced by ordinary Kiwis by the previous Labour Government. Ordinary Kiwi parents will be getting direct financial assistance with the reimbursement of up to 25 percent of early childhood education (ECE) fees that they've paid for. That is up to $75 a week for working families with young children, directly reducing the out-of-pocket expenses incurred for early childhood education. The way it's been set will provide financial support for many families across the income spectrum but targeted to support the low and middle income families who have been squeezed so hard under the last Government. Finally, help is here. The National Government's Family Boost policy will provide financial assistance to those who really need it the most, reducing the burden for low- and middle-income families. You may ask how we do that. We do that by targeting those families that need it the most. What we won't be doing is a one-size-fits-all blanket policy, like the Labour Party suggested during the election, regardless of family need and status. But we will be targeting our support to the low- and middle-income earners and give them the maximum level of financial support that we can provide, up to 25 percent of ECE fees. So the higher the income, the less support they will get, so that we can target the low- and middle-income families. Why is this particularly important for me and many of my friends in my community? It is because I am also a mum of young children. I have two young children who are two and four years of age, and the photos of my young children remind me how important it is for me to send them to the early childhood centres. I will share a story as to why young children need to go to ECE and should not be sacrificed because parents have to choose between education for young children or the workforce for their career. I remember one day my oldest daughter Amber, when she was two ran towards me from the playground. She came and hid under my legs and basically started crying. I asked her why. I said, "What's wrong, Amber?" She responded to me in Chinese. She said, "妈妈，有人，有人". She said, "Mum, there are humans. There are humans." Before that, she'd never been to early childhood education because I was unemployed, and I didn't have a chance to send her to it. She was frightened to meet and play with other children and interact with their families. That was the moment that I decided, no, my children, my child, my daughter Amber needs to go to ECE and learn how to communicate, learn how to socialise, learn how to be a good Kiwi child, and learn about the many, many cultures that we offer in our community and also in our ECE. This is why this policy is particularly important and helpful to many, many of the families, and since the policy was announced, I've received an overwhelming amount of support from the communities and from parents and friends around me. They cried out for help and the National-led Government is delivering the help with the Family Boost support. So with that, I am so pleased I have the opportunity to speak on this today. Hon BARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana): Thank you, Mr Speaker, and I do want to acknowledge Nancy Lu, the previous speaker from the Government. It is a really hard decision to put your children into early childhood education (ECE), and I support the decision making that she had to make for her children, because as a mother of eight, one of the most difficult things was making that decision as to whether I'd put them into ECE. We were really fortunate that we could do 20 hours' free, because our children were three and four—but I just want to acknowledge her bringing her personal story to the House in a reflection of her values and what she stands for. But I'm going to stop there with the compliments, because, actually, there's been a bit of what's called an ear worm—an ear worm. There have been a couple of songs that have been playing in my head over the last few days, and perhaps it could be—I'm not going to sing them just in case I get a Sony cease and desist notice. Also, I'm a couple of weeks post-COVID, so there's a little bit of a cough. But, actually, one of the songs that keeps coming into my head is an Ashford and Simpson song called "Solid as a rock". Now— Shanan Halbert: "Solid". Hon BARBARA EDMONDS: Yeah, that's the one—"Solid as a rock". The reason why it keeps coming into my head is because last year, the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance continually stood by their statements that their numbers were solid as a rock, or rock-solid. They consistently said that they were going to be rock-solid. They've made a lot of promises—a lot of promises—and have doubled down on them since they've come into Government. They said that tax cuts were going arrive from 1 April 2024, it was their first priority , and there would be no new taxes for working people. There would be no cuts to front-line services, then fuel tax increases would be cancelled, and the app tax was not here and was going to push up prices. "Nek minnit", what we have seen is an incredible—an incredible—U-turn. Even just this morning, a tax bill passed in this House that had two brand new taxes—two brand new taxes. What we saw was that fuel taxes are going to go up by twice as much—admittedly, six months later—and I must have missed that part of the fine print of the National fiscal plan. Far from no new taxes, we've seen a $50 tax on every car up and down New Zealand with National's drivers' tax, with the Prime Minister speculating there could be more, and, again, just this morning, two brand new taxes. But, actually, the biggest double down and the rock-solid of their numbered-ness comes down to their promise and their commitment around tax cuts, and the Budget Policy Statement today still reaffirmed their commitment to tax cuts, but yet at what cost? I think that if the members across the House don't believe me, they could probably look at "Police pay offer from govt 'insulting' - Police Association", "Cutting sorely needed supports for carers is cruel and harmful", "Families 'hung out to dry' by new restrictions on disability support"—these are just small examples of what is going to pay for the tax cuts. The most abhorrent thing is that the Budget Policy Statement has been botched. For the first time in my public service history, there is no clear indication of what the operating allowance is for the Budget. They said that it's going to be less than $3.5 billion. This is the first time I have seen this in my public service career, and so, to me, that only points to one thing: there are negotiations happening in the Government and they cannot come to an agreement. Another song comes to mind that's by Eminem, and it says, "Will the real Slim Shady please stand up?"—so will the real Prime Minister please stand up, because we know there's a coalition agreement. We know, having been in Government with the Rt Hon Winston Peters, that they are absolutely solid in what their coalition agreements are. So I think this Government needs to allow Winston Peters and New Zealand First to get what they asked for and what they committed to do, because it'll be your vote of no confidence—it'll be your vote of no confidence. It is quite clear from the Budget Policy Statement that those negotiations are still happening. Then, what other key things have been removed from this Budget Policy Statement? All the wellbeing objectives. There's nothing around climate change. Some of the objectives to help Māori and Pacific people who are in the lowest statistics across the board are gone—absolutely gone. So I absolutely believe that this Budget Policy Statement goes back to—maybe, it's a break-up song for their marriage. No? Maybe it's a bit of Beyonce—maybe move "To the left, to the left", because, actually, that's what's actually happening because they can't come to an agreement. That's why there's a botched Budget Policy Statement. So, do you know what? We're going to "walk five hundred miles" for all these people of New Zealand that need our support. GRANT McCALLUM (National—Northland): At one minute past midnight tonight, State Highway 1 over the Brynderwyns reopens for Easter. I want to thank the hard-working contractors who have worked tirelessly since 26 February and made great progress towards their ultimate goal of securing this route for the next 7-10 years. Yes, that's 7-10 years. That's all the life left in this road. The rest of the work will be completed after Easter—here's hoping the weather continues to play ball. Opening for the long weekend is great news for the incredibly patient and understanding people of Northland. In particular, the tourism and freight sectors, who've had to deal with the challenges of the closures over the last month. I would strongly encourage the people of New Zealand to come and visit Northland over Easter. We have some of the greatest beaches and scenery in the country and some of the best hospitality. There is nothing better than enjoying a relaxing beverage and some quality seafood while overlooking the Bay of Islands or the Hokianga harbour. Hon Scott Simpson: Or maybe the Coromandel. GRANT McCALLUM: Now, now. What the opening of the Brynderwyns highlights is that while the Northland electorate is miles above the rest, its roads are not. Talk to any Northlander, who, in recent years, has added huge amounts of time in their travels dodging potholes and replacing tyres, and they will tell you they've had enough. In the last 12 months, I've driven more than 50,000 kilometres around the roads of Northland, so you might say I speak with a bit of knowledge and experience. Some people ask me why I drive a ute. Well, despite the previous Government's unfair ute tax, which is now gone—isn't that great news for the tradies and farmers of this country?—it is one of the only vehicles that can survive on our roads. This is not just a Northland problem, however. The entire country has battled with low quality roading and the resulting potholes and vehicle damage. To tackle this issue head on, the coalition Government has committed $500 million to fixing those damn potholes. The actions of the last Government would indicate they either didn't realise or didn't care about Northland's roading woes. So what actions were those? In 2017, they cancelled the Roads of National Significance, which included the four-lane highway to Northland. A devastating blow for the people of Northland and for a region which has struggled economically for generations. The way to unlock the undoubted potential of Northland is to commit to and build this crucial piece of infrastructure. A recent NZIER report indicated that the economic benefits of just building the Dome Valley extension to Te Hana was approximately $500 million per year. If the previous Government had continued to build this road as planned, it would be close to finished and we would be about to reap the huge gains that follow. How indicative is that on the short sightedness of the previous Governments. Hon Julie Anne Genter: They only just opened Pūhoi to Warkworth—they announced it in 2008. GRANT McCALLUM: Typical—they were either too ignorant to understand the potential benefits or didn't care about Northland, or both. Listen to them. They don't understand what it's like to live in regional New Zealand; they just live in little electorates in town. But this Government does understand and does care, as shown by our Government Policy Statement on land transport, right, which commits to the Roads of National Significance. And thanks to our coalition agreement, a new route around the Brynderwyns is top of the list. Great news—great news. So whether you own a small business in Northland, you work the land, or run the port, this new, modern, intergenerational piece of infrastructure means transport security and it's a crucial step towards unlocking the potential for you and for Northland. As I said in my maiden speech, the future is clear. The four-lane highway to Northland is what we need. I challenge those across the floor to open their eyes and their hearts to the people of Northland. If you want to create jobs, lift people out of poverty, and fix the housing challenges facing our wonderful electorate, we need to build the road. So I'll say that again, people: build the road. Thank you. Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green—Rongotai): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker; thank you very much. Better things are possible. I know the vast majority of New Zealanders—86 percent of them—live in urban areas. Solving our urban transport problems will benefit the entire country. The way that we do that has to be one that is actually effective. And when we invest in fast, frequent buses and trains, when they're affordable, when public transport works for people, they take it. Everywhere we've done this in Aotearoa New Zealand, it has worked. It doesn't just work in our larger cities; it works in smaller towns too. In Queenstown, for example, they dropped the bus fares to $2 for a flat fare, made the transfer free, made the buses run every 15 minutes, and what happened? They raised more revenue than when the bus fares were higher. More people were using the bus, and that meant less congestion and crowding on our roads. That worked in rural New Zealand, and Queenstown has, actually, a very small population. It worked in Dunedin. It's like—public transport works, but it doesn't work if you have no idea what you're doing, which is clearly the case with this current Minister of Transport. Right now, people don't have options but to use a car, even when it's for short trips in our towns and cities. The majority of our car trips are very short distances in urban areas. If we could lift and take away this burden of having to own so many cars from New Zealanders, and some of them can't drive, like anyone under the age of 16, some older New Zealanders, and some New Zealanders with disabilities aren't able to drive. When we make it possible for them to get around, without having to rely on their parents or their caregivers driving them, then, again, we free up the roads that we have and they work better. It's hard to explain the enormous cost burden that has been put on New Zealander from a transport system that forces them to use cars for every trip. But we now have the highest car ownership rate in the entire world. And our entire dairy exports—$19 billion—do not pay for our annual imports of vehicles and fuel to run them, which is now at $22 billion. So although it is a beautiful dream of the 1950s that building urban highways or more roads will somehow, as the last speaker said, end poverty and improve housing, the reality is we've 70 years of evidence that this doesn't work. What is better for people is to move more people and goods, with fewer vehicles and less fuel—that's a direct productivity gain to New Zealand. Ultimately, the main driving value here is giving people freedom and independence. The way we do that is to invest in better public transport in our