Wednesday, 10 April 2024 - Volume 775 Sitting date: 10 Apr 2024 WEDNESDAY, 10 APRIL 2024 The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m. KARAKIA/PRAYERS TEANAU TUIONO (Assistant Speaker): E te Atua kaha rawa, ka tuku whakamoemiti atu mātou, mō ngā karakia kua waihotia mai ki runga i a mātou. Ka waiho i ō mātou pānga whaiaro katoa ki te taha. Ka mihi mātou ki te Kīngi, me te inoi atu mō te ārahitanga i roto i ō mātou whakaaroarohanga, kia mōhio ai, kia whakaiti ai tā mātou whakahaere i ngā take o te Whare nei, mō te oranga, te maungārongo, me te aroha o Aotearoa. Āmene. [Almighty God, we give thanks for the blessings which have been bestowed on us. Laying aside all personal interests, we acknowledge the King, and pray for guidance in our deliberations, that we may conduct the affairs of this House with wisdom and humility, for the welfare, peace and compassion of New Zealand. Amen.] PETITIONS, PAPERS, SELECT COMMITTEE REPORTS, AND INTRODUCTION OF BILLS SPEAKER: Petitions have been delivered to the Clerk for presentation. CLERK: Petition of Safeguarding Children requesting that the House review and amend the Children's Act 2014 to broaden and strengthen its capacity to protect New Zealand's children from abuse. petition of Rhodes Farming Partnership requesting that the House undertake an inquiry into virtual fencing. petition of Carjam Online Ltd requesting that the House urge the Government to reverse the decision to begin charging for free data as part of the planned "Fees review". SPEAKER: Those petitions stand referred to the Petitions Committee. No papers have been delivered. A select committee report has been delivered for presentation. CLERK: Report of the Officers of Parliament Committee on the alterations to the 2023/24 appropriations for Vote Audit, Vote Ombudsman, and Vote Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, and the 2024-25 draft budgets for the Office of the Auditor-General, the Office of the Ombudsman, and the Office of the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment. SPEAKER: That report is set down for consideration. No bills have been introduced. URGENT DEBATES DECLINED Closure of Newshub—Ministerial Response SPEAKER: Members, I've received a letter from the Hon Willie Jackson seeking to debate under Standing Order 399 the ministerial response to the confirmed closure of Newstalk—oh, sorry; of Newshub. [Interruption] Yeah, turn off the alarms! I should read that again. I've received a letter from the Hon Willie Jackson seeking to debate under Standing Order 399 the ministerial response to the confirmed closure of Newshub. The member's authentication shows that the Government has said it is working towards a solution. Urgent debates are a way of holding the Government to account for its actions, not for things that might happen in the future—Speakers' rulings 216/4 and 222/2. The application's therefore declined. I make this announcement now because the general debate is an opportunity for members to raise matters of concern that may be organisationally useful to know this decision now. ORAL QUESTIONS QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS Question No. 1—Prime Minister 1. Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his Government's statements and actions? Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON (Prime Minister): Yes, I do, and especially our announcement of new targets for at least 80 percent of students regularly attending school and 80 percent of year 8 students at or above the expected curriculum level for their age in reading, writing, and maths. These are critical things to make sure that our kids can get the quality education they have and can follow the dreams that they have. Finally we have a Government that's getting New Zealand back on track, getting our kids back to school, and making sure they're going to do well. Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Why did he say yesterday that the Suicide Prevention Office would remain open, when the Ministry of Health officials were saying at the same time that it wouldn't? Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: As I said yesterday, the Ministry of Health said that they did not adequately brief the Minister. The Minister has made it very clear the functions of the Suicide Prevention Office will remain open. Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Were any Ministers in his Government briefed on the Ministry of Health's proposal to wind up the Suicide Prevention Office before it became public knowledge? Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Again, I don't know how to be any clearer: we've had the Ministry of Health come out and say they did not adequately brief the Minister. Within a very quick and short period of time, the Minister responded by saying he wanted the functions of the Suicide Prevention Office to remain, and they will remain. Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I think the Prime Minister might have missed my question. I was asking about any Ministers in his Government. Of course, there are multiple Ministers of Health. The Minister that he's referring to is not the Vote Minister, that is the Minister of Health. I was asking him whether any Ministers in his Government had been briefed on the proposal before it become public. SPEAKER: Well, I think he probably did answer that, but he could perhaps say something else. Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, no, I feel like I have answered it. I've answered it yesterday; I'm answering it again today. As I said, the Ministry of Health said they did not adequately brief the Minister. The Minister of Mental Health has come out and said that he wants the functions of the Suicide Prevention Office to remain and they will remain. That's the situation. Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Was the Minister of Health or any other Minister in his Government briefed on the ministry's proposals before they were made public? Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: No. Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Why did Ministry of Health officials just yesterday say that the role of the director of the Suicide Prevention Office will not be filled, other roles in the Suicide Prevention Office will be cut, and the work of the office would be integrated into other ministry work, which to most people sounds like the office is being wound up? Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I can reassure you, the Minister has been very clear to say that the functions of the Suicide Prevention Office will remain. Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Will he guarantee that his Government's proposal to cut jobs from the Ministry of Health, including from the tobacco regulation team, will not lead to an increase in youth smoking? Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: We are determined as a Government to deliver on the smoke-free 2025 targets. As that member well knows, we've had good progress in the last 12 months, and we're going to march towards a 5 percent daily smoker target under smoke-free 2025. Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Will he guarantee that his Government's proposal to cut 6.5 percent from the budget of Customs will not lead to longer lines at airports, delays for our importers and exporters, and more illicit drugs entering New Zealand? Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, what I can say to that member is that we finally have a Government that can walk and chew gum at the same time. We can end the wasteful spending, we can prioritise front-line services, we can deliver tax relief for low- and middle-income workers—folk that that member's party used to care about—and we can make sure we can grow this economy. Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. That can't possibly come anywhere close to addressing the question that I had asked the Prime Minister. I asked him whether he would guarantee that there wouldn't be more illicit drugs coming into the country, longer lines at airports— SPEAKER: I know what you asked him, and that is the problem. You're asking him to give a guarantee which is in the nature of a yes/no answer, and I ruled those out yesterday. Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Yeah, but he at least needs to address the question. I admit I can't make him say yes or no, but he at least needs to talk about the question that was asked, as opposed to whatever he feels like. SPEAKER: I'm not going to debate it with you, but I don't think asking someone to guarantee something and then saying they must address that is in any way different from asking for a yes or no answer. Please ask another supp. Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Will he guarantee that his proposal to cut 6.5 percent from the Customs budget won't lead to longer times at airports, won't lead to delays for our importers and exporters, and won't lead to more illicit drugs entering New Zealand? Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: What I can reassure that member is that this'll be a Government that will rebuild our economy, restore law and order, and deliver better public services in health and education. Question No. 2—Finance 2. STUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura) to the Minister of Finance: What recent announcements has she made about tax? Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance): The answer to this question is that two weeks ago I released the Government's Budget Policy Statement. This confirmed that there will be personal income tax relief in the Budget, and it noted that New Zealanders have not seen any changes to personal income rates and thresholds since 2010, apart from Labour's introduction of a higher top tax rate. Now, for 14 years, people have been taxed more and more as their incomes have risen, much of that due to inflation. This Government will start to address that in Budget 2024. Stuart Smith: What have been the consequences of not adjusting tax brackets? Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I can give the House an example, because I'm acutely aware that there are members of this House who adamantly oppose tax reduction for working people. In 2011, the median full-time wage and salary worker earned $48,000 and paid 15.5 percent of their income in tax. Today, the median full-time wage and salary worker earns $73,400. Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: It's because wages are going up—that's a great thing. Hon NICOLA WILLIS: He may not like it, but he should listen to the fact, because today that wage earner pays 20.6 percent of their income in tax, as compared to 15.5 percent in 2011. In other words— Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: They don't like growing wages—they don't like growing wages. Hon NICOLA WILLIS: —and, actually, the Leader of the Opposition should listen rather than interrupt—the average tax rate for someone who by definition is right in the middle of the income distribution has gone up by more than five percentage points, and that has happened because of the neglect and indifference of what long ago was known as the party of the worker. Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. The Government continues on a daily basis to directly challenge your ruling as the Speaker, and that was another blatant example of it. Not only did you not stop Nicola Willis for a blatant attack on the previous Government but you actually allowed her to deliver a speech rather than an answer to the question. SPEAKER: Well, with all due respect, there was quite a lot of interjection going on during that time, and I think that while the speech was too long—sorry, the answer was too long— Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: I rest my case! SPEAKER: Yeah, well, I've never been one for long speeches, but it was too long an answer. But I don't think that you could say that was an attack on the previous Government. Talking about what has historically happened is not unreasonable and not outside Standing Orders. Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: The last bit of her answer absolutely was. SPEAKER: Well, maybe I didn't hear it because of some of the noise that was going on, but I will have a look at that on Hansard. I'm trying my best to be fair and even. Stuart Smith: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Why is the Government concerned about fiscal drag? Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, I note there's a lot of sensitivity about the answers to these questions. The fiscal drag— SPEAKER: No, with all due respect, that doesn't help things either, so just start the answer again. Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Sure. Well, the fiscal drag I have described affects people at all levels of income. As the years go by, they find themselves paying an increasing share of their earnings in income tax, and this can affect people's perceptions of fairness in the tax system and as a result have a negative impact on compliance. Also, as people move into higher tax brackets, they face higher marginal tax rates, which can be a disincentive to work. This Government wants people to see a future for themselves and their families in New Zealand where they can get ahead if they work hard and keep more of their own money. Stuart Smith: Will personal income tax relief in Budget 2024 be inflationary? Hon NICOLA WILLIS: No. Tax relief will be funded by reducing Government consumption and increasing revenue elsewhere, all sitting within the Budget 2024 operating allowance. Furthermore, that allowance will be lower than the allowance set by the previous Government. This means that tax relief is affordable, we will not be borrowing extra to pay for it, and tax relief will not add to inflationary pressures. Question No. 3—Prime Minister 3. CHLÖE SWARBRICK (Co-Leader—Green) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all of his Government's statements and actions? Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON (Prime Minister): Yes, and especially our announcement of nine priority targets, including reducing New Zealand's net greenhouse gas emissions to align with our 2050 net zero climate goal. Of course, we're going to achieve that by fast-track consenting so we can get more renewable energy, like windfarms, built, we're going to remove the GE ban to empower our world-class agriscientists to actually manage methane emissions down, and, of course, we're going to restore integrity to the emissions trading scheme. Chlöe Swarbrick: Does the Prime Minister stand by his answer to me at question time yesterday that the Climate Change Commission's draft advice on biogenic methane is "speculation"? Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I don't think I expressed it in those terms. Chlöe Swarbrick: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I can quote directly from the Hansard— SPEAKER: Hang on, wait until I call you. Chlöe Swarbrick: Point of order, Mr Speaker. SPEAKER: Point of order, Chlöe Swarbrick. Chlöe Swarbrick: I would quote directly from the Hansard, in which the Prime Minister responded to a direct quote from the Climate Change Commission's report. SPEAKER: That is not a point of order. Chlöe Swarbrick: All right, Mr Speaker, may I have another supplementary, then, to probe this point? SPEAKER: Certainly not an extra one. Carry on. Chlöe Swarbrick: What does he understand the role of the Climate Change Commission to be? Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, it provides important advice to the Government about the state of climate change in New Zealand. Chlöe Swarbrick: Does he then agree with the Climate Change Commission who said on Monday, and I quote, "there has not be an important or notable change in the understanding of the physical science on methane and how it warms the atmosphere"; or is he to extend his logic also to reopen the science on, say, gravity? Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I don't know how to answer the last part of that question, but what I would just say is that we are determined to make sure that we update the science base on methane. It has changed over the last five years. It's changed over the last 10 years. It will change in the next five years and in the next 10 years. It's important that we get a common base of understanding of science knowledge so we can set the right targets. Hon Marama Davidson: Science denier. SPEAKER: Just wait—OK. Chlöe Swarbrick: What exactly is wrong with the Climate Change Commission's science such that the Government feels compelled to open a secondary review on the science of methane? Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Sorry—I missed the question. SPEAKER: Could the member ask the question again? Chlöe Swarbrick: What does the Prime Minister consider is wrong with the Climate Change Commission's science on methane? Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Nothing particularly. We have two reviews going on, answering slightly different questions to make sure that we get a common understanding of the science base. Question No. 4—Finance 4. Hon BARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana) to the Minister of Finance: What process, if any, has she established for portfolio Ministers and Cabinet to review and approve the cost-saving proposals currently being consulted on by agencies through the Initial Baseline Exercise? Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance): Ministers were asked in late December to work with their agencies to develop credible savings options for Budget 2024. Chief executives were expected to exercise good judgment in putting forward savings proposals, and Ministers have worked with agencies to refine them. The savings exercise is an ongoing and iterative process, including through Budget bilaterals between myself and various Ministers. Cabinet will be asked to approve the full Budget package. Hon Barbara Edmonds: Is it her expectation that Ministers will understand the full implications of their agencies' final cost savings plans prior to Cabinet considering the Budget package, as set out in question time yesterday? Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Yes. Hon Barbara Edmonds: Is she concerned, then, that agency cuts won't be finalised prior to Cabinet considering Budget 2024, and how does she expect her colleagues to consider and reject those proposals if the Budget has already been finalised? Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, there's two things happening here. The first is that agencies, as a matter of course, routinely and have for many years made decisions to restructure their entities in order to focus on their core priorities and to drive efficiency. Some of the changes that are under way and change processes that are happening across the public service now are actually the result of reforms by the previous Government. For example, in the case of Health New Zealand, it was always an expectation that there would then be reductions in the number of roles at the Ministry of Health. The second thing that is happening here is that in some cases agencies have made decisions at an operational level to begin change processes and to consult on those change processes. Hon Barbara Edmonds: How can the Minister of Health meet her expectations to understand the impact of the Ministry of Health's cuts prior to Cabinet agreeing the Budget when final decisions are not expected to come until June? Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, I think I just answered that in my previous answer. Hon Barbara Edmonds: How can she say that her colleagues are able to reject proposals to freeze hiring at Oranga Tamariki and Police, or cut jobs from the tobacco regulation team at Health or the Suicide Prevention Office, when these are being finalised after Cabinet agrees her Budget? Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Because many entities have put forward proposals that Ministers have rejected. That is happening, that has happened, and I suspect it will continue to happen. Hon Barbara Edmonds: Is it not the case that she will pursue significant cost cutting to pay for her tax cuts package without knowing the full impact on the public, while leaving her colleagues to front the consequences of her decisions? Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I want to tell you about the impact it had on the public when that Government chose to increase spending— SPEAKER: No, no— Hon NICOLA WILLIS: —at a rapid rate and the decisions— SPEAKER: Sorry—resume your seat. No—take your seat. After all the discussion that we've had in recent days, don't start an answer like that. Attacks on the Opposition for their political activities are not reasonable. Referencing decisions they've made and the consequences of those decisions as they affect portfolios now is in order, but the way that was presented was not quite to form. Hon Chris Bishop: Point of order, Mr Speaker. The only one that needs rescuing is your deputy leadership. Anyway, umm, aah, Mr Speaker—[Interruption] SPEAKER: Just hang on; just a minute. We've got a point of order being taken. They are heard in silence. Hon Chris Bishop: There's been a protocol, Mr Speaker, that political questions get political answers. That was quite a political question—very serious, quite charged, a politically charged allegation inherent in the question—and the Minister of Finance is responding in a political way. That's always been the rule, sir, that political questions get political answers; straight questions deserve straight answers. Is the rule now that political questions can't be political in their answers? SPEAKER: No, of course not. But your version, your assessment of what is a politically charged question and mine, are clearly different. Your view on what is a reasonable answer and mine are different, but mine will prevail. Does the Minister wish to—point of order, the Hon Kieran McAnulty. Hon Kieran McAnulty: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. We absolutely accept that point of orders will be heard in silence, but we also believe that the rule that points of orders should solely be points of orders should also be followed, and when they're not, it's likely to lead to disorder in the House. SPEAKER: That is true, but given the nature of the ruling, I decided to let that slide. But it won't be happening again. So, Minister, would you like to answer the question—or would you like to hear it again? Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Oh no, I'm fine. Look, I can offer the member opposite real reassurance that every single member of this Government supports our decision to offer tax relief to working people by reprioritising some of the wasteful spending that was put in place by those members. Question No. 5—Agriculture (Animal Welfare, Skills) SPEAKER: Question No. 5, Mark Cameron. [Interruption] Mark Cameron: Thank you, Mr Speaker. SPEAKER: Just wait a minute. Just giving the House a moment to settle. 5. MARK CAMERON (ACT) to the Associate Minister of Agriculture (Animal Welfare, Skills): What recent announcements, if any, has he made in his portfolio? Hon ANDREW HOGGARD (Associate Minister of Agriculture (Animal Welfare, Skills)): Today, the Minister of Agriculture and I announced our intention to improve freshwater farm plans to make them more cost-effective and pragmatic for farmers. I see freshwater farm plans as a key tool to support farmers to enhance the freshwater environment in the future, but the current system is too costly, too complex, and too inflexible. This announcement signals the Government's intention to make farm plans fit for purpose and align to the particular circumstances of each farm and catchment. Chlöe Swarbrick: Point of order. Point of order. Point of order, Mr Speaker. Just seeking your guidance—given that this is a patsy question, it was filed to the Associate Minister of Agriculture (Animal Welfare, Skills), the press release which is being alluded to— SPEAKER: Sorry, that's not a point of order. Chlöe Swarbrick: Mr Speaker, the press release that is being alluded to is— SPEAKER: It is entirely the Government's decision which Minister will answer a question. Mark Cameron: What changes to freshwater farm plans is he considering? Hon ANDREW HOGGARD: The sector has told us that the current system is rigid, with time and money needed to complete a farm plan not lining up with the level of risk for many farmers. Among other things, we will take a look at the certification and auditing requirements of the system, with a view to ensuring that future settings are justifiable on the basis of cost and environmental benefit. We will also make sure that we are doing as much as we can to reduce duplication in farm planning. Many farmers are already doing comprehensive farm plans that, in many cases, could easily be recognised as equivalent. Mark Cameron: What value will an improved farm plan system provide farmers? Hon ANDREW HOGGARD: In addition to supporting and to protect and enhance the environment, we intend to develop a flexible but robust system where farm plans can be specifically targeted to the unique needs of each farm and catchment. Ideally, these plans can stand in the place of local rules and consents for a range of common farming activities. Mark Cameron: What does he intend to do for farmers in areas where a freshwater farm plan system is already being implemented? Hon ANDREW HOGGARD: The system roll-out began under the previous Government in parts of some regions, including the Waikato and Southland, where farmers have