Tuesday, 9 April 2024 - Volume 775 Sitting date: 9 Apr 2024 TUESDAY, 9 APRIL 2024 The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m. KARAKIA/PRAYERS SPEAKER: Almighty God, we give thanks for the blessings which have been bestowed on us. Laying aside all personal interests, we acknowledge the King and pray for guidance in our deliberations that we may conduct the affairs of this House with wisdom, justice, mercy, and humility for the welfare and peace of New Zealand. Amen. VISITORS Samoa—Speaker of the Legislative Assembly SPEAKER: I'm sure members would wish to welcome the Hon Papāli'i Li'o Oloipola Ta'eu Masipa'u, Speaker of the Legislative Assembly of Samoa, who is on my left, and his delegation, who are present in the gallery. [Applause] PETITIONS, PAPERS, SELECT COMMITTEE REPORTS SPEAKER: Petitions have been delivered to the Clerk. CLERK: Petition of Deb Hayes requesting that the House inquire into the Midwifery Council's decision to use the word "whānau" and not the words "women" or "baby" in the Scope of Practice of a midwife, and whether the Midwifery Council is discharging its Regulatory Authority duties appropriately petition of Christian van der Pump requesting that the House introduce a bill that amends section 182 of the Building Act, so that a person can commence proceedings to challenge the administrative decision of a council without first applying for a determination petition of Veronica Turketo on behalf of the Kensington Development Group requesting that the House urge the Government to halt all proposed Kāinga Ora social housing for Kensington, Whangarei in order to review scale and density petition of Lucy Mullinger requesting that the House urge the Government to provide funding to Pharmac for the medication Pemigatinib. SPEAKER: Those petitions stand referred to the Petitions Committee. Ministers have delivered papers. CLERK: Government responses to the interim report of the Environment Committee briefing on Environmental Outcomes Freshwater, and to the report of the Petitions Committee on the petition of Eye Health Aotearoa. SPEAKER: Those papers are published under the authority of the House. Select committee papers have been delivered for presentation. There is a long list of them; just to ask for members' indulgence as their own work is referred to the Parliament. Reports of the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee on the 2022-23 annual reviews of AgResearch Limited, Landcare Research New Zealand Limited, the New Zealand Forest Research Institute Limited (Scion), and the New Zealand Institute for Plant and Food Research Limited 2022-23 annual reviews of the Commerce Commission and the Financial Markets Authority 2022-23 annual reviews of the Broadcasting Standards Authority, the External Reporting Board, Kordia Group Limited, and New Zealand Post 2022-23 annual reviews of Crown Regional Holdings Limited, the Accreditation Council, the Real Estate Agents Authority, and the Research and Education Advanced Network New Zealand Limited 2022-23 annual reviews of the Institute of Environmental Science and Research Limited, the Institute of Geological and Nuclear Sciences Limited, and the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research Limited (NIWA) 2022-23 annual reviews of the New Zealand Capital Growth Partners Limited, the Retirement Commissioner, and the Takeovers Panel report of the Education and Workforce Committee on the 2022-23 annual review of the labour sector (Accident Compensation Corporation and WorkSafe New Zealand). reports of the Environment Committee on the 2022-23 annual review of Predator Free 2050 Limited 2022-23 annual review of the Climate Change Chief Executives Board 2022-23 annual review of the Climate Change Commission 2022-23 annual review of the Department of Conservation 2022-23 annual review of the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority 2022-23 annual review of the Ministry for the Environment 2022-23 annual review of the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment 2022-23 annual review of the Spatial Planning Board reports of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee on the 2022-23 annual review of New Zealand Trade and Enterprise 2022-23 annual review of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade reports of the Governance and Administration Committee on the 2022-23 annual review of Department of Internal Affairs , Digital Executive Board, Office of Film and Literature Classification and Taumata Arowai 2022-23 annual review of Fire and Emergency New Zealand Ltd 2022-23 annual review of Statistics New Zealand 2022-23 annual review of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet 2022-23 annual review of the National Emergency Management Agency 2022-23 annual review of the Office of the Ombudsman reports of the Health Committee on the 2022-23 annual review of Health New Zealand—Te Whatu Ora. reports of the Justice Committee on the 2022-23 annual review of the Department of Corrections 2022-23 annual review of the Ministry of Justice Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Cellar Door Tasting) Amendment Bill. reports of the Māori Affairs Committee on the 2022-23 annual review of Te Puni Kōkiri—Ministry of Māori Development 2022-23 annual review of the Office for Māori Crown Relations—Te Arawhiti Ngā Hapū o Ngāti Ranginui Claims Settlement Bill Tauranga Moana Iwi Collective Redress Bill reports of the Primary Production Committee on the 2022-23 annual review of AsureQuality Limited 2022-23 annual review of Crown Irrigation Investments Limited 2022-23 annual review of Herenga ā Nuku Aotearoa | Outdoor Access Commission 2022-23 annual review of Land Information New Zealand 2022-23 annual review of Landcorp Farming Limited 2022-23 annual review of the Ministry for Primary Industries reports of the Regulations Review Committee on the Parliamentary Counsel Office, Te Tari Tohutohu Pāremata, Annual Report on Legislative Practices 2022/2023 reports of the Transport and Infrastructure Committee on the 2022-23 annual reviews of Genesis Energy Limited, Mercury NZ Limited, and Meridian Energy Limited 2022-23 annual review of Crown Infrastructure Partners Limited 2022-23 annual review of Te Manatū Waka—Ministry of Transport 2022-23 annual review of the New Zealand Infrastructure Commission 2022-23 annual review of Waka Kotahi—New Zealand Transport Agency 2022-23 annual reviews of the Electricity Authority and Transpower New Zealand Limited 2022-23 annual Reviews of Transport, Energy, and Infrastructure entities. Hon Member: Well done. SPEAKER: Yeah, good work. The bills are set down for second reading. No bills have been introduced. ORAL QUESTIONS QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS Question No. 1—Prime Minister 1. 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 my announcement yesterday of nine ambitious public service targets to help get New Zealand back on track. This Government owes it to Kiwis to focus on delivering on the things that matter most to them, like shorter wait times for emergency care and elective treatments, safer communities with less violent crime, and more kids at school and achieving the skills they need to live a better life. This is an ambitious Government that wants the very best for all New Zealanders. We're not here to manage decline; we're here to get things done and deliver better outcomes. [Interruption] SPEAKER: Just wait. Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Kia ora. What is his response to the Iwi Chairs Forum withdrawal from the National Action Plan Against Racism due to what they view as this current Government's commitment to "colonial racism and in particular, targeted racism against Māori"? Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I'd completely disagree with that question. We want to see Māori do much better in this country, and that's what this Government is working hard to do. Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: What is he doing to regain the trust of the Iwi Chairs Forum following their withdrawal from the National Action Plan Against Racism? Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, what we are doing is we're making sure we rebuild this economy, we restore law and order, and we deliver better health and education for Māori and non-Māori. Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: What is his view on the impact that policies such as the Fast-track Approvals Bill, the Treaty principles bill, the removal of section 7AA from the Oranga Tamariki Act, as well as the dismantling of Māori wards and the Māori Health Authority have had on our iwi authority's mistrust of this Government? Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I disagree completely. We may disagree with the previous administration and the way they went about things, but we are here to make sure we improve outcomes for Māori, because you can talk about it, as the previous Government did, but outcomes for Māori went backwards under the last six years across a range of measures. We're saying enough is enough, and I look forward to that member's support for many of the programmes that we have. Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: What will he do to alleviate the concerns of the acting Race Relations Commissioner, who has stated that his justice Minister's attempt to remove some Māori experiences from the action plan would deny many Māori lived experiences with racism, which studies show occur daily for 93 percent of Māori? Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I disagree completely. We don't stand for racism in any form in this country. Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Does he agree with the justice Minister that focusing on colonial racism is unfair to migrant communities, or does he agree with the documented experiences of migrant communities in the Ki te whaiao, ki te ao Mārama report, who overwhelmingly affirm that the experiences of racism in Aotearoa stem from the fact that Aotearoa is a colonised country? Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Again, what I'd say to you is there is no place for racism in New Zealand—period—and whether you are a new New Zealander or you've been here for some time, the same standard holds for everybody. Question No. 2—Prime Minister 2. CHLÖE SWARBRICK (Co-Leader—Green) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his Government's statements and actions? Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON (Prime Minister): Yes, and especially the target that I announced yesterday to reduce violent crime and to make our communities safer. One of this Government's key priorities is to reverse the increase in violent crime, making Kiwis feel safer in their own homes, their businesses, and their communities. We've already made progress to return the rights of victims instead of criminals to the centre of our justice system, and we look forward to implementing many, many more actions to restore law and order. Chlöe Swarbrick: Is the Prime Minister aware that there is already a legally required independent expert review of the methane target among all emissions targets, and, if so, why has his Government announced that they will do their own new independent secondary review? Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, it's something that we've talked about in Opposition for some time, it's something that we've campaigned on, and all we're saying is we're making sure we've got complementary work going on to make sure we have the latest knowledge around methane science. From there, we can set targets. [Interruption] SPEAKER: Just before the member—interjections are fair; nothing wrong with that, but it's getting pretty loud, so just keep it as rare and, as an Assistant Speaker once said, as witty as possible. Chlöe Swarbrick: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Is the Prime Minister aware that the Climate Change Commission appointments are legally required to be consulted across political parties, and, if so, is he concerned that his Government's second review is therefore inherently less politically independent and more politicised? Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Yes, I agree with the first part of the question. Chlöe Swarbrick: What does—and I quote—consistency "with no additional warming" from agricultural methane emissions mean in the context of the National-ACT coalition agreement? Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, what I'd say is that we want farmers to have to play their part in driving our emissions down. We can't just shut down the world's best farmers and send agricultural production offshore, making global greenhouse gas emissions worse in the process. We believe "no additional warming" is a fair basis for methane targets in particular. [Interruption] SPEAKER: I might just say to the Government side that if the Prime Minister is giving an answer, it's not particularly helped by the added comment from his own team. Chlöe Swarbrick: Does he agree with the Climate Change Commission, who yesterday said—and I quote—"Changing the biogenic methane target from the current range to 'no additional warming' and keeping the current net zero component of the targets as it is would mean higher emissions and an increased amount of warming than the current target."? Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, what I'd say to you is that is speculation, because we haven't had a discussion around— Chlöe Swarbrick: It's science! Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: No, no—would you like to listen to my answer? Let me finish my answer. What I'm saying to you is you're jumping to targets. What we're saying here is we want to update the science base and make sure that we have the latest sense of methane science in place. Chlöe Swarbrick: Does the Prime Minister agree with the Climate Change Commission that if the Government seeks to reduce methane emissions targets, it would be requiring households and businesses across this country to do more? Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: That's not what we're saying. What we're saying is we're reviewing the science base on methane to make sure we do that. I'd just say to the member I really look forward to her adjusting the Green Party website to come out in support of our GE policy so that we can actually drive emissions down. Question No. 3—Prime Minister 3. Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his Government's statements and actions? Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON (Prime Minister): Yes, I do, and I'm particularly proud about what we announced around getting our kids back into school and also driving up academic achievement. It is an absolute travesty that only 47 percent of our kids go to school regularly in this country—a legacy of the previous Government. And the consequence of that is kids are missing a year's worth of school. We're proud of our target of making sure we have 80 percent of our kids ready to go, at high school, so they can actually live the lives and the dreams that they want to have. Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Were all aspects of this morning's announcement on truancy approved by Cabinet; if not, which parts have yet to be approved? Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, as I said, we have an ambitious Government, and that is fantastic because what we observed over the last six years was a Government that spent more, borrowed more, taxed more, and delivered worse outcomes. Your Government had six years. You did very little; you failed at it. What we're doing is declaring nine key targets—two in the education space—we're marching hard towards it, and every quarter, we're going to be doing things to make sure we make progress on it. Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr. Speaker. It was a pretty straight and simple question. SPEAKER: I'll call you for the point of order. Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: What was that? SPEAKER: Point of order? Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Oh—point of order, Mr. Speaker. It was a pretty straight and simple question, and the Prime Minister has given a diatribe on the previous Government's record. He hasn't actually either answered or addressed the question that I asked him. SPEAKER: I think he could probably say something more, but I think he had addressed it—the Prime Minister. Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Sorry, I didn't hear the—would you like to ask the question again? Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: I'm happy to repeat the question. Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Yes, please do. Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Were all aspects of this morning's announcement on truancy approved by Cabinet; if not, which parts have yet to be approved? Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: As we said, the announcements that we made today have been approved by Cabinet. Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Have the details of the traffic light system he announced this morning been approved by Cabinet? Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: No. Again, what the Minister announced was that was our proposal, and there's more work to be done on that and that will come towards Cabinet in due course. But what is exciting is that we are a Government that is actually wanting to do something about attendance rates. We care deeply about our kids being in school so they can learn, so they can achieve more. Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: So how come Penny Simmonds was reprimanded— SPEAKER: Wait on, wait on—wait on. Sorry. Supplementary, the Rt Hon Chris Hipkins. Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: How come Penny Simmonds was reprimanded for a decision being announced that wasn't approved by Cabinet, but David Seymour was allowed to make decisions that haven't been approved by Cabinet? Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I mean, I reject the premise of the question. We have a fantastic plan to tackle school attendance in New Zealand—something the previous administration, the previous Minister for 5½ years, didn't seem to care about. We care about it. We're getting our kids back to school, period. Hon David Seymour: Does the Prime Minister trust his capable Ministers enough to announce details—such as, the colours of the traffic light will be green, yellow, and red, and that each colour will have differing consequences, differing in severity—as I did just this morning? Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Can I just say, well, I think we have a fantastic Associate Minister of Education who is very fixated and bringing thoughtful leadership to how we get attendance up in this country, so I want to thank him for his great efforts. Hon David Seymour: Point of order, point of order. Mr Speaker, I seek leave to make a small correction: I'd actually said the colour was orange. SPEAKER: Yeah, I'm sure that's incredibly helpful to the House. Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Was either the Minister of Health or the Minister of Mental Health consulted on the proposed cuts to the Suicide Prevention Office? Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, again, that's not happening. What has happened is that you had the Ministry of Health say they didn't adequately brief the Minister. In a very quick period of time, the Minister of Mental Health said that he wants the functions of the Suicide Prevention Office to continue. And I can tell you I have great faith in that Minister to deliver and to continue to make sure that an absolutely tragic record here in New Zealand is continuing to improve. Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Was either the Minister of Health or the Minister of Mental Health consulted on the proposed cuts to the Suicide Prevention Office? Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Again, you heard the public comments where the Ministry of Health said that they did not adequately brief the Minister. The Minister directed very clearly that he expects that function of the Suicide Prevention Office to continue, and it will. Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Well, does he agree with Matt Doocey, "I'm responsible for the $2.5 billion that we spend for mental health and addiction ring-fenced funding—I'm going line by line, by line, by line, through that"; and, if so, how did the Suicide Prevention Office almost close without its Minister even noticing? Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Again, I've addressed the question. The Ministry of Health said that they did not adequately brief the Minister. And the Minister made it very clear that he expects the functions of the Suicide Prevention Office to continue. Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Is the reason that the Suicide Prevention Office was being considered for closure because his Government is requiring the Ministry of Health to cut 6½ percent of its funding? Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: We're going to see a further increase in spending on healthcare. But what we are not tolerating is what that member did with his Government for six years, which is he didn't actually— Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: We're moving money from the back office— SPEAKER: I note the point of order—point of order. Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Mr Speaker, almost every question that I've asked the Prime Minister today, he's resorted to an attack on the previous Government without actually answering what are relatively direct questions on his Government's and decisions. The cutting of the Suicide Prevention Office is not a non-controversial matter. The questions that I've asked have been very straight questions, I don't think it's too much to ask that the Prime Minister takes them seriously and gives serious answers to them. SPEAKER: Well, I think he has given serious answers—if I'm listening to them. But I would also say to you that it is not inappropriate for Ministers to refer to programmes of a previous Government. The difficulty comes where that reference becomes an attack, and I'd ask that all Ministers, including the Prime Minister, think carefully about those comments in an answer. Prime Minister. Oh—are you finished? Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I'm finished, yeah. Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Well, I'm waiting for him to answer that question. SPEAKER: Yeah—ask the question again. Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Is the reason the Suicide Prevention Office is being considered for closure that his Government are requiring the Ministry of Health to cut 6½ percent of its spending? Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: The Suicide Prevention Office is not being considered for closure. Question No. 4—Finance 4. Hon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel) to the Minister of Finance: What recent announcements has she made about the Government's fiscal policy? Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance): Two weeks ago, I released the Budget Policy Statement, where the Government sets out its short-term intentions and long-term fiscal objectives for fiscal policy. Hon Rachel Brooking: How many pages? Hon NICOLA WILLIS: In summary—Mr Speaker, isn't it funny that we have members opposite us who interject to ask us how long the statement was, as if the definition of success is how many pages you can put in your document. SPEAKER: Yeah, good. Just— Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, here on this side of the House— SPEAKER: No—that's enough. Don't talk while I am. Just go back to your answer. Hon NICOLA WILLIS: What our fiscal intentions and objectives are, are to return to surplus; to get debt heading down as a percentage of GDP, rather than going up, as it has been over the past five years; and to reduce Government spending as a proportion of the overall economy. Hon Scott Simpson: What is Government spending as a proportion of GDP? Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, the half-year update in December forecast that core Crown spending in the current 2023-24 financial year will be 33.4 percent of GDP. Now, to put that in context, core Crown spending in 2018-19—just five years ago—was only 28 percent of GDP. Now, clearly, COVID disruptions were a factor in this increase, but the crucial thing is that unlike in other countries, there was no attempt to bring Government spending back down again after the temporary disruption passed. Spending was deliberately kept high, and this Government is committed to bringing it down to ensure it is effective, targeted, and within our means. Hon Scott Simpson: What is the Government's objective for spending? Hon NICOLA WILLIS: New Zealand currently has a structural deficit, and there are only three broad options to deal with that: borrowing to cover that deficit, which is unsustainable; taxing New Zealanders more, which most of the members opposite think's a great idea, but which we're not big fans of; or reining back on spending. We will do the last of these. We intend to control growth in core Crown spending so that it reduces as a percentage of GDP, and over time our objective is to bring spending down towards 30 percent of GDP. SPEAKER: It helps, for order in the House, if general statements about everyone's views are not made, only those of the Government who is being held to account here. Hon Scott Simpson: How does the Government intend to reach that objective? Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, this right-sizing of the Government's footprint will be achieved through ongoing restraint and reprioritisation across multiple Budgets. We cannot, on this side of the House, undo in one Budget what was created in six. The Government will be charting a medium-term course of fiscal consolidation and not overreacting to movements up or down in economic forecasts. We are ending the approach of recent years which confused spending money with achieving results, and which doesn't believe that money can ever be saved within the public sector— Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order. Hon NICOLA WILLIS: —or ever be put to better uses. SPEAKER: You're probably only slightly ahead of me, but point of order, the Hon Kieran McAnulty. Hon Kieran McAnulty: Well, Mr Speaker, you'll note that this side of the House stayed silent for the majority of that exchange. We left it to you and you responded appropriately, but the Minister appears to have ignored your advice and continued with her intent regardless. SPEAKER: Well, only from the point of view that it was an incredibly lengthy answer—too long—and, secondly, as I said before, it's not inappropriate for Ministers to refer to situations that they have inherited, but I am watching very carefully for the attack aspect. Question No. 5—Prime Minister 5. Hon MARAMA DAVIDSON (Co-Leader—Green) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his Government's policies and statements? Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON (Prime Minister): Yes, and especially the target that I announced yesterday for 75 percent fewer households in emergency housing. Too many children are being raised in motels, and my Government is focused on reversing the huge growth seen under the previous Government and its homelessness Minister. Hon Marama Davidson: Will he guarantee to the representatives of Ngāti Tama, Ngāti Mutunga, Taranaki Iwi, Te Atiawa, Ngāti Maru, Ngāruahine, Ngāti Ruanui, and Ngaa Rauru Kiitahi in Parliament today that the Trans-Tasman Resources seabed mining project will not be included in the listed projects in the fast-track approvals bill? Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I'd just say to you that the Government supports mining on a responsible basis, and there's a process under way. Hon Marama Davidson: Does he share the concern of Ngāti Ruanui that the fast-track approvals bill will be used as a "backdoor to gain consent for the mining operation" after Trans-Tasman Resources withdrew from the process to determine whether its application for seabed mining is environmentally safe? Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: No, I'm proud of the fast-track process that we're bringing. Hon Marama Davidson: Is it appropriate for the Government to enable mining companies to bypass court-directed consenting processes through which iwi, environmental experts, local government, local communities, and the fishing industry have been fighting for 10 years to prevent extractive industries destroying our marine environment? SPEAKER: Just make them questions, not speeches. The Prime Minister may respond. Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, to be honest, I struggled to find what the question was. Hon Marama Davidson: Does he have confidence in the impartiality of Minister Shane Jones and his ability to balance responsibilities under different portfolios, including resources, regional development, and fisheries, in relation to decision making under the proposed fast-track legislation? Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Absolutely. That is a Minister that is determined to grow this country, to do the right thing by this country, who thinks deeply about where it's going, and he has my total backing. Question No. 6—Social Development and Employment 6. SUZE REDMAYNE (National—Rangitīkei) to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: Why has the Government set a target to have 50,000 fewer people receiving the jobseeker support benefit by 2030? Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment): Because the coalition Government wants to help New Zealanders live better lives and reach their full potential, and the best way to do this is through work. There needs to be a greater focus on supporting people off welfare and into work, because the previous Government failed to capitalise on long periods where employers were crying out for staff—and when they left office, there were 70,000 more people on the jobseeker benefit. We now have almost 190,000 people in New Zealand receiving the jobseeker benefit and that's approximately the size of Hamilton. We aren't prepared to sit back and let people become dependent on welfare, because we know that having a job is the pathway to a better life for them and for their children. While the welfare system will always support people in need, our Government will do more to ensure New Zealanders can reap the rewards and opportunities that having a job brings. SPEAKER: That was a very, very long answer so I'd ask people preparing questions to keep them a little more concise. They're getting very long. Suze Redmayne: How long are people predicted to spend on benefits if we continue with the previous approach to welfare? Hon Carmel Sepuloni: It's not the previous approach; it's the economic forecast. SPEAKER: Just going to—[Interruption] When we get a moment—just going to ask the member to re-ask that question. It is, effectively, setting the battlefield for an attack and it's not on, so ask it in a different way. Suze Redmayne: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Ask in a different way, did you say, Mr Speaker? SPEAKER: Well, this is a think-on-your-feet moment. [Interruption] Yeah, just a minute. A question is being asked. Just wait till there's a bit of quiet. Suze Redmayne: How long are people predicted to spend on benefits? Hon LOUISE UPSTON: The previous Government's approach saw a substantial increase in the amount of time people would spend—[Interruption] SPEAKER: No, no. No, sorry. Sit down. Sorry, take your seat. You can't start an answer like that. You could perhaps mention a date and a time and a figure, but you can't start with an answer like that. Hon LOUISE UPSTON: The Taylor Fry report that was published in December last year showed the forecast of the future years expected that people would spend on welfare. For a jobseeker benefit, they are estimated to spend, on average, 13 future years on welfare. For those who move on to welfare under the age of 25, they are forecast to spend 19 future years on main benefit. No one would want this outcome for their child, and we're unwilling to sit back and watch it happen. Suze Redmayne: Supplementary, Mr Speaker? [Interruption] SPEAKER: Hold on. OK. Suze Redmayne: What actions has the coalition Government already taken to reduce welfare dependency? Hon LOUISE UPSTON: In February, we announced the first two actions to reset the welfare system. Firstly, work check-ins will begin for people who've been on the jobseeker benefit for more than six months to ensure that they are taking action to find work and getting the support they need. Secondly, we reversed Labour's light-touch approach to benefit sanctions and made our expectation clear: those who can work should work, and job seekers have responsibilities to become work-ready and find a job. Our Government is committed to giving beneficiaries the help they need to find work, but there will be consequences for those who don't fulfil their responsibilities. Ricardo Menéndez March: Will she commit to ensuring the 50,000 people who she wants to get off income support into employment that pays at least a living wage and matches their skills and aspirations? Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Our Government is focused on reducing the number of job seekers by 50,000, and we believe that a job is better than no job and a job is a path to a better job. Suze Redmayne: What are the forecasts for jobseeker benefit numbers in the short term? Hon LOUISE UPSTON: The number of people on the jobseeker benefit is unfortunately expected to increase in the coming months due to the challenging economic circumstances: jobseeker benefit recipients are expected to peak at 198,500 in January 2025. That means it will be difficult to reduce the number of people on the jobseeker benefit immediately, but we owe it to those New Zealanders who find themselves without a job to do all we can to help them to get back into work. Question No. 7—Finance 7. Hon BARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana) to the Minister of Finance: Fa'afetai lava lou afioga Does she stand by all of her statements and actions? Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance): Yes, in the context in which they were made. I particularly stand by my statement that hard-working Kiwis deserve personal income tax relief. Given that they've been waiting 14 years for it, the coalition Government will be delighted to deliver it to them in the Budget in May. Hon Barbara Edmonds: Does she stand by her statement, in the context of her fiscal savings programme, "Ministers will then consider those proposals. We might reject some of them, we might ask some of them to go a bit further and then we'll take all of those together and assess the implications for headcount from there."? Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Yes. Hon Barbara Edmonds: Is it her expectation that vote Ministers will review and approval cost-saving plans prior to Cabinet considering the full Budget package? Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Yes. Hon Barbara Edmonds: Has she sought or received advice from Treasury on the implications of the fiscal savings made in each agency? Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Yes. Hon Barbara Edmonds: Why, then, is she and her ministerial colleagues claiming to be surprised by the impacts of her savings targets, when she has confirmed that Ministers will approve these proposals? Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, if the member had actually looked at her own questions, she asked whether all of this would be subject to final Cabinet approval. Well, Cabinet has not given final approval to the Budget yet. Question No. 8—Building and Construction 8. RYAN HAMILTON (National—Hamilton East) to the Minister for Building and Construction: What announcements has the Government made around making it easier and more affordable to build in New Zealand? Hon CHRIS PENK (Minister for Building and Construction): This Government has a plan to rebuild the economy and lower the cost of living. A crucial part of this is making it easier and more affordable for Kiwi families to build homes. That's why the Government is amending the Building Act to remove artificial barriers to the use of building products from overseas by recognising overseas building product standards from trusted jurisdictions and requiring building consent authorities to accept products that are equivalent to or better than those already in use in New Zealand. Ryan Hamilton: Why are these changes required? Hon CHRIS PENK: What a constructive exchange! It is too difficult and expensive to build in New Zealand. The cost of building a house has increased by 41 percent in the last five years, and it is around 50 percent more expensive to build a stand-alone house in New Zealand than Australia. It is almost impossible to use new building products in New Zealand without facing huge delays and compliance costs. This entrenches the use of well-known products, thereby lowering competition, increasing the risk of supply chain disruptions such as during the recent Gib shortage, and ultimately makes it more expensive to build anything. Ryan Hamilton: What feedback has he received on these changes? Hon CHRIS PENK: The feedback has been extremely positive. The chair of the New Zealand Construction Industry Council, Malcolm Fleming, said that he is, "really pleased" and that this is "the industry's biggest issue starving demand for new construction." Julien Leys, CEO of the New Zealand Building Industry Federation, meanwhile, agreed that this policy is a game-changer that will allow more building products into New Zealand, bringing down costs, while, finally, Shane Brealey, managing director of Simplicity Living, said, "what's good in Australia or Japan or Korea should be good here. They should have done this years ago." SPEAKER: I'll just ask the speaker to speak into the mike if he asks a question. Thanks. Ryan Hamilton: What else is the Government doing to make it easier to build? Hon CHRIS PENK: This Government has a busy work programme in construction. You could say we are really building building momentum—you could say that, but you probably wouldn't want to! In addition to improving competition for building products, we are also putting the spotlight on building consent delays by requiring councils to supply building consent time frames, lowering the building levy threshold meaning Kiwis doing small renovations don't have to pay it. Finally, we have provided relief to rural New Zealand by exempting dams from under four metres from additional compliance costs, and there is still much more to come. Question No. 9—Education (Partnership Schools) LAURA TRASK (ACT): My question is to the Associate Minister of Education— SPEAKER: Yeah, look, I don't know what's going on with the mikes, but you might need to just lean into it a little bit. The sound is pretty low today. LAURA TRASK: Is that better? SPEAKER: Yeah, it is. 9. LAURA TRASK (ACT) to the Associate Minister of Education (Partnership Schools): What recent announcements has he made regarding school attendance? Hon DAVID SEYMOUR (Associate Minister of Education (Partnership Schools)): New Zealand's shocking student attendance at schools is an absolute priority for this Government. The target that we've set, 80 percent of students present more than 90 percent of the time, is ambitious; it's a full 7.2 percentage points higher than has been achieved at any time in the last decade. Attendance is a complex issue and it's critical to use improved data and analysis to understand the reasons people don't attend, so that we can target the interventions effectively. Almost two months to the day since I received the education portfolio delegation, I was proud to stand with the Prime Minister as part of this coalition Government and release an attendance action plan at the—I have to say—wonderful Cardinal McKeefry School here in Wellington this morning. Laura Trask: What actions will the Government be taking to improve student attendance? Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: First of all, we're going to see a lot more data. This Government's view is that we should tell the people and trust the people, rather than try and obscure the facts from them. We'll be rolling out a communications plan to improve awareness of the importance of attendance from term 2 this year onwards. We'll also be updating the public health guidance to help schools and parents decide if a student is well enough to attend— Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Oh, they don't trust the parents, eh? Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: —and we'll be clarifying the expectations around attendance to school boards. I've just heard from Willow-Jean Prime, the member for Northland, that somehow we don't trust the parents—this from a member who was in a Government that propagandised and blasted New Zealanders and didn't trust them even to go outside for weeks at a time. That is not a member who should be heckling about trust. SPEAKER: Yeah, sometimes interjections so clearly heard will result in that kind of response. Laura Trask: How will this Government improve reporting and attendance data? Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: Well, through a number of medium-term initiatives throughout the rest of this year and next—from the start of next year, we'll be mandating daily attendance data to be reported by all schools, and, again, reported— Hon Willow-Jean Prime: And a fun, new back office for that? Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: —to the people, because we tell the people and we trust the people. Now, Willow-Jean Prime has just said, "Oh, you must need more back office for that." Well, let me help Willow-Jean Prime: actually, the Ministry of Education has been upgrading its ITsoftware so that the student management systems from the school can automatically push the data each day. This is an object lesson for the Labour Party. You see, we're actually going to able to do more with less money, using innovation and technology. Anyway, as I was saying, we'll also be developing a traffic light system to set out the requirements and expectations for students and parents at each level of attendance. We'll be making attendance a strategic priority for school boards so they have clear expectations, but we will also be sharing best practice from schools that are effective in order that they don't have additional burden, but rather better information about how to get kids to school. SPEAKER: That will do. Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: Mr Speaker, I could go on— SPEAKER: Yeah, you could but you're not going to. Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: —but needless to say, we've got quite a lot of policy to get kids back to school. Laura Trask: Supplementary? SPEAKER: Yeah, we might just end that question right there. Thank you very much. Hon David Seymour: Point of order, Mr Speaker. It would seem a terrible thing to penalise a hard-working member like Laura Trask for the heckling of Willow-Jean Prime and my response to it. SPEAKER: No, that's not for her; it's for what was an excessively long argument that strayed well away from the point that was originally being asked. That's quite a reasonable decision on my part. Question No. 10—Climate Change 10. Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram) to the Minister of Climate Change: Has he received advice that the science of biogenic methane's impact on climate change is already settled; if so, does he agree with that advice? Hon SIMON WATTS (Minister of Climate Change): As the Minister of Climate Change, I have not received advice from officials saying the science of methane's impact on climate change is settled. However, I do meet with a wide range of stakeholders, including the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, who shares their reports with me on a regular basis. This Government has commissioned a review to ensure that we have the latest science as part of our coalition agreement. I look forward to seeing the results of that review. Hon Dr Megan Woods: Does he agree, then, with the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment's chief economist when he said the "real debate was not [about] the science but what was fair for farmers to do—and that was a question for politicians to solve"; furthermore, and "If the government is looking to save money, the science is done and was done pretty comprehensively, so they should be looking at our work before commissioning anything new. They'll just be dealing with all the same scientists, again."? SPEAKER: Well, that question rivals the answer just given by the Hon David Seymour for its length and its relevance to the initial question. However, the Minister may choose to respond. Hon SIMON WATTS: The review that the member is citing was undertaken nearly five years ago. It is an imperative for this coalition Government to use the latest science available, and that's what our review will undertake. Hon Dr Megan Woods: Is he aware that the rest of the economy will pay a higher price than otherwise if agricultural methane emissions are not required to assist with reducing the rise in global temperatures—a price that one report has estimated equates to a 1 percent change in our methane targets will require 40 megatons of extra reductions or removals in long-lived gases, and that will put an undue strain on our economy? Hon SIMON WATTS: What I can say is that I'm acutely aware of the significant role that our primary sector plays in driving our economy, and on this side of our House, the coalition Government is wanting to work with that sector, not against them, to ensure that the review of methane that they undertake in their part of it is based on the best available science. Hon Dr Megan Woods: Will he guarantee this House that if he were to make any changes to targets or the Act, he will continue the previous Government's approach and do this via cross-party consensus? Hon SIMON WATTS: I'm not going to pre-empt a review that hasn't actually started yet but what I can be clear about is this review will be comprehensive, it will have integrity, and the results, once received, will be in addition to the work undertaken by the Climate Change Commission, and we'll go from there. Hon Dr Megan Woods: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The point of that question—of what I asked the member, and it was a straight question—is whether he will commit, once receiving that report, if there are to be changes, to do that in a cross-party manner as the previous Government had done. SPEAKER: Yes, but you asked him if he would guarantee something that he said is not yet even a decision, and I think that's quite a reasonable answer on his part. Hon Dr Megan Woods: Will he rule out using the findings of the review as a justification for his Government making a choice to have less ambitious reduction targets than those signed up to in the Paris climate change agreement in 2016? Hon SIMON WATTS: Once again, the review hasn't actually been started yet, so I am unable to make comments in regard to what that review will indicate. But what is clear is that all industries within this country need to play their part in order to reduce emissions, to enable us to hit our targets. On this side of the House, we are committed to achieving those targets and we're committed to working with the primary sector and the important role they provide with our economy. Question No. 11—Resources 11. JAMIE ARBUCKLE (NZ First) to the Minister for Resources: What recent announcements has he made? Hon SHANE JONES (Minister for Resources): Resources will play a critical role in our export-led recovery, and as part of my strategy as the climate-smart mining Minister, I have announced that settings will be developed to enable investors and other stakeholders to explore the potential of naturally occurring hydrogen as a contribution of lessening our reliance on overseas hydrocarbon fuels, boosting our resilience, and ensuring that there is a suitable framework enabling people to find this potential sooner rather than later. Jamie Arbuckle: What work is he doing on unlocking the potential of critical minerals in New Zealand? Hon SHANE JONES: Minerals are about to enjoy a resurgence in terms of contributing to our strategy of turning our economic fortunes around. Not only will a critical minerals list and associated strategies be delivered, not only will studies be completed, but we will ensure, where people want to invest in the minerals sector in New Zealand, there is certainty and no more of this nonsense such as no more mining on Department of Conservation land. Jamie Arbuckle: What work is the Government doing to enable regional and national significant mineral exploration to occur in New Zealand? Chlöe Swarbrick: Tearing up the environment. Hon SHANE JONES: Led by my colleague—oh, hoihoi, Jeremiah was a bullfrog—Minister Bishop, the Government has introduced the fast-track legislation. It is evident that the Resource Management Act, conservation, Crown minerals legislative regime needs refining. This is an opportunity where the bill will facilitate the delivery of infrastructure development and regions will no longer be caught in protracted processes which are causing projects to be not only overcapitalised but for investment to dry up. Jamie Arbuckle: What are his ambitions for the resource portfolio over the next three years? Hon SHANE JONES: In keeping with my personality, judicious and modest, but let me elaborate. SPEAKER: Yeah, it's probably enough. Hon SHANE JONES: We are telling global investors, we are telling Kiwi investors, our country is moving from "cancel economics" to "can-do economics". We are open for business. We will have a legislative framework that rewards risk taking, rewards investment, and restores the place of the extractive sector to a place of pride that it enjoyed with the development originally of the party sitting on the other side of the House. Question No. 12—Housing (Social Housing) 12. Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Labour) to the Associate Minister of Housing (Social Housing): Does he stand by all his statements and actions? Hon TAMA POTAKA (Associate Minister of Housing (Social Housing)): E te Māngai o te Whare, āna, āna, kei te tino tautoko au i aku kōrero, i aku mahi. [To the Speaker of the House, yes, yes, I very much support my words, and my actions.] Hon Kieran McAnulty: Does he agree with Tama Potaka that National will build more social houses than the previous Government? Hon TAMA POTAKA: I te wā i a au e Minita ana, āna, e tika ana aku kōrero, engari tēnā pea koirā te wā a Tama Potaka e mema Pāremata ana mō Kirikiriroa ki te Uru. [At the time that I have been a Minister, yes, my statements were correct, but perhaps that is the time when Tama Potaka was a member of Parliament for Hamilton West.] SPEAKER: Do you want to hear that translation? Hon Kieran McAnulty: Do you? SPEAKER: Well, I'm OK with it, but there is that delay when you can require—you can use that delay if you want to. Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order, Mr Speaker. My point is that I'm interested in how you can receive that translation at the same time, so that you can deem whether the answer was in line. SPEAKER: Well, I wasn't relying on the translation. It's pretty simple. His body language—it's really quite— Hon Willie Jackson: Does the Minister stand by his statement that he will deliver for Māori communities, and if so, how will he deliver more homes for Māori when his Government disestablished the ministerial Māori associate housing role? Hon TAMA POTAKA: As you have heard through the last few months, we are ruthlessly focused on delivering on the genuine needs of Māori: education, health, and housing, particularly the over 1,500 Māori whānau who are living in the emergency housing disaster that the malfeasance of the previous Government created. SPEAKER: No— Hon Willie Jackson: Point of order— SPEAKER: Just hang on. I'll just make that you can't make that final comment. You can talk about a situation you inherited, but not the attack that's just been launched. Just watch that—if that's all right. Hon Chris Bishop: Point of order. This is a robust place. SPEAKER: Yes, it is. Hon Chris Bishop: It has got to be possible for the Government to make commentary about previous Governments, because there has to be a bit of back and forth to contrast and compare records. I accept that supplementary questions should not be used with the sole purpose of attacking the Opposition or the previous Government, but it has got to be possible for the Government to compare and contrast what they are doing with the record of previous Governments, otherwise the place will become so sterile we may as well not bother turning up. [Interruption] SPEAKER: Just when you're ready. No, no, Willie, I'm responding to that. The point I'd make is that I think it is possible to do exactly what you're saying without making an accusation of, for example, malfeasance. And I think it is that stepping point between talking about a situation you're dealing with and an outright attack on another party's policy. I call the Hon Willie Jackson, who will, of course, keep his question in the same bounds. Hon Willie Jackson: Will the Minister match the $750 million targeted investment for Māori housing that was delivered under the previous Government, and if not, why not? Hon TAMA POTAKA: What we will have are targets that reduce the number of children and whānau in emergency housing. We've established that target and announced it yesterday through the Prime Minister, rather than sitting by and talking about how we're going to help whānau Māori in emergency housing and to see those numbers go up by several hundred. Hon Kieran McAnulty: Does he agree with Kāinga Ora that they will continue to increase the number of public housing places as long as it is funded to do so, as stated during the annual review hearing? Hon TAMA POTAKA: We are absolutely committed to delivering on the genuine needs of all New Zealanders, to ensure that there are sufficient houses to accommodate people, unlike the previous Government, which curated a situation where there are now five times as many whānau on the social housing wait list as there was when they started. Hon Kieran McAnulty: Does he agree with Kāinga Ora interim board chair John Duncan that if the Government doesn't provide the required funding past 2025, up to 10,000 houses may need to be sold? Hon TAMA POTAKA: As we are all aware, we have inherited a significant fiscal cliff, left behind for us by the previous Government. But we are absolutely committed to actually delivering on the housing needs of Māori and all New Zealanders, unlike the development aspirations of the previous Ministers. Hon Nicola Willis: Can the Minister confirm that despite having borrowed billions upon billions of dollars for Kāinga Ora, the last Government managed to quadruple the State house waiting list? Hon TAMA POTAKA: I can absolutely confirm— SPEAKER: Yeah, sorry, that question could easily be in order but for one particular phrasing in it, and I'd ask the Minister to—because we're in a learning situation here— Hon Nicola Willis: Yeah, I'll try again. [Interruption] SPEAKER: Wait a minute—wait on. Ask the question, but keep it in bounds. Hon Nicola Willis: Can the Minister confirm that between 2017 and today, billions upon billions of dollars have been borrowed to put into Kāinga Ora, and despite that, the number of New Zealanders waiting for a State house today is four times as many as it was in 2017? Hon TAMA POTAKA: Ana, I can confirm that. Kia ora tātou. Hon Kieran McAnulty: Does he agree with the Salvation Army's Greg Foster, who said that they are having to pause future social housing developments because "we've been told that there's no funding for us to build"? Hon TAMA POTAKA: I cannot confirm that I have heard or seen that quote, but what I can— Hon Dr Megan Woods: It was on the 6 o'clock news last Sunday. Hon TAMA POTAKA: Well, some of us are working very hard on our ministerial portfolios at 6 o'clock. But what I can confirm is that we are committed to ensuring that the housing that we tautoko—support—both public and private housing, will accommodate Māori and all New Zealanders. Tihei mauri ora! Hon Chris Bishop: Can he confirm that advice provided to the incoming Government in December 2023 from Treasury said that on the current track, Kāinga Ora is forecast to sell over 10,000 public houses in the next few years? Hon TAMA POTAKA: I can confirm that, and what a surprise it was for me to read it. Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I asked a question on that exact piece of advice and the Minister refused to respond to it and refused to confirm it. But, lo and behold, he's happy to confirm it when he's asked it from his own side, and that's interesting. SPEAKER: It is, and it's—I'll have a good look at that Hansard. Hon Kieran McAnulty: Supplementary. SPEAKER: Just when the House goes quiet, you can ask a supplementary. Hon Kieran McAnulty: Why, then, with community housing providers stating they are cancelling or pausing housing developments due to no funding certainty, won't he simply announce the funding they need so that community housing providers can get on with building the houses that that Minister promised? Hon TAMA POTAKA: Mr Speaker, tēnā pea me pātai koe ki taku hoa nei, tōna minitatanga. Kia ora. [Mr Speaker, perhaps you should ask my colleague here, it is his ministerial responsibility. Thank you.] URGENT DEBATES DECLINED TVNZ—Loss of jobs and removing of shows SPEAKER: I have received a letter from the Hon Willie Jackson seeking to debate under Standing Order 399 the loss of jobs and removing of shows at TVNZ. Standing Order 399(1) requires that an application be delivered "at least one hour before the time fixed for the House to sit". The Speaker may allow for a lesser notice period if the matter for debate occurs after that time. In this case, the news of the event at TVNZ was reported before 1 p.m.—the application was received at 1.10 p.m. In addition to the application being late, I do not believe that programming or staffing decisions of this nature warrant setting aside the business of the House. The application is declined. TE PIRE WHAKATUPUA MŌ TE KĀHUI TUPUA/TARANAKI MAUNGA COLLECTIVE REDRESS BILL First Reading Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations): I present a legislative statement on Te Pire Whakatupua mō Te Kāhui Tupua/Taranaki Maunga Collective Redress Bill. SPEAKER: Members will respectfully leave the House in silence. Kua tāngia taua tauākī ā-ture i raro i te mana o te Whare, ā, ka kitea ki te pae tukutuku a te Pāremata. [That legislative statement is published under the authority of the House and can be found on the Parliament website.] Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: I move, That Te Pire Whakatupua mō Te Kāhui Tupua/Taranaki Maunga Collective Redress Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Māori Affairs Committee to consider the bill. Tihei mauri ora. E te Atua, nōu te korōria. Te Whare e tū nei, tēnā koe. Te papa i waho nei, tēnā koe. Te mana whenua o tēnei rohe, kei te mihi. E ngā mate, haere, haere, haere. Haere ki te wāhi ngaro, haere, haere. E te hunga ora, tēnā tātou katoa. E Koro Taranaki, tēnā koe. E te Kāhui Tupua, e mihi ana. [The breath of life. O God, yours is the glory. The House that stands here, I greet you. The land outside, I greet you. The host iwi of this region, I acknowledge you. To the dearly departed, pass on, pass on, rest in peace. Go on to the place of the unseen, pass on, pass on. To the living, greetings to all of us. Sire Taranaki, greetings. To the Clan of the Powerful, greetings.] Ngā Iwi o Taranaki, thank you for making the journey from across the motu to join us in Wellington for this significant milestone. I'm honoured to host you here in Parliament, particularly your negotiators, who have worked tirelessly to craft arrangements befitting your tupuna, Taranaki Maunga. Welcome. I acknowledge the members of Ngā Iwi o Taranaki in the gallery this afternoon, and we join them in remembering their leaders and loved ones who have passed on before they were able to bear witness to today's milestone. The arrangements within the bill are attributed to the dedication of those individuals who have worked so tirelessly to finally see justice after all of these years. I acknowledge the Hon Chris Finlayson, who signed terms of negotiation with Ngā Iwi o Taranaki in 2017 and began the process of negotiation. I also acknowledge my immediate predecessor, the Hon Andrew Little, who concluded negotiations last year after six years of discussion. I acknowledge the previous Ministers of conservation, who have been part of these negotiations since the beginning. This Parliament will continue a bipartisan effort towards Treaty negotiations. Given the significance of this bill for all New Zealand, it is my honour to begin today's reading. Today's reading marks another milestone for the eight iwi that make up Ngā Iwi o Taranaki in their journey to right the wrongs of the past—Ngaa Rauru Kiitahi, Ngāruahine, Ngāti Maru, Ngāti Mutunga, Ngāti Ruanui, Ngāti Tama, Taranaki Iwi, and Te Āti Awa. Through the eight individual settlements for the iwi of Taranaki, the Crown promised it would return to negotiate collective redress over their maunga. Today is a key step towards the Crown fulfilling that commitment. The relationship between Ngā Iwi o Taranaki and the Crown in the past has been characterised by the loss of land, life, and identity. These arrangements acknowledge this hurt. For the Crown, the most solemn part is the apology to Ngā Iwi o Taranaki. The Crown formally and publicly recognises the hardship and heartache it has caused your whānau and hapū, and recognises the resilience of your iwi in the face of such adversity. We must acknowledge the hurt that has been caused by past wrongs so that we can look to the future to support iwi to realise their own aspirations and opportunities. I understand that Ngā Iwi o Taranaki asked that the Crown apology not be read out at the signing of Te Ruruku Pūtakerongo, the Taranaki Maunga Collective Redress Deed, in September last year. The reading of the Crown's apology is a significant moment for Ngā Iwi o Taranaki and the Crown. It's responsibility I will take very seriously at the point where Ngā Iwi o Taranaki wish for the apology to be read. The apology will not be read today. The Crown apology builds on the understanding Ngā Iwi o Taranaki and the Crown have reached about our shared history. It will reflect on that history in my speech to support the third reading of the bill. Today, I will outline the arrangements for the record. At the core, these arrangements will recognise the mountains within the national park as a legal personality, to be named Te Kāhui Tupua. The land of Egmont National Park will also be vested in Te Kāhui Tupua. Once the land is owned by Te Kāhui Tupua, the national park will be renamed Te Papa-Kura-o-Taranaki, the highly regarded and treasured lands of Taranaki. The highest mountain will also be granted a name change to a sole te reo name, Taranaki Maunga. Importantly, these arrangements preserve the land as a national park, meaning that the public will continue to have freedom of entry and access. This is important, given the number of New Zealanders that respect and enjoy the beauty of the maunga. Scaling the peak has been a rite of passage for many a mountaineer. Furthermore, the Department of Conservation will continue its operational management role with Te Papa-Kura-o-Taranaki. However, within the national park, all decision making will be guided by a set of core values known as Ngā Pou Whakatupua, which represent the essence of Te Kāhui Tupua and reflect the cultural, spiritual, ancestral, and historical relationships between Ngā Iwi o Taranaki and Te Kāhui Tupua. These values will sit alongside the core purposes of the National Parks Act. The arrangements include the establishments of Te Tōpuni Kōkōrangi as a statutory body to act as the human face and voice of the legal person. This board will be made up of 50 percent Crown and 50 percent iwi appointees. Te Tōpuni Kōkōrangi will also perform key statutory functions in relation to the national park, including development of the national park management plan. The arrangements will include the ability for Te Tōpuni Kōkōrangi to establish an asset management company to manage any assets owned by Te Kāhui Tupua other than the national park land. Along with the change of the ownership of the national park land, certain Crown-owned minerals of high cultural significance to Ngā Iwi o Taranaki will be owned by the legal person, Te Kāhui Tupua. The Taranaki Māori Trust Board will also be dissolved as part of these arrangements. A new entity known as Te Tōpuni Ngārahu will instead fulfil statutory functions for these arrangements on behalf of Ngā Iwi o Taranaki. Finally, these arrangements provide for the repeal of the Mount Egmont Vesting Act 1978, which has been a significant source of pain for all uri of Taranaki. It is the Crown's wish that through these arrangements it can restore its honour and atone for the injustices it has inflicted on Ngā Iwi o Taranaki. No settlement can ever compensate for the true measure of what Ngā Iwi o Taranaki have lost. That that they have suffered cannot be remedied. However, through these arrangements, the Crown takes a step closer to lifting the burden of Ngā Iwi o Taranaki's heartache, and begins to build and reinforce the foundations of a relationship based on Te Tiriti o Waitangi. We're here today to advance these arrangements, which will take Ngā Iwi o Taranaki forward, while recognising the past. Ngā Iwi o Taranaki, there are still a few steps left to walk. Today is the first reading of three. I look forward to hosting you here back again to support the passage of your legislation through the House. Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Ko te pātai kia whakaaetia te mōtini. [The question is that the motion be agreed to.] Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour): [Authorised te reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.] [Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.] Taranaki Maunga was first confiscated in 1865 by the Crown as a punishment for the so-called rebellion of Māori during the Land Wars. As I said in my introductory remarks, it was one of the proudest moments for myself to stand alongside Minister Andrew Little at the initialling of the deed as well as the signing at Aotearoa Marae and Owae Marae. So am grateful for the opportunity to speak to the first reading of this bill this afternoon and to offer our support for this. I want to acknowledge the iwi and the hapū of Taranaki who are in the audience and who are back home, perhaps listening online—some people do tune into Parliament TV! To Ngā Rauru Kītahi, Ngāti Mutunga, Ngāti Tama, Ngāti Maru, Ngāruahine, Ngāti Ruanui, Taranaki iwi, and Te Āti Awa, and I want to acknowledge the negotiators who are here in the gallery this afternoon. I won't name them in case I leave any out, and I also want to acknowledge those who are not here who were acknowledged and recognised when we had the ceremonies at Aotearoa Marae and Owae Marae—you know the auntie that I am referring to, as well as the other tūpuna whose photos were displayed. What we have in the redress today is unique. Recognising the maunga as a legal personality, having personhood, and setting up a rōpū who will be responsible for its care and its administration. I'm really proud, as the former Minister of Conservation, to have put my signature to these redress arrangements. I want to acknowledge the long time it took to negotiate—over six years to get to it. And to come in, I think I said, at the last minute and put a signature on it, but I'm proud of the work of the negotiators of the iwi and of the Crown to come up with this unique arrangement. This national park is the first and only in Aotearoa to have a full te reo Māori name, and I hope that we will see more of that in the future. I said in my speech at the signing that actions are important, so we now need to take what is in that agreement and put it into action. A great wero for Tama Potaka. Hon Tama Potaka: Kia ora. Steve Abel: Madam Speaker? Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME: [Authorised te reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.] [Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.] STEVE ABEL (Green): Kia ora. [Interruption] We'd rather have five more minutes of you than five minutes of me! Kia ora. Ngā mihi, Taranaki. Kia ora. Ngā mihi, ngā uri o Taranaki. [Thank you. Greetings, the descendants of Taranaki.] It was a profound honour for me to stand for my first time in this House for a Treaty settlement, and for it to be the Taranaki iwi. The pōwhiri today—thank you for the power of that and the power of your words. The delay, the delay, the patience, the patience. It blows my mind when I think about the infinite patience of you in this settlement. "Taranaki Maunga, Taranaki Tangata", as your whakataukī says. Justice delayed is justice denied, and if there is not justice for Māori in this land, there can be no legitimate place for tauiwi. I speak as tangata Tiriti, and I speak to say that we must have justice for Māori, because none of us can be content here. When we reflect on Taranaki, no one with a heart cannot feel the bitterness of the history of what has befallen the people of Taranaki. We reflect on the raupatu, the force, the violence by which lands were taken, by hook or by crook. It is a terrible injustice. There can never be too many Acts to correct that injustice. To paraphrase Matua Ruakere Hond, when we visited him at Parihaka, he said, "The winds of war still blow through our minds and through the generations." And to recall Dayle Takatimu at the constitutional conference just this weekend, she said, "It is the indigenous people of this land who have kept the peace." And I salute, you, Taranaki, for you have kept the peace in the face of unimaginable horror. It is right that your maunga be recognised for its personhood. The desecration of nature is another pathology of colonisation. And part of that desecration requires that we depersonalise nature, that we cease to see it as the source of all life, that we cease to recognise it as the thing from which all of us originate. So for me, my deep hope in this bill is that in recognition of the personhood of the maunga, we begin the reorienting of the world view towards a recognition of what has been understood across traditional cultures across the world in pre-Christian times: that nature is divinity, nature is the God, is the cause, and so this is what we hope can begin to be done. The desecration of nature is still an ever-present issue in Taranaki. The first oil well was drilled on confiscated land in the 1860s in Taranaki. The fracking and the mining and the drilling and the proposed reopening of seabed mining and of offshore oil and gas drilling by this Government—these are continuations of that desecration of nature that goes against what is in the best interests of the people, and certainly what has caused the most harm, long term, to tangata whenua Māori. We will continue to stand for that honouring of the integrity of indigenous place in this land, and we will continue to stand in support of those reparations and those corrections and that upholding of Te Ao Māori and its deep wisdom in its relationship with nature, with the maunga of Taranaki. As Te Pāti Kākāriki, we commend this bill to the House. Kia ora. LAURA TRASK (ACT): Kia ora. Firstly, I'd like to acknowledge the eight iwi that make up Ngā Iwi o Taranaki, hapū, whānau, negotiators present today. I stand in support of this bill. ACT support historical Treaty settlements and have traditionally supported the personhood of historic and culturally significant bodies such as Te Awa Tupua, the Whanganui River. This bill ensures the finalised settlement. I want to acknowledge the spiritual, cultural, and historical significance of Te Kāhui Tupua, Taranaki Maunga, to Ngā Iwi o Taranaki as a taonga to be treasured and protected. I acknowledge the horrendous injustices when in 1965 the Crown unfairly punished Māori by confiscating 1.2 million acres of Taranaki land, including Taranaki Maunga. The Crown further acknowledges the challenges that Taranaki Māori Trust Board faced in the 1970s when it attempted to negotiate the return of Taranaki Maunga, Māori representation on the Egmont National Park Board, and the restoration of the name "Taranaki" to the maunga. The Crown acknowledges a breach in Te Tiriti o Waitangi and the immense, long-lasting impact of land confiscation and the displacement of Ngā Iwi o Taranaki. This bill will provide an outline for the legal personhood of Te Kāhui Tupua, Taranaki Maunga. In doing so, this will acknowledge the injustices, land confiscations, and other historical wrongs suffered by the Ngā Iwi o Taranaki. The Crown's continued commitment to working together with Ngā Iwi o Taranaki in partnership to enhance the health and well-being of the legal person of Te Kāhui Tupua. Te Tōpuni Kōkōrangi will function as a statutory body with the purpose of being the human face and voice of Te Kāhui Tupua, consisting of four members appointed by Te Tōpuni Ngārahu, the collective governance entry for Ngā Iwi o Taranaki, for any matters pertaining to the collective redress and arrangements; and four members appointed by the ministry of conservation. These maunga have existed as ancestors, guides, central pillars to the iwi, hapū, and whānau of Taranaki Maunga. This bill acknowledges the harm and injustices against Ngā Iwi o Taranaki, protects Te Kāhui Tupua, and fosters a positive future relationship between the Crown and iwi. I commend this bill to the House. Kia ora. Hon TAMA POTAKA (Minister for Māori Development): [Authorised te reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.] [Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.] DEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER (Co-Leader—Te Pāti Māori): Matua, Tama, Wairua Tapu me ngā Anahera Pono, me te Māngai, āe. [Father, Son, Holy Spirit, and the Faithful Angels, and the Holy Mouthpiece, amen.] To our mokopuna of our maunga, from a mokopuna of our maunga, I actually want to speak to our Minita and to this coalition Government on behalf of my humble w'ānau who sit above and who sit at home. This House, time after time, has legislated and made horrific decisions that have impacted on our people, and as a consequence, in the 1870s, we saw passive resistance. I want to take you on a journey of who is upstairs and what our maunga has created and what it is that we have before you as a nation. Passive resistance, Parihaka, and the kōrero of "patua te hē ki te rangimārie"—"let peace combat the errors of our ways"—1.2 million acres were stolen; our language, our marae, our culture. In fact, the land that many of these descendants up here have ownership to as uri contributes to this country's GDP, and what do we have? Instead, we have the love and the aroha of a people who arrived today. Patua te hē ki te rangimārie—let peace combat the errors of our ways. The love and the compassion and the generosity that the people above us and the people at home in Taranaki have for this nation is so huge that eight iwi agreed to 1 to 2 percent as settlements in recognition of the hē that the Government had done to them, because they wanted this nation to grow, they wanted their mokopuna to prosper, and they wanted to live as one. That is the wairua of the people who arrive here who were raised by our maunga. "Patua te hē ki te rangimārie."—"Let peace combat the errors of our ways." They love you all so much—even you, David, who's not here. But they love you all so much. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Can't refer to members that are not here. DEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER: Sorry—nōku te hē. Generation after generation, grandparents of the negotiators today have walked across the threshold in Parliament seeking the Crown's honour, seeking the Crown even though we had our maunga named after an Englishman who'd never stepped foot in Taranaki. Patua te hē ki te rangimārie—let peace combat the errors of our ways. Pests populated our maunga. Birds that used to sing, tens of birds came down to three or four. We can see the sky when you walk in. The ngahere that used to exist has gone, but still, in good faith, Taranaki turn up here. Patua te hē ki te rangimārie—let peace combat the errors of our ways. Minister, that is the essence and the wairua of how they have come to you with humility today. There's so many other ways that things could've been negotiated, but what does Taranaki do? What our maunga tūpuna taught us to do is to stand with humility, to stand with vision, and to practise peace. That is the opportunity that the coalition's partners are missing with us. We are not the enemy. They have arrived here today to restore your mana, to restore this House's mana. Our tūpuna never lost mana. Our mokopuna and our w'akapapa never lost mana. The love that they have for you, and for you as a nation out there, is to arrive here and to help you fix your mana and to help you to remember your memory of where our tūpuna and our mokopuna belong: side by side. We never left the table. We never left any of these relationships, your tupuna, and today you risk forgetting who we are. Patua te hē ki te rangimārie. The generosity of our people continues with the negotiations we had here. I think about all the success and the opportunities we have, and they will be realised with or without you. Minister, that's the opportunity. That's the opportunity afforded to you today, to see and appreciate the value of what peace and what relationships and the connectivity of how Taranaki arrives here today to connect with you. We will love you even when you hate us. When you berate us, we will still love you, because that is the āhua of how we've been raised. Patua te hē ki te rangimārie. Nowhere else will we be Taranaki. We go nowhere else where we'll be indigenous. I ask you, Minister, as we go through these relationships, as you take your very first time that you've been a Minister in a settlement, that you remember that: that nowhere else can we come and share our love for you, for our nation, and the peace that Taranaki brings today. E te rangatira, it's good to see you in that seat; you might need to take that seat back again. Nō reira, tēnā koutou katoa. ANDY FOSTER (NZ First): Taranaki whānui, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa. It's humbling to stand here and to look at the gallery here and to recognise the representatives of the eight iwi of Taranaki whānui, to see you here on this important day. I want to acknowledge not only you who are here today but also those who have gone before. Obviously, this has been the result of many, many years of work, and I particularly want to acknowledge those who have passed on who are not able to be here at this historic day, and to recognise them. I also want to acknowledge the long and the painful history that has been behind this, that goes back—what, more than a century and a half now?—to the confiscations of the 1860s, and to recognise generation after generation of Taranaki whānui over that period of time, and to say this is about saying that that was wrong and that we are here as the representatives of the people of this country, to say, "Sorry, that was wrong and we need to put that right." That is what this legislation is all about. It is about putting right generations of doing things wrong, and it wasn't just about the taking of land; it was also—reading the history—about the preventing of reconnection to the land and reconnection to the maunga that was wrong. So it wasn't just that one-off wrong, but wrongness over generation after generation after generation, and the connection—I know we all feel that: the connection to our Mother Earth, to Papatūānuku, is a powerful thing for all human beings. To be disconnected from that land that you value the most, that you love the most, that you connect with the most—that is a painful thing. And so again, I say, on behalf of my party, on behalf of New Zealand First, who stands here to support this legislation, we are sorry for that disconnection, for that pain that has been caused over so many years. Look, even as a Pākehā boy, I know that if you talk about the stories of Aotearoa New Zealand, there are some landscapes which are particularly special, which we all know the stories of. And the story of Taranaki is absolutely one of those stories. The idea of personhood for Taranaki is a really, really important one. It's the personhood that, in a sense, goes after the personhood and the recognition that was granted to the Whanganui River, because it was Taranaki that made that long journey from the central North Island down the Whanganui River to be where Taranaki stands today. So, I think it is appropriate that we do that together: the connection between Whanganui River and Taranaki Maunga. It's a privilege to be able to just say a few words here as we take this important step forward to correct wrongs of the past and to be able to walk forward together on this journey as this bill goes through the House over the next few stages. I don't think there's a lot more that I wish to say, other than that I think the summary of the historical background says it very, very, poignantly and pointedly: that for generations, Taranaki Maunga and its surrounding ranges have been the central pillar for the iwi, the hapu, and the whānau of Taranaki. The mountain has long been an honoured ancestor, a source of physical, cultural, and spiritual sustenance, and a final resting place. So, it is not just a mountain, it is a spiritual ancestor, and I think that makes it so, so important that we come to this point to fix the wrongs of the past and be able to walk forward together. Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa. Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour): Tēnā koe e te Māngai o te Whare. Ko te mihi tuatahi ki te Atua, nāna nei ngā mea katoa. Ko te mihi tuarua ki te Whare e tū nei, tēnā koe. E te maunga tapu, Taranaki, tū tonu. E ngā iwi, e ngā hapū, e ngā mana, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou e huihui mai nei. Tēnā koutou e ngā iwi o Taranaki: Ngāti Tama, Ngāti Mutunga, Taranaki iwi, Te Ātiawa, Ngāti Maru, Ngā Ruahine, Ngā Rauru, Ngā Rauru-kī-tahi, Ngāti Ruanui, tēnā koutou katoa. Nā reira kia hiwa rā, kia hiwa rā, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa. [Thank you to the Speaker of the House. The first greeting is to God, to whom all things belong. The second greeting is to the House that stands here, greetings. To the sacred mountain, Taranaki, long may you stand. To the iwi, the hapū, the authorities, greetings, greetings to you who have assembled here. Greetings to the people of Taranaki: Ngāti Tama, Ngāti Mutunga, Taranaki iwi, Te Ātiawa, Ngāti Maru, Ngā Ruahine, Ngā Rauru, Ngā Rauru-kī-tahi, Ngāti Ruanui, greetings to you all. And so be alert, take heed, greetings and thanks to us all.] When I reflect upon the journey that has taken us to this moment in time, it is a long, long road. When I think back upon what has brought us here and the wrongs done by the Crown, particularly the harm caused by raupatu, some of the most severe raupatu in New Zealand's history occurred in Taranaki for Taranaki iwi. I reflect upon not only the loss of lives but also upon the devastation caused from separating a people from their land. I think about the hours and hours, weeks, months, and years of negotiations with all of those different iwi. I think of all of the negotiators. I think of people I know personally who were rangatahi—Liana Poutu and Jamie Tuuta—when negotiations started. It has been a long road to bring us to this pathway now. Hon Member: Rangatahi? Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: I think—ha, ha! I was about their age, though; yeah, I'd say they were rangatahi. So I think of all of those negotiations and I think how important this bill here today is to bring that all together and to give a legal entity to Taranaki maunga, how important that is to recognise that and how to give it its own autonomy as a legal person that only seems right and fitting for New Zealand today. The bill establishes and recognises Te Kāhui Tupua as a legal person, giving it rights, powers, and duties, and giving it the ability to be exercised and performed on its behalf in its name by the joint governance entity Te Tōpuni Kōkōrangi. I'd also like to acknowledge the fact that the statutory body provides Te Tōpuni Kōkōrangi as a statutory body with the purpose of being the human face and voice of that legal person, to be able to carry out the conservation, governance, and some decision making within the national park—how important it is for that to be able to take place today. I would like to point out, too, that this bill in the House today, and its passage—the Treaty relationship does not finish when this bill is passed. It is an ongoing relationship. It is not a switch that we can flick on or off. Like words that have been echoed by my colleagues, it is important that when we come in this House and acknowledge the wrongs of the past, we also rightfully remember that we do not want to create wrongs going into the future. As part of this bill, we acknowledge the mana of Te Tiriti o Waitangi, and, as all of the parties here today speaking on that bill, we acknowledge that mana. It is my view that that continues a commitment forward in terms of how we work together to make sure that that relationship is kept warm and breathing and alive and that there are clear obligations on both Treaty partners when we do that. I would like to finish by simply stating that one of my first memories of learning about Māori culture was when my father pulled a book off his shelf and sat me down and taught me about Te Whiti-o-Rongomai and what had happened in Parihaka. I grew up learning the importance of passive resistance and the lessons Taranaki iwi have taught to all New Zealand, I hope, will always be remembered. He mihi mahana ki a koutou katoa. Nō reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa. DAN BIDOIS (National—Northcote): Tihei mauri ora. E ngā mana, e ngā reo, e ngā iwi, tēnā koutou katoa. Te Whare e tū nei, tēnā koe. Te papa e takoto nei, tēnā koe. Ngā mate, haere, haere, haere. Ka mihi ki te iwi kāinga, ngā iwi o Taranaki. Nau mai, haere mai, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa. [It is the breath of life. To those with authority, the representatives, the people, greetings to you all. The House that stands here, greetings. The land that lies here, greetings. To the deceased, rest in peace. I acknowledge the home people, the people of Taranaki. Welcome, greetings and thanks to you all.] It's a great privilege to rise and take a contribution on this important occasion, and it is a very important occasion for us today because the eight iwi of Taranaki have been waiting 160 years for this moment. It's a historic moment for the eight iwi, in acknowledging the wrongs that have been done in the past but also in giving legal effect to the maunga and the status of the maunga amongst the tangata whenua and, hopefully, focusing them and the maunga in the future. It's also a historic moment because this is the 100th deed that successive Governments have signed as part of the Treaty of Waitangi redress negotiations, and I say this in the guise of understanding that there were many wrongs done across those 100 iwi, and more. I think that this is an important occasion to certainly acknowledge all the wrongs done in New Zealand to this date. The purpose of this bill is to give effect to the Treaty deed that was signed last year, and that signing acknowledges the redress, the land confiscated, the rights of tangata whenua that were ignored, the atonement of injustice, and a formal apology, which, the Minister acknowledged, will come later on, There are a number of important provisions in this bill. The most important, of course, is giving legal personhood to the maunga. And it is a beautiful maunga, I must say. Every time I fly past the maunga, I just acknowledge how beautiful it is. Probably the best maunga in Aotearoa. I said it here, ladies and gentlemen! The second aspect— Hon Willie Jackson: They're still not voting for you, though. DAN BIDOIS: Ha, ha! And I'm happy to say that, coming from Tāmaki-makau-rau. It also renames the national park and the maunga. Gone are the days of calling it Mount Egmont; we can put that behind us, and now we've got a new name. The third aspect is the protection against commercial mining, which is clearly important to the eight iwi. The fourth area is around the acknowledgment of the historical injustice that has been forced upon these iwi over many generations. I rise today as the chair of the Māori Affairs Committee, and I'm looking forward, as part of the select committee process, to hearing submissions on this bill from the eight iwi involved. I'd encourage you to make a submission, and I'm particularly looking forward to hearing your aspirations about the future and what does that look like, and to understanding your aspirations. I'm also looking forward to getting more understanding of the significance of this maunga for the eight iwi. So I look forward to that select committee process, as do my colleagues here in the House today. So a lot has been traversed, but this is a great day for the House. It's a great day for the eight iwi that are here, and I'd like to acknowledge you all for coming down for this occasion today. I commend this bill to the House. Nō reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you. The next time the member is flying over Taranaki, I'm sure Taranaki will invite you for a stopover. Hon WILLIE JACKSON (Labour): It's about all I'd get, too, Madam Speaker. [Authorised te reo text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.] [Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.] Well, we got there, and I know that there's a lot of shock in the audience there. I was having a bit of a kōrero with my old friend over here, Mahara Okeroa, and he said to me—he didn't want me to say it, but I'm breaching our confidence. He said to me, "Is everyone supporting this—the katoa? Is everyone?" I said, "You wouldn't believe it, would you, Mahara. You just wouldn't believe it.", and I want to mihi to my old mate. He and I came into Parliament here 25 years ago. He's a lot older than me, though, as you can see. Twenty-five years ago, we came here, in 1999, and here we are, Maha, you know, supporting our whanaunga, our relations. Lovely to have you here. Mihi nui ki a koe . We know the mahi you've done for your people, and I don't say that lightly, because there was a lot of angst amongst our whanaunga and people who were here. I just want to be clear to the National Government here: when this coalition came in, there was you know, huge angst. Debbie Ngarewa-Packer over here was one of the most vocal kaikōrero for her people in terms of what was happening—you know, the kōrero about white supremacy, and all that. It wasn't just Debbie Ngarewa-Packer; it was a number of our people here who were saying, "Jeez, is this going to go through?" So it's ironic today—and I mihi to National. I mihi to everyone today, and to Minister Goldsmith, because you wouldn't have put any money on it. You wouldn't have put any money on it, not when you hear that they wanted to get rid of the reo in Government departments. Not when you hear that you're not going to reward kaiako for their work in terms of te reo Māori. But— Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Milk Mother Nature. Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Oh, that's another kaupapa, isn't it? That's another kaupapa. We think, what happened to the old National: the Doug Grahams, the David—I was going to say "David Seymour", but, you know, that was one of the problems, I think. But I'll say to him and to his party that they're all supporting this, which is, I think, terrific because we need to come together. He should know better than anyone else that we need to whakakotahi for kaupapa like this. We need to stop our wars and whatnot, and realise how wonderful this is for our people. But our people, they were very worried. As I said, Debbie Ngarewa-Packer, Wharehoka Wano—Whare, up there, was worried. Mind you, he's a pretty worrying sort of bloke, but Whare is up there. Jamie Tuuta—even Jamie Tuuta, the "Chairman of Everything", he was worried. He'll probably get a few more jobs under this Government. I haven't had a phone call from him since the campaign finished and I haven't been invited to anything. Oh no, move on, Jamie, move on—yes. But, you know, Jamie's working with the Minister—ka pai. That's what we want, because, as Māori, the reality for our people is we have to play a couple of games—that's the reality. One game is we have to hammer the Government, and then the other game is you've got to tono to the Government and find a way to strategise and work with the Government. That is the reality for our people. I support our people with those types of strategies, even though some days we want to strangle the Government. You know, that is the reality. But to have a Government who recognises what we recognise in terms of the maunga having a legal identity, I think, is wonderful. I think it's wonderful to have those types of things be recognised as a legal personality—Taranaki Maunga—with a similar legal personality being delivered in Treaty settlements. Ngāi Tūhoe with Te Urewera, and Whanganui River—you know, that stands out. So I want to mihi to this House, to everyone here, for supporting this—seriously. This is what it's all about. To the ACT Party, to New Zealand First, to National, and to ourselves: this is the way to go. This is the Aotearoa we want, where we come together and whakakotahi for kaupapa like this. The overwhelming message we're getting from our people is to stop using us and stop abusing us when it comes to everyday things, and whakakotahi for kaupapa like this more often. That has to be the way forward. Kia ora anō tātou katoa. Kia ora. DEPUTY SPEAKER: I think the Hon Willie Jackson would welcome a stopover as well at some stage in the future, following that speech. GREG FLEMING (National—Maungakiekie): E te Māngai, ko te kupu mutunga—I get the final word. [Authorised te reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.] [Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.] I remember also when Te Waka invited me to her home marae near Waitara to receive her moko kauae, and my thoughts and my dreams often return to that time. The way in which I, an outsider, was welcomed; the way I, an outsider, was fed; the way I, an outsider, was shown nothing but aroha noa—grace. That is the [Authorised te reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.] [Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.] Jamie Tuuta said in his [Authorised te reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.] [Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.] Although it's not really much of a taupatupatu is it? It's great. [Authorised te reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.] [Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.] Jamie said that this process is not about restoring or giving mana to maunga Taranaki. He said that his mana is secure and always has been. This is about the Government—this unified Government—recognising in statute that which has always been. And we have spoken about it already this afternoon about the sense that we all have when we have the privilege of flying over or walking past or driving past your mountain. And his honour, his strength, his pride, it speaks to us all. Whenever I'm flying over, I always snap a little pikitia and then, on landing, I send it to Te Waka and I say [Authorised te reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.] [Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.] He stands tall, he stands strong, he stands proud, as do you all. As has also been said, this is the beginning of a process that will go through this House over the coming weeks and months. And this entire process is about recognising the mana of ngā iwi o Taranaki about [Authorised te reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.] [Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.] And it is my absolute privilege to stand in support [Authorised te reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.] [Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.] Motion agreed to. Bill read a first time. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is, That Te Pire Whakatupua mō Te Kāhui Tupua/Taranaki Maunga Collective Redress Bill be considered by the Māori Affairs Committee. Motion agreed to. Bill referred to the Māori Affairs Committee. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Permission has been granted for a waiata. Waiata—"He Pikinga Poupou" MISUSE OF DRUGS (PSEUDOEPHEDRINE) AMENDMENT BILL Third Reading DEPUTY SPEAKER: If we just—perhaps we'll just wait for a couple of moments just to give the group in the gallery a chance to just move. It might be helpful for the next speaker. I'm happy for you to retain your seat. You won't lose your call. Hon David Seymour: Madam Speaker, the microphones only pick up who's speaking right in front. I'm happy to start. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yeah, no, that's fine. It's for the benefit of those others in the House. Just making sure we can all hear. Right, I think we're all good to go. I call on the Hon David Seymour. Hon DAVID SEYMOUR (Associate Minister of Health (Pharmac)): I move, That the Misuse of Drugs (Pseudoephedrine) Amendment Bill be now read a third time. I want to, first of all, start just by acknowledging the group that have been here for the Taranaki Maunga collective redress bill. These bills are something that I'm proud ACT has always supported as our country moves to heal any past wrongs, and this particular redress bill in the Taranaki region is a very fine example of that. However, we're now here to talk about pseudoephedrine. In particular, as winter comes—and it feels like it's been approaching at an accelerating rate in recent weeks wherever you've been in New Zealand—people are going to get those winter ills and chills, and I'm very proud that our Government is taking action to rapidly liberalise the supply of pseudoephedrine-based cough and cold medicines. The background to this is that over a decade ago, the then National-led Government banned pseudoephedrine-based cough medicines on the basis that if only we did so we would cut off—or at least severely constrain—the supply of P, which at that time was being manufactured in clan labs by criminal agents who were buying up the pseudoephedrine and then using that to manufacture P. So, as logic went, it wasn't the worst idea in the world: cut off the P supply of source given the absolutely horrific harm that P does to so many people in New Zealand and continues to do today. That is the sad clue: "it continues to do today". Because what happens when pseudoephedrine cough and cold medicines were banned is not that we ended the P epidemic; it's not that we reduced the consumption of P. What actually happened is that those people in the business of selling it started to connect with criminal elements offshore and created more sophisticated ways of sourcing P from bigger, badder criminals and managed to bring it in at a lower price and make it more available to P addicts than ever before. That is a real tragedy, but it has a couple of implications for us here in New Zealand today. The first is I'm proud to be part of a Government—even though some people in the Government were associated with the ban—that says that if something isn't working, we'll stop doing it and do something better. We actually need more of that in New Zealand politics. There is far too much of people refusing to change course when the facts change. As Sir John Maynard Keynes once said—economist more popular on that side of the House, I'd have to say—"When the facts change, they change my mind. What do you do?" Here, the facts are not as hoped, and so we're changing the policy. But the second implication of these facts: that we still have an enormous problem with P, but it is incredibly unlikely that those people sourcing it cheaper and faster and purer than you could ever get it when it was manufactured from buying up pseudoephedrine tablets, it's incredibly unlikely that they are going to return to a less efficient, more expensive way of manufacturing P that involves going around pharmacies and buying up as many tablets as you can. That is the second fact. The third thing that I think is important is that for a long time New Zealanders who, to quote the old advertisement, try to soldier on through the winter find that one of the most valuable pieces of medication that is available on the market has been denied them. Now, yes, in theory, right now—before this law passes—you're able to get pseudoephedrine-based cough medicine if you go to your GP and get a prescription. The sad reality is that due to the running-down of primary healthcare in recent years, you're much more likely to recover sooner than you get a GP appointment in order to get the prescription and get it. Because of that, no pharmacy I'm aware of in New Zealand stocks pseudoephedrine-based cough and cold medication because no one's actually going to get a prescription to have it. That means that New Zealanders have been left worse off. This is something I think we need to talk more about. In a lot of parts of the world, if you travel today, you kind of get the feeling that they're there to make life easier and more enjoyable wherever it's possible to do that without harming others. When you come back to New Zealand, particularly the way it's been in the last few years, you get the feeling that the Government is there to regulate and spite you and make life harder just because they can. That is a fundamental change that is needed in New Zealand if we are to get our mojo as a country back. It's initiatives like this, while I freely admit is not the biggest thing that the Government's doing—it's not the most important thing that the Government is doing—but it is a gesture towards making life easier and more enjoyable for New Zealanders where it's possible to do so without harming others. So if and when this bill is passed by the House in an hour or two's time, it will eventually get the Royal assent from the Governor-General and we will reach a stage in this country where we can honestly say that we're on the path to getting pseudoephedrine medication back on the shelves. It will no longer be a Class B drug under the Misuse of Drugs Act; it will be a Class C drug, which is legal to have but still illegal to import large amounts without a licence. So we're still maintaining controls around anything that might be turned into P manufacture perhaps. We will then, as the Minister responsible for Medsafe, be seeking applications from pharmaceutical companies who would like to send pseudoephedrine-based cough and cold medicines to New Zealand and sell to New Zealanders. I suspect that we'll have good news to deliver about that quite shortly. Once those applications have been made, it will be up to New Zealand's businesses, for the pharmacies, for the retailers to actually decide if they want to be part of this business. If they do want to be part of it, then they will be able to import any particular types of pseudoephedrine-based cough and cold medicine that have been consented by Medsafe and sell them to the customers. What that ultimately means is that for those people who have battled through about 14 tough winters with no decent cough and cold medicine in this country, we will now have rules that put us in the same place as in Australia as are Canada, the United States, Britain—other countries that don't seem to have a massive problem emanating from their cough and cold remedies, but nonetheless where people are allowed to do things that don't harm anyone else and yet are beneficial to them. I hope that as this Government goes about deregulating rules that don't make sense; that seeks to put the ability of a person to flourish and make a difference in their own lives, no matter what their background or who they're from, that we will gradually see people start to just open up a little bit and see the world as being a little bit sunnier. Because we no longer have a Government that regulates in haste and repents at leisure. That is what this project of this Government is ultimately about: getting our mojo back and, in the case of pseudoephedrine-based cough and cold medicines, getting our bounce back just a little bit sooner if we happen to be afflicted by all of those terrible illnesses this winter. For all those who do get sick this winter, I'm sorry to hear it. I hope you get well soon and I hope you remember this Government has actually done just a little bit to make a difference, to make life easier and more enjoyable for you in those difficult times. Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is that the motion be agreed to. Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Well, Labour supports this bill, but I would just like to put on record some of the work that Labour's done to improve the management of winter ailments over the last several years, because I thought the remarks of the previous speaker, the Hon David Seymour, were perhaps casting far too negative a gloss on the availability of effective medicines for winter ailments in New Zealand. And I would like to the member that that Government on the other side of the House has reduced the access to the flu vaccine this winter for New Zealanders, which is a shame because that actually prevents winter illnesses, unlike one that just treats the symptoms. I'd also like to remind that member of the extensive work done by the last Government to increase the role of pharmacies in providing medicines and treatments over winter. We in the Labour Party support the opportunities for New Zealanders to have greater access to medicines, and that's why we will be voting for this bill. But I also think it is worth noting in this third reading some of the concerns that we have about it, which we have sought to raise throughout the truncated process this bill has had through the House. We have had a shortened select committee process with only approximately a week for submitters to submit and a very short period of hearings. We also heard from Ministry of Health officials that advice from pharmacists on how this would be implemented in the real world was only, really, from a handful of pharmacy representatives. So it is worth bearing that in mind when we consider the reassurances of the Associate Minister of Health (Pharmac) on the safety of this approach. I feel the risks that we have raised have not been taken seriously. I guess, at one level, it comes down to a disagreement on the economic framing that the Minister put. Fundamentally, while it might be that rational actors in the drug market can secure cheaper methamphetamine from overseas suppliers—well, I can tell you, one reality from working in the health system is that drugs make you act irrationally. And that is the is the challenge—that there will be desperate people who will now have a new opportunity for how to procure meth via cooking it from P, and we have introduced a new risk for addiction into our community. Now, we are not puritans about this. There would be safe ways to mitigate that, and, unfortunately, our proposals for those mitigations have not been taken seriously. I'm particularly disappointed that the proposal that pseudoephedrine be treated like codeine and be required to be kept in a locked safe in pharmacies has not made its way into the bill in its final form. At the Health Committee, we also discussed multiple other mitigations: the importance of providing treatment for meth addiction and scaling up those services, the importance of improving treatment pathways for Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) because many people who have untreated ADHD may find their way into illicit drug use as well, and also the opportunity to improve monitoring of sales, so that there could be faster recognition and investigation of people doing so-called smurfing, where they go shop around to get pseudoephedrine from multiple different stores so that they can then cook up methamphetamine. So these are the risks that we have identified. We as the Labour Party believe that we have proposed pragmatic solutions to mitigate these risks. The Government could have had the benefit of a more fulsome select committee process, it could have shown greater respect to the concerns that were raised. Instead, at committee stage, the Minister described these proposals as "paralysis by analysis." I suppose he's got no one to blame but himself if some of these risks eventuate. CHLÖE SWARBRICK (Co-Leader—Green): E te Māngai, tēnā koe. Tēnā koutou e te Whare. The Greens stand in support of this legislation today, as we have consistently throughout every reading. The reason for that is that this is relatively consistent with a more—and the direction towards a more—evidence-based approach to drug policy in this country. However, in this third reading speech, I'd like to draw some attention to some of the commentary that the Minister David Seymour has given in his third reading speech, and, actually, throughout each reading of this bill. I believe that it very strongly applies, if we were to be logically or evidentially consistent in this place, to a complete overhaul of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975. I'd also like to make the point, and to refer to some of the statements by the former Minister of Health the Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall with regard to ADHD, and also to speak to some of the other interventions that are available to us when it comes to reducing methamphetamine harm in this country. One of the first things that the Minister said just before, and I wrote it down, is "If it's not working, we should change it." Absolutely. The Green Party agrees with that. We should change it in an evidence-based manner. That logic applies to the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975. We have seen consistently that for decades and decades, drug harm has consistently gone up; meanwhile, we have continued to ratchet up criminal penalties associated to those substances. One of the logical inconsistencies that we've attempted to tease out in the debates on this legislation, particularly at first and second reading and also at committee of the whole, with the Minister, is the fact that inherent within the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975 is the way in which it self-perpetuates in an anti-evidence manner. One key example of this is the fact that if you are to introduce a new substance for classification and therefore with penalties associated to it, or if you are to increase the classification for a substance within the Misuse of Drugs Act and therefore ratchet up the penalties associated to that substance, all you need to do is pass an Order in Council, which, in this place, tends to happen within the blink of an eye: it's a relative rubber-stamping approach. But if you are to down-classify a substance or to de-classify it entirely, and down-classification is the point of this legislation with regard to pseudoephedrine, you need an entire amendment bill, and that typically takes in the order of nine to 12 months. However, of course, we know that with this legislation today, the Minister sought and the Government sought to push it through with relative urgency, and therefore to curtail the usual select committee process. The point I'm making here is that there is, inherent within the primary legislation that this bill seeks to amend, inequities in the approach that it takes, let alone a deeply baked in anti-evidence type of approach. We also heard from the Minister that he will be seeking to, and the Government will be seeking to be, and I quote, "deregulating rules that don't make sense." I'd say that that same logic applies to other substances that are currently classified within the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975. Actually, other substances that this Parliament relatively recently has recognised can be used for medicinal purposes—the likes of, for example, medicinal cannabis. To that effect, we have some of the most strict rules and regulations and legal frameworks in the world when it comes to medicinal cannabis. And I'd note, in relation to parliamentary written questions that I've put to Dr Shane Reti, now the Minister of Health, that there is a work programme from the former Government that has been, apparently, completely thinned. To the broader point of methamphetamine, of course, with pseudoephedrine, as has frequently been discussed, given that this is a precursor and can be used in the cooking up of methamphetamine, there are interventions that have worked very, very well in this country, which we have a plethora of evidence upon. The likes of Te Ara Oranga, for example, is a collaboration started in Northland between DHB and police, several years ago now, and there has been an immense amount of work in trying to unpack, from a research and academic basis, just how effective this has been. If you don't trust the anecdotes from the people whose lives have been changed, what it does in practice is, effectively, decriminalise those who are found with small amounts of methamphetamine and work on proactively improving their lives. And guess what? The programme's research has shown that for every dollar invested, there is a return of $3 to $7 and an approximate, I believe, off the top of my head, 34 percent reduction in interactions with the criminal justice system from those whānau who are involved within it. So I guess the key point here from the Greens is that, yep, this legislation is good, it's more in the direction of evidence-based drug law, but why are we not applying that same logic when it comes to the entirety of the primary legislation, the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975? Because it seems as though we are just unwilling to do it when we're looking at cannabis or alcohol or even tobacco, on this Government's agenda. So we support this bill but, once again, we see it as a massive lost opportunity. SAM UFFINDELL (National—Tauranga): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise to support this reading of this bill, the third reading of the Misuse of Drugs (Pseudoephedrine) Amendment Bill. This is a relatively simple change. It is a reclassification of pseudoephedrine from a class B2 to a class C3 controlled drug under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975. What it will, effectively, do is reverse the blanket ban on pseudoephedrine that came into effect following the National Government's decision in 2011 to remove the sale of pseudoephedrine. That's had a lot of issues for people, and I think that the previous speaker and, in fact, the Minister in charge of this bill, the Hon David Seymour, talked about how Kiwis have struggled over numerous winters with the impacts of colds and flu without having any useful medication, or anything as useful as pseudoephedrine to help manage those symptoms, alleviate their cold and flu conditions, and then allow them just to get back to living their lives and going to work and going about their daily business. So we are very supportive of this bill and the availability it will give to people to use pseudoephedrine when they most need it. At the moment, you can't get it over the counter. There are no alternative medicines that work as well as pseudoephedrine does, and it's been noted that there are some other options there in the market, but also their impact on reducing cold and flu symptoms isn't as effective. We also note that there are other jurisdictions out there that when you look at, say, the United States or when you look at the United Kingdom, Canada, and Australia, there are a range of other countries similar to New Zealand that do allow the over-the-counter sale of cold and flu medication such as pseudoephedrine. Look, it's not without any controls at all, and I think that we've heard a bit of commentary that there are significant risks around that. Look, pharmacies don't have to opt in to selling pseudoephedrine—they don't have to. It is their choice. As a business, they get to make that decision on whether they want to stock and sell pseudoephedrine. So the risk that the pharmacies may then be raided—look, if they don't want that risk, then they don't have to stock pseudoephedrine, and that is quite simple. If pharmacies do choose to sell it, people will have to buy it face to face, and we have it in here that the pharmacist will need to note down the names and the details of people that are purchasing pseudoephedrine and talk to them about it. It's not going to be something where you can just submit your orders online and it turns up in your house. You have to go in there, and your information and what you're purchasing will be collected because you do need to have some safeguards in place around that. I did hear the Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall talk about her desire for pseudoephedrine to be stored, such as codeine is today, in locked safes, and the feedback—I mean, that's a nice thing for her to want. But the pharmacists have come back and said, "Look, that just isn't practical. We don't have the ability to store pseudoephedrine supply in locked safes.", because the quantities would be considerably larger than what they hold of codeine. Therefore, it just isn't a practical measure, and that takes me back to that point I made a minute or so ago. Look, if the pharmacies don't want to wear the risk of storing pseudoephedrine, then, simply, they don't have to store it. There has been some commentary too around the impact this will have on methamphetamine use, supply, and consumption, and that's why we're in this situation, because the National Government back in 2011—quite rightly, on the evidence that they had before them at the time—thought that if we wanted to reduce the P epidemic in New Zealand, then a good way to do that would be to stop the sale of pseudoephedrine over the counter in pharmacies, because that was being used a precursor in the manufacture of methamphetamine. We are here now, 13 years later, and the sale and supply of methamphetamine is up, the price of methamphetamine is down, and so, in effect, it hasn't made any difference. In fact, the people and criminal organisations who want to procure methamphetamine have found different ways to do it. Instead of cooking it up at home, they are tapping into international drug markets and black markets and importing it into New Zealand, which is effective in getting the supply of meth that they need into the New Zealand market. So to say that this is going to lead to real problems around the availability of meth isn't true. It is already quite readily available for those people who want to go out there and seek it, and the advice that we received back from the numerous people that we talked to throughout this process said just that. Yes, it was noted that there will be some small-scale use of pseudoephedrine to manufacture methamphetamine. It is likely to be on a non-commercial basis, with very small quantities, for personal use, and manufacturing meth does have a lot of risks attached, as people in this House are probably aware. So we went through this. It is a relatively simple bill, as the Minister has said, and it was quite pleasing—and I'd like to take a moment to thank members on the Health Committee who are present— Dan Bidois: Hard-working committee. SAM UFFINDELL: —hard-working select committee—including those who have left the House, including the Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall, who I found very easy— DEPUTY SPEAKER: You're not allowed to mention a member who is not here. SAM UFFINDELL: Apologies, Madam Speaker. I thank all members, whether they are here or not, for being supportive. The committee did not recommend any changes to this bill, which reflects the relatively straightforward policy we are discussing. We received submissions from 169 individuals and nine organisations, and most of the organisations were supportive of this. That included the pharmaceutical industry bodies, and it included the drug harm prevention groups, and they indicated their support for the bill in their submissions. Now, I want to read you some notes here from some of the submitters that were noted in the select committee process. They said that "pseudoephedrine products are of little value to people interested in commercially supplying methamphetamine, as there are now cheaper and easier ways to manufacture it.", and another quote here—I'll only read two—"This position was supported by advice we received from the Ministry of Health, which consulted with the New Zealand Police, the New Zealand Customs Service, and the National Drug Intelligence Bureau." So what we are getting back here is that the major agencies—the New Zealand Police, Customs, the drug intelligence bureau, and the Ministry of Health, in consultation with those bodies, saw that the risk of meth manufacture and supply as a result of this bill was fairly minimal. The channels for getting P into New Zealand and supplying it to the local market are already well-established and the consumption of P in New Zealand has continued to trend up, which is incredibly unfortunate, and, as a society, we need to continue to be doing all that we can to make sure that we get on top of these criminal organisations that are supplying methamphetamine—we really need to—and we need to make sure that there are treatment options available for people who are addicted to methamphetamine. We need to tackle it from both sides—that is, making sure that we get people who are addicted to meth off through treating the addiction that they face, and also making sure that we make it increasingly harder for criminal organisations to supply it into the domestic market. But, all in all, we see this bill as a very good bill, which is why we have supported it throughout, and we are happy that the members in this House have supported it, and have supported through select committee without any amendment. I can feel myself having a bit of a sore throat and a cold coming on. Tom Rutherford: Do you need some—do you want some? SAM UFFINDELL: I don't know if it's available yet, Tom. We need to get through this third reading first. But I know that there will be a lot of New Zealanders out there who have not been able to get through winter or get to work or enjoy life to their potential because they have been hit down by the cold and flu symptoms that go through New Zealand communities during the winter. Well, good news for all of them: help is on the way, and with the passing of the third reading of the Misuse of Drugs (Pseudoephedrine) Amendment Bill, we come one step closer to having pseudoephedrine available to New Zealanders over the counter from pharmacies. Thank you, Madam Speaker. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you. Now, I'm just going to say to the Hon Casey Costello that the debate is going to be interrupted at 4.30 for a local issues debate. The member is welcome to start and have 10 minutes, but the remainder of the speech would be after the dinner break. If the member— Hon Casey Costello: I'll be guided by you, Madam Speaker, as to how you want to do it. I'm happy to— DEPUTY SPEAKER: Well, I think—it's actually 4.29. If the member is available after the dinner break, we may—actually, it might be a better idea to let you have your full speech then. Hon Casey Costello: Yep, that would be fine. Thank you, Madam Speaker. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yeah, OK. Thank you. For the House's purposes, I'm just going to wait until the designated time of 4.30—thank you. Debate interrupted. SPECIAL DEBATES Local Issues DEPUTY SPEAKER: OK, members, we now come to the debate about local issues arranged by the Business Committee under Standing Order 80. Would some honourable member care to move that the House take note of local issues. GREG O'CONNOR (Labour—Ōhāriu): I so move. Thank you, Madam Speaker. The issue I'm going to speak about today is very local. Members in this House will be very aware, I come here representing the Ōhāriu electorate, which members who fly in and out of Wellington pass through on a weekly basis. In fact, those on planes contribute to the noise which is an issue there, which I've spoken about here before. A very good group, Plane Sense, have brought that since there has been a change to the airport flight path that has actually become quite an issue, where the gentle hum of air traffic, which is part of the urban noise, has actually become a cacophony of noise, but that's another issue. There's actually been another issue, and it's a very community-minded electorate. Just in the weekend, we had a great community meeting over saving the local pool, which is very nicely situated in the base of Mount Kaukau, and well worth saving. I'm hoping as a result of the turnout of the councillors and the community we can save that. But no, that's not the issue I'm here to speak about. A much bigger issue—very local—is the Johnsonville Shopping Centre. Now, any member here who has any relations, friends living in the area will be well aware. During the recent campaign, when I'd knock on doors and say, "What's the issue?", people would blankly look at me—"Well, of course it's the mall. Of course it's the shopping centre." Even the local Salvation Army, who did a survey expecting to be told that there were social issues, and there were some—no, the first issue that arose was the local shopping centre. It's more than somewhere where people just shop; it's somewhere where they gather. In something of a dormitory electorate, where most people live and work around, this area—in fact, many of the very officials that come to this House are privileged to live in the mighty Ōhāriu electorate. So what is lacking there is a place, a centre point that people can be proud of. The Johnsonville mall was once that place—in 1969, it was one of the very first shopping malls in New Zealand. You couldn't get a car park there, but slowly, and it's probably its demise, it's been—and I'm not here to blame any Government, to blame any council. This is something that is actually very much a private sector issue. It is owned by a company called Stride Property Group, listed on the stock exchange. They have shareholders; one of them is a very big Australian shareholder, HESTA, which is a big superannuation fund, which is the medical superannuation fund over there, who unfortunately have quite a big say in where and what money will be spent there. And I don't think the Australians are as focused on Johnsonville, on Ōhāriu as they could be. I've been working closely with the mall owners, Stride, and I know that over the years they've had plans to actually do something about the place, but many of those plans have come to nothing, to the extent that it's almost become part of local legend—"Oh, the mall." Generations have grown up hearing their grandparents talking about the mall, and they too will roll their eyes at any thought of the mall. There's some very good businesses and there's some very good people who are doing their best to keep the place alive—places like the local coffee shops; Scheckter's Deli, a great recent addition—but slowly, any of the national providers, any of the chains have gone, the banks have gone, and we're left with something that really is something of a disgrace. I mean, Tripadvisor have called it the worst mall in New Zealand. So, of course, it's not just a matter of standing here and being