towns and cities, to price the transport appropriately. That means if lowering the fares leads to more revenue, then lower the fares. But right now we have totally extreme and failed policies of last century proposed in the Government Policy Statement on Land Transport. Submissions on this close on Tuesday next week, after the Easter weekend. I encourage all New Zealanders to have a look at the Government Policy Statement, and submit on it, because there is no way that we are going to solve our transport challenges and our housing challenges by continuing to do the things that people did all through the second half of the 20th century, that led to higher reliance on private vehicles, most of which are parked, 96 percent of the time not being used, and less balance and less choice. The reality is while National goes around claiming that they care about freedom and choice and economic productivity, the reality is every action they are taking will achieve the exact opposite of what they claim to care about, and anyone who knows anything at all about urban transportation or transportation economics knows this. So New Zealanders need to get in and submit and call for something that is rational and reasonable. But more importantly, we need to start thinking about our children. The Minister was on NZ Q+A on the weekend, and he was forced to admit that putting speed limits up to 50 from 30 kilometres an hour around schools only saves 15 seconds—that's 1 percent of the average car journey. That's not balance, because it means that if a pedestrian or vulnerable road user is struck by a car, they have a 300 percent increased chance of fatality. The reality is better things are possible, but we need to take a different approach to transport and we need to put people and the planet first. The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed. HOUSE IN COMMITTEE SPEAKER: I declare the House in committee for consideration of the Road User Charges (Light Electric RUC Vehicles) Amendment Bill and the Misuse of Drugs (Pseudoephedrine) Amendment Bill. ROAD USER CHARGES (LIGHT ELECTRIC RUC VEHICLES) AMENDMENT BILL In Committee Parts 1 and 2, Schedules 1 and 2, and clauses 1 to 3 CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Members, the House is in committee on the Road User Charges (Light Electric RUC Vehicles) Amendment Bill and the Misuse of Drugs (Pseudoephedrine) Amendment Bill. We come to the Road User Charges (Light Electric RUC Vehicles) Amendment Bill, and we begin with the debate on Part 1. Hon SCOTT SIMPSON (Senior Whip—National): Point of order, Mr Chair. I seek leave for all parts to be debated as one question. CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Leave is sought for that purpose. Are there any objections? No objections. The question is that Parts 1 and 2, Schedules 1 and 2, and clauses 1 to 3 stand part. ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): I'm seeking to ask the Minister of Transport five questions. The first is: does the change to the plug-in hybrid electric vehicle rate, as presented by the Transport and Infrastructure Committee, make this better law? Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin): Thank you, Mr Chair. While the Minister considers the very concise question by my colleague Arena Williams, I wanted to ask a question generally about the policy purpose of this bill. It seems that policy purpose is very limited. We have on the explanatory note that "The Road User Charges … Amendment Bill … provides for light electric RUC vehicles (light EVs) and plug-in hybrid electric RUC vehicles (PHEVs) to pay road user charges (RUCs) from 1 April 2024." So my question to the Minister is if he had considered—or if he thinks that the bill should in fact include—other policy objectives? For instance, we all know that road user charges are here to fund the roads and that we've had the electric vehicles (EVs) not paying them for a while, and that was to incentivise the uptake of those electric vehicles. However, at the same time we had other policy initiatives such as the Clean Car Discount to encourage the uptake of those EVs. Of course, we know why we want the uptake of the EVs, and that is to decrease climate emissions. That would seem to be another good policy purpose. And also another policy to decrease emissions would be to encourage more use of public transport. Another policy initiative to decrease emissions would be to encourage and incentivise active transport—that is people walking or scootering or cycling. I noticed that in question time today, there was some discussion around this ability for the Government with its current policy settings to decrease emissions. And the Prime Minister, in answer to questions, said the Government is going to meet its emissions budgets and it's going to do that, in part, by doubling renewable energy. And he also, at the end of the question, mentioned the fast-track bill, and, of course, the fast-track bill has no environmental protections. The economic riders can override everything to do with the environment. And if it is this Government's intention that that fast-track bill is used to decrease emissions, then can I suggest a consideration that that bill—I know I'm talking about a different bill here, but it relates to an increase that we could have on the policy for this bill—be restricted to projects that will decrease carbon emissions. So, if the Government is saying that we need more renewable energy—I don't disagree with that—then any fast-tracking provisions, things for renewable electricity, could be fast tracked. Things for public transport—maybe they could be fast tracked too. And that piece of legislation could be tied to emissions reductions, which of course it is not. So my question to the Minister is if he has considered other policies, particularly in light of the earlier times that he sat in that seat when he's been removing the Clean Car Discount. Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green—Rongotai): Tēnā koe, Mr Chair. I have a number of Amendment Papers that I would like to speak to during the course of this debate. But I will start out asking the Minister a question, which is, did he consult extensively with the vehicle industry before proposing the rates that are proposed in the bill, in particular for electric vehicles, EVs? At the select committee we heard a very compelling submission from a joint industry group that included the Automobile Association, the Motor Trade Association, the Motor Industry Association, the Vehicle Importers Association, VIA, and a few other organisations, Drive Electric. And they made the very strong case that they fully supported all vehicles contributing to the road-user charges system and paying for some of the upkeep of the roads. And, at the same time, they argued very, very convincingly for a lower rate for plug-in hybrids and for EVs. The rate they proposed for electric vehicles was 60 instead of 78 per 1,000 kilometres, and the reason for this reduced rate is because we are very much in a period where if we don't have some sort of support or financial incentive to electrify the fleet, it will slow down, and that has very serious consequences for meeting our greenhouse gas reduction targets later in the period. I note that Government members seem to think about these things in a very, like, individualistic way and not consider that, actually, team New Zealand is in this as a whole. We all are working together to reduce our emissions. And what is important here are the actual outcomes. So having a policy that you consider fairer in theory means nothing if we're all worse off as a result, because we're not sufficiently reducing our greenhouse gas emissions, and, as a result, we're going to be penalised under the likes of our EU fair-trade agreement. Not to mention the fact that it's just a lost opportunity all around, because it's more greenhouse pollution but it's also more air pollution, and it's overall higher fuel bills as a nation, which affects our current account deficit. So my question for the Minister is, did he consult extensively with the industry groups? Did he consider that we could put a price on road use from EVs and plug-in hybrids but at a lower rate than what was initially proposed in order to ensure that we're not actively disincentivising EVs at a time when we need to be supporting that. In five years, we probably won't need that financial support. But these next five years, we're importing a bunch of vehicles that will be on the roads for over, you know, 20 years. So that will impact our carbon emissions 20 years from now, 25 years from now. So my other question, actually, for the Minister is whether or not—I mean, this could sound tangential; I have heard the Government say that their plan for electrifying the vehicle fleet is doubling renewable electricity. However, we also heard at the select committee, very clearly from people who are very involved in that industry like Mercury, that having a national network of vehicle chargers is not going to make a difference for bringing in more electric vehicles. The barrier to bringing in electric vehicles right now is the lack of financial incentives and the lack of fuel economy standards that mean that vehicle importers are actively prioritising those cars. So they made the point that the vast majority of charging is going to be done at home or at workplaces, not at public charging stations. So while it's a nice to have—public charging stations and having more renewable electricity; of course we support that—that's not the solution to the current barriers to bringing more EVs in. And here today, the Minister has the opportunity to listen to the industry. I have an amendment paper that would reduce the rate for EVs to the one recommended by the industry, which is 60 per 1,000 kilometres, and I invite the Minister to consider accepting that amendment as he has accepted our amendments to the bill in select committee where we reduced the rate for plug-in hybrids to 38 from 52. Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Transport): Thank you, Mr Chair to take a call on the Road User Charges (Light Electric RUC Vehicles) Amendment Bill. As the Chamber will know, the purpose of this bill is about ensuring that vehicles which use our road are contributing towards maintaining it. That includes electric vehicles, which, up until 1 April have received an exemption. This bill deals with the issues that have arisen due to the fact that that exemption ends on 1 April, including ensuring there is a transition for those vehicles to move into the road user charge system, have two months to buy their RUC licence. It also creates a new definition and weight for plug-in hybrid electric vehicles, rather requiring to purchase RUC at the full rate. It exempts light electric vehicles, weighing one tonne or less from paying road user charges. So, this is a relatively narrow bill. A couple of questions have come through so far from members. The bill is in a better position, and the Government has agreed that there should be a lower plug-in hybrid rate. That is why we sent it to select committee, to test that issue, and Cabinet agreed that the rate should be $38. That issue arises by the fact that plug-in hybrids use both petrol and electricity, and the need to ensure that it is a fair approach towards how much those vehicles should pay. Ultimately, lots of other questions have been raised around fuel economy, charging infrastructure, other issues—fuel economy standards—those aren't relevant to the bill. HELEN WHITE (Labour—Mt Albert): Thank you, Mr Chair. I'd like to ask the question that I think most of my constituents would want to know the answer to: does it still make sense economically for people to buy an electric vehicle if they are in that setting, given the law that we're going to pass? I'd like to acknowledge that there was really good work done by the select committee over the issue of plug-in hybrids, and I'm not sure that a lot of people who are just ordinary people in the constituency would quite understand why that was important work. So I would ask for the Minister to explain in his answers why there was, as I understand it, a double-whammy if we had not had that change, and how the balance has been struck in the work of the committee. My understanding is that the submitters were really concerned about that but also misunderstood that. So they hadn't understood that there'd be a refund given to them if they had a plug-in hybrid for the proportion that was allocated to one form of use of fuel, which would have been petrol, where they were already paying tax. So it would be really nice if the Minister—I'd ask the Minister to explain that but also answer the plain question: is it still economically sensible to buy an electric vehicle? Is it still economically sensible to buy a hybrid vehicle? And it does really dovetail into the questions that I've heard from other people about what are the wider frameworks that this sits within in terms of making sure that that is still the best choice for people if they have a capacity to buy those vehicles. I know that's an issue in my area and there's people making those decisions every day. And there's been an issue with those cars, really. We've protected them from those charges because it has been a good incentive to do so. I understand that that policy one day had to change because everybody uses the roads. And I think, probably, most constituents would understand that that day would come, but I think that we still need to understand and really that is a basic way of grounding the question: what is the implication for people and how does this work within the rest of the framework? Thank you. Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Labour): Thank you, Mr Chairman. Look, I acknowledge that this piece of legislation is designed to address an anomaly which was emerging across our transport sector that electric vehicles (EVs) weren't contributing. We've acknowledged that, and we did in the previous Government, and so we're working toward to the best way to do that. I acknowledge the work that was in the Transport and Infrastructure Committee. There are a few questions, though, that I have to ask. Firstly, is the Government committed to a transition through to a low-carbon transport fleet? I think it is important that the Minister stand up and commit to that. On Monday, I heard an interesting article on Radio New Zealand—actually, it was the CEO of the Motor Trade Association, I think—pointing to the reality that with the changes in this piece of legislation, there is no incentive for people to move from combustion engines into e-vehicles, because it will add an average of 14,000 kilometres, it will be about $1,064 paid in road-user charge (RUC), which would be equivalent to diesel on the same road. So if the Government is committed to that transition, then can the Minister assure us that it's not in this piece of legislation, but will he bring to the House other legislation to provide incentives to move to that lower-carbon fleet? The Motor Trade Association says there is no incentive. If the philosophy of the Government is to offer tax cuts to drive better economic performance—that is, that incentives are going to be given to people at the top to perform better and to deliver better outcomes—then the same philosophy of incentives for people to take up e-vehicles—which we had in Government, through the Clean Car Discount—have now been removed. So why are people going to move to EVs or plug-in hybrid vehicles? The other question that inevitably rises from this new regime—and I think that people will have trouble buying RUC. If you run a trucking company or, you know, you're used to doing it, yes you can go online; there will be many people who are not computer savvy that will struggle. How will this be policed? How will this be policed and how many people are estimated to drive around without RUC? So that would be my question. How many people are not going to end up paying? The other one is: the user pays. Sure, every vehicle that goes on the road should contribute. So the relativity is something that I think is important, and we're looking at adjustments were made for plug-in hybrid vehicles versus electric vehicles. I have to say that the Government's been praised for their adjustment—actually, the Government didn't do it at all; it was the Opposition that brought it in, slipped it through the select committee, and now the Government's trying to claim credit for the changes. So the question is: maybe the Minister could explain why he thought it should go from 30 to 50 percent discount for plug-in hybrids. That would be a question that he could answer. Can I come back to the one of relativity. If road-user charges are designed to not just be a tax but, actually, to contribute back into the roading system, then this piece of legislation could also have made adjustments across other areas of RUC that might have given us the money needed to fix the potholes. It's been said over the other side there, about fixing roads and potholes. Can I just say that a heavy vehicle is 625 times greater impact than a light vehicle—625. Can I say that why didn't the Minister not look at making the adjustments, given the dilapidation of the roads, because, in 2012, the National Government increased the weights and then decreased the funding for roading. If we're trying to catch up, why did the Minister not bring in some adjustment so that the $785 million paid in RUC by heavy vehicles, compared to the $1.8 billion paid by light vehicles, is completely out of sync with their impact on the road? If we are to talk about user pays, which is what this is about for electric vehicles—and we accept that—then you have to apply that principle across the board, why didn't the Minister look at making those adjustments or, indeed, is that part of the Budget that we're going to face in May, presumably? These are a number of questions. The other one is that we come back to the core question: is the Government committed to a decarbonisation of transport fleet, and why has the Minister not made the other adjustments in the anomalies currently faced across the whole roading network, and for rural roads, in particular, where you've got a high percentage of heavy vehicles, a lot of degradation of the roading network, how do we know that this increase in income through RUC from EVs is going to go towards the rebuilding and the restoration of those roads? Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green—Rongotai): Thank you very much, Mr Chair. I will repeat my question, because the Minister still has not addressed it: did the Minister read the submission from the industry group—the joint submission to the select committee from the AA, the MIA, the VIA, the MTA, Drive Electric, and others? Did he look at the calculations that they did that said the proposed road-user charge (RUC) rate would create a significant disparity between small vehicles paying fuel excise duty towards the roads and electric vehicles paying RUC? There's a huge anomaly that will be created by this, where someone using an electric vehicle, which is usually relatively small, to drive between Auckland and Wellington will pay twice as much as a comparable fossil fuel vehicle that is paying fuel excise duty. Therefore, the industry group has recommended a reduced rate for RUC for electric vehicles of $60 per 1,000 kilometres. Did the Minister consider that? Does the Minister think it's important to try and have a comparable rate between fossil vehicles paying fuel excise duty and electric vehicles paying for the use of the roads? Does he think it's fair that electric vehicles that are helping to reduce New Zealand's transport emissions are going to pay twice as much to use the roads as a comparable fossil fuel vehicle? Mark Cameron: They do more damage. Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: They do not do more damage. We're talking about vehicles that are the same weight, and so therefore is it fair that they should pay twice as much when they're the same weight as a fossil fuel vehicle paying fuel excise duty—that they pay twice as much to use the roads? Hon Judith Collins: Aren't they heavier? Mark Cameron: Yes. Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: This is what the vehicle industry themselves brought in the evidence to the select committee. Perhaps the Government members do not respect or acknowledge the expertise in the vehicle industry in New Zealand, and that's why they're saying things that are at odds with what the vehicle industry is saying. To reiterate one more time so that maybe the Minister will answer: did the Minister read the joint submission and consider the aspect of fairness between small vehicles paying fuel excise duty and electric vehicles paying RUC, and would he consider reducing the RUC rate for electric vehicles to $60 per 1,000 kilometres? And, if so, will he support my Amendment Paper No. 25, which is doing exactly what was recommended by the industry, with significant calculations to support that proposed rate? Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Transport): Oh, thank you, Mr Chair, for those questions. A number of questions have been posed by members. The Hon Damien O'Connor was asking around enforcement. All the provisions of the road-user charges (RUC), in terms of enforcement for those who use road-user charges, will apply here. How will people become aware, how to pay? Obviously, that's why we've got a two-month transition period. The New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) is doing a significant education campaign, writing to all of those vehicle owners to ensure that they understand their obligations. There's a two-month transition period for them to buy their first RUC licence as well. So it's important that that happens, but the reality is, as the member knows, hundreds of thousands of people have diesel vehicles, and the reality is it is not an unknown system. So, yes, it will take time for people to enter it, but the reality is the NZTA is working very hard to ensure people understand their obligations. There are also enforcement provisions which are available if people don't purchase a RUC licence. In terms of the conversation that's been here around the road-user charge rate, I would point members to the departmental report—I think it's page 22—which discussed how the light RUC rate is set. The light RUC rate is made up of $61 of shared costs which are spread equally across all vehicle types and doesn't depend on the weight of the vehicle. So those are things like maintaining the road for weather-related damage, investments in public transport, non - weight-related costs for building new roads, and installation of road signage; $10 to account for the space the vehicle takes up, $4 to account for the vehicle weight costs—and, of course, being a light vehicle, that weight cost is a relatively small portion of the overall RUC cost—and $1 to account for weight-based road wear. So this bill doesn't attempt to change the road-user charge rate, but it attempts to, obviously, provide a new rate for plug-in hybrids, which—the reason for that is because they have two fuel sources, which means that if they didn't have this lower rate, they would be required to pay the full rate and then they'd have to go and apply for their excise back, and that would cause an enormous administrative and cumbersome process. So the balanced approach through that is to have a lower rate. As I've said, this is a temporary measure. The Government's policy is to move all vehicles to a road-user charge distance weight-based system where people pay fairly for the use of the road based on the weight of their vehicle, how many kilometres they travel, and the— Hon Damien O'Connor: Use of or impact on? Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, all of those elements that I have just outlined to the member there: $61 of shared costs, so that's the use of; $10 to account for space, so that's use of; $4 for weight; $1 for road wear. So there's a range of elements which are caused by using the road. There's a number of impacts that vehicles have, and the RUC rate is set to account for those things. So, as I've said, it is our policy to move all vehicles to a road-user charge system where people pay the same amount based on the weight in kilometres rather than what type of fuel they use. I understand that the members are raising a range of questions around the fuel usage and the impact, and there is a range of variances within the system which need to be addressed, hence why we have made that commitment to move all vehicles to a road-user charge system so that it is fair. Then, those who choose to purchase an electric vehicle or a hybrid or a plug-in hybrid, or if they require a diesel, they pay the energy costs based on that choice, but, ultimately, the money that's required to build and maintain the road is not dependent on the type of fuel that they use. So we're separating those two issues out over time. That's the intention; we've started work on doing that. This bill, in the meantime, brings those light vehicles and those plug-in hybrid vehicles into the systems. We've always acknowledged there are variances, we need to sort the variances out, and that is why we will be progressing at pace to move all vehicles to road-user charges. SHANAN HALBERT (Labour): Thank you, Mr Chair. I have a few questions for the Minister this afternoon. After working with the Minister when he was in Opposition, he did have some very good ideas and signalled prior to the election his direction of travel for the transport portfolio. Since coming into Government, I think that he's been quite narrow in his approach and his focus areas, particularly when he talks about getting Aucklanders, as an example, around faster and safer. The actions that he's taken in his portfolio during the past few months actually isn't going to achieve those particular things. And, so, while this is quite a technical bill, and in some senses I support the sense of having a fairer system to fund our roading network, our transport network, we know, actually does have some challenges in it; I accept that. But, potentially, the way the Minister is going around his decisions isn't in line with the direction of travel that I believe our transport network in Auckland and in Aotearoa New Zealand needs to go. One of my questions I have is around the modelling that the Minister has done on the financial implications to Aucklanders—that a number of his actions, actually, since he's become Minister, which is quite different to the way that the National Party campaigned, is their election promises both of no new taxes to New Zealanders. But, secondly, in the repeal of the regional fuel tax—that, actually, what we've seen in the Minister's decisions is additional taxes going on Aucklanders. So the cost savings here is $1.85 to the average family in Tāmaki-makau-rau, Auckland, from the repeal of the regional fuel tax—$1.85. Since then we've seen the Minister add on a $50 registration fee for people to register their cars. We've seen additional cost-to-fuel excise, albeit in two years' time. And then here we see additional costs going on for EVs, again, to pay their fair share, I guess. But the question for the Minister that I have is, where does it end? You did promise, Minister, that there would be no new taxes. I accept that we need to fund our transport network and need for infrastructure; at the same time, you've taken away $500 million from the public transport network in Auckland, and we do have a significant number of Aucklanders that use our public transport system. That creates an additional cost to them: double the cost for children that did have a free ride on our buses; half price for under 24s—those things have gone. So that's another cost to the cost of living for families in Auckland. So I guess I'm just trying to understand from the Minister what modelling he has done around the financial implications on Auckland families with these additional costs, one after the other, that he is imposing. And then the next one, of course, will be his intent to put tolls on new infrastructure; that might be in Auckland. Andy Foster: Point of order, Mr Chair. I don't think the member has gone anywhere near the bill, at least not for several minutes. All of these things are about other issues which are not related to this bill, which is a simple bill around road-user charges. CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The bill is being taken as a whole part, and I will make the call whether he's starting to veer off the path. So I do take the member's point, and I think we all heard that, so I encourage the members to stick to it. SHANAN HALBERT: Sure; thank you, Mr Chair. I disagree with the member's point of order that he has taken, because if one did care about the cost of living, actually, and the implications of cost on New Zealanders, that's actually my discussion point, which comes back to this particular bill. This Government piles on costs in its transport portfolio and that is the question that I'm asking the Minister: what modelling has the Minister done to understand the financial implications of this bill on families, particularly in Auckland, alongside the other additional costs that he has loaded up on them when he campaigned, actually, on no new taxes and on ensuring that the cost of living is a priority for Aucklanders? Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Transport): I thank the member for his questions. There's a range of questions around a range of topics which aren't in the bill and so aren't relevant to the bill. But the one question was around the financial implications of the road-user charge. So, ultimately, what this is doing is it's ensuring that people who drive an electric vehicle who are currently not paying to use the road will start paying a road-user charge for the use of their roads. So, ultimately, for those people who have those vehicles, they've had an exemption now since 2009, since the last National Government put an exemption in place, which was said that that would run out once we reached 2 percent. Ultimately, that exemption ran out on 1 April. That decision was made by the previous Government. The exemption runs out on 1 April, and so that decision had already been made. What we're doing here is responding to that to ensure that there's a fair approach, particularly around plug-in hybrid vehicles. Plus, the decision around the exemption running out and the time frame was decided by the previous Government. The problem that the last Government left us with is that, one, they consulted on a 20 percent reduction in the plug-in hybrid EV rate; that's what they consulted on. We're doing 50 percent. So we've actually made a really positive difference for people with plug-in hybrids. The other point here is we're ensuring that people who use the roads pay the fair share of their use of the roads. And so, ultimately, we're also providing a two-month transition to support those vehicles in. So this I think is a very appropriate piece of legislation. In fact, I remember hearing the former Minister of Transport David Parker saying they weren't going to extend the exemption. So here we are. We are ensuring that there is a transition for these vehicles and we are providing a 50 percent reduction for those people who have plug-in hybrid electric vehicles. SCOTT WILLIS (Green): Thank you, Mr Chair. This Government has clearly been getting dizzy by sniffing fossil fuels. It is simply impossible to get to the rapture driving a sport utility vehicle (SUV), however. We will see the earth turned into hell in trying to do just that. Yet, I do see a little bit of hope, because, already, the Government has shown the ability to walk back bad policy by voting in select committee to reduce the road user charge (RUC) for hybrids. So that was a great innovation; thank you, our colleagues in Labour. But could it be that the effects of sniffing fumes has worn off a little, or maybe they were just too befuddled at that point and had no idea and were a bit too embarrassed to change it. We certainly need clear heads now, because as reported in the New Zealand Herald, electric vehicle (EV) sales drove off a cliff in January, with the clean car discount gone. Petrol and diesel vehicles, less than half the market during most months in 2023, accounted for 96 of new vehicle registration in January 2024, according to the Motor Industry Association. Each new internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicle locks in emissions, and dependence on oil from the Middle East. Each single decision to purchase an ICE vehicle and an SUV raises emissions. This is fast track, all right. We're going backwards on a fast track. But it doesn't have to be this way. It really doesn't have to be this way. Whether by carelessness or through urgency or through befuddlement through the fumes, the Road User Charges (Light Electric RUC Vehicles) Amendment Bill will clearly not help lower transport costs, or lower emissions as it stands. Luckily, my colleague, the Hon Julie Anne Genter has prepared some really useful amendments. In Amendment Paper 24, there's a clause added there to prevent the charging of RUCs for EVs and plug-in hybrids until the Government has completed its work to move all vehicles to the RUC system. This is, effectively, to highlight the unfortunate and sloppy lawmaking on a complex revenue system that has led to really unfair charges on electric vehicles. The intention is to stop the work until the Government moves all vehicles to the road user charges; to do it once, to do it properly, to do it cleanly, and to retain a minor incentive to choose new low-emission vehicles. We know this Government is keen on roads. We've heard a lot about the roads. So my invitation, really, to the Government, is to chart a new road. Why don't we get on the road to Damascus, and discover the joy of climate action? Because it is time to get back on track towards zero carbon—it is time to get back on track towards zero carbon, not back on baccy for the taxes for the wealthy. It is time to get back on track, and make some changes that will make a difference, and help our rural communities as well as our urban communities, decarbonize their transport systems, to help those people that want to invest and are disincentivised by sloppy lawmaking. There's so much opportunity here to take good advice from across the isle to make a change, not just a mess; to make a change that improves law, improves legislation, and makes a difference for our communities. So, I just request the members opposite, and the Minister, to pay attention to Amendment 24. It's a really simple one. It just improves the legislation. It just makes things a little bit better, and it is easy to implement. Kia ora. Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Labour): Thank you very much, Mr Chair. Just a couple of other questions I have. And I know that the Government—and we share their celebration—has announced, of course, the implementation and ratification of the New Zealand-EU free-trade agreement. There are some obligations in that, actually, that we both—that is the EU, 450 million people, and New Zealand, 5 to 6 million or whatever it'll be—commit to the Paris commitments to reduce our emissions. And so, the question I have, and the Minister didn't answer it before, about whether the Government still has a clear commitment to decarbonise our transport fleet. Because it's the biggest area. Arguably agriculture is a block of emissions—it's a biological challenge. This is an area where people have options, and we hope that the Government is committed to targets towards 2030. Because, if we don't meet those targets and, indeed, if the EU think that we are backing away from them by reducing incentives to move to electric vehicles (EVs), then we can be challenged. And I'm not sure that a massive shutdown of trade opportunities is likely, but it is an ongoing discussion. So those obligations we have are important, and I want to know from the Minister whether there's a clear commitment to decarbonise; and if so, what's the track towards 2030? And the other one is a question I have to raise because it's, again, in the vein. I have a huge amount of respect for the Hon Simon Bridges, who's just been appointed to be chairman of Waka Kotahi. But he's also been an advocate for the trucking industry. And I know how essential trucking is around our country, but the cost, of course—we're all trying to reduce them. And the question I had for the Minister before was around the disproportionate impact on the roads. And I know that road user charges (RUC) is made up of a balance of these things, but I'm wanting to make sure that the new chair is going to ensure a fair approach to this, so that the small vehicles, which I would argue have been paying a greater portion of the RUC—that the balance is right as we go forward. Because we hear from the Minister and his colleagues that we're a kind of market-led economy and we're open and balanced and we've got to have everything fair. Well, fair impact, fair cost, fair imposition of expenses on the roading network should be paid for by those sections of the transport industry that do the damage. So it's a question I have. Can the Minister, perhaps, pop up and answer those. To, firstly, reassure us about the targets; secondly, that there's no potential impacts of reducing incentives for EVs, which the Motor Trade Association has clearly stated is the outcome of this. Will that impact on our trade obligations? And, secondly, is the Minister committed to assessing and rebalancing where necessary the user-pays approach to road damage? ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): Thank you, Mr Chair. I am finally taking another call in this debate. I've had 30 seconds as it goes, because I was relying—for the benefit of the members of the House—on Speaker's ruling 79/4, which encourages the Minister in the chair to engage in a back-and-forth debate. Speaker Tolley ruled that if you can keep your contributions focused, five minutes is not a target. I made the most focused contribution when I asked the Minister "Did the change that happened at select committee make this a better law?" And the Minister couldn't even say my name when he answered the question. It's almost like he's mad at me. Is that because he rocked into Cabinet, and Cabinet told him, "Oh well, she foxed ya. Sorry. Wear it." Is that what happened to the Minister? Is that why he's annoyed and can't say my name? I'll give the Minister a go at saying my name. Now back to the questions for the Minister that we have in front of us. Following on from that question, I would like the Minister to explain to the House: was it fair that plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs) would pay both fuel excise tax and road-user charges (RUCs) and essentially be double taxed under the rate for PHEVs that he initially introduced to the House. That question is in the context of given that he's taken on board the change of the hard-working Opposition members who made sure that not only was a slip drafted by the Parliamentary Counsel Office, that we had done the work on that the committee had had a good, robust, and cross-partisan discussion about the appropriate rate—and good on the Minister for taking that on board. But since he did take that on board, is it then unfair what he initially introduced to the House? And my second question is, what policy objectives did he consider when he introduced that first rate to the House? Was he concerned with all road users making a contribution in a way that represented the total cost to not only the roads but also to the transport fleet as a whole into New Zealand? Because in the points that my colleague the Hon Rachel Brooking raised, which have not yet been addressed by the Minister, there is a greater cost to New Zealand of fuel vehicles and vehicle emissions than just the cost to the roads. There is also the cost of emissions and the cost of New Zealand not meeting its targets under the Climate Change Act. My next question is about whether the Minister was concerned, when he set that rate, with fairness at all? Can the Minister comment on his considerations about fairness within the system when he set that original rate? I'd like to ask two different kinds of sets of questions as well, given that I'm not going to rely again on that Speaker's ruling about two to tango. I want to understand this idea of choice in the context of 25,000 users of PHEVs in the in the system already. So we've heard some contributions by heckling from the Government members that this is about user choice and that users will continue to buy PHEVs even under these settings. Whether or not you think that is true, there are still thousands of users right now who already have these PHEVs. So this is essentially a change which would affect people who have already made decisions about what they can afford as a household for their household vehicle or what they can afford as a business in using the sorts of vehicles that use both electricity and fuel. These are people like ordinary taxi drivers and Uber drivers in South Auckland who have made the calculations about whether they can run a successful business on the time that they have and on the vehicle that they have. And my question to the Minister is: how does the change in rate affect them, given that they already have these vehicles? And what will the change of the rate save PHEV owners per year? The next line of questions that I have for the Minister is: can he confirm that he has already asked Waka Kotahi and the Ministry of Transport to provide advice on the transition to universal RUC in June to him, and when will Cabinet consider that advice on universal RUC this year? I ask that because I have made a number of amendments that I do wish to speak to around the purpose of this bill. This is something that Labour does support at this stage, but what I need from the Minister is some assurance that work on universalising RUC is occurring now and that this is a transitional measure, because it is important to recognise that in the context of universalising RUC for everyone, this is a measure which extends it to EVs and PHEVS now but will be something that we get a second bite at. If this process, which only gave submitters about 24 hours to submit to the committee, is to be done again, then that's a good thing, and that is a baked-in reason for us to consider it again. And the need for that baked-in reconsideration of the rules around universalising RUC is something that my colleague the Hon Damien O'Connor has already asked the Minister and has not been addressed. The importance of universalising RUC in our system is that all road users should pay their way to using roads. It should depend on the kind of damage that the cars are doing to the roads, or indeed heavy vehicles. And so, once this applies to everyone, once there is a sort of baseline of the kind of damage that we do to our roads being something that is a user-pays system, then we need other incentives to provide for cars which then don't emit the same amount into the atmosphere, because if we're just pricing the damage to roads, we're not pricing the damage to our environment, and that is something which our transport plan already takes account of. This is already a policy consideration which Governments regularly use to decide the type of vehicles that are imported into the country and the type of incentives that we create around not only buyers for personal use but buyers for commercial use. And so we need to know that there is another bite at this and that Cabinet will reconsider these policy settings. And we haven't heard an answer from the Minister about that yet. I also want to then speak to my Amendment Paper, and I hope the Minister will consider some of these amendments. Speaking to those that I've proposed for Part 1, the reason that I've proposed some changes to clause 5(1 )—and I'll take the Minister to those changes; it's on page three, about halfway down—is that the words here around light electric RUC vehicle and very light electric RUC vehicle may very well change That's why I've asked for some confirmation from the Minister of what was presented by officials very helpfully to the select committee that this work was ongoing. So we need to know whether these words around "light" and "very light" are still fit for purpose. Do we mean, in fact, that it's actually a plug-in hybrid electric RUC vehicle that is a RUC vehicle but that is also light so that we can come back and change that if it is required to be changed later. And we need to understand whether the definition of "very light vehicle" will still be relevant when these things are considered by Cabinet soon. So the other amendments that I've proposed in Part 1 include some amendments to clause 7. These are my questions that have not yet been answered but we would like some answers on before we get to the vote on this amendment, which is about the types of considerations that are baked into the primary legislation about why you would set a RUC rate or a discounted RUC rate with a discount at all, because it would be available to the Government to charge the full RUC rate, but we recognise that there is some unfairness in doing that, because there is a double taxation element. So the discount is appropriate. And then, clause 7 inserts, new clause 2A, that clarifies why you would give a discount. But what is not included in the rationale for giving a discount is the other policy considerations that Governments already take into account when formulating a land transport plan, and those are policy objectives around the kind of vehicle fleet that we want at all in New Zealand, the kind of incentives that we create for vehicle owners to choose vehicles that do not emit the same level of emissions as previous vehicle fleets, as old vehicles, as old petrol-using vehicles and old diesel-using vehicles. So if we can be assured that Cabinet is going to look at this again, maybe it doesn't need a change. But if they're not, then it really does. It needs to include those policy objectives that this Government will be faced with as soon as it turns its mind and attention to its climate change commitments, because the transport fleet is still one of New Zealand's largest contributors to our emissions and it will need to reduce its emissions somehow. So it will need to be clear in the primary legislation that those considerations are something relevant to take into account when setting a discounted RUC rate. Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): Thank you, Mr Chair. I won't talk too long on this legislation at this stage, but just thought I'd give some reassurance that indeed the primary purpose here is to recognise the fact that, I think, most New Zealanders understand that people who drive on the roads should contribute to the cost of the maintenance and building of those roads. And so for a long period of time, we've had electric vehicles not paying directly, as a means to encourage people into buying those electric cars. But there obviously would come a point, and there has come a point, where a significant number of New Zealanders were in that category, and if we continued to exempt electric cars, then the flow of money to maintain the roads would dwindle over time. So I don't think anybody expected the exemption of electric vehicles to continue for ever, and so that's what the Government is doing through this legislation to ensure that all the owners of vehicles on the road contribute to it. Now, in terms of the plug-in electric vehicles, there was a change made. Of course, I think, as everybody recognises, there are a wide variety of experiences on the plug-in hybrids as to how much they are operating under electric conditions as opposed to the petrol side of the car. And if you're in a very modern plug-in hybrid and just doing short trips, you might end up spending virtually all your time on electric propulsion; if you're in an old one in a rural environment, you might spend almost all of your time on petrol. And so it is a judgment to be made as to what would be the appropriate discount, and the Government has, on reflection, decided to make changes. And of course we don't regard these as matters of minor political winning or losing; it's a matter of what's best for the country. So I acknowledge the work across the House on that issue. I would also reassure members who have asked the question about whether it's still the Government's intention to carry on with a wider review of the road-user charges—extending that to all vehicles. As the Minister has indicated, he's expecting advice on that by the middle of the year and has made it clear to officials that he expects to be moving at pace on that issue as quickly as possible. Of course, there are lots of challenges in the design of such a system. At the moment, when people pay their petrol taxes, they do it at the pump when they actually pay the petrol, and it's very hard to avoid that. With road-user charges, it's more complicated, and so you've got to have a system that is robust. And so we're working at pace to look at that broader issue so that we can achieve, as best we can, equity across the fleet in terms of ensuring that cars that do damage to the road—and there's a variation, of course, between light vehicles and heavy vehicles and they pay a different rate, and that is a good system that is a good way to operate. So I hope that answers some of the questions that have been raised. Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Labour): Thank you very much, Mr Chairman. One of the questions I'd like to ask the Minister is does he think that the added bureaucracy of road-user charge (RUC) versus excise is added bureaucracy and added costs for average kiwis? I would suggest it is, and I think the Government has to front up to that. Can I ask a couple questions, because the one—very light electric vehicles' RUC, and they will be exempt—that's under a tonne or 1,000 kilograms. We don't see so many of them here, but innovative inventions offshore, mainly around Asia, where speeds on the roads are lower and we see a lot of creative vehicles. My question would be are we, through this bill, incentivising the importation or the utilisation of those vehicles? And does that add some safety challenges or dilemmas for us on open roads? Or are we going to restrict where they may or may not be? We've just seen moves on scooters—you know, on or off the footpath? Are they safe or not? Helmets or not? And so we're very creative and people will work on ways of utilising laws to incentivise commercial opportunities—I'm sure the Government will do that. Does that mean that they will allow the importation of vehicles under a tonne, electric vehicles that will be able to be used across the wider roading network, creating, I would suggest, because they probably run at lower speeds—we've seen, you know, even with internal combustion engines, we've seen a lot more people in smaller cars out in the open road. Look, I try to be considerate, but they are usually travelling at about 80 kilometres an hour or slower speeds; they do create some congestion and some danger. If we end up with e-vehicles in a similar manner, we may add to that safety concern. So it's a genuine question for the Minister, whether its been considered, what is the likelihood of those under-1,000-kilogram electric vehicles coming into New Zealand and being used, and how will we manage that? And then differentiating between, you know, are they 980 kilograms or are they 1,200 kilograms? Such things will be relevant to the police officers who will be out on the roads trying to police this new RUC system. SCOTT WILLIS (Green): Thank you, Mr Chair, and thank you to the Minister for informing us about the approach taken by the Government. It is, I guess, one way to do things, to ensure that down the track legislation can be improved. But wouldn't it be simpler to improve what we've got here right now when we have such a valuable discussion and amendments that are on the Table, or will be on the Table, to be discussed? I think there's an opportunity here to fix up something that was clearly rushed through, poorly thought out, and simply there to tick some boxes off through urgency. I think we can forgive or overlook that box-ticking was mostly rejecting solutions when we've got an opportunity to do something a bit better. And here I think we do have an opportunity to make things better relatively simply. As my Labour colleague pointed out just now, electric vehicles (EVs) are lighter and have less impact on roads than utes and SUVs. Utes and SUVs are usually over three tonnes on the roads; EVs are usually under two tonnes. We could have thresholds that would provide a fairer rate, and that's in my colleague Julie Anne Genter's proposed Amendment Paper No. 23, which creates new thresholds for all vehicles for road-user charge (RUC) charges. This includes vehicles which are between zero and two tonnes—$70 per 1,000 kilometres—and vehicles above two tonnes but not heavier than 3.5 tonnes: $78 per 1,000 kilometres. The current road-user charge rate is $76 per 1,000 kilometres for vehicles between zero and 3.5 tonnes. So the intention with that amendment is to have fairer road-user charge rates, recognising that EVs are less impactful on our roads than heavier vehicles. This is simply an evidence-based amendment. It makes sense. And more to that, there are other issues here with our current rate, where we're charging every vehicle, or every vehicle that has a road-user charge, no matter where they're driven. And we know that our rural roads are not good roads. Our rural roads are in a poor quality, typically, but the money that people who drive on those roads pay does not go to fixing up those rural roads. It tends to go to overbridges, to making more urban roads, to fixing up our urban highways, to fixing up roads of somebody's significance. And this is where the unfairness and the idiocy in this approach demonstrates itself. We can do so much better by thinking about what is a fair way and ensuring we have clarity about who's paying for what with the road-user charges. So the amendments that my colleague Julie Anne Genter has put forward are something that I would urge the Minister to consider seriously. We are here to make good legislation, not to push through an agenda to tick boxes to prove that something can be done within 100 days. We should be here in a serious place, to make a difference for our communities, to make a difference for our rural communities as well as our urban communities, to make sure that people can have transport options that are fair and equitable rather than building overbridges in Auckland—not that I've got anything against Auckland, but I'd quite like some support for the Deep South as well. And I'd like some support for our rural communities in the Deep South, Otago, Southland, where there are people who want to decarbonise and are being put off by this sloppy bit of legislation. So we've got an opportunity here to fix it up, to improve it, not down the track, not somewhere later, but here and now. This is something that we could do if we're willing to listen and pay attention and to make good legislation together. So I just urge the Minister to consider what's on the Table, to think about what's on offer, to think about working collectively, working in Parliament to do better legislation than we've got right now, and that can make a difference for our communities, though there's nothing to lose here. Well, I don't think there's anything to lose here. And I'd hope the Minister would see this as an offer that's coming from our side. CAMILLA BELICH (Labour): Thank you, Mr Chair. It's a pleasure to be able to take a call, my first call in this particular committee stage. I just thought that given we have the Minister here and we also have the chair of the committee here, a number of members of the Transport and Infrastructure Committee here, it'll be an excellent opportunity just to talk to the Minister a wee bit about this slightly unprecedented change that's happened as a result of the select committee process, and the change from the proposed 30 percent discount to the 50 percent discount. I think people deserve to know, Minister, what exactly went through your head when you were deciding that, and the logic and reasoning for continuing with that change within the bill. I think that's a really important thing to go over before we move into the subsequent readings of this bill. I wanted to also mention a few of the amendments in the name of my colleague, Arena Williams. So this particular part that we're referring to is subpart 2, clause 15, which amends Schedule 1. There's been a change there, it was originally drafted to be 53 and the change from 30 percent to 50 percent has changed that to 38. Now, my colleague Arena Williams has suggested a number of further reductions in this area, changing 38 with 37, 38 to 36, basically providing a number of other options for the Minister to consider. And as there has been a lot of openness in this particular process to consider different rates of discounts that would apply to hybrid electric road-user charge for those vehicles, I would be really interested to know whether the Minister has considered those. Also, the conversations that the Minister has had with the chair of the committee, with his advisers, around accepting this particular reduction in the rate; if the Minister in the future is going to be so welcoming of changes at the select committee process. And why, in fact, if the Minister was sure that his proposal was correct when he initially presented this bill to the House, has he not presented an amendment paper following the change at the select committee process? And as my colleague Arena Williams touched on earlier, does that mean that the initial proposal was deficient in some way, or has the reasoning or the fundamental thinking behind the imposition of this particular piece of legislation changed? I think it is important to allow the Minister time to answer those questions and to just go through with the House the relatively significant change from first reading to select committee and now unchanged in the committee stage. I also would just like to give the Minister the opportunity to put on the record once and for all how much of an impact did the timing of this legislation and the work required to put an amendment through influence his decision to accept the particular proposal from the select committee. So some important questions for the Minister. A relatively unusual process that has been taken in relation to this particular bill. Not one that I oppose necessarily, and I'd be interested to hear the Minister's view on that, but one that I think it's important that the Minister clarifies how we ended up here and why. Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Transport): Thank you, Madam Chair, for the opportunity to take a call. And I want to thank members for the questions. There's been a number of questions. Arena Williams asked about the February rate and where it was initially set. The intention was to aim for parity with the road user charges (RUC) rate, based on average fuel efficiency plus some consideration for the actual real-life experience of these engines and their efficiency, which is often not the same as what the manufacturers state. However, as has been outlined in my earlier replies, and also my second reading speech on this bill and my first reading speech, we sent it to committee to test the logic and the evidence on that particular issue. And whilst the 30 percent reduction rate, of course, was based on the average fuel efficiency of these vehicles, there is a range of fuel efficiency, particularly with some of the older plug-in hybrids, and a fairer approach would be to further reduce that to a 50 percent reduction, which is what Cabinet agreed to. So we're a Government which listens. As I said, we sent it to select committee to test that. That was one of the key issues that we wanted to test. In terms of the questions in relation to Camilla Belich around the process. Ultimately, Cabinet made the decision—I think it was last Monday—in relation to that particular issue. In terms of the pace at which we're moving, that is because the exemption ran out on 1 April, so this legislation needs to be put in place prior to 1 April. As I've mentioned earlier, if we weren't making this change, and as the last Government left things, those plug-in vehicles would be having to pay a full RUC rate on 1 April. Tom Rutherford: They only consulted on 20 percent as well. Hon SIMEON BROWN: As member Tom Rutherford mentions, they only consulted when they were in Government on a 20 percent RUC reduction, and they didn't do anything following that. So we're fixing lots of problems with this legislation. Thank you very much. Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green—Rongotai): Tēnā koe, Madam Chair. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I did want to have the opportunity to both ask some questions and speak to my further two Amendment Papers that I haven't yet spoken to. I still haven't heard the Minister reply. Maybe he did at a time that I missed, but I haven't heard the Minister reply to my original question about what consultation he undertook with the industry and whether he has considered a reduced road-user charge, RUC, rate for electric vehicles to ensure that we're not actively disincentivising purchasing new electric vehicles at a time when it's really important to meet our climate commitments. As the industry's proposed, a $60 per 1,000 kilometres rate would mean that electric vehicles are still contributing towards the roads and the upkeep of the roads, but it would mean that it was slightly more in line with fuel excise duty; however, not totally. The other Amendment Paper that I have besides that one, No. 24, would address precisely what the Minister has said, which is that they have a plan; they want to move to full road pricing for all vehicles based on the use of the road, not fuel. And it would make sense to either delay this until we have done that work or to have a reduced rate for electric vehicles (EVs) in the interim, because until we have that better system that the Minister was talking about, we are going to be actively disincentivising EVs relative to petrol cars, which doesn't make sense when the Government says it wants to achieve our carbon reduction targets. And a key way of achieving that is by getting more electric and zero-emissions vehicles into the fleet. Now, very occasionally I do use taxis—it's very practical—and when I do, I'm always happy to find a taxi an electric vehicle. Grant McCallum: But you bike? Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: I do. I bike a lot of the time. Sometimes I take public transport. Sometimes I use a car. Sometimes I use a car-share. And when I do use a car, whether it's a taxi or a car-share— Tom Rutherford: What about planes? Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: And, yes, and sometimes we have to use planes because we don't have passenger trains to the extent that we would like in this country. But that's why we advocate for investing in passenger trains. However, when using a taxi, it's always great to be able to find one that is a pure EV. And I know that taxi drivers—a number of the ones that I use have EVs, but we are hearing stories about heaps of taxi drivers now trying to sell their EVs because of the rate of RUC that is now proposed for them. And that is an absolute the opposite of what we want. EVs make sense for taxis because they're used more of the day, you know. They're used for more kilometres. They're used for more trips than your average vehicle, and if we have EV taxis, that is a good thing for New Zealand's carbon emissions. So will the Minister consider either my Amendment Paper 24 or my Amendment Paper 25. Amendment Paper 25 implements the recommendation from the joint submission from the vehicle industry, which recommended $60 per 1,000 kilometres, which is not a massive reduction in what the Minister is proposing. However, it would help take the edge off because we don't want to actively disincentivise EVs. The other option, of course, is if we are going to have a much better, more accurate road-pricing system, then wait until you're ready to implement that, rather than creating this disparity between EVs and fossil fuel vehicles at this time. We do need to pay for the roads somehow, and it would make sense to, none the less, retain some sort of neutral playing field so that we're getting more EVs in, because if we don't have EVs, this Government literally has not a single plan to reduce emissions from transport and they should be more transparent about that, because they keep saying they're committed to reducing carbon emissions, yet every action they take is going in the opposite direction. And that's what we heard from the industry at the select committee. We heard from the industry that this is going to actively penalise electric vehicles, which is the opposite of what we need to do if we want to get more electric vehicles into the fleet in this critical period in the next five years. Finally, we have considered, and I've proposed an Amendment Paper—we're glad that the Minister picked up the change that we proposed at the select committee that the Government members accidentally voted for, which reduces the rate for plug-in hybrids. However, even the plug-in hybrids that have very short battery ranges, we're proposing an amendment that would just exempt owners of plug-in hybrids from paying RUC if their vehicle has a 30 kilometre or less in battery range. Because the reality is that those vehicles in their use of the roads are far more akin to petrol vehicles. They're going to be paying petrol tax on the fuel they use on that plug-in hybrid and so it would just make sense—and reduce paperwork, really—to exempt them. CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The member's time has expired. Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Transport): Oh, look, thank you, Madam Chair, and I thank the member for her question in regards to the joint submission, which was from the industry. The joint submission was provided to me prior to the select committee process. I invited them to contribute to the select committee, and I thank the committee for reporting back with its views on the submissions. So I think that answers that question. The question in relation to the cost of running vehicles, page 4 of the departmental report has a very good analysis around the average running costs of different vehicles based on what type of fuels. Electric vehicles are very much at the bottom of the range because their operating costs are so much lower. And the reality is, what this does is it shows that the operating costs are a lot lower than driving a petrol or diesel vehicle whilst also meaning they're paying a fair amount to use the roads, which is the intent. As members can see, based on page 4 of the departmental report, there is variance and that's why we need to move all vehicles to pay a road-user charge based on distance and weight rather than based on the type of fuel that they use. And we've already started work on that. There's been a number of tabled amendments. The member Hon Julie Anne Genter proposed to establish a power to set a reduced rate for EVs—sets the rate at $60. That's inconsistent with the purpose of the Act. The legislation doesn't propose to change the road-user charge rate. Another one by the Hon Julie Anne Genter proposes an exemption for plug-in hybrids with a battery range of less than 30 kilometres. Implementing this would require New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) to determine how to measure a plug-in hybrid electric vehicle's battery life, and, so, would you base that on what the battery life is when they purchase the vehicle? Would you measure that based on the actual life? If it's an older battery, it may not—actually, it may be sold as saying 40 kilometres but now it only operates at 20, 25. Ultimately, that's why we've reduced the plug-in hybrid rate, because there is a variance in that issue. There's a proposal by Arena Williams in relation to a whole range of changes of definitions and words and titles, ultimately, and commencements, ultimately. It's this Government's intention that the exemption ends on 1 April. That was the last Government's intention and we're making the required changes to ensure that that happens as smoothly as possible. The Hon Julie Anne Genter proposed a new commencement that delays the bill until all vehicles pay RUC. This would mean there is no transition period. Ultimately, what we're proposing to do here is to transition those vehicles into the system, have a temporary RUC rate for plug-in hybrids to acknowledge the fact they use electricity and petrol, whilst work is done to move all vehicles into a road-user charge system, which will take more time. But, in the meantime, we believe it's fair that all vehicles using the road help contribute towards use of the road. CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I'm going to take a call from Arena Williams, but I think we've just had a very comprehensive answer from the Minister around the Amendment Papers. So I'd like it to be something new, please. ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): Yes. Madam Chair, thank you for the opportunity to ask the Minister of Transport two further questions that relate to the Amendment Papers, and, look, just to thank the Minister for his engagement in this committee stage in a back and forth that was also the mood of the Transport and Infrastructure Committee room. It was a robust discussion about some of these issues, particularly plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVS), and I'm glad that we could continue that on in the committee tonight. The two remaining questions that the committee needs to know before voting on these Amendment Papers—and, you know, this is in the context of Labour members having tentative support for the Minister's proposal now and intending to vote for the bill, so it is important for us to appreciate, you know, whether anything will be amended about it. The two questions are: what will the change in the rate of PHEVS save owners of PHEVS per annum on average? Appreciate that the Minister might not have an exact figure for different types of PHEVS and there is some variance in that, but seeking to understand what an ordinary PHEV user can expect to save because of that. And then, conversely, what does the change of rate from the $53 per 1,000 kilometres proposed in the original bill to the $38 per 1,000 kilometres in this current bill cost the land transport budget? Once we understand those answers, I'm sure that we can agree to some level of support for this bill. You know, we've made some changes here which will be long-lasting for people until—you know, we don't have an answer on when Cabinet will consider the universal road-user charge for all vehicles, but we look forward to debating that with the Minister then in the same spirit that he has engaged in this committee stage. GRANT McCALLUM (National—Northland): I move, That debate on this question now close. Motion agreed to. CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The questions is that Arena Williams' tabled amendment to Part 1 be agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to. Ayes 55 New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6. Noes 68 New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Amendment not agreed to. CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that the Hon Julie Anne Genter's amendments set out on Amendment Paper 26 be agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to. Ayes 55 New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6. Noes 68 New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Amendment not agreed to. CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that the Hon Julie Anne Genter's amendments set out on Amendment Paper 25 be agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to. Ayes 55 New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6. Noes 68 New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Amendment not agreed to. CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I'm just going to take some votes on Arena Williams' tabled amendments, and my advice that I've received is that we don't need to put every number for each amendment up to the vote. We are able to take a representative sample, so you will notice that we are going to move through the numbers, not putting every amendment up. Standing Order 315(4): "Where amendments are proposed that, in the opinion of the chairperson, are the same in substance, the chairperson may select amendments on which to put a question, in order to test the will of the committee." Arena Williams: Point of order, Madam Chair. Thank you. I appreciate that it is absolutely within your discretion to do that, but providing for the House some extra context around that original ruling, the purpose of that was to avoid a situation where members were putting forward amendments that were all essentially the same and did not fit within the intent of the Minister or the Government or with anyone else in the House. The issue here is that this is the first time in a committee stage that we have been dealing with a change that a Minister has actually taken on board from Opposition members, and so I would suggest to you that this is an opportunity to test the will of the House on each one of those amendments, given that the select committee has decided on a change. CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Thank you for the point of order, but I think we'll get an answer by testing a selection of those amendments, rather than having to go through each one. The question is that Arena Williams' tabled amendment to clause 15(2) replacing "38" with "37" be agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to. Ayes 55 New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6. Noes 68 New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Amendment not agreed to. CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Arena Williams' tabled amendment to clause 15(2) replacing "38" with "25" be agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to. Ayes 55 New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6. Noes 68 New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Amendment not agreed to. CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Arena Williams' tabled amendment to clause 15(2) replacing "38" with "15" be agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to. Ayes 55 New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6. Noes 68 New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Amendment not agreed to. CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The committee has voted on a representative selection of amendments to clause 15(2). The will of the committee having been tested, Arena Williams' remaining tabled amendments to clause 15 are ruled out of order. Hon Julie Anne Genter's amendments to Part 2, set out on Amendment Paper 23, are out of order as being inconsistent with the objects and principles of the bill. The question is that Arena Williams' tabled amendment to clause 1 inserting "and Discount for Plug-in Hybrids" be agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to. Ayes 55 New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6. Noes 68 New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Amendment not agreed to. CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Arena Williams' tabled amendment to clause 1 inserting "Extension of Exemption Period for" be agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to. Ayes 55 New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6. Noes 68 New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Amendment not agreed to. CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Arena Williams' tabled amendment to clause 1 inserting "Transitional Period before Universal RUC Scheme for" be agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to. Ayes 55 New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6. Noes 68 New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Amendment not agreed to. CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Arena Williams' tabled amendment to clause 1 deleting "Light" be agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to. Ayes 55 New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6. Noes 68 New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Amendment not agreed to. CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Arena Williams' tabled amendment to clause 1 to replace "RUC" with "Road-user Charges" is ruled out of order as not offering a serious alternative form of words. The question is that Arena Williams' tabled amendment to clause 2 replacing "1 April 2024" with "8 May 2025" be agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to. Ayes 55 New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6. Noes 68 New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Amendment not agreed to. CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Hon Julie Anne Genter's amendment set out on Amendment Paper 24 be agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to. Ayes 55 New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6. Noes 68 New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Amendment not agreed to. The question is that parts 1 and 2, schedules 1 and 2, and clauses 1 to 3 be agreed to. Parts 1 and 2, schedules 1 and 2, and clauses 1 to 3 agreed to. Bill to be reported without amendment. MISUSE OF DRUGS (PSEUDOEPHEDRINE) AMENDMENT BILL In Committee Parts 1 and 2, and clauses 1 to 3 CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Members, we now come to the Misuse of Drugs (Pseudoephedrine) Amendment Bill. We begin with the debate on Part 1. Part 1 is the debate on clauses 4 and 5: amendments to the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975. The question is that Part 1 stand part. SUZE REDMAYNE (Junior Whip—National): Point of order, Madam Chairperson. I seek leave for all parts to be debated as one question. CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Is there any objection to the leave being sought? There is none. The question is that Parts 1 and 2, and clauses 1 to 3 stand part. INGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri): Thank you, Madam Chair. As we have said in our first reading speeches, yes, we will be supporting this bill to go through to law, but with a bit of a caveat, because we believe that pseudoephedrine is only safe if it is stored appropriately, and I will be tabling an amendment later to that effect. But first, I just want to ask the Minister some questions about the process that was undertaken, because we do agree that pseudoephedrine is a useful medication for people to have. It's particularly relevant at this time of year, when lots of people are kind of going down in flames with coughs and colds and sniffs. Anything to help dry up the nose and mask the symptoms is usually gratefully received, and we do realise that the workplace now is different than it has been in the past. People are very mindful of not wanting to be symptomatic around colleagues because of the fear that it could be COVID, and just having a little bit more personal space, but also the environment and context around methamphetamine—and methamphetamine production, in particular—is quite different from when we had this problem previously, with people making meth at home. We've seen a change to meds coming across the borders, and we've seen the cost of meth go down. So the question has been raised—probably quite rightly—to say do we need to relook at this medication, is there the danger that there was previously in pharmacies stocking it and people having access to it, and should we be able to reclassify it so that people can have better access? We do agree—and, as far as I'm aware, it wasn't in the impact statement. But we are mindful that there are barriers for many of our people to get medication, so a visit to the doctor would be that barrier, and perhaps having to have a prescription to go to a pharmacy would stop some of our people being able to get pseudoephedrine. So there's a whole lot of reasons where we agree with the Minister about why this would be a good thing to do. I'm not sure that we thought it necessarily had to come in this quickly—this winter. It would have been good to see perhaps a more fulsome process, because at the moment in this Parliament, we are the "fastest lawmakers in the West". It doesn't always lead to the best outcomes, and there are some reservations that some of the submitters had around the process, too. So I will be asking the Minister some questions around the process. Just for those who are following it at home, what this very small bill does is it reclassifies pseudoephedrine from a class B2 to a class C3 controlled drug under the Misuse of Drugs Act, and the Misuse of Drugs Regulations determine which class of drug that goes into. But we did do, as the Labour Party, a dissenting view in the select committee report, and that was to express our disappointment with and concerns about the process but also, as I've alluded, around the safety of how the drug will be kept in pharmacies. We deliberately put some quotations from the Minister—which I would like to ask him about now—because the main body of the report kind of did a very once-over-lightly about what the Minister had said. But we picked up on some of the language that, for us, is indicative of perhaps a little bit of a cavalier attitude, in our view, to the communities that will be impacted, and also the type of process that was undertaken. For example, we asked questions about the reclassification, which seemed unusual to us, because usually the body that is classifying the medication is made up of experts, and this time it looked and sounded from the questions that we asked as if the Minister and Cabinet were doing this reclassification. When we asked the Minister about that, he said that there was a "public interest justifying the fast-track of this bill through the House and select committee [for] 'an additional winter, so long as the pharmaceutical companies and Medsafe play ball'", and we wanted to know what that meant. There was a bit of a discussion, and question and answer, about that, and the Minister agreed that, in effect, this was about politicians classifying the medication but that Medsafe still had the ability, if it didn't want to play ball, or if it disagreed, to actually not give the approvals, which would have then rendered the political judgment or decision invalid and would have then meant that no pseudoephedrine products would have been available through Medsafe. If I recall rightly, the Minister's justification for that was that he said that he felt that the original decision to reclassify it upwards originally in that different environment was a political decision. So one of my first questions to the Minister will be just to talk us through the process of Medsafe. What is the point of having the Medsafe committee meeting to perhaps second-guess political decisions? Is that an appropriate use of the committee and the committee's expertise? Does this set a precedent now for the committee to be taking direction from Government Ministers or Cabinet decisions, or is this just a one-off situation? Is it an exemption because he wants the public to be able to have this medicine available to them this winter? The second part that I would like to ask the Minister about is his comments in select committee, where he said that this was about rationalising our approach with our Five Eyes partners. That was an interesting one for me, because I've heard Five Eyes mentioned in the context of security and defence, interoperability of equipment, and so on, but I'm wanting to know the medical reason for rationalising a methamphetamine classification with Five Eyes when this doesn't change the border settings. I know that my colleague Ginny Andersen will have some questions around the assumptions to do with the border settings and the cost of methamphetamine later on, but I'm curious to know why it is important for New Zealand to rationalise this approach with Five Eyes, given that the changes made by this bill don't have anything to do with changing the border settings, as far as I'm aware. My third question is also asking the Minister about his comment to the select committee when I asked him about what further evidence he had sought on impacted communities—so those were communities impacted by methamphetamine, and we did hear some pretty harrowing submissions. There weren't many, but there were people with lived experience of drug use who were adamant that they didn't want to see a methamphetamine problem in their community. His response to that was to say that "it was better to focus on the information available … rather than seek further advice" by impacted communities. So there seems to be a bit of a cost-benefit analysis in his own mind, if I'm correct, as to the value of putting more resources into finding out about those communities. That tells me that there's been a little bit of a cavalier attitude to the harm that this could cause, or maybe not—I'd want to know the thinking as to why he wouldn't want to seek further advice by impacted communities. We know these are the most vulnerable communities in New Zealand—those who have been impacted by meth problems—and anybody who's had exposure to methamphetamine in their own family will understand the devastation that I am speaking about. The fourth question that I have, which I think is No. 4 for the Minister, is that he also assured us that when we spoke about people shopping around for methamphetamine—so, an organised syndicate of purchasers, which has happened in the past, to be able to get a bulk amount of tablets to make meth. Now, I appreciate that we've had submissions to say that it would take a lot of packets and a lot of shopping around, but that hasn't stopped people previously. We've also heard from submitters that drug addicts are not necessarily rational, and so we have to allow for the possibility that this could happen. The Minister's response when we raised that was that he said he would monitor sales to see if further regulation was appropriate. My question to the Minister is: how would he even be able to monitor the sales if the register is not there in the first place? It seems to be a bit of tautology, because without the register, you can't monitor, but you're not going to monitor because you're going to keep an eye on it. So I'd be very keen to know what methodology the Minister is planning to use to see if further regulation is necessary. Will it be like a formal process of keeping his eyes on it, and will he be instructing officials to do that? Madam Chair, I'm going to stop my contribution because I can see that the Minister is really feeling frustrated at how many questions I've levelled at him. I do have a number more, and so do my colleagues, but I'd love to hear— Hon David Seymour: It's actually not the quantity; it's the quality. INGRID LEARY: —his responses. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): No, we won't debate from the chair, thank you. Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour): Thank you, Madam Chair. Look, it's good to be able to speak on a bill, and we've made it clear that we support the availability of over-the-counter pseudoephedrine, provided that the Government does act in order to curtail any potential harm that we might see. I think it's important to state that I was actually involved in the recoding of this, back in the day when John Key was the Prime Minister, and tackling methamphetamine was the strategy that I was seconded into the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet to work with, alongside Health, Justice, and Customs officials. This was one of the changes that was done. At that point in time, the market for illegal methamphetamine was predominantly done through manufacture in New Zealand, and we've seen a significant shift over that period of time for there to be the vast bulk of meth coming in pre-made over our borders in a range of creative and different ways in order to smuggle that into New Zealand. That has shifted, and so we see that there is good grounds to revisit the classification of this drug in order to make it available for law-abiding New Zealanders who have a cold and need to still keep soldiering on. The two questions that I have to the Minister really go to the heart of the concern about our pharmacies. If they are stocking a drug that is potentially—we want to look at seeing what that does to the domestic market. There is the potential, as outlined in the regulatory impact statement, that we could see changing domestic manufacture once this drug once again becomes more readily available. In the past we did have instances of pill shopping, where you would see people go around and, I guess, do stand-over tactics to pharmacies in order to get the medicine. So I'd be interested to know what's in place for the safety of those pharmacies, both in terms of stand-over tactics—that has occurred in the past—but also the more recent occurrence of ram raids or going in and breaking into a pharmacy in order to steal pseudoephedrine. I know there have been some questions raised in and around how pharmacies will be storing—you know, it's a bigger requirement for them to put all the higher-risk drugs in some kind of a safe area. We want to make sure that we're doing everything we possibly can to make sure that they're not accessible to criminal groups or criminal individuals who want to exploit the increased availability that this medicine would have. I think it's also important that we turn our mind to what's happening at our borders. While police have seen, and Customs as well have seen, record numbers of seizures of methamphetamine, particularly over the last four or five years, each seizure seems to be growing in size. That is a reflection of the size of the market. There is far more methamphetamine coming into New Zealand than we've ever seen before, and that's a real concern. So what I'm interested to also know, as we make this drug more readily available, is how we are resourcing Customs to make sure— Tim van de Molen: The last Government was soft on crime. Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: I'm sure Customs aren't soft on crime, but what would be soft on crime is a 6.5 percent cut to the Customs budget. That would be really soft on crime. So we want to make sure that there are resources in place at our border so that, if there is increased pressure on the border as a result of international organised criminal networks, we want to understand how we are resourcing Customs to be able to look into those containers, look into all those instances, to be able to make sure that they're doing their job appropriately. There is real concern, if there are voluntary redundancies being offered up in that space, that we want to make sure that there is resourcing ongoing to make sure that this change doesn't open up the floodgates for other things to be happening and a squeezing out of the market into different ways. So I think it'll be incredibly important to be watching what this change does both to our domestic market but also any changes we see in how new importation methods might be coming in. I look forward to the Minister addressing those questions. HŪHANA LYNDON (Green): Kia ora, Madam Chair. The Green Party cautiously support this bill as we move forward in this discussion. I want to support the sentiments of my colleagues from the Labour Party in terms of the way with which we need to take a holistic approach in the management of this drug coming into our community. I am coming from a Tai Tokerau perspective, an iwi Māori perspective in worrying about the mitigations in terms of treatment. What services are available for those who are already gripped by the addiction, and then what services will be supported to increase its capacity, increase access for those who will become addicted as we release this drug into our community? Let us not forget that the coordinated shoppers—the aunties that get together and who might be tools for supply of meth could come back into our community and then start cooking in their kāinga, and knowing the current social circumstances of many whānau who might be desperate in this drug space, could start cooking again in their kāinga, putting at risk both their whānau and also the wider community. So I do worry about monitoring of access and if there will be a register established for the monitoring of the live sales—who will do that in terms of the Government response to the release of pseudoephedrine within our community? Will we have officials that will be watching the sales and those who are making purchases? And then from there, what will be the measures put in place for those that are caught in coordinated syndicates of purchasing? But treatment of those who are in the grips of methamphetamine is a concern within our kāinga. As we know, many are already facing this addiction in reality right now, but also into the future, as we could see more methamphetamine, because we know it might even get cheaper. So what will that look like? I think about Te Ara Oranga, a Tai Tokerau – based kaupapa, very successful, evidence-based approach to supporting those with methamphetamine addiction. Can we increase access to services such as Te Ara Oranga and then also access across the country, referral services, and pathways for whānau effected, as well, to receive support? Considering the way with which this bill has been rushed through, we could call it the "Fast-Track Again". We know that submissions were only open for a small window of time. In the number of submitters that we did receive, we heard a diversity of concern, and thinking also about targeted engagement with our pharmacist community and those businesses who will have to bear the burden of holding this product. Now, not everyone might have the large safe to securely store the quantities necessary to serve a community with pseudoephedrine. So I'm wondering about the storage practices but also what is determined as safe storage and what are practical solutions for those who will have to administer this medication in our communities. When thinking about our communities, as a whole, and particularly in the pharmacy space, what can we do in terms of engagement with the sector now to ready them for implementation? Will there be supports available, and also monitoring and regulation in place to give them surety that as they open up for these services and the delivery of pseudoephedrine back into our community, that they will be able to safely administer access to this drug? May I also speak to Amendment Paper 22 that my colleague Chlöe Swarbrick has tabled, and considering the opportunity for us in considering this amendment bill is for us to look at a way with which we can examine the entire Misuse of Drugs Act. In the Amendment Paper that my colleague has tabled, it calls for us to come back to the table together on 1 January 2026 and look at how we've operationalised the Act and then look to, as a part of that review, bring a report back to the House with suggested opportunities for improvement. Now, that's been something consistent from the Green Party, is that we're calling for a review of the Misuse of Drugs Act in its entirety so that we can take a holistic hauora approach, which is evidence-based, and taking a harm reduction approach, which we know whānau Māori and many of our community are impacted. Kia ora. Dr TRACEY McLELLAN (Labour): Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you for the opportunity to ask the Minister some questions about this bill, the Misuse of Drugs (Pseudoephedrine) Amendment Bill. As my colleague Ingrid Leary and as my colleague the Hon Ginny Andersen have both said, whilst we are supportive of this bill in so far as we agree that there should be flexibility in our system to allow for people who need to get the things they need to get, and we also are very supportive and have a history of being very supportive of our local community pharmacies. And we demonstrated that, certainly, with our minor ailments bills and removing prescription charges so that people weren't dissuaded by those $5 prescription charges and therefore could better utilise their community pharmacies, because often it's the community pharmacy that knows people and knows the community really well. And that leads me to have a certain level of concern for those community pharmacists because, whilst I think there's been variance in the feedback and in the concern, I think that together the fact that this process was quite quick and, as other people have said, characterised it as being rushed. I don't think the pharmacy communities themselves have really had much of a chance to think about what this might mean to them. And we've heard other contributors throughout this very short process talk about the fact that pharmacies don't have to stock pseudoephedrine, which is obviously correct, and that's as it should be. But then it kind of puts that commercial impetus or that commercial imbalance. And as someone commented not that long ago, at what stage does someone who wants to ram raid that pharmacy know that they're not one of the pharmacies that are stocking pseudoephedrine? Is it just something you find out after the damage is done? So I think there are some questions that the Minister hasn't taken to his feet yet to answer in relation to particularly community pharmacy safety and also storage. Because, when we think of other controlled drugs, I can understand why it's not just about controlling drugs, is it. It's not just about installing safe places or safe cupboards. It's about having a double-sign-out sort of system where people are responsible for checking and no one can just get their hands or dispense controlled drugs that quickly. And I can understand that in this case that might not have seemed particularly attractive if we're expecting the volume of people that are going to come into pharmacies and wanting to do that. But that shouldn't be the reason why you don't control drugs. The controlled drug methodologies, which are there to protect people's local practice and their professional registered practice—because every person who is a registered professional is responsible for their own practice—is there for all of those protections, and it's not a matter of simply removing those protections so that it's convenient for the public, per se. So I think there's some questions around that. Now, I know that someone mentioned the register, so I would like the Minister, maybe, to give us a little bit more information, because I'm sure that he's looked at these various aspects that are of concern to us. But the real-time register that we know that is used in Queensland—not a perfect system from what I understand, but is something that could have been a starting point. No need for us to reinvent the wheel. We know Te Whatu Ora have mentioned getting something online, but why the rush? If we don't have that scaffolding and that infrastructure to support the safe delivery of pseudoephedrine to the community, then does the Minister have any kind of timelines, any further information? He can tell us during this process about the latest innovations with regard to that with that real-time monitoring and registering sort of process—well, both monitoring and registering, because, obviously, they're two different things. So I think that that would be a good start. I have some further questions—just as a wee heads up—about the concept of rational actors in markets, but I'll leave it there. And if the Minister would like to answer that, that would be fantastic. Hon DAVID SEYMOUR (Associate Minister of Health (Pharmac)): Thank you, Madam Chair, and thanks to those who have risen to their feet. I just want to premise my comments by referring to the Standing Orders, which are very clear that the purpose of the committee stage is to verify and inquire if the bill as drafted actually fits with the objects and principles that were decided at the second reading. There's been quite a lot of commentary that frankly doesn't fit that criteria, but I will try and address as much as I can anyway. There is, for example, a suggestion of an amendment on storage; I look forward to debating that. There were some questions about the process gone through to make the law, but it was actually a reference to the regulations made under the Medicines Act rather than anything to do with this bill, which is an amendment to the Misuse of Drugs Act. There was a question, the danger to pharmacy, that came up in various ways. There was an acknowledgement that the prescriptions and doctors' visits are a barrier to people getting pseudoephedrine. That's certainly true. Somebody asked if there was a cavalier attitude to cough medicine. I don't think you can have that, but they asked about some comments I'd made about, "It'll be here by winter if Medsafe and the suppliers play ball." Well again, you know that is in relation to the regulations made under the Medicines Act. That's actually quite separate from this bill, but it is certainly true, for the member's information, that Medsafe must allow a specific product to be allowed in. That's quite different from the definition of pseudoephedrine medications, in general, becoming a restricted medicine under the regulations. Then there's the question of my comments about the Five Eyes partners. I think it's pretty obvious that this has got nothing to do with defence, security, or intelligence; it's just cough medicine. However, I did use Five Eyes as shorthand for the five countries—Australia, Canada, the United Kingdom, and the United States—that, along with New Zealand, make up the Five Eyes networks. Those other four countries all have near identical, if not identical approaches to pseudoephedrine drink cough medicine, as New Zealand has or will have very soon if this law passes. And that was the only point I had wanted to make with that. Somebody said that I'd said it was better not to seek information from affected communities. I think the way to point there is that actually you can have paralysis by analysis. I think what we need to do is make clear that we are introducing a regime of regulating cough medicine similar to the four other countries that we most often compare ourselves with. I think that, you know, we can safely say that people have had the opportunity to submit, and I listen to the likes of Know Your Stuff NZ who know a lot about drugs, they have been pretty clear about the fact they don't believe it's viable to manufacture methamphetamine. And then finally there was a question of how sales will be monitored. Again, this is not part of the legislation. There was no agreement at second reading to talk about monitoring sales. So it's not really in order for the committee stage to talk about that, but I'll answer anyway just to try and, you know, entertain the member. Look, first of all pharmacies do actually have to record them. They are increasingly using e-prescribing, so I suspect that the amount of information available is only going to grow with technology. But in terms of how I could monitor sales, or anyone could, Medsafe have to let the stuff be imported. So we'll have a pretty good idea of how much is coming into the country if you wanted to monitor sales. Ginny Andersen mentioned pharmacies and drug shopping. Again, not strictly part of this stage of considering the bill, but nonetheless, I think it's pretty clear that the evidence that's come through the Health Committee is such that people don't believe it will be viable to manufacture methamphetamine in this way. The price has come down dramatically. People have better ways of getting it, sadly, and that's why they don't believe that this will be an issue. Hūhana Lyndon brought up, again, very interesting issues, but they're not part of the legislation that we're considering right now. The question is the drug counselling for those addicted; I think schemes like Te Ara Oranga are well worth funding, but that's not what we're considering as part of this legislation; that wasn't what was agreed at the second reading of this bill. And finally, what if caught pill shopping? Well, you would be misusing a drug, and there are penalties in return for doing that. CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The time has come for me to leave the Chair for the dinner break. The committee of the whole House will resume at 7.30 p.m. Sitting suspended from 6.03 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.