to put these plans or have them developed by early next year. We want to give as much certainty as possible to farmers as we work through these changes, especially those that may already be putting their plans together. As part of that, we may look into whether the current requirements to complete freshwater farm plans could be paused. Question No. 6—Māori Development 6. TAKUTAI TARSH KEMP (Te Pāti Māori —Tāmaki Makaurau) to the Minister for Māori Development: Does he stand by all the Government's policies and actions? Hon TAMA POTAKA (Minister for Māori Development): Āna, āna. Kei te tino tautoko i te anga whakamua o tō tātou Kāwanatanga, me ngā mihi matakoakoa ki tō tātou Pirīmia i āna kōrero tongarerewa i te Mane e hangā mai nei he whāinga mō tātou katoa. [Yes, yes. I very much support the forward direction of our Government, and happily acknowledge our Prime Minister for his precious statements on Monday that goals will be created for all of us.] Mariameno Kapa-Kingi: What is his level of involvement regarding the Government's policy to remove section 7AA from the Oranga Tamariki Act, which iwi leaders have stated really clearly will sever iwi partnerships, will further alienate tamariki Māori from their 'hakapapa, and lead to more harm of tamariki Māori in the Crown's care? Hon TAMA POTAKA: He mema au nō te Kāpenata, ā, ka wānanga ērā momo kaupapa ki te Kāpenata. [I am a member of the Cabinet, and those types of topics were considered by the Cabinet.] Mariameno Kapa-Kingi: Was he consulted on the disestablishment of the Māori Health Authority, and, if so, what is his view on the impacts this will have on Māori health inequities? Hon TAMA POTAKA: Ka nui hoki ngā kōrero i kawea atu e mātou o te Pāti Nāhinara me ngā rōpū haumi ki te Kāwanatanga haumi ki tēnei take mō Te Aka Whai Ora i te wā o te pōti, me te mea nei kua tukuna mai e taku manu hauora nei ngā pepa ki te Kāpenata. Kei roto au i te Kāpenata, kua kite au i ērā pepa. [There were a lot of statements that were taken by us of the National Party and the coalition parties to the coalition Government about this issue for the Māori Health Authority during the election campaign, and my health leader here has passed those papers on to Cabinet. I am in the Cabinet; I have seen those papers.] Mariameno Kapa-Kingi: Was he consulted on the decision to repeal Aotearoa's smoke-free legislation, given that the Smokefree Aotearoa campaign was initiated and led by Māori, and smoking is the leading cause of preventable death of our people? Hon TAMA POTAKA: Ēnei pepa i kawea mai nei e te Minita, e Casey Costello, tērā uri o te Nōta, ā, i kawea atu ki te Kāpenata me te mea nei i kite hoki au i ērā pepa. [These papers that were brought by the Minister, by Casey Costello, that descendant of the North, were conveyed to Cabinet and I also saw those papers.] Mariameno Kapa-Kingi: What advice did he seek regarding the disproportionate impact that scrapping funding for section 27 reports in sentencing will have on Māori, which experts have stated will lead to further discrimination of Māori in the criminal justice system, higher rates of offending, and higher rates of Māori in prison? Hon TAMA POTAKA: I kite hoki au i ngā pepa i tukuna atu ki te Kāpenata, me te mō'io hoki ahakoa kua takahi i tērā ara ki te whakakore i ngā pūtea tautoko mō ērā ripoata, e taea tonutia ana e te marea e tae ana ki ngā kōti ki te kawe mai i ō rātou nawe e pā ana ki te āhuatanga, te tuakiritanga o te tangata, tōna hītori, her-tori rānei. Koirā hoki te ara i ngā rua tekau tau, tekau mā rima tau i muri. [I also saw the papers that were given to Cabinet, and I also know that although that path to disestablishing the support funding for those reports has been walked, the public that appear in court continue to be able to bring their issues with respect to the character, the identity of the individual, his history, or her-story. That has been the way for the last 20 years or 15 years.] Mariameno Kapa-Kingi: What level of involvement did he have in the decision to reintroduce referendums on Māori wards which breaches Māori rights to representation in local government? Hon TAMA POTAKA: It's absolutely marvellous to see so many Māori councillors on councils throughout the country, and the coalition agreements have stated that the Māori wards issues will be put to all constituencies that have not already agreed to the Māori wards. That's what the coalition agreement stated and that's what we are following today. Mariameno Kapa-Kingi: Point of order, Mr Speaker. If I can just clarify, my question was specifically what level of involvement did he have in the decision to reintroduce referendums on Māori? Hon TAMA POTAKA: Thank you for that question. I am a member of Cabinet and we have received papers in relation to that matter, and Cabinet has taken decisions accordingly. Mariameno Kapa-Kingi: What is his view on the implications that policies such as the Fast-track Approvals Bill, the Treaty principles bill, the removal of section 7AA— Hon Shane Jones: Matua's bill. Mariameno Kapa-Kingi: —from Oranga Tamariki— SPEAKER: No, just hang on—hang on. Wait please. The deal is—I don't want to name anybody here, but we don't speak while the question is being asked, so please start that again. Mariameno Kapa-Kingi: What is his view on the implications that policies such as the Fast-track Approvals Bill, the Treaty principles bill, the removal of section 7AA from the Oranga Tamariki Act, the ministerial alienation of te reo Māori, and the disestablishment of the Māori Health Authority will have on Māori fundamental rights and interests, and on the wellbeing of your and my mokopuna? Hon TAMA POTAKA: I am a member of the Cabinet, and as a result I take very close to heart the notion of collective Cabinet responsibility, and there have been a number of issues that have emerged out of various bills and pieces of legislation and policies that you've referred to. I am absolutely strengthened and motivated to ensure that the rights and interests of Māori—such as Treaty settlements—are preserved through those processes, as you can see in the draft legislation for the Fast-track Approvals Bill, which I hope ultimately will be passed, and iwi and other Māori groups can take advantage of that legislation. Question No. 7—Health 7. DANA KIRKPATRICK (National—East Coast) to the Minister of Health: What recent announcements has the Government made about shorter wait times for elective treatment? Hon Dr SHANE RETI (Minister of Health): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Earlier this week, the Prime Minister launched ambitious health targets as part of the Government's target suite. This will help improve the lives of all New Zealanders. One of these targets was shorter wait times for elective treatment. This target aims to see 95 percent of people wait less than four months for their elective treatments. This won't be easy, but the Government is committed to improving the lives of all New Zealanders through better, more efficient public services. We look to deliver the public services that New Zealanders deserve. Dana Kirkpatrick: Why is an elective target important? Hon Dr SHANE RETI: This target was chosen because the treatment times that we used to expect and achieve just six years ago have reduced. Wait times for elective treatments have turned into a highly stressful experience, with patients having no certainty as to when they will receive access to the care that they need. As of September 2023, only 62 percent of patients waited less than four months for their elective treatments, down significantly from around 97 percent in late 2017. This is not good enough, and we want to deliver better care. Dana Kirkpatrick: Is this target too ambitious given the current state of the health system? Hon Dr SHANE RETI: This target is not meant to be easy to achieve. We're not here to do what is easy; we're here to do what is needed. Despite the very hard work of our front-line health workforce over the past six years, our wait times have continued to grow. That's why we are taking a different approach by putting targets back at the forefront of our decision making. These targets will direct attention and resources and set a clear agenda for where our health system should be heading. Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Does his ambition include a reduction in the ESPI 5, or planned care treatment wait list, in the coming financial year? Hon Dr SHANE RETI: Our ambitions are to improve all of the wait times that we announced in our targets and, as we have said, the baseline will be set as of 1 July 2024. Dana Kirkpatrick: How will the Government track progress against this target? Hon Dr SHANE RETI: We last achieved 95 percent between early 2015 and the end of 2017, so we know it's possible. The health agencies will report results each quarter, with the first quarterly result expected to be for the July to September 2024 period. This reporting will be robust to ensure we can target resources appropriately. Question No. 8—Mental Health Hon MATT DOOCEY (Minister for Mental Health): Point of order. Thank you, Mr Speaker. I just want to point out I am pre-empting this question a bit, that it will be around the Suicide Prevention Office. I'm happy to proceed with the question; I just want to point out my delegation for suicide prevention is not Associate Minister of Health; it's for mental health. It's in the sheet, yeah. SPEAKER: It's not necessarily a point of order, but you managed to make a point, I suppose. Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Labour): Well, point of order, Mr Speaker. Noting that, it is, I believe, actually fair to say because the question was put to the Minister for Mental Health. The Minister for Mental Health is confused as to why it's down as the Associate Minister of Health, and given we didn't put it there, I think it doesn't have to be right away but it would be good to know how it's ended up here like that. SPEAKER: That's fair enough. There is a process that you're well aware of as to how those questions do get put down. It is the— Hon Kieran McAnulty: That's why I didn't do a point of order. SPEAKER: Yeah, that's right, and so I'll take a good look at it. Thanks very much. Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the Opposition): Point of order, Mr Speaker. It does raise a reasonably substantive issue. The Government is ultimately responsible for determining which Minister is responsible for answering a question, but where the question is a broad one, like whether the Minister stands by all of their statements and actions, there can be very limited grounds for transferring that from one Minister to another, because, ultimately, the Government, if they have transferred it, have determined that the Associate Minister of Health is better to answer questions on whether the Minister for Mental Health stands by their statements and actions, or not. That seems a slightly odd decision, given that the Minister for Mental Health is the same person and is in the House. So if the question's been transferred, it must have been the Government that transferred it and they must have a rationale for doing that. Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Leader of the House): Speaking to the point of order. This is mysterious. I've just checked, Mr Speaker. The question was lodged to the Minister for Mental Health; the Government did not transfer it to the Associate Minister of Health. Somewhere along the line—and I think the Clerk is checking right now—the question has made its way from being lodged to the Minister for Mental Health, which I think the Minister for Mental Health is happy to answer in that capacity, and it's gone on in the Order Paper as the Associate Minister of Health, but the Government didn't transfer it— SPEAKER: Well, we could have a massive inquest here, or someone could seek leave for the question to be directed to the Minister for Mental Health. Hon Matt Doocey: Mr Speaker, I seek leave of the House for the question to be directed to the Minister for Mental Health. SPEAKER: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There appears to be none. 8. INGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri) to the Minister for Mental Health: Does he stand by all his statements and actions? Hon MATT DOOCEY (Minister for Mental Health): First, can I just take a moment to acknowledge how triggering the conversations have been around suicide for many people in New Zealand who have been affected by suicide in their families and their communities. Yes, I do stand beside my statements and actions, specifically that mental health and suicide prevention is a priority for this Government. My priorities for mental health, addictions, and suicide are to increase access to timely mental health, addiction, and suicide prevention support; number two, to grow the mental health and addiction and suicide prevention workforce; and, three, strengthen focus on prevention and early intervention. Ingrid Leary: Does he stand by his statement this week insisting that the Suicide Prevention Office would not be a victim of the Government's cost cutting? Hon MATT DOOCEY: Yes. Look, can I take the opportunity to clear something up? I saw the change document for the first time, with the officials taking me through it, on Monday. They have taken me through it and showed, with the change proposal, the proposal is actually to go from 5.5 fulltime-equivalents (FTE) in the Suicide Prevention Office, which it currently is, to 6.5 in the change proposal, which is only a proposal but it will increase capacity and capability in that office that will remain open. It has been misleading: the Public Service Association put out a press release that it was to close; I was never informed of that, and it was not to close. Ingrid Leary: Why did his health officials double down on their advice to the media yesterday, saying that the number of roles to be disestablished and the number of roles to be integrated were, essentially, exactly the same as what they advised last week? Hon MATT DOOCEY: Well, in response to that question, I can only go by the assurance I got when I was given the change proposal for the first time on Monday. They took me through it and showed me where it has gone from 5.5 FTE to 6.5 FTE. I want to be very clear—and the officials have acknowledged I wasn't sufficiently briefed—I was not told it was to close. I've always been very clear. There's been a lot of discussion in the sector that is critical of the Suicide Prevention Office. One major commentator has called for it to close. I do not want it to close. Ingrid Leary: What is the practical difference between retaining only the functions of the office and closure, given that the Prime Minister has just confirmed in the House today that there are current roles that will no longer be filled? Hon MATT DOOCEY: I've been very clear—and I was even interviewed by Jack Tame on Q+A—that I've been disappointed by the Suicide Prevention Office; I think it's lacked real leadership. The sector has been disappointed. But I've never been of the view to delete it; I've always been of the view to, actually, how we can give it clear expectations, manage it, targets, and goals. As part of the review of the Suicide Action Plan that I'm due to take in the next couple of months, I will be doing that with the Suicide Prevention Office. Ingrid Leary: Why did he ask his officials to publicly apologise? Hon MATT DOOCEY: I did not ask the officials to publicly apologise. Ingrid Leary: Why are officials publicly apologising when they're actually just following Government directions to find 6.5 percent funding cuts across health? Hon MATT DOOCEY: Well, that's very simple, because the fiscal sustainability programme clearly states to find savings while still delivering quality public services, and delivering a Suicide Prevention Office is a quality public service. Question No. 9—Social Development and Employment 9. RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green) to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: Does she agree with the Prime Minister's recent statement that the average adult now is on the benefit for 13 years on average, and the under-25s are on the benefit for an average of 24 years? Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment): Yes, in its full context. The Prime Minister was referring to independent evidence produced by Taylor Fry in 2022, which reported that someone on the jobseeker benefit is expected to spend 13 years on benefit throughout their lifetime. The same evidence shows someone on a youth benefit is expected to spend 24 years on benefits throughout their lifetime. Ricardo Menéndez March: Is she aware that the Taylor Fry report she just quoted actually says that only 0.5 percent of people on the benefit are expected to spend 24 years on a benefit throughout their lifetime? Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Anyone that spends up to 24 years of their future lifetime on welfare is a major issue for this Government, and that's why we are focused on fixing it. Ricardo Menéndez March: Why, then, has the Prime Minister and the Minister continued to say that under-25s are on the benefit for an average of 24 years? Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Because that's what the Taylor Fry report has said. For someone who goes on to youth payment or youth parent payment, unfortunately, the future lifetime expected that they will spend on welfare is up to 24 years. That is a disaster from anyone's book and why we are focused, with a social investment approach, on where the group have the highest risk of poorer life outcomes and interrupting it. We are not interested in allowing young people in this country, whether it's a small number or a large number, spending that amount of time stuck. Ricardo Menéndez March: Is she aware that for that tiny 0.5 percent proportion of people, the modelling has taken into account seven additional risk factors, including acute unplanned care from a public hospital, interaction with Oranga Tamariki, and exclusion from school, and, if so, why didn't she create a target to reduce those risk factors, as opposed to just getting 50,000 people off the benefit? Hon LOUISE UPSTON: The Taylor Fry modelling is based on really careful analysis of the IDI data, which is why it is so rich. It looks at people's past outcomes with the intention of trying to disrupt that from happening in the future. Whether it's one person, whether it's 100, or whether it's 100,000, every one of those people counts, to me, and I am unwilling to sit by and let them get stuck. Ricardo Menéndez March: Is she confident in the accuracy of her and the Prime Minister's comments that the average young person is spending 24 years on a benefit? Hon LOUISE UPSTON: As I said in my primary answer, the context in which that was given was a discussion about long-term welfare dependency—the horrendous change that we have seen under the last six years with a significant increase in young people going on to welfare and staying on it—and the Taylor Fry report was one piece of the evidence that shows why we must prioritise this group. Ricardo Menéndez March: Will she commit, going forward, to be clear that only 0.5 percent of people are predicted to spend 24 years on the benefit, as per the Taylor Fry report? Hon LOUISE UPSTON: What I will commit to this House is that for every single person, we will do our best to get them off welfare and into work, because that's what improves their life outcomes. Whether it's one year or 24 years, it's not good enough. Ricardo Menéndez March: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek leave to table the Taylor Fry report released under the Official Information Act— SPEAKER: Sorry, when the House is silent, we can all hear what you're saying. Ricardo Menéndez March: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I seek leave to table the Taylor Fry report Social Outcomes Modelling—2022 Results, released to me under the Official Information Act. SPEAKER: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There appears to be none. Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House. Question No. 10—Justice 10. CAMERON BREWER (National—Upper Harbour) to the Minister of Justice: What target has the Government set for a reduction in violent crime? Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister of Justice): The Prime Minister announced on Monday that the Government has set a target to see a reduction in the number of people who are the victims of an assault, robbery, or sexual assault by 20,000. By setting a focused and ambitious target to reduce the number of victims of crime, we can focus attention, resources, and accountability towards achieving better results. Cameron Brewer: Why does this Government want to see a reduction in violent crime? Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: It's important that all New Zealanders feel safe in their homes and in their communities. It's estimated that around 185,000 Kiwis or 4.4 percent of the population are victims of an assault, robbery, or sexual assault, and we don't regard that as normal or acceptable. The previous Government targeted reducing the prison population while violent crime increased. We have changed the target to reduce the number of victims of crime. Cameron Brewer: What steps have already been taken to help reach the target to see a reduction in violent crime? Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, the Government's already taken a number of steps, including the introduction of a significant legislative package aimed at tackling gangs; we're boosting the powers of police to search gang members and other high-risk offenders, in addition to providing more access to rehabilitation for people on demand; and we've stopped funding for cultural reports. Cameron Brewer: What steps are next to help reach the target to see a reduction in victims of violent crime? Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: We're restoring the three-strikes legislation that the previous Government repealed, showing that we will not tolerate repeat violent offending in our communities. We'll give judges additional tools to deal with serious repeat youth offenders, including military-style academies. We'll also limit excessive sentencing discounts so penalties actually fit the crime. There are, of course, many factors that have contributed to an increase in violent crime in our communities, but one of the immediate tools available to us is to restore real consequences for crime. Hon Dr Duncan Webb: How will his gang patch legislation assist in achieving those targets when advice provided to him by the Ministry of Justice on 27 November states clearly that there's no strong evidence to show that such actions work to reduce long-term offending and, in fact, risks making it more difficult to change offending behaviours and may drive an increase in gang numbers? Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: I think it was the mixed attitude towards gangs over the past six years that led—a contributor, no doubt—to a 50 percent increase in gang membership in our community. And so I think everybody acknowledges the negative impact that gang membership and intimidation in our communities have on our towns and our communities. And so that bill is designed to give the police extra powers to deal with gang intimidation, and that will help. Question No. 11—Disability Issues 11. Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Labour) to the Minister for Disability Issues: When did she receive the briefing titled "Changes to Equipment and Modification Services and flexible funding to manage Whaikaha expenditure" and what actions did she take upon receiving the briefing? Hon PENNY SIMMONDS (Minister for Disability Issues): I received the briefing on 23 February 2024. I noted that Whaikaha was making changes which were needed to reduce its forecast deficit as recommended, and, as I have said multiple times, these issues are inherited from the previous Labour Government, and I am taking urgent steps to address the situation with a review. We have also put extra funding in to support Whaikaha through to the end of this financial year, and we have signalled that Whaikaha will get more money in the next Budget. Hon Priyanca Radhakrishnan: How does she rationalise that with answers she gave in the House that suggest the first time she knew about the changes to reduce flexibility of disability support services was when she signed out a briefing on 14 March? Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: I certainly received the briefing on 22 February that these were initiatives that Whaikaha was considering, and then they confirmed on 14 March that they would be implementing those changes. They also informed me in that briefing that before implementing these changes, Whaikaha had a comprehensive communications and engagement plan outlining the changes being implemented. They also said they had tailored messages for each audience focused on ensuring people needing disability support the most continued to receive support. Hon Priyanca Radhakrishnan: Why did she only formally advise the finance Minister of eligibility changes that resulted from Whaikaha's funding shortfall on 20 March, two days after the announcement was made and implemented, as she has confirmed in written parliamentary questions No. 3593 and 3599? Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: Because we were discussing Budget issues at that meeting on the 22nd. Hon Priyanca Radhakrishnan: Why, given she was first aware of the proposed changes on 22 or 23 February, did it take her till 25 March to first go to Cabinet, considering over 26,000 carers have been impacted by these changes? Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: Because in that paper on 22 February, Whaikaha had outlined two initiatives that they were taking to reduce its projected deficit. They also outlined that they were working with Treasury to see if their bid for cost pressures could be considered early. Also, in late February and late January, Whaikaha had informed me that their updated forecast showed that they would be within 2 percent of the threshold, which is manageable by me as a Minister, and they were working to reduce it to a zero deficit. Hon Priyanca Radhakrishnan: Is the Minister therefore saying that this time line is correct: that she first became aware of Whaikaha's funding issues on 15 December 2023, was briefed on proposed changes on 22 February, signed out changes on 14 March, the changes were then announced and implemented with immediate effect on 18 March, but that she didn't act till 25 March? Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: No. No, I'm not saying that. I am saying that throughout this process, Whaikaha were updating me on their financial situation. In January, they updated me that they had reduced the deficit and they were working to bring it down to zero. In February, they put forward initiatives that would further reduce the deficit. In March, they weren't able to fulfil that reduction, and therefore it was discussed at a budget meeting. Question No. 12—Education 12. DAN BIDOIS (National—Northcote) to the Minister of Education: What recent announcements has she made on curriculum and assessment? Hon ERICA STANFORD (Minister of Education): Last week, I announced significant changes to the NCEA Change Programme that has been underway since 2020. It is a priority for this Government to ensure that we have a world-leading curriculum. This document should be the foundation of a high-performing education system supporting teachers to excel and learners to reach their potential. The current approach puts the cart before the horse, designing assessments before having a curriculum in place, and it is not best practice to design assessment before knowing what is to be assessed. Curriculum is the priority so that we can then deliver well-designed assessment standards that we can have confidence in. And to achieve better public services, I will be delaying the NCEA Change Programme by two years while we complete the curriculum. Dan Bidois: What feedback has she received on this announcement? Hon ERICA STANFORD: The support for this announcement from principals, parents, unions, and teachers alike has been overwhelming. The Post Primary Teachers' Association president Chris Abercrombie was quoted in the New Zealand Herald this week saying, "It's important that we get a really good curriculum base … good assessment folds out of good curriculum.", while Dr Nina Hood, founder of The Education Hub, agreed that the curriculum refresh needs to be finalised before redeveloping NCEA to ensure that it was "a robust and fit for purpose qualification." Dan Bidois: How will this announcement lift student achievement? Hon ERICA STANFORD: Parents want to know that their children have every opportunity to succeed, and success starts with strong foundations. In addition to teaching the basics brilliantly in our primary and intermediate schools, this Government has a laser focus on delivering a knowledge-rich curriculum to all students, right up to year 13. This decision will lift student achievement by delivering a knowledge-rich world-leading curriculum which acts as a central resource for teachers and a crucial tool to guide assessment and qualification design. The decision will ensure consistency across the country so that every child, no matter where they live or attend school, will have access to the same knowledge at each year level. Dan Bidois: What recent reports has she seen on curriculum? Hon ERICA STANFORD: I've seen the recent Education Review Office report into the Aotearoa New Zealand histories curriculum. This report highlights issues within the New Zealand histories curriculum but that are also issues experienced across all curriculum areas—high level, vague, and lacking in specificity is not what the sector wants. The report shows that teachers want a more explicit curriculum with more off the shelf material and resources. Teachers are the most valuable resource that we have, and I will be working at pace to deliver what they need to experience success in the classroom, lift student achievement, and get this Government on track to meet our ambitious targets and deliver better public services. GENERAL DEBATE Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the Opposition): I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business. Fundamentally, governing is about choices, and when it comes to the choices that they are making, this Government has its priorities all wrong. One of the first decisions this Government took—not only took but actually found the money to do—was $2.9 billion worth of tax breaks for the country's landlords. They made the decision to prioritise that nearly $3 billion in tax breaks for landlords whilst considering cutting school lunches; whilst cutting our defences at the border with cuts to MPI—the Ministry for Primary Industries—and Customs; whilst cutting funding for the Ministry of Health, whilst cutting support for those with disabilities, whilst cutting support for the conservation estate. The list could go on, and every day the list continues to grow, and it is because this Government have made the wrong choices and have the wrong priorities. Let's talk about some of those examples in more detail, and let's start with the free and healthy school lunches, because they were here today, the kids were here today— Hon Nicola Willis: That you left unfunded. Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: —asking the Government to continue their programme. Nicola Willis says we should have continued to fund it. Well, here is an example of where the Government's priorities are simply wrong: for the price of the tax cuts that they have given landlords, you could more than double the size of the free and healthy school lunches programme, and this Government instead have decided that the landlords need the tax breaks. And here's the thing: they won't even guarantee that the benefits of that are going to flow through to the tenants. They think the tenants should be grateful for the fact that the landlords are getting the tax break. In many cases, they won't see a cent of that extra money. Let's look at Primary Industries and Customs and the cuts that the Government are making there. Have they forgotten Mycoplasma bovis, a very good example of why we need a strong and secure border, a biosecurity incursion that had the potential to bring our dairy industry to its knees. That is what we inherited in 2017. We focused on elimination, and all evidence to date suggests that we have succeeded in doing that. That is what we get for the extra investment that we made in our border security, and that is what this Government is threatening to cut. Let's look at health. They actually think we did a good job of managing smoking and managing down smoking—amazing, then, that they're cutting the funding for the very people who achieved those good outcomes. It is easy to attack public servants because they cannot answer back. When the Government talks about bureaucrats, those are people who cannot answer back. But let me give you a really good example. If anyone had said five years ago that there's a team of people working at the Ministry of Health planning for an event that may never happen, the Government opposite would say, "Why are they doing that? That's wasteful spending." Until that very thing did happen—it was called a global pandemic, and suddenly the members opposite wanted to know why we weren't better prepared for it, why we hadn't had more people working on preparing for the global pandemic. The reality is some of the work at the Public Service falls exactly into that category: preparing for a pandemic, preparing for a rupture of the Alpine Fault line. These are supposedly faceless bureaucrats that the Government refers to as wasteful spending. They are doing critical work for the benefit of all New Zealanders. But I did note that the Prime Minister finally has found a bit of a vision. He thinks we should be more like Estonia. I was interested in looking at what that might mean. Universal free school lunches for every child attending school in Estonia. A light rail system in their largest city, in Estonia. Heavily subsidised kindergarten education in Estonia. Teachers focused on not just the basics but on digital skills, on coding, and on other skills that their learners are going to need for the 21st century. So I think we should be more like Estonia, and I look forward to the Government embracing those very things. Unfortunately, though, I'm not going to hold my breath, because we've got a Government with no vision, a Government that has the wrong priorities, that is focused on taking New Zealand backwards rather than leading New Zealand forward, a Government that is focused on managing New Zealand's decline rather than actually leading the country forward. At a time when New Zealanders are looking for hope, they're getting nothing from this Government. Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance): The current Leader of the Opposition decided to begin his speech talking about choices. And is it any surprise when everyone behind him was sitting there thinking about choices. Thinking first about a choice the New Zealand people made so definitively to boot them out, and then thinking about the choice they need to make in the coming months about who, in fact, should lead them into the future. So it's right that it's on the Leader of the Opposition's mind. But, actually, that's not the speech I came here to give, because I came here to give a more serious speech: a requiem for the worker's party. Because, not content with delivering an intergenerational cost of living crisis to the working people of New Zealand, we now have a Labour Party whose reason for being, whose very reason for getting up in the morning, is to rail against tax relief for working people. The so-called worker's party has its one political reason for being as railing against the right of working people to hold on to just a little bit more of their own money. Now, New Zealanders have had no change in tax rates or thresholds since 2010. For 14 years, workers in this country—middle-income earners squeezed—middle-income families have been taxed more and more as their incomes have risen and as inflation, bequeathed to them by that party, has pushed them into higher tax brackets. In 2011, a median wage earner paid 15.5 percent of their average income in tax. Today, that number is 20.6 percent. And I know that these may just sound like numbers, but can I tell you what they mean to people. That increase in effective tax is the difference between families being able to get their kids swimming lessons. It is the feeling in the supermarket aisle that stops mum putting a pack of chocolate biscuits there. That 5 percent is the number that makes people a little less hopeful each week because the pay packet gets stretched thinner and thinner and the idea of saving some disappears. The idea that their work and effort will let them get ahead disappears. Here on this side of the House, we take that very seriously, because we believe that those who work hard for a living deserve the rewards of their effort. And what do those opposite believe, actually, at the end of the day? Well, what they believe was that if they only printed enough money, if they only borrowed enough money, if they only spent enough money, then every tear from every eye would be wiped. And was it? Well, no, because all the while they were spending New Zealander's hard-earned wages, the wait-lists grew, the education standards declined, violent crime rose, and dairies were ram-raided. And the member's opposite have a special talent, actually—let's give them that—of spending more and delivering less. An 80 percent increase in spending in six short years, an outstandingly bad cost of living crisis, and what do we have to show for it? Three waters, the TVNZ-RNZ merger, KiwiBuild, Auckland light rail—failed initiative after failed initiative. But don't worry, because what we also got was 18,500 more public servants, so that really made the difference—and sky-high inflation. And who paid for it all? Who paid for all of this? Working people paid for it. They paid for it with higher taxes, they paid for it at the supermarket checkout