critical; it's just what can be done about it? What can be done about it is actually the newest proposal, and the council, after initially having been a little bit reluctant to provide for the traffic flow around there, because they were worried about the golden mile out here, that it might do what, say, Christchurch has done, where the suburban shopping malls might suck the life out of the city centres, they've actually been on board recently. The proposal—and the council have been very good with this—is to allow the developers to go higher, to have a mixed model, to have offices, to have accommodation, retail, movie theatres, which again, the community is screaming out for, crying out for. But, again, every time a proposal comes up—and there have been things like the Kaikōura earthquake, the GFC, and the change in the retail environment, but every time the community has been ready, thinking they're going to have a centre they can be proud of, their hopes are dashed. So it's time now for Stride Property to put up or sell, because it is just now unacceptable the impact it has on my local community, on the whole of the northern suburbs, by having this pretty ugly sort of edifice in the middle of it, non-functioning—it's time to go. It's time for Stride to sell. TIM COSTLEY (National—Ōtaki): Can I start by just taking a moment to wish the Rev. Hector Davis a happy 100th birthday today, resident in my hometown, Waikanae. To you, Rev. Davis, happy 100th birthday. It was 2 January 2008 and most Kiwis were relaxing on the beach, maybe recovering from New Year celebrations. In East Timor, for the 35 of us with the Air Force's peacekeeping contingent, the call came in midafternoon: a UN police station in a small town called Ermera was under attack. Over the next few minutes, I watched as the men and women around me leapt into action, ripping off the covers, fitting door guns, servicing the aircraft. By the time I strapped in, the copilot had the rotors turning, the maintenance chief had the technical log ready for me to sign at the door, and the boss was running over with the approval to go flying. Twelve minutes after that call first came in, we were airborne, Australian soldiers from Bravo Company of 2 RAR in the back, and able to hold off the attack until further help arrived on the ground. I tell that story for two reasons. Firstly, for me, it puts into perspective the service and the sacrifice of those who left these shores 110 years ago. And that was, in 2008, about as exciting as East Timor got. But I also tell that story because it reminds us that the indelible Anzac spirit lives on today, and that Anzac spirit is a unique and defining quality, one that sets us apart, I believe, from the rest of the world, and something that we should all be justifiably proud of. I saw it in East Timor as a dozen Kiwis scrambled over a helicopter to get it airborne in record time to stop a riot. I saw it in Afghanistan as a dozen Kiwi Special Forces soldiers rolled out of the gates to stop a terrorist attack on a local hotel. And I saw it here in New Zealand as helicopter crews raced to get airborne to winch to safety people from rooftops in Hawke's Bay. I'm proud that, no matter what the challenge, our Defence Force is always willing and able to respond. Be it a cyclone in Fiji, a volcanic eruption on White Island, a humanitarian evacuation in Kabul, or training soldiers to fight in Ukraine, that same Anzac spirit that saw 100,000 Kiwis march off to Europe in 1914 lives on in the women and men who serve today. They do not seek conflict, but they are ready to serve in conflict zones around the world if that's the only way to bring about a lasting peace, to be a light in the darkness and a beacon of hope in a hurting world. That same Anzac spirit lives on today, and today I want to honour the selfless service of all those who put on a uniform, whether in our military, our police, or our emergency services, to serve at home or abroad as we lead up to Anzac Day this year. But if I'm really honest, I always feel a little bit inadequate on Anzac Day as I line up with my medals on. I wasn't brave enough to wear them today. I feel a bit inadequate as I think about my grandparents' war service and what all our servicemen and women went through in World War I, World War II, conflicts like Vietnam. How can I compare my time in Afghanistan or peacekeeping around the world to what many of them must have gone through? I am in awe of their service, humbled by the price that so many paid, and grateful for all those who served and returned, most with scars, some with visible scars, none of them ever to be the same again. We also must remember those who have lost their lives in more recent times. Two of those who were racing to get that helicopter airborne with me in 2008 lost their life a couple of years later, a third seriously injured. So this Anzac Day, as we approach it, we do not celebrate war but rather we honour the service and the sacrifice of those who went to war, those who went in the hope of saving our country, and indeed the world, for future generations. To quote my late father, we must remember the mateship, agony, courage, and compassion of war service, but save us from ever glorifying the horror and the tragedy of war. You know, to me, Dad has captured the very essence of Anzac Day. It's a day to celebrate service and sacrifice, not the wars and the conflicts in which those sacrifices were made. I will forever be proud to have served and immensely proud of those who served alongside me, but I will always be in awe of the service and sacrifice of those who went before me, and in particular those who never returned home. Ka maumahara tonu tātou ki a rātou—lest we forget. CHLÖE SWARBRICK (Co-Leader—Green): E te Māngai, tēnā koe. Tēnā koutou e te Whare. A lot of people think about Auckland Central as just Auckland central city and the surrounding suburbs, but I do have a story for you. The electorate extends far beyond that amazing place across the Hauraki Gulf, all the way out across Waiheke Island to Aotea Great Barrier Island. That's where this story starts, because that is where in mid-2021, a pair of kayakers first discovered Caulerpa brachypus. I'm a little bit gutted that there has been a changeover of Speakers in the Chair just now—not to, in any way, intimate your skills, Mr Speaker, but I did want to shout out to the former Speaker in the Chair, the Hon Barbara Kuriger, for the work that she and I did in trying to get cross-party understanding on Caulerpa brachypus and the potential threat that that posed to our particularly marine ecosystems. Caulerpa brachypus looks like this[Holds up a photograph] to those who are unfamiliar or uninitiated with it. It is an invasive seaweed that grows at approximately 3 centimetres every single day and is posing a massive threat to the smothering of our sea-floor in the Hauraki Gulf. Now, there's been an immense amount of work by a number of local champions, and I just want to list a few here today in this very brief speech: Ngāti Rehua Ngātiwai ki Aotea; Aotea/Great Barrier Local Board, particularly the chair there, Izzy Fordham, who's been phenomenal in leading some cross-agency work here; as well as the Waiheke Local Board, and the chair, Cath Handley, there. I also need to put on the record a shout-out to deputy chair Bianca Ranson, who also wears a hat with Mauri o te Moana and is quite heavily involved in the Waiheke Marine Project. I need to shout out to Ngāti , as well, on Waiheke Island; to the Hauraki Gulf Forum; particularly to Kate Waterhouse of the Aotea Great Barrier Environmental Trust, who has been doing a lot of the work in driving policy understanding behind the scenes here; also to the likes of Revive Our Gulf; and even to the rec fishers LegaSea and NZ sport fishing, who have been trying to ensure that there is greater political understanding of the threat that this invasive seaweed poses to our marine ecosystems. We could talk about a lot of the threats that are facing the Hauraki Gulf—namely, bottom trawling, which, of course, the Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand has put abundantly clear on the record that we support the full ban of in the Hauraki; as well as the need for greater marine protected areas, and, of course, there's a piece of legislation making its way through select committee at present, but the Greens support that marine protection extending to at least 30 percent of the Hauraki Gulf. We also have massive challenges with regards to biosecurity. Just to give a sense of the threat here: in the Mediterranean, where Caulerpa brachypus was studied, it was found that there was a, I believe, 30 to 60 percent reduction in biomass of fish as impacted by the smothering of the sea-floor. We are having this discussion at a point in time when the Government is not only slashing jobs across the Public Serve but also in Biosecurity New Zealand and in National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research Ltd—two agencies that have been at the forefront of trying to get a handle on this kaupapa. But particularly to that connection or lack of parallel approach that we've seen with other biosecurity hazards and issues in this country, I just wanted to create the parallel to Mycoplasma bovis, which, of course, posed huge issues with regard to agriculture. There we saw that there was cross-party support for the better part of a billion dollars to be invested in eradicating Mycoplasma bovis—heck, we saw the same kind of approach when it came to a fruit fly in the outer Auckland Central suburbs. But we have not seen that same impetus and that same political galvanisation on the issue of Caulerpa brachypus, and that is the plea that I am making to the House today. In conversations that I've already had with the Minister Tama Potaka, obviously with his conservation hat on, I've made this plea. But we need to see far greater resourcing. There are three key things here that this Government—and, I would hope, with the cross-party support of this Parliament—can do. The first is for a whole-of-agency, whole-of-Government strategy for the eradication of Caulerpa brachypus; the second is to resource a team specifically dedicated to eradicating Caulerpa brachypus within the Ministry for Primary Industries, Biosecurity New Zealand, or, actually, potentially, even a cross-agency piece of work; and the third is the pūtea, the funding, and the resourcing to make this happen. So far, all we've seen is approximately $5 million, a drop in the bucket, and this invasive seaweed continues to expand, smothering the sea-floor and actually posing massive threat across the entire East Coast of Aotearoa New Zealand. Dr PARMJEET PARMAR (ACT): Thank you, Mr Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to speak in this debate on local issues. I am based in Pakuranga, which is east of Auckland, and there is this issue that is causing a huge amount of concern not only local people but people who go through that electorate or that suburb as well. I want to talk about the issue of speed limit reductions. Speed limit reductions were imposed by the previous Labour Government. Since those speed limit reductions, people are feeling really frustrated and this is for several reasons. I want to, the start, acknowledge that nobody wants to see any kind of harm or injury or fatal accidents happening on our roads. But speed is just one contributing factor. One would sit and think "Well, how do we reduce those incidents happening on our roads? Well, reduce speeds."—yep, one might think that is a logical thing to do. But it is not a logical thing to do if we do not consider other factors that contribute to these incidents that happen on our roads. So that is a very lazy approach, I would say, to just reduce speed and not look at the condition of the road. We also need to keep in mind that other contributing factors—as I said, condition of the road, weather conditions, condition of people's cars that they are driving, and also drivers' behaviourscontribute to accidents that happen on our roads. So we need a comprehensive solution when we are trying to target incidents that happen on our roads. We want to do things which actually improve efficiency. To improve efficiency, of course we need to look at our systems, structures, and infrastructure—but can I say that this line applies only to this side of the House, because we are keen to improve efficiency, not that side. What they did—they slowed everybody down and, obviously, there is a flowon effect on the economy of not just local area but Auckland and the whole of our country. Time is precious. What happened because of the change by the previous Labour Government? People are stuck in traffic. They're just looking at their clock ticking, ticking, ticking—15 minutes, 20 minutes, 30 minutes added to one-way traffic. That is hurting people at so many levels—people's personal lives, people''s work lives, are being hurt. I'm really glad that we campaigned to reverse those speed limit reductions, and the coalition Government has already announced that those speed limit reductions will be reversed. Because of that, the main roads—which are Pakuranga Road, which has been dropped from 60 kilometres per hour to 50 kilometres per hour; part of Ti Rakau Drive dropped from 60 kilometres per hour to 50 kilometres per hour; Botany Road, parts of that have been dropped from 60 kilometres per hour to 50 kilometres; and Te Irirangi Drive, which is again a very busy and important road, there are three speed limits now, from 60 kilometres per hour to 50 kilometres per hour, 80 kilometres per hour to 50 kilometres per hour, and one part is from 80 kilometres per hour to 60 kilometres per hour. So with these roads becoming slow, what is happening is, obviously, during peak time there is more traffic, and people follow GPS, so there is more traffic going on to small roads, the residential roads, creating a lot of anxiety for these people who live locally, because of the traffic congestion that they are seeing—and off-peak. What this is leading to is inefficient use of road capacity because people see there is so much space but they cannot use those roads to its efficient capacity. We need to see that the speed is optimal—optimal according to road conditions. But, instead of looking at what other conditions can be improved, they just decided to slow everybody down. We know that in East Auckland we have had this issue of street races. When people do those kind of things—and, yes, there was media coverage as well, and my heart goes out to those victims and the families of that victim. But when people adopt this kind of behaviour, they are not going to change that behaviour just because the speed limit has been reduced. So if somebody is racing at 160 kilometres per hour when the speed limit is 80 kilometres per hour, it's not like if you reduce the speed limit to 50 kilometres per hour, somehow those people will start speeding at 120 kilometres per hour, because that is not how they are thinking. So, on this side, we want to see that things are done in efficient manner. We want to see that things are done in a speedy and also safe manner. We want to see progress, not, like them, slow everything down. And that is why I''m really glad that this coalition Government has announced that we will reverse those speed limit reductions that were imposed by the previous Labour Government. Thank you. ANDY FOSTER (NZ First): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Good local government is a beautiful thing. I know that because I've been there and done it, and sometimes it's been beautiful and sometimes a little bit less so. Good local councillors—and I look at Cameron Brewer there—should be deeply connected to their communities, really know their issues and their people, listen to their people's diverse viewpoints and be responsive, show wisdom, show that sort of calm, measured decision-making, and be balanced and thoughtful. Now, of course, this is not about being a councillor; this is about being a list MP, and we're talking about constituencies, and our constituency, as list MPs, starts somewhere up around North Cape and ends somewhere down Stewart Island way—and that is all of our constituency. And let's not forget the Chatham Islands and the offshore islands as well. Look, that doesn't stop me from being interested in local issues. I have to say that every day I get people from the local community around Wellington asking me about various different local issues and about making observations about the local council. But I'm not going to talk about Wellington, because what I did recently, as a list MP, to visit the beautiful top of the South Island, talking to councils, businesses, educators, infrastructure providers, developers, tourism organisations, and so on. I just want to make a few observations about that visit, because I think there's some useful things to mention there. First of all, there were many different Provincial Growth Fund projects that I heard about. So Blenheim's beautiful new library—a fantastic facility, two thirds of which was funded by the Provincial Growth Fund, one third by the local council. And I might make a point that Wellington often feels left out by some of these things: it's "neither a Provincial Growth Fund; never got any money from start-up projects either"—and so that was a little bit of a sore point there. So I've got to bring Wellington in. But Blenheim's new library is beautiful; Wellington's got a $250-odd million-dollar library, and it would be nice to have a little bit of support for that—anyway! Also, it was great to visit water treatment plants in Motueka, water storage reservoirs for the Māpua-Moutere area, and stopbank refurbishments. Together those projects are less than $15 million; huge value for those local communities. They look like outstanding projects. I also heard about the Waimea Dam which has probably now been commissioned—it was about to be commissioned when I was there—and the benefits that that will bring both to the urban community and resilience of water supply but also to the rural community in terms of productivity and the ability to grow all sorts of products that of course we need. I really wanted to say that there are huge opportunities. These things illustrate huge opportunities to partner between local government, local communities, and central government. For example, all three of the councils that I talked to across the top of the South mentioned a report called Before the Deluge which has been put together by all the regional councils and the unitary councils of the country. They've identified the areas where we could get the best bang for bucks by putting stopbanks there to protect our property, to protect businesses. I would encourage the Parliament to have a look at that report and to consider whether there is a co-investment opportunity there because, clearly, that is what they are looking for. We hear a lot about an infrastructure deficit, and when chairing the Transport and Infrastructure Committee we began our annual reviews hearing from the Infrastructure Commission. I have to say they are a breath of fresh air, thinking about the really big picture. The key point that they made is that we're actually investing enough in infrastructure; what we're not doing is investing in the right way. We're investing in dumb things sometimes and our processes are really expensive and slow, and we need to do something about that. That would probably save us at least 4 percent on GDP just like that, if we were to do that. Hon Mark Patterson: Fast trackast track. ANDY FOSTER: Fast tracking is part of that. When we visited, one of the examples was the example of marine farms. The cost of being able to re-consent what is already there is really, really expensive, and that's not just marine farms it's dams, it's sewage treatment plants, and so on. When they need to be re-consented, it is really expensive, and two of the councils also raised those issues as well. They also raised issues around the consenting of tiny houses, which of course this Government is moving on—or small houses, I should say. Because what's happening in those jurisdictions is that instead of going for small houses, they're actually going for tiny houses because you don't have to go through the consent process—and, of course, they don't pay rates either. So there are ways in which we can make the boat go faster in those areas. It was also really, really great to visit some community facilities and operations as well, particularly the Kaipūpū Sanctuary in Picton and to hear about the support that they've had from the Jobs for Nature programme. I would say that that, I think, has given us some real value and I think we should think very, very carefully about its future and be able to share the experience— Chlöe Swarbrick: Yeah, don't cut it! ANDY FOSTER: I'm making these points because it's worth making these points, Chlöeand I have the opportunity to do soand share the opportunity or the experience that I've had from Zealandia, which of course is the mothership of all of these sorts of facilities. So all I would say is that there are a lot of great things that you can learn from visiting communities, from listening to communities, and if we work together—Government, local government, and communities—we can make our boat go faster. SPEAKER: That would have made a great general debate speech, but it's a local issues debate and I'd ask members to stick that. MARIAMENO KAPA-KINGI (Matarau—Te Pāti Māori ): Tēnā koe, e te Māngai, tēnā tātou katoa. I stand here to debate the absolute necessity to have Māori wards, to have Māori representation within the political sphere— Hon Paul Goldsmith: Is that local? MARIAMENO KAPA-KINGI: —of this country at a local and regional level. And I'll leave the cheerleaders for later. Excuse me, Mr Speaker. Tai Tokerau is home to one of the largest populations of Māori within the country. Over one third of our demographic identifies as Māori and fortunately, so do I. I've been a Māori for a while, so I'm good for this debate. So it is vital that our community is represented at the decision-making table. Māori wards ensure that we as Māori and us in Te Tai Tokerau, and even Grant for that matter, are represented in local government decision-making processesot just stand up and have a little karakia and a waiata. For Te Tai Tokerau, Māori wards have only recently been introduced. And much like any of these other initiatives, they just don't get the opportunity to give it a real go. They've barely had the opportunity to flourish. The current Government has attempted to withdraw or cut what is both essential and necessary for us—and I mean the Māori "us", and I mean the Treaty partner "us". What is most important right now is that Māori maintain the absolute right to actively participate in decision-making processes when it comes to both local and regional government. Given the historical barriers such as Māori continuing to negotiate intergenerational harm which is oppression, colonisation, and de-culturation, Māori engagement with political institutions is limited and hard and difficult to break through. This often leaves Māori under-represented in political spaces and, by extension, vulnerable to racism—the misconstrued perspectives that those in decision-making positions hold toward Māori. Māori wards are designed to bridge the gap between Māori and bring our own voices into that debate and into that discussion, and particularly into the decision-making spaces. So, dang, it's a good idea and it's going to be chucked out, but, again, that's not surprising, given the current climate that we're having to deal with. These wards are therefore designed to support Māori in their—and I really want to be clear on this one—tino rangatiratanga, as guaranteed in Te Tiriti o Waitangi. It won't be the last time that I'll ever use those words. This Government has shamefully voted to uphold Pākehā dominance and undermine Māori rights to representation in local government. Once again, we have a Pākehā majority deciding that they know what's better for me and Māori and Māori in Te Tai Tokerau, and not even Grant can support that. This type of thinking is outdated and systemically racist. Far North District Council—getting to the good bit—illustrates just how outdated this thinking is. In March 2021, they collected the community's feedback on Māori wards in their representation review. Of those who submitted responses, 81.76 percent supported Māori wards. Please let that sink in [Authorised te reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.] [Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.] Please let that sink in, and comprehend is probably the other thing. So the Far North district councillors voted to establish Māori wards for the 2022 and 2025 local body elections. Moko Tepania—if you don't know him, great guy, mayor, and knows exactly what his people in Far North District Council are about. The mayor for Far North has openly expressed his contempt towards the ridiculous actions this Government has taken. And much like our policing community in their responses to Government actions, we hear the same rhetoric from local government: "We don't need Wellington to tell us what to do." Additionally, to hold these referendums, it will cost communities. It'll cost Far North District Council more than it absolutely should, given there's not a lot of funding and investment in the Far North in any case. This type of expenditure is incredibly wasteful for vulnerable communities. A lack of education inspires a lack of understanding and, by extension, creates fear. This is exactly what our current Government illustrates to us is that their lack of education