aisle, and they paid for it with crumbling public services. Well, our Government is cleaning up the mess. And we will deliver what working people deserve, what is overdue to them, what that party would deny them, and that is tax relief. And I cannot in my heart understand why the people opposite would deny them that—the opportunity to have a little bit more cash in their bank accounts each week. Because the people opposite make the choice that they think it's more important that they spend New Zealander's money. And we will match that with targets, with accountability for the performance of our public services, with more police, with rescuing the school lunch programme that they didn't leave a dollar for. We will drive better results, we will spend New Zealander's money with the care it deserves because it's theirs—they earned it. TANYA UNKOVICH (NZ First): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I stand on behalf of New Zealand First to speak about a topic that we are very firm on, and that is protecting our freedom and our democracy—more specifically, the commitment our leader, the Rt Hon Winston Peters, made as he addressed his concerns about ending vaccine mandates and also holding a full and independent inquiry into the COVID-19 response. In early 2022, thousands of New Zealanders across the country who were frustrated about the COVID policies of the day converged on the Parliament grounds. Mr Winston Peters was the only politician to walk amongst those who asked simply to be heard—Winston Peters was the only politician to walk amongst those who wanted to be heard. Now, as I was writing this speech, I was reflecting on why he did that, and I was reminded of the speech that he made at the state of the nation last week. I will quote the leader: "Labour left large numbers of people ostracised, demonised, shut down, and shut out, ignored and cancelled, all because those people fought for their right to say, 'No, we disagree.'" We will defend people's right to disagree, because that is what protecting freedom is all about. We continued to listen and, to those forgotten New Zealanders, our party advocated during the 2023 election, to advocate again for freedom and protection, and upon our return to Parliament, we formed this unbreakable coalition. Very importantly, amongst those promises, the coalition committed to establishing a complete, full-scale, wide-ranging, independent inquiry conducted publicly with local and international experts into how the COVID-19 pandemic was handled in New Zealand. New Zealand First were very specific in our commitments, and there were four important areas that we wanted to cover: firstly, the use of multiple lockdowns; secondly, the procurement and the efficacy of the vaccines; thirdly, the social and economic impacts, both regionally and nationally, on the people of New Zealand; and, finally, whether the decisions made and the steps taken were justified. We remain steadfast in our commitment. We understand that the Labour-initiated royal commission of inquiry into lessons learnt does not meet the scale, the independence, or the breadth of what an inquiry requires. We welcome the first steps made to expand these terms of reference into this inquiry, and we applaud the 11,000 New Zealanders who made their submissions. Now, these experiences are what are going to shape and be used to inform what this inquiry covers. The decisions about the terms of reference and the makeup of the commissioners is yet to be made over the next few months, but it will be made. New Zealand First has continued to listen to the people of New Zealand. In fact, just last month the Rt Hon Winston Peters and myself met with a group of Kiwi doctors who are concerned: NZDSOS, New Zealand Doctors Speaking Out with Science. And we listened to those people because they needed to be heard. Mr Peters has also since met with United We Stand—those New Zealand Defence Force personnel who are still concerned about mandates and vaccine orders. New Zealand First believes that every New Zealander deserves to be heard and represented in Parliament, and we are committed to that. Our message to them is to be patient, to work through the process with us, and to know that you are all being heard and that we will remain steadfast in our commitment to protecting freedom and democracy for all New Zealanders. Thank you, Mr Speaker. Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū): Over the last week and a half, New Zealanders of Myanmar decent have been asking why this Government has extended an invitation to representatives of one of the world's most reviled regimes, the military junta that run Myanmar today; why the Government has invited them to come to this country to take part in an intergovernmental meeting. The communities of mostly former refugees and their families from one end of this country to the other who've made a new life in New Zealand, fleeing years of civil war in Myanmar and military oppression, have written to the Rt Hon Winston Peters, Minister of Foreign Affairs, asking him to refuse the visa for representatives of this regime to come to New Zealand. They're due to take part in an ASEAN dialogue meeting on 18 and 19 April here in Wellington. I want to give a shout out to the people who have been campaigning. They've organised public protests in Nelson, in Auckland, and yesterday out in the front of Parliament and Dunedin. I don't know why the Government, after three years of New Zealand standing firm against the butchers of Myanmar and refusing to give them legitimacy, refusing to recognise them, suddenly this Government thinks it's a good idea to invite them to come to New Zealand to take part in this meeting. But sir, I want to give you three reasons why it's a really bad idea. This regime is waging a war against its own people. It has killed more than 4,800 civilians. It carries out indiscriminate air strikes against villagers and internally displaced persons camps within that country. It stole democracy at the barrel of a gun that arrested the president and arrested Aung San Suu Kyi, dozens of legislators, and thousands of democracy activists, trade unionists, and journalists. Some 2.5 million people are displaced in the country at the moment because of this regime. It is one of the world's worst military regimes and we should not be giving it the legitimacy that it desperately craves. The second reason is that New Zealand for a long time has been a country that has a reputation for speaking out on matters of principle internationally. The people in our regions, in the Pacific and in Asia, they look to New Zealand to be a voice for democracy, for peace, and for human rights. This decision to invite the butchers of Myanmar to come to our country after three years of denying them that opportunity flies in the face of New Zealand's policy of consistently denouncing the military regime in Myanmar. The third reason is that the democratic resistance in Myanmar, after three years since the military coup, is on a roll at the moment. The National Unity Government, the Government in exile, and the ethnic resistance organisations that are such a significant part of the resistance, they have had a string of military successes. And now 43 percent of the territory of Myanmar is controlled by the democratic opposition, not by the military regime. The level of political organisation, of people standing up for human rights and democracy and demanding a democratic federal union in that country to do away with the military dictatorship. That movement is stronger than ever before. The military, on the other hand, is looking increasingly shaky. They recently introduced conscription—young people between the ages of 18 and 35 are now being press-ganged into military service because the military is so desperate. They've had thousands of soldiers defect from the war because they don't want to fight on the side of this brutal and illegal regime. Now is the very time that we should be isolating that regime, not inviting them to New Zealand to take part in talks. I want to finish by quoting former Prime Minister of New Zealand, Helen Clark, who said: "Acceptance of the Myanmar junta representatives when the country's ruling junta has been internationally condemned for crimes against humanity and its ruthless war against its own people, and is under severe pressure from the pro-democratic forces in the country, would seriously damage the international reputation of New Zealand. For New Zealand to grant a visa to a Myanmar junta representative because ASEAN has issued an invitation is an abdication of our national sovereignty." I say to the Foreign Affairs Minister, the Rt Hon Winston Peters: do the right thing, refuse the visas and keep the butchers of Myanmar out of our country. Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister of Justice): Thank you, Mr Speaker. One hundred days have been completed; the second hundred days are on their way, and this Government is determined to rebuild the economy, restore law and order, and actually deliver the public services in health and education that this country needs and deserves. So, look, what have we got? We look back—over the past six years, debt went from $5 billion to $100 billion under the previous Government. We had inflation, the economy ground to a halt so that we were in a recession, and all New Zealanders—all New Zealanders—have faced higher taxes, so they've seen greater opportunities offshore. When you think about that, you think about Jacinda Ardern and her legacy and Chris Hipkins. I often thought if they were to come up with a billboard that they should have run in the election, it would have been, "It's the thought that counts." That sums up Jacinda Arden's whole approach—it was just the thought that counts. Well, actually, it doesn't; it's actually what you achieve and what you do that counts. What the Government did is they managed to spend 80 percent more—nearly doubled Government spending over six years, and actually had worse outcomes just about everywhere you look: longer waiting times, higher crime, fewer houses—a real mess everywhere. How they managed to do it was they turbocharged spending during COVID, and then when COVID ended and people got back to their lives, they didn't stop; they just kept on spending as if we're in the middle of COVID. That's how the damage was created. So how do we get back on track? Well, you need a Government that's careful about its spending. You've got to restore some discipline to Government spending, and over time, that will enable us to get back to surplus and to reduce debt. If Government is more disciplined with its spending, it's not stoking the fires of inflation, that will help New Zealanders with the cost of living. Then you've got to have a growth agenda. You've got to have a strong set of policies, such as investing in infrastructure and skills and attracting investment to grow the economy, and then some modest tax relief as part of this thing, to give New Zealand households more money in their pockets. Boy, do they hate it—they hate it. Never will they release another cent. They will not give New Zealanders back another cent. This Government is determined to return some of the extra money that has been taken out of their pockets by the Government over the past few years so that they can help with their weekly bills. Hon Member: That's kindness. Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: The second area—well, that is kindness. We don't actually believe that the Government can spend every cent better than households can, than people can. The people who've earned the money should be able to spend the money. It's their money and we want to give a little bit more of it back to them. So over the next month, hear a lot of wailing from the Labour Party about how terrible it is to allow people to keep more of their own income, and that'll be the message of the day. Well, we reject that and we want to give some modest tax relief. The second thing is we want to restore law and order. We've all seen in our communities the trauma that's caused by violent crime, by the massive increase in retail crime that we've seen in our communities, and particularly that small group of serious young offenders. That's why the Rt Hon Christopher Luxon announced amongst the nine focused targets for this Government, a couple in the justice space, reducing the number of victims of crime by 20,000. Remember, the previous Government had a goal of reducing the prison numbers irrespective of what was going on. If crime was going up, they still wanted to reduce prison numbers. Well, that is not actually how you keep the community safe. We want to reduce the number of victims of crime, and to do that, part of it is about restoring real consequences for crime, and that's in the justice space, but there is a much broader agenda around ensuring that there's better rehabilitation in prisons for people who are in prison, and that we make progress on some of those long-term drivers, such as the inability to deal with drugs and addiction and all those broader social contexts. The other area is around youth crime. We want to reduce the number of serious repeat youth offenders, and that partly is about giving judges extra tools in which to deal with that small cohort, and military academies are part of the mix, and also a new category of young serious offenders. So we do need to have some consequences for that small cohort of young people who are causing mayhem in our communities, doing the ram raids and terrorising neighbourhoods. But, again, it's part of a much broader discussion that's around ensuring that those kids are at school. That's the best thing we can do around youth crime and that's why we're focused on that. It's about ensuring that we deal with not having 3,000 or 4,000 waking up every morning in emergency accommodation in hotels in places like Rotorua—the most horrendous public policy failure that we've seen in recent times, and so that's why we're really focused on addressing that. So there are a lot of things that we've got to do, but the good news is that this is a Government that's determined, focused, and excited about the task. We know that this country's best days are yet ahead of it and we want to take New Zealand forward, and that's what our goal is. Thank you. HANA-RAWHITI MAIPI-CLARKE (Te Pāti Māori—Hauraki-Waikato): Tēnā rā koe, e te Pīka, tērā tēnā rā tatou e te Whare. When given five minutes to do a general debate, I can 100 percent confirm it's almost like "what isn't there to debate about?", especially when us as Māori are getting hit left, right, and centre. I want to take this time to reflect on the first hundred days of this coalition Government's actions, or, as I call it, the urgent Māori grocery list. This has to go down as the worst plan towards Māori and indigenous people since 1863. It is important that I break down, for whānau at home and especially rangatahi, what has just happened. Upon shifting and analysing through legislation and bills, I would like to provide an overall context of this coalition's bigger picture for Māori. Let's point out the long list of ways that this Government's 100-day plan detrimentally affects us in every possible area. Within our court justice system, this Government has removed section 27, which experts have stated will lead to further discrimination of Māori in the criminal justice system, higher rates of offending, and higher rates of Māori in prison, when we as Māori are already the most incarcerated indigenous people on the planet. Or within our health sector, which has seen Te Aka Whai Ora completely abolished. Even on the bills that were received, some of the wording quite literally states in black and white "the disestablishment of Māori Health". Following from that, the repeal of Aotearoa's smokefree legislation, knowing that smoking is the leading cause of preventable deaths of our people. Within these bills represented, it also clearly states "amending relations through Te Tiriti o Waitangi. This is a common theme throughout bills represented and the relation to Te Tiriti o Waitangi. The removal of section 7AA of the Oranga Tamariki Act, which iwi leaders have stated will further alienate tamariki from the whakapapa and lead to more harm of tamariki in State care. In our taiao space, the fast-track bill, which literally tramples on our tūpuna whenua, pepeha, and wāhi tapu. Within our education system, the so-called rebalance of histories in school, which is just a nicer way of saying our Māori history will slowly slip away. And of recent news, in our local government space, the referendum on Māori wards. I mean, there's literally nothing left you can take away from us. Section 27 in the court justice system, section 27AA in Oranga Tamariki, ministerial alienation of te reo Māori, disestablishment of the Māori Health Authority, fast-tracking bill, repeal of smokefree laws, and the Treaty principles bill—what a list. I bet members across the House have never had a child lobby to them for the protection of their own native language—imagine that. However, outside these four walls, te Iwi Māori is rising like never before. As we watched this Government dig themselves into a rabbit hole, last week, in Parliament recess, I was absolutely privileged to perform at the annual Merrie Monarch in Hilo, Hawaii. And jeez! It felt great to be Māori—without the fear of being criticised, without hearing the word "referendum", or people rolling their eyes every time I speak Māori, or the fear of just justifying myself as to why I'm being Māori. It almost feels illegal to be Māori in this place. I would never have known it was a thing until entering Parliament. Te Moana-nui-a-Kiwa is on the rise. Our King and other Pacific leaders have signed He Whakaputanga Moana, which is the declaration, whakaputanga, of the biggest body of water, the Pacific Ocean. [Authorised te reo text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.] [Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.] Dr HAMISH CAMPBELL (National—Ilam): I rise to bring attention to a silent enemy that is affecting countless lives in New Zealand, and that is cancer. While it's not quite countless—we can actually put a number on it, it's going to affect probably 25,000 New Zealanders this year—each one of us has probably either been touched personally by cancer or we know of friends or family members who have been affected by cancer. Most recently for my family, there's been the passing of my cousin's daughter at the age of 32, Rosaria, and I want to acknowledge all families that are going through that struggle and that loss. I have a unique connection to cancer. I spent a large portion of my professional career as a cancer scientist, both here and overseas, and I want to pay special tribute to a special person that's played a big role in that career and that is my PhD supervisor, Professor Antony Braithwaite of the University of Otago, who has actually just announced his retirement as of next week. I don't think he will be really retiring; I think it will be more symbolic—well, I hope it will be, and I hope he can contribute a lot of his knowledge to the future generations going forward. Professor Braithwaite is a leading world expert in one of the most important tumour suppressor proteins in the human cell, and that is p53. I want to acknowledge his contribution to our understandings of how cancer arises; with over 150 publications, he is well-known worldwide. It is important because cancer does not discriminate; it strikes individuals of all ages, all backgrounds, and all walks of life. It brings fear. It brings pain and uncertainty not only to those diagnosed but also to their loved ones as well. And that's why on this side of the House we are committed to driving better outcomes for Kiwis with cancer. This includes enhanced screening, increasing breast cancer screening eligibility for those between the age of 70 and 74. We've launched an additional mobile breast screening unit which will take the national fleet to 13, further increasing access for up to 6,000 people in New Zealand. But don't worry, males are also included; we are funding South Island PET scanning accessibility, which is especially important for males with prostate cancer. Because once cancer is detected, we also need to make sure that we can get treatment on time, because this is a very stressful time if you've just been told that you have cancer. And that's why we're introducing a health target that 90 percent of patients who receive a diagnosis will receive cancer management within 31 days of the decision to treat. And not only that; we're going to ensure that there's better treatment options. We're funding two new cancer drugs for breast cancer and, also, acute myeloid leukaemia (AML). And on a side note, I have a special connection with AML; it was the first cancer that I ever worked on and discovered a genetic mutation in a Christchurch family with a predisposition to leukaemia. But I digress, and that's what happens if you don't have targets. So getting back on track: we're also mindful of people in the regions which need to travel to get cancer treatment or, actually, all treatment. So we're increasing the compensation for mileage and accommodation rates for those who have to travel for treatment. We're also helping deliver the first provincial PET/CT scanner and that's going to go into Whangārei. I appreciate my time is going quickly, so I do just want to zoom out more generally from cancer and talk about our healthcare more generally and the targets that we're going to introduce into the system. Because, as they say, "If you can't measure it, you can't manage it", and that's probably what's happened for the last five years. The health Minister, Dr Shane Reti, recently announced a number of targets saying that we're going to have a vigorous new direction in health from the previous Government and we're going to deliver for New Zealanders. Now, I've talked about faster cancer treatments, but our targets also include improving immunisation for kids; we want 95 percent of children to be immunised by the age of 24 months. We want shorter stays in emergency departments (EDs) with 95 percent of patients being discharged or transferred from ED within six hours. Shorter wait times for first specialist assessments; we want 95 percent of patients to wait less than four months for a first specialist appointment. We want shorter wait times for people with elective treatment; we want 95 percent of patients to wait less than four months for elective treatment. It is important that we are ambitious in trying to achieve better health outcomes for New Zealanders. The healthcare system went backwards under the previous Government, and it failed to drive targets. And having effective targets and reporting on them publicly helps identify where the problems are, and we'll take action to improve it. [Interruption] I know the other side is shouting because they don't want better health outcomes, but I do just want to close and thank all the hard work of our healthcare staff who work across the country to deliver better health outcomes for all New Zealanders. MARK CAMERON (ACT): Methane. That's right. Biogenic methane. Animal ruminant methane. The very gaseous emission that the left lambasted the rural sector for for the past six years, like somehow there's a farmer amongst them. I ask them: what on earth are you talking about? Well, I say there are no farmers. Where are you farmers that you speak of such things? What of Megan Woods or Chlöe Swarbrick yesterday and today offering evangelical sermons of what farmers should do to farmers? Debates offered from Central Auckland of how farmers should live their lives. This Government: we are farmer-friendly. We listen to common sense. That is why I rise today in this House, to speak of the Government's split-gas announcement. That is why oral questions raised yesterday by the left highlighted their blatant ignorance of farming, on-farm practices. What, did you all fail third-form science? Gracious me! It's a short-lived gas. That's why this Government wants a genuine nonpartisan review. Goodness gracious! Methane decays back to carbon dioxide—it decays back to carbon dioxide in 10 or 12 years. You'll know this stuff, because what feeds plants? Hon Marama Davidson: Independent climate commission, are you going to call them? That's not Chlöe; it's independent climate commission. SPEAKER: Yeah, just keep it reasonable. MARK CAMERON: Oh, or could you go farming or perhaps you're just bereft of it? The agricultural contributions are, essentially— Hon Marama Davidson: Independent climate commission, own it. SPEAKER: That's enough. MARK CAMERON: —static—they're static. Peak herd was in 2005 and 2006. Ruminant numbers have been falling ever since. What do you, the Greens, know of farming? What, would you have us slaughter all our animals; if not, how many—how many should we slaughter? Bloody fantasy, I say to the Green Party when it comes to that nonsense. New Zealand used to have over 70 million sheep—70 million; now less than 25 million. Peak dairy herd has been falling since 2005, and land-use changes are constantly evolving. What, did the left forget to account for all on-farm sequestration? The tens of millions of plantings by farmers—farmers and existing offsets. Oh, the silence from the other side is deafening. So the true question is: what is the Government asking? Are the methane targets— Hon Marama Davidson: So when are you going to listen to the science? Where's your science? MARK CAMERON: —fair? Are they fair? SPEAKER: Sorry to interrupt the