in issues regarding our people inspires lack of understanding and creates their fear of us being equal with them. Thank you, Mr Speaker. Kia ora tātou te Whare. DANA KIRKPATRICK (National—East Coast): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It's a privilege to rise and speak in the House on the local issues debate. I thought I'd take a slightly different approach to this: my local issue is that we need to change the dial. We want to change our media narrative—if you like—from the negative events and the tragic and awful circumstances that parts of my electorate have been subject to over the past year or two. So we're about to go on a whistle-stop tour around the East Coast electorate to talk about some of the great things that are happening. So let's start. I can't go past it without mentioning the cyclone, of course, but the cyclone has done something for us: it's created a catalyst. A catalyst for change and a catalyst for positivity, and we are about that. The East Coast is ready to go. We are tired of being called "resilient" and tired of being in clean-up mode, so it's time to get cracking. We're going to start in Ōpōtiki, the wonderful town which we visited not that long ago—and the Whakatōhea mussel factory, the harbour entrance, and the marina development: a group of projects that will absolutely change the way Ōpōtiki is and will be into the future. The brainchild of Whakatōhea and the Provincial Growth Fund (PGF), bringing in jobs—they currently employ about 200 people—and the income diversity and the changing of how that will focus them into the future is a fantastic opportunity, and one that we look forward to. Whakatōhea, just recently, also a finalist in the Ahuwhenua farming awards, so they will be heading to the dinner on 17 May in Hamilton and we wish them all the very best for that. Raukokore, a little place way up at the top of the East Cape—just went up there this week. They just opened a $10 million freshwater storage project which will unlock the potential for 300 hectares of horticultural land and provide ongoing diversified income for that iwi, Te Whānau-ā-Apanui, and jobs for the future. No mean feat by them and a sensational project. Let's just go down the road a little bit to Kawerau. In Kawerau, the mayoral task force doing incredible work getting our rangatahi and young people into work: 260 placements in three years of young people into jobs. This year's target was 38 people. They tell me they'll double that, and yet their funding reduced every year for three years. Heartland, Eastbay —Gloria and her teameeding people, setting up courses, rattling people's cages, and getting things done. They're a fantastic bunch of people in there providing access to services and support for their community. Kawerau is the industrial heartland of the country, and we look forward to the new development from Forrester: $300 million investment into geothermal and renewable energy sources. Fossil-free fuel to replace coal, so we look forward to seeing what they can do for us. Then we'll move on—we'll go around the way a little bit to Murupara, where Jamie and JDgiving their all for the rangatahi of the region and now working on a project to get all the families in Murupara to get a vegetable garden, to learn to grow their vegetables, and for the pakeke they are raised vegetable gardens so they don't have to bend down and get that. They believe that getting down there and getting into that dirt and that soil is great for them. A little further south in Minginui a movement afoot to get the remotest parts of the region connected to the internet. They did some work in Kawerau, where they connected more than 1,630 students, and the whānau there paid for 1,110 devices themselves with no-default payments. The students from Te Whata Tau o Putauaki in Kawerau taught themselves to build robots and won regional and national competitions, and just recently placed second in an international competition where they built robots. And all due to being able to be connected to the internet. In Gisborne, of course, the Toha Network and the East Coast Exchangef you don't know about them, look them up they are fantastic. These people are the future of climate change action and our communities—born out of the cyclone crisis and self-funded with significant private investment. Mr Speaker, if you eat salad in this country, it most likely came from LeaderBrand in Gisborne, a fantastic organisation and just about to open their hectare environmentally sustainable covered crop production with help from the PGF. And, of course, the Mātai research world-leading MRI scanning leading the world in brain injury or concussion treatment. The East Coast has much to offer, but I can't go past Whakatāne, voted best small town for 2023; and Ōhope Beach, the best beach in New Zealand. It's official it is absolutely the best electorate in the country [Interruption] and I won't take any argument from you lot on that one. Can I go past the parliamentary game just to finish off: parliamentary game in Gisborne, Tairāwhiti, on 25 May where the parliamentary rugby and netball teams will compete against Federated Farmers at the wonderful institution of the Ngatapa Rugby and Associated Sports Club. Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I'd like to take a moment to talk about a truly local issue in Christchurch, in Christchurch Central in particular. I mean, it's one that's actually hit the news, and I'll take this opportunity to advocate for the Christchurch Cathedral. You know, I was there, and, in my maiden speech, actually, I spoke about looking out of the window of the office I then occupied and, out of one window, one building collapsed—the PGC building—and out of the other I saw the spire of that cathedral topple. It's worth just thinking about the reality of earthquakes here. You know, the last member Dana Kirkpatrick talked about the disasters in the north, and I recognise that as well. The cathedral's arguably the last significant building that remains as, essentially, an indication that things aren't finished. I'd invite every member here to come to Christchurch and look at the amazing—and I can't help, I must mention that the current Speaker had something to do with the planning of the city rebuild, and I acknowledge that and the work that the prior Government, before the Labour Government, did there, and the further delivery that people like Megan Woods did as well. But the remains a problem. It's fundamentally a private building—it is a part of the Anglican Church—but public funds have gone into it already. In my view, the church will hold it on trust for the people of Christchurch, and when it is rebuilt, because it will be rebuilt, it needs to be an open and community space. But the problem that we are facing now—and it's a problem that's been faced with a lot of earthquake repairs and rebuilds, especially of heritage buildings—is the fact that it's clearly going to cost a lot more than was initially anticipated. The trust entity, the cathedral entity, has, essentially, gone cap in hand to the public, to the ratepayer, to the taxpayer, to the church, to philanthropists, and said, "Look, we need to get together because leaving it there in the current state is really not an option. We've come too far to turn back now." I absolutely endorse those people who, in the public arena and on social media and elsewhere, say, "We can't just tip public money into projects like this, willynilly."—there absolutely has to be a limit. But I know the Minister of Arts, Culture and Heritage—I think he's nodding because he has received a plaintive email from me saying, "Will you look at this?" I hope that all of the members of Parliament who are in Christchurch will do that. And I absolutely hope that the members of Parliament who are part of the National Party and in Christchurch electorates will be speaking loudly in their caucus to say, "We need to look at this, we need to advocate for this." Leeann Watson, who might not be a likely ally, who is the CEO of the chamber of commerce, has said, "We do not want this building to remain as a symbol of the past of Christchurch." Christchurch, for a long time, was kind of branded by the cathedral, and there was nothing wrong with that. But the brand of Christchurch now is the amazing vibrancy that the Avon River / Ōtakaro River makes, the amazing things that go on in our university and in our wider city. We do need to tidy up the cathedral. We absolutely need to engage with the wider community and have a mandate to do that. But my case today is that Government also has a part to play. It has put money into it. The Government, under my predecessor the MP for Christchurch Central and Megan Woods, have put $25 million into this project, which is now going to cost $248 million. The city's put $10 million into it as well, the church has put their insurance funds, and there are philanthropists out there who have put their hand in their own pocket for tens of millions of dollars as well. Now, I'm not suggesting that the Government should bear the lion's share of that burden, but I think the funding ratios that have gone on in the past are a good way to look forward. I hear the naysayers, that this is a church and we shouldn't be funding religion, or it's just a quaint—I've seen better buildings in English villages. But, at the end of the day, it's a landmark in the centre of Christchurch and we need to see it restored and we need to see it open and a public and community space for all. I hope that this Government will consider that carefully. Kia ora, Mr Speaker. Hon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. Thank you to yourself and the House for the opportunity to pisser—to participate in this local debate——and it's not even after the dinner break yet! So I want to talk about a local issue in my beautiful electorate of the Coromandel. Members and people watching this debate at home will know that we are coming to the end of what's been a pretty good summer around the country, but it's been a particularly good summer in the beautiful Coromandel. It's the first summer in four seasons where we have had an uninterrupted opportunity to explore, enjoy, and make the most of everything that the beautiful Coromandel has to offer, and particularly so for our visitors. We had two summers that were ruined by COVID and then, of course, the summer of Cyclone Hale and Cyclone Gabrielle, which impacted not only the Coromandel but many other parts of the country. We thought that when State Highway 25A was closed for almost a year and reopened quickly thanks to the great work of the New Zealand Transport Agency's (NZTA) contractors ahead of the time frame that NZTA had set and under budget it would be the end of our major issues Cyclone Hale and Cyclone Gabrielle. But, sadly, it's not. Here we are almost 15 months after those devastating cyclones, and one of New Zealand's most iconic tourist destinations—Cathedral Cove in the beautiful Coromandel at Hāhei—remains closed. Now, yes, there was some cyclone damage to the pathway that takes people down to the beach from the lookout, down quite a long and windy walk, and some damage has occurred, but, by engineering standards and by any other measure, it's not that big a job to get it fixed. I want to talk today about why it is that the Department of Conservation, in my view, has been so slack, so slow to get that track open. It's a— Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Talk to your Minister: Tama Potaka. Hon SCOTT SIMPSON: —well, the member for Christchurch Central talks about Tama Potaka. I want to talk about Tama Potaka because he is the new Minister of Conservation, who is good as his word. When I was in his ear before Christmas, saying, "Minister, you're the new conservation Minister; you need to come and have a look at Cathedral Cove and see for yourself.", he said, "Yes, Scott, I'll be there early in the new year." Well, I got a call from him on 1 January, saying, "I'm in your rohe. Would you like to have me visit tomorrow on 2 January?" So as good as his word he was there, early in the new year on 2 January, and he came and had a look for himself. We went and had a look and then about a week or so later, also as good as his word, we had the Minister for tourism, the Hon Matt Doocey, come to visit and have a look for himself. Those Ministers understand how important that track is not only to locals in the Coromandel, in Hāhei, but how important it is to our international tourist reputation and our total international tourist package. There are literally tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of people who want to come and walk that track and experience the beautiful Cathedral Cove experience, who currently cannot do it. Well, the Department of Conservation had a very slow timetable. It wasn't going to be until September of this year that they were even going to make a decision about what might eventually happen at the cove. Well, thanks to the good work of Tama Potaka, the new Minister of Conservation, I was delighted, on behalf of local businesses, tourist operators, and also the hundreds of thousands of visitors who want to come and see Cathedral Cove, that he has now committed to ensuring that his Department of Conservation officials have on his desk, in June, their plan for getting the track reopened for the coming summer season. Why is that important? Well, it's important because many of those local businesses have to do sometimes up to about 80 percent of their annual turnover over a summer period. When we don't have a good summer period, there isn't an opportunity for those businesses to make that revenue up any other way. So having the track closed is a real problem. I want to, in this debate, also make the point that this is land that was gifted to New Zealand, to all New Zealanders, by the Harsant family at Hāhei generously for the benefit of all New Zealanders. I think it's beholden upon the Department of Conservation to actually get their act together, to pull finger, and to actually get ahead of the Minister's timetable and see if we can get the track open sooner. INGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri): Mr Speaker, is Invercargill the most dangerous place in New Zealand or is it actually an opportunity for collaboration, community development, investment, and youth leadership? SPEAKER: I don't know. Would you like me to speak on that? INGRID LEARY: Well, Mr Speaker, if you'll indulge me, I will help you unlock that. If you have been reading the Southland Times or the ODTor listening to Radio New Zealand, you might be left with the impression that Invercargill is a very dangerous city; that there are kids running rampant; that they burn cars and they have standover tactics and they hang around in the mall, some of them as young as 10 or 11. We've seen headlines, actually, from the Mayor of Invercargill wanting these children to be treated as adult criminals, and, actually, he called a public meeting, which I attended on Saturday night as the buddy MP. I wasn't sure what I was walking into, because my electorate of Taieri is up the road, and I was really concerned that I was going to walk into a massive problem of this huge youth problem. And, indeed, when people stood up, there was a whole parade of people appointed from the panel, handpicked in the audience, to vindicate the mayor's stance that this is a very dangerous city and that these youth need real consequences. There were some harrowing stories. There were people who had had cars stolen, set fire to, and so on. And I don't want to diminish their angst. But the one good thing that happened at this meeting—apart from the fact that there were about 150 people, so we had to move from a small room upstairs to downstairs, where it was fuller—was that the mayor did let every single person that wanted to address the audience speak. And there was some incredibly rich and authentic and generous sharing that went on. What transpired was that there are many community groups there working with youth; that the Invercargill Initiative has shown that 23 percent of youth in Invercargill live in deprivation, which is much higher than the national average; that there are parents who work multiple jobs who find it very difficult to be at home; and that there are intergenerational issues around parenting, around violence, around poverty. There are sports interventions where kids can go and play sport to keep busy, but they happen to happen in the north of the city, and where the kids in the south who are wanting to play sport would love to join in, they can't afford the transport to get up there. There was only one youth voice in the room, and that was a really brave young woman called Paige. She was challenged about what she said, and she made the point that youth don't feel safe to speak in those spaces. Now, I don't know if that's a general observation or if that's particular to that meeting and to the way it was set up by the conveners of the meeting, but Paige insisted on evidence-based solutions. She talked about the link between the small number of people who commit youth crime and the high incidence of domestic violence and family violence. People spoke about the need for resourcing, about making sure that we tackle family violence. There were issues raised around public cuts: how is this investment going to happen? How are we going to prevent youth offending when there are cuts to the Public Service? The point was made that the earlier children are put into the criminal justice system the more likely it is they will go on to become recidivist offenders. So as much as the council and the mayor and the local MP Penny Simmonds would love to have had a silver bullet to resolve this issue, it is multifaceted. And the impression I was left with was that this is a community that really, deeply cares about the issue. It was such a shame that there wasn't a safe space for youth to come in and contribute. But there are really active groups working there. There are churches. There were security guards. The council has said it is spending $2.2 million on security cameras. Paige made the point, "Why don't you put that into prevention? Why don't you put that into youth development?" It was a 3½-hour meeting in Invercargill. I got to learn a lot about the community. I got to learn about the diversity there, the fact that people have families that have lived there for generations, and that they are a community that deeply care. I'm so proud to be the buddy MP, and I do hope that the next time this issue is reported on the reporters do listen to all the voices and not just take the easy line, which is making the youth the fall guys for a problem that really belongs to the whole of our communities. This is a problem that's not going to go away quickly. I can feel the passion and the commitment from the community. I am there to work alongside them, and I really look forward to seeing what steps we can make to ensure that everybody knows that Invercargill is a fantastic little city. Thank you. JOSEPH MOONEY (National—Southland): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. Thank you for the opportunity to speak in this debate. I rise as the member for Southland. Just to quickly put it in a framework, Southland is the size—well, it's bigger than Belgium. It covers a region which has five district councils covering different parts of it and two regional councils, so a huge area that stretches from Queenstown down to Ōwaka, Pounawea, Papatowai at the bottom and has much of Fiordland National Park in it and a good chunk of Central Otago. With that, I have the Queenstown Lakes District—a good chunk of it is in my electorate, including the city of Queenstown. The Queenstown Lakes District, between 1996 and 2020 had an average annual population growth of 5.3 percent. That's an annual average growth of 5.3 percent. To put that in perspective, that means the population doubles in just over 13 years. Not only that, in addition to the resident population, we have one of the highest numbers of visitors in New Zealand. In fact, in January this year the numbers at the airport hit record numbers, so more than we had in 2020. hat that means, in real terms, is that the Queensland Lakes District is growing incredibly rapidly and has a lot of growing challenges that come with that. I was very proud to see the Minister Simeon Brown down in Queenstown last week to announce a $250 million transport package that the coalition Government had agreed, to up the funding by $120 million to address some of those needs, although I would say that there is a lot more that needs to be done in that region, but I appreciate that we are in a challenging fiscal time. With that growth, I also have a good chunk of Central Otago. If we look at the combined population of Central Lakes, that's a resident population of 79,000, which is nearing the size of Palmerston North city. The peak day population—that's resident and visitor—is 177,746, which is near equivalent to Hamilton city. So this is a very big population that we have that has rapidly grown and will continue to rapidly grow into the future, and, with that, we need a lot more roading infrastructure, we need three waters infrastructure, we need a lot more housing and energy. I'm going to, in the short time available to me, touch on farming. Farming is an incredibly important part of my region. I have sheep and beef farming, dairy farming, grain, and a lot more. I'm just going to touch on sheep and beef farming, because I'm hearing repeatedly from very experienced farmers that this is the toughest time they've seen in their sector since the 1980s. That has been confirmed by the latest eef amb report, which said the updated forecasts for profits will be down 54 percent, to an average of $62,600 per farm. That's a 67 percent fall in farm profits from the 2021-22 year to levels not seen since the 1980s, except for the global financial crisis. There has been no real recovery from China in terms of our demand for our products and the exports of red meat out of Australia have been bigger than forecast. On top of that, the on-farm costs as well as the inflationary impact of interest rates have been significant, so this is a very, very challenging time. I'm proud to be part of the coalition Government that is working hard to reduce the red tape on farmers, that is working hard to develop its relationships around the world for alternative markets that we can sell our goods into. I will also, in the time available, touch briefly on Southland roads. So Southland has the second biggest roading network in New Zealand. We have a roading network that is a total of 4,969 kilometres in length. Just under 2,000 kilometres of those are sealed, and just under 3,000 kilometres are unsealed. We have 1,121 bridges, and, of those, at present, 68 bridges are either closed or weight restricted, and 134 of those bridges will require replacing by 2034. Again, recognising that there are big roading challenges across the countryhere have been, obviously, big weather events, but I just want to signal that we do have some significant challenges with our bridges, which is also reflected in the Central Otago District Council, which has at least 30 bridges—17 percent of the network—that will be near the end of their useful life within the next 10 years, and roading costs have increased 10 to 20 percent within those years. he last thing I'll just touch on is Department of Conservation concessions—an incredibly important issue I'm proud to have a conservation Minister who is focusing deeply on and has already been to Milford Sound to address our issues. TAMATHA PAUL (Green—Wellington Central): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I want to take this opportunity to talk about my electorate Pōneke, Te Whanganui-a-Tara, Wellington Central, and the housing emergency that has become far too common here in our capital city. Wellington's rents are among the highest in the country. The average house price in Wellington is about $1 million, far out of reach for most people who live here. We have 2,395 people waiting for a home on the public housing wait-list, and homelessness is increasing, particularly at both ends of the age spectrum where you see more young people, more rangatahi sleeping on our streets, on Lambton Quay and Courtenay Place. But we're also seeing more kaumātua and more older people represented in homelessness, sleeping in cars, overcrowding. That, to me, is a deeply shameful thing for our city. The experience that renters in Wellington have being too sick to work or study because of the old, mouldy, heritage-protected flats that we have to live in is far too common in Wellington. The experience of waiting in line with 100 others at every single flat viewing that you go to is far too common in Wellington. Having your landlord or property manager suck every single cent out of you that they can for supposed damages, not being able to do something as simple as use Blu Tack on the wall in your rental home without inciting absolute fury and rage from your landlord, having your rent put up despite no improvements to the home that you live in; these experiences are far too common in Wellington. That can be attributed to the lack of public housing that we have here in Wellington. It's been a long and fast abandonment and degradation of public housing here in Wellington, and the provision of public housing by our council and by Kāinga Ora has been an important part of the whakapapa of this city, acknowledging how important it is to have mixed communities where people from all different backgrounds are represented. We have the Gordon Wilson Flats sitting derelict and empty on The Terrace, which we can't do anything about because they're heritage protected. We have the Dixon Street Flats, home to over 100 public housing tenants, that has been closed and emptied due to its designation as an earthquake-prone building. We have the Granville Flats, owned by council and operated by Kāinga Ora, home to 144 tenants; that has been closed and soon to be demolished. Our supply of public housing in Wellington has been in decline for a long time, and that means that all of the whānau and all of the children who are just waiting for the opportunity to start their lives and have a good life, with that home as the foundation to that start of their life, will be waiting even longer. So I want to use my five minutes today to encourage the Minister of Housing, who has paused the Arlington development in Mount Cook, which is 350 new public homes to be delivered desperately need those public houses, and my plea to Minister Bishop is that he will make sure that project is delivered because there are high expectations from the city's MPs, from the city council, from the regional council, and from our communities that that project will be delivered—and I will be focusing my energy and attention on making sure that is delivered. We are a city that embraces public housing, which is a big flex given many communities around the country often oppose the presence of public housing in their neighbourhood. But we are a city that embraces the presence of public housing in our community. But we realise that there is money to be made in the absence of public housing, which is why there has been such a degradation of our public housing offering here in Wellington. We can be the first city to end homelessness and to not have it in our streets but in order to do that we need more public housing, we need to have the wraparound care that people need to live the best lives possible, and that is something that I know we'll be very proud of into the future. Kia ora. SPEAKER: I call Dan Bidois. Dan Bidois: Mr Speaker Oh, hang on, sorry, my apologies. Dan Bidois: No, it's Cameron Luxton. I call Cameron Luxton, sorry, who was calling when Dan Bidois was sitting there quietly not calling. CAMERON LUXTON (ACT): I appreciate that—thank you very much. SPEAKER: I think the two of you look alike; that's all! CAMERON LUXTON: Both handsome gentlemen, I hope you mean! Mr Speaker, I appreciate you giving me this call because this speech has been a long time coming. I'm based in the Bay of Plenty electorate, and a large part of that electorate is in the Tauranga City Council area. We have gone a long time without democracy at our local government level. Government is better when decisionmakers are close to the ground and accountable to the public. And the decisions that have been made in Tauranga to the people living in the beautiful area Tauranga Moana do not feel like they have had accountable government. There have been many issues raised; in a five-minute call, I couldn't possibly traverse them all, but it has been a great relief of mine to be part of a Government that is going to restore democracy to Tauranga—full democracy—on 20 July 2024. Democracy was denied to Tauranga. In February 2021, the previous Minister of Local Government—oh, a few ago—was Nanaia Mahuta. She installed four commissioners. These commissioners were given a mandate—and I'm going to get to whether they achieved some of their terms of reference or not. But she extended their term, cancelling local government elections in 2022 for the people of Tauranga. We had no democracy. We watched the rest of the country vote. We wondered when we were going to get a chance to actually have a say. I took part in a byelection, and this byelection for Tauranga was a great experience. I met many people of the Bay, and I talked to so many people who had each had a different concern, but the concern was growing about what the commission was up to. And it has come to pass that we have now gt huge debt loads. We have got—you might like this one, Mr Speaker. The people of Christchurch, God bless them—a highly indebted council, unfortunately; I think it's about $9,300 per ratepayer. Well, in Tauranga, we're at $17,000 per ratepayer. We have the highest city rates for residential property and our commercial rates are growing rapidly. We have now, under the auspices and the decisions of the commissioners, agreed to hundreds of millions of dollars of infrastructure which is a nice to have, not a must have. We have got a long-term plan which has got—you know, you can love and hate either part of it, but people didn't feel like they were properly consulted, that they had a chance to put in what they thought should be done in their city. This is the sort of thing that happens when you don't have decision makers close to the ground. We saw this go to the head of some of the commissioners. Now, what happened recently is the chair of the commission— Arena Williams: Great commissioner! CAMERON LUXTON: Yeah, well, you might say that, Arena, but she also thought hybrid democracy was something that the people of Tauranga would want—unelected commissioners governing in a co-governance between unelected and elected decision-makers. Now, I would have to say that is an admission of failure. One of the terms of reference was to work with council to encourage quality candidates to stand. Now, that piece of media that the chair gave goes—and to prove that she felt that they hadn't achieved that. On top of that, they were tasked with taking any other necessary steps to maintain confidence from the community in the council. I would say to you that that has not happened. Democracy is coming back, but because we have got an out-of-cycle electoral system for our local government in Tauranga, there has been a change which has been asked for in the general election. My colleague on the other side of the House spoke about what she sees is the benefit of Māori wards. I see them as a divisive and very unfortunate thing in a 21st century democracy. We in this Government have voted to give councils the chance to repeal or have a referendum on local government having a Māori ward. Well, unfortunately for Tauranga, we're going to have to wait, because of this out-of-cycle electoral system that has been put in place by the last Government. With 10 seconds on the clock, I would just like to say that it is a relief to have democracy back in Tauranga. We shouldn't have waited this long, but like my neighbours, I will be relishing casting my vote in July. DAN BIDOIS (National—Northcote): The issue with which I wish to speak about in some seriousness in my community of Northcote is about crime. Nothing typifies the impact that this has had on my community more than the tragic killing of Joshua Tasi, a 28-year-old, 13 months ago and the impact that that had on his family, his loved ones, the first responders that had to deal with him, and those who knew him in our community and the wider community. Crime has had a devastating impact in the Northcote electorate. In addition to this incident, we've had kidnappings, assaults, shopliftings, break-ins, ram raids, and more. Now, I want to speak with some seriousness about the positives that are going on in our community with respect to crime prevention. There's some great initiatives in my community. For example, the Kaipātiki Youth Development Trust looks at identifying at-risk kids, or kids that have offended, and trying to provide mentorship and other types of wraparound services to keep these kids on a solid footing. There's initiatives like Steps to Success, that the Kaipātiki Communities Facilities Trust organises, that provides youth with some skills and motivation to get out there and apply for jobs. There's truancy services that do a wonderful job in our community in making sure our kids turn up to school on a daily basis. There's initiatives like Community Patrol—which I'm a member of, or try to be—that do a fantastic job volunteering in our community and patrolling the streets, often at night, to make sure our communities are kept safe. And not just in my community, but there's some great initiatives throughout Auckland. For example, the Vanguard Military School, which looks at offering youth who aren't succeeding in mainstream and may end up actually offending, a way of engaging in education and training and getting ahead in life. Now, I'm extremely happy that we've started down the pathway in our 100-day plan to address rising crime to make our community safer. For example, two initiatives I wish to speak about: the young offender military academy programme, which is going to start later on this year and it's going to be trialled in Auckland. That is based off the Limited Services Volunteer programme that is actually in my colleague the Hon Chris Penk's electorate up in Whenuapai. That is a great initiative and I look forward to that being established. We've also looked at giving police more powers, which is a great start. But I do want to speak to where we need more support. What we need more support to address rising crime and make our communities safe is in two key areas. The first is the reactive actions and the second is in the proactive actions. Reactive ones include restoring consequences for crime, making sure there are, in fact, tougher sentences—we've got the Minister of Justice here who will be introducing laws to limit the amount judges can deduct from offenders when they're sentenced. Those are great initiatives which I think will go a long way to reducing crime in our community. But there's also some proactive measures that we can focus on, and I think the biggest one we can focus on a proactive way is offering youth a way out of their current predicament, and that is by encouraging apprenticeships and encouraging further training opportunities. The one issue that I've had given to me about the military academies—which I know and I've spoken to the Minister of Police about—is making sure that there's pastoral care once these kids come out of these academies. So it's all very well for them to go on and get this great training and mentoring, but when they get placed back into their home environment they're often back reoffending. So we need to make sure that there's actually good pastoral care to help these kids as well. We need to drive out the gangs of our communities—which there are in my community as well as others—and also up community organisations; organisations like Big Buddy that do a great job of mentorship. So we've got a lot to do in law and order, I'm happy with the Government's approach, and thank you. HELEN WHITE (Labour—Mt Albert): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I have the great privilege—and it was a squeaky, lucky privilege—of representing Mt Albert, because I have a very, very slim majority. I've lived in that area for 32 years, so you can imagine how incredibly wonderful it is to be the MP for an area that you have such a strong commitment to and know like the back of your hand. I want to talk today about a couple of things which, really, I've thought about in terms of the role that I've got, in terms of the value that I can really bring to the area. There's this interesting role that you're playing—I sometimes think our role is a bit like an octopus: it's got all these tentacles, all these places you can go. One of the big disciplines that you have to bring to the job is making sure you're not just exploring things; you're bringing it back to the hub of what you're doing so that you're actually producing stuff for your community. Because we're in central government, there are some things which we can have a big influence on and some where we act much more as guides and leaders and encouragers in our community. So I want to give the House an example of one of the ones where I think that an MP can make a real difference, and that's the housing policy in an area. Now, one of the things I've become increasingly interested in is long-term rental, and that's happening in my community thanks to Simplicity, which is a KiwiSaver provider. It is building houses that aren't for ownership; they are for long-term, secure rental. Now, I have relatives who will never be able to afford to buy a house. I don't come from a family with lots of money, and I was lucky enough to buy a house when they were much cheaper. So I have relatives who've never owned a house. If you have long-term rental, you have a possibility if you are one of those people to actually have a home, not have, as my Green colleague was talking about, somebody worrying about where you're putting the Blu Tack. What Simplicity do so well is they maintain those houses and they provide that kind of secure rental. There's a huge development going up in Morningside Drive; I think it's 256 houses going in there, and there's another one further in the electorate of 56 houses. So this is providing ordinary people with an alternative to ownership. It's actually really, really helpful for our economy too, because it is allowing people to spend their money in the productive sector. They can put it into their small businesses, they can put it into the sharemarket, which actually helps us build businesses in New Zealand. Housing is very dubious in terms of what it does if we all invest in housing, so long-term rental is a definite part of the solution. We had a whole lot of things when the Labour Party was part of the Government which were to incentivise this, and I'd urge the new Government to keep on thinking about new incentives, because some of those incentives have been taken away because of recent changes. So it's really, really important we keep our eye on this ball, because it's important to communities like mine. I want to just briefly touch on some of the other things that make a community great, where we might not have the same influence but I certainly recognise the value of them. One is gardens, actually. There's a garden called Sanctuary Gardens, and there's a big dispute at the moment about it because its land was promised as a garden and there is an issue about whether the land will be used for that purpose, because it's in the middle of a housing development. It's something I can't influence in the same way, but I can encourage all the parties to think very seriously about the value of that garden to the community, because there are people participating in that community and they bring great joy to lots of people, those gardens. They allow people to get in there and work in the garden, and that's incredibly good for them. It's got an archaeological significance, that garden, because I've seen some of the things that have come out of it because it's been a gardening spot for apparently a very, very long time because it's in perfect soil. I'd also like to talk about the small businesses in the community. They're so important. They give Mt Albert, the Mt Albert electorate, some of the best food, I think, in the world. It's a wonderful place for food. It is reasonable, it makes our city vibrant, and it is punching above its weight. So a shout-out to the small businesses as well. Thank you. SCOTT WILLIS (Green): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I would just like to put it on the record that I am a proud South Islander. I was born in Dunedin Hospital sometime in the 20th century, but now Ōtepoti Dunedin and Otago residents need healthcare facilities for the 21st century. The deep South is so often forgotten by Wellington, so when the previous Government announced plans for Dunedin Hospital, people were over the moon. That was great news. Here finally was a Government doing more than just talk; Labour and the Greens putting money down for the largest hospital rebuild in New Zealand—for the deep South. Hon Mark Patterson: The Greens weren't even part of it. I didn't see you in that coalition. SCOTT WILLIS: The old hospital, still in use, has a clinical services building in a parlous state, with leaks, asbestos, and it's beyond end of life—an actual trigger for the Dunedin Hospital. Yeah, I think New Zealand First might have been involved there, as well. In the deep South, we need healthcare for the regional population. We need a major tertiary teaching hospital with a space for medical, nursing, and allied healthcare training. We need buildings that can cope with the future pandemic and environmental disasters and be able to continue. My father-in-law, who'd retired from an illustrious career in surgery, was part of a working group looking at final detailed design—how many sinks, how many doors, where they should be placed—right up until Labour began trimming the budget and causing a major redesign. Budget savings; trimmed clinical wards, operating theatres, radiology—promises may win you friends, but failure to deliver will turn them against you. The Dunedin City Council undertook a great campaign called "They save. We pay." I wonder whether that had some impact on the election result. During the election campaign, I was so heartened to hear National's support for fully funding the Dunedin Hospital, for undoing the cuts that Labour had made, and it's a real pleasure when we find agreement across the House and support for our green commitment to the deep South. So National promised—indeed, committed—to reinstate the PET scanner, to replace the cut aged-care beds, to build the original number of operating theatres. National promised at least an additional $30 million on top of the $1.6 billion. It's a costly exercise, and it needs to be done right. This Government has told us repeatedly how bad things were prior to the election. The PM says he's focused on delivering the things that matter to our communities. I heard that this afternoon. The PM has said that people need to live better lives and that he's going to get things done and deliver better outcomes, yet I have submitted many questions to Minister Reti seeking a response on whether National will honour its pre-election commitment, and the Minister will not give a straight answer. We have an infrastructure deficit and an information deficit. Why can't this Government give the kind of basic reassurance that the whole of Dunedin and Otago is desperate to hear? After all, they have given a massive tax break to the landlords of student flats in north Dunedin. So why can't they just fund a decent hospital, which they promised in the election campaign? When folks in Dunedin count the cost of this election, what do they see? A Government that has given tax breaks to landlords, that's mislaid their cast iron promise to fund our hospital, and that's repealed three waters, leading to looming massive rises to rates. So we don't need any more word salads. Is the Minister simply as hollow as the Prime Minister? It's tragically true that this Government is all about slogans over action. But for once—for once—it would be wonderful if this Government would simply honour its promise to fully fund the Dunedin Hospital. The deep South is watching. Promises may win you friends, but failure to deliver will turn them against you. So that's my question to the Government: will you commit to your promise? LEMAUGA LYDIA SOSENE (Labour—Māngere): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am very pleased to take this call, because I want to talk about Māngere. I know that across the House, you all come to Māngere. Why? Because the airports are in Māngere. My issue is a local issue. I want to zone in on vapes and vaping stores and vape harm. We have 21 schools in our rohe. We have 11 primary schools, three intermediates, and the rest are our high schools and our kura. In a recent meeting that I have had with school principals across the rohe, we have great alarm—year 4, year 5, year 6 in our primary schools. So I want to help highlight the problem for the members right across the House, because it's actually quite timely that in today's Dominion Post, the Minister, Minister Costello, talks about—it's reported in this article that there has been a reduction of staff who know the business in terms of regulatory and compliance. In talking to a number of the deputy principals across the rohe, it is alarming that young children of year 4, year 5, year 6 are now bringing these little devices into schools, and school principals are saying that one dedicated head teacher needs to deal with the problems of our young tamariki. I wanted to highlight this issue today, because I know a lot of people across Tāmaki-makau-rau, across the country—and I'm specifically talking about adults, who have the sound mind to make decisions, but we are talking about our tamariki, the future of this country. In Māngere, we have hundreds if not thousands of our little people in year 4, year 5, year 6 that are being exposed. The principals have told me where they get these devices from and the behavioural problems—schools are not resourced to deal with this type of issue. So what I wanted to highlight today in my time was how Minister Costello talks about the Government of the day is going to strengthen the regulatory compliance and enforcement regime around vaping and tobacco sales. eally, as a member of Parliament, I'm concerned in my local rohe that our young babies are being exposed to this vaping. We have got far too many vaping shops in Māngere, and I'm sure right across South Auckland, very similar instances. But when a former senior health ministry staffer says that there's going to be cuts—and I know that this Government has talked about tax cuts—this Government is making choices that is harming the flow-on effect. Can I say that when you lose a dedicated, well-trained, well-evidenced regulatory staff who deal with these types of problems going around local communities and looking at vaping stores and just checking—because on the Ministry of Health website, it's really easy to become a specialist vape retailer. My plea: the Government needs to consider that the policies that you are making, these tax cuts, the flow-on effect to our tamariki in Māngere—this a really serious problem. In my time that is left, I want to highlight the difference, because in Māngere as well we had some good news. We had some good news that one of our kura is the highest achieving kura in the country with regards to NCEA results—highest achieving kura for 2023. So my plea is that in suburbs like Māngere where you've got a number of challenges regarding socio-economics, this is a problem that we do not want. How do we work together across the House? These vaping devices, they're poison. It's really poisoning our tamarikis' brain development. I'm not a medical specialist, but I'm highlighting as a parent the dangers when we take our eyes off regulatory and compliance for this poison product that is sold in street corner dairies. We have a massive problem looming before us. So that is my plea to the House. Thank you, Mr Speaker, for my time. SPEAKER: There's three minutes left. RACHEL BOYACK (Labour—Nelson): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I really appreciate the opportunity to take a call on what is a really important local issue for my electorate of Nelson. I want to take the short time I have available to talk about Maitai School. Maitai School is a school for students with significant learning disabilities, students with intellectual disabilities, but also many of them have significant physical disabilities and they need specialist education provision. The school has been working on a rebuild for nearly 10 years. When I visited the school, you could see exactly why the rebuild of the school was just so necessary. There was a point a few years ago, where the school had to build an off-site toilet block because there wasn't actually a proper toilet block for students who used a wheelchair. This is the severe nature of the state of the buildings. The school has three satellites, where they actually provide the education provision to their students but within a mainstream environment. It's such a fantastic way of the students being able to wear a local school uniform, participate in local activities, but still receive the specialist education that they need. They have three satellites: one is at Henley Primary School in Richmond; one, a new one, which we opened in Tāhunanui School last year; and the other is due to be worked on at Nayland high school, but that rebuild is currently at risk—so too is the full rebuild of the school on another site at Salisbury School location, which is also due for a rebuild. So, in 2019, the Labour Government announced a rebuild of Salisbury School and Maitai School on the site of Salisbury School. What happened, though, was we had some massive challenges around the schools co-locating and which part of the site they would be on. So the school came to me as the local MP in 2022, pleading for support. So myself and the then Minister Jan Tinetti visited the school and engaged heavily with the Ministry of Education, and we actually got that rebuild back on track. It had gone off the rails a little bit. Hon Members: Back on track. RACHEL BOYACK: We got it—the Labour Party got it back on track. We have been working for the last two years. In November last year, the school submitted a Budget bid. That rebuild is now on hold. That's appalling. It is about the Government's choices. Now, you can say what you like about whether we do a review of the rebuild of all the schools that we need to do, but there should have been ring-fencing for students with severe intellectual and physical disabilities. So I'm calling on the Minister to come to the meeting on Thursday in Nelson so that we, instead of tax cuts for landlords, can rebuild Maitai School. SPEAKER: The time for this debate has concluded. The House will suspend for the dinner break. Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.