member. I'll ask the Green member to refer to 64/2 and, for that matter, 64/3 of the Speakers' rulings: a member, strictly speaking, has a right to be heard in silence. No one observes that because interjections can be rare and reasonable, but the barrage that is coming from there breaches that Speaker's ruling absolutely. So we'll just have the rest of Mr Cameron's speech respectfully listened to. MARK CAMERON: I am certainly grateful, Mr Speaker, thank you. I ask again: are the methane targets fair? What is fair? How will we as a Government prevent emissions leakage if we get the methodology wrong should less efficient jurisdictions? We are the most efficient, friendly farmers in the world, second to none, and I am not shy about saying that. Yet we hear the left say all the time, "You lot"—the farming sector—"you need to do more." Ivory towers—that's all I say to them. Wake up. Methane is simple. It's the symbiosis. The morphology of gut bacteria—animal gut bacteria. It's what we're feeding these animals and their genetics. We're a plant-based pastoral system, for goodness sake! Yet I hear the boffins say, "Use boluses". Well, I'm a farmer that's got five, six broken bones from drenching animals. What a nonsense. "Drive down the emissions.", they say. Does anyone on that side of the House actually know how many mature animal bovines would have to be drenched annually, twice a year? I ask you. You do not know. I would ask that side of the House. Further emission reductions will happen. Farmers embrace technology every day. The Government has announced GE as part of our future moving forward. It is what we're feeding these animals. Animal genetics and farmers that embrace that technology are our new future. I know that side of the House may struggle to comprehend that logic, but then again, farm logic is beneath them, not this Government. Farmers always have and will continue to innovate their way out of these problems. With sensible farm-gate logic, rural New Zealand will seek and mitigate the quandary which is methane science and emissions. We will no longer fester in the left's ideology. We as a farming community are backed by the Government every day and we thank them for it. Hon JO LUXTON (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I just want to begin my contribution by responding to a couple of the comments that were brought up today—in particular, the one from the New Zealand First member who talked quite a bit about the previous Government's response to the COVID pandemic. Quite frankly, I found some of her comments absolutely sickening. When she questioned the efficacy of vaccination and the efficacy of other things that the Government put in place at the time to protect New Zealanders, I would ask that member: has she spoken to other members in the community? For example, I was in the taxi coming back from the airport one day, talking to the gentleman who was the taxi driver, who had returned to New Zealand as soon as he was able to, when the borders allowed him to, from the UK. When he was in the UK, he was a police officer. They were doing 12-hour shifts, day in, day out, simply removing dead bodies from homes in the UK—and the member opposite from New Zealand First can shake his head. But— Jamie Arbuckle: The truth's coming out. Hon JO LUXTON: That is the truth—that is the truth, as this man experienced it in the UK. So he and his wife returned to New Zealand purely because of our response to the pandemic. Another example I will give that member opposite is a woman whose daughter is a nurse in the UK, and the conversations she'd have at night with her daughter in absolute tears and despair because she was in hospital, COVID was rife, and there were dead bodies in the corridors. There were dead bodies piling up, and they simply couldn't manage it. Jamie Arbuckle: Lock us all down—lock us all down. Hon JO LUXTON: And the member can dispute that, but this is what people are telling me from their firsthand experiences. The Hon Paul Goldsmith talked about the previous Government turbocharging spending during COVID. Well, I would argue with Mr Goldsmith that that turbocharged spending saved businesses, saved lives, and saved livelihoods, and we make no apology on this side of the House for doing so by putting people first. I want to pick up on something that the Rt Hon Chris Hipkins talked about in his contribution, about choices and the choices that we see this current Government making. This current Government, as he mentioned, is choosing to give a $2.9 billion tax cut to landlords. We heard the Hon Nicola Willis talking about the fact that it was important to give Kiwis more of their own money that they earn to put in their back pocket, and I'm not disagreeing with that. But what I find really interesting is when the Minister makes comments like that, and then we see people on the news at 6 o'clock saying, "Well, actually, what I'll get for my tax cut is probably the equivalent of being able to buy two Chupa Chups." So for a Minister to stand there and talk on and on and on about how wonderful it is going to be for people to have more money of their own money to put in their back pocket—I agree that that's a good thing. But for someone to brag when it's only going to be the equivalent of a couple of Chupa Chups for some people, and yet a far higher amount for people like us here, in Parliament, as MPs—we don't need the tax cuts that the Government is proposing or wanting to put in place. One of the things that we definitely don't need tax cuts for is when it comes at the cost of people's jobs and livelihoods, because that is what is happening. Ministries are being stripped out. Public servants are being stripped out and are losing their jobs purely to pay for tax cuts—tax cuts that will provide lower-income earners with the equivalent of two lollipops in their back pocket. It is absolutely appalling. I want to also quickly talk about early childhood, a passion of mine. We've heard this Government's laser-sharp focus on the cost of living crisis, and yet their early childhood policy is simply going to create more bureaucracy for parents, when early childhood is one of the most expensive in the world, here in New Zealand. I could say more, but my time has run out. MAUREEN PUGH (National—West Coast-Tasman): Thank you, Mr Speaker. And I've got to say this feels like a very strange vantage point to be speaking in the House today. Today I want to focus on some of the great things that are happening in West Coast - Tasman, and as the newly elected electorate MP for West Coast - Tasman, formerly a list MP based there, I know it's been tough. It's been tough for many communities as they've had to deal with the torrent of unpopular and damaging Government policy. And on top of the consequences in the aftermath of closed borders, which has left New Zealand with massive supply chain issues and massive staffing challenges, the cost of living has gone through the roof and it's been fuelled largely by domestic inflation and many businesses are struggling to climb out of that hole. But never fear, our new Government is here, and common sense is back and we're going to get the economy thriving again—back on track as we say— Hon Member: Tax cuts that are inflationary. MAUREEN PUGH: There's no—we know, and we understand fully. There is no one silver bullet. So we're going to use every opportunity we can to create economic gains and we will do that in a small way by using a member's bill as an example. And it just makes another demonstration of economic common sense, and that's my members bill which has gone into the ballot today, Adverse Weather-affected Timber Recovery on Conservation Lands Bill, which will enable the Director-General of Conservation to decide on the harvesting of parts of trees irreversibly damaged in weather events. Now this system, it was extremely well tested after Cyclone Gita when some temporary legislation went in place, but it only lasted five years. This bill will give a permanent arrangement in legislation to enable the Director-General to make those decisions about harvesting trees that come down in adverse events. And this is how we on the Coast can make the best of a bad situation. It is a bit of a silver lining, but what we want to do is create an economic benefit from an adverse event, helping to build the New Zealand economy. And even as we speak, we may be testing this theory because the West Coast is currently experiencing a severe weather event. We're no stranger to them, we know that, and we do understand that damage does get done, but if we can extract some economic benefit then we should. And I'd like to take this opportunity to give a big shout out to Mayor Helen Lash, the emergency management teams, Defence, Police, NZTA, and all the volunteers and community groups that mobilise during these severe events. Unfortunately, they're very well practised, but they do work closely to keep the roads and the businesses open, and they have done exactly that. The West Coast is still open for business even though there is an orange weather alert coupled with king tides, but they want to make sure that everyone still understands that 300 millilitres of rain does not shut the Coast down. One of the most effective things a Government can do is to give people hope. And hope is now what we have in abundance in West Coast - Tasman. Much of that hope comes from the proudly proclaimed support for the mineral sector. With growing demand for minerals, we on the West Coast are home to an abundance and it makes good, common economic sense to reap the benefits of those minerals. I am unashamedly in support of the mining sector. And if we want to use an example of how well the mineral sector supports a country, we only need to look across the Tasman to see Australia and how they have they have benefited. They navigated the global financial crisis well because they had a mineral sector that backed their country. It enables them to do things like invest in their schools, their hospitals, their social services, and to make sure that they maintain their standard of living. If we're going to unlock the economic potential of New Zealand, we have to unlock the door to minerals and that is exactly what this Government is doing. Mining is essential if we're going to enjoy our modern lifestyle and that is why this Government has introduced the Fast-track Approvals Bill. We've got to get this country moving. We've got to unlock the potential that we've got. The people on the West Coast have a skip in their step. Hon MARAMA DAVIDSON (Co-Leader—Green): We've just heard a speech from that National member, Maureen Pugh, which is quite blatantly clear why the Greens—[Knocks glass over] I mean, no, I support fresh, clean, water for everyone, which is why this environmental fast-track bill must not go ahead. The speech that we've just heard makes it really clear that this is New Zealand's most anti-environment Government in decades. Continuing to play off the wellbeing of our people and our beaches, our bushes, our ocean, our soil health for living a decent life. We can actually and should actually understand that protecting the integrity of our environment is key to us living decent, quality, enjoyable lives. This Government is so restricted in its view and its understanding that the only way we can have a good life is if we trash everything that makes us us. If we trash our soil, our ocean beds, our moana quality of water, our lakes, our air, and our democracy, which is what is being proposed in the fast-track bill. It's not just a trashing of the environment, it's a trashing of the very democratic functions that we would hope this Government is holding up. Instead, this Government is proposing to concentrate power in an unprecedented way into the hands of three Ministers, yet they're trying to make it look like they're going to have some level of independent consideration with some pretend panels that are going to have some sort of opinion, but the final power rests with three Ministers. Now, which Ministers? Not an environment Minister, not a conservation Minister, not even a health Minister for proposals that are up for grabs on things like toxic and hazardous waste, that environmental and local authorities have already declared there is too much of a risk to human health. None of those Ministers will have any consideration in the final decision-making power. Instead, it is simply infrastructure, transport—what's the other one there? I've got Mr— Hon James Shaw: Regional development. Hon MARAMA DAVIDSON: Regional development. None of the environment, conservation, or human health considerations are included in this massive concentration of unprecedented power to Ministers. Wow, this Government is just saying the quiet naughty bit right out loud now. They're just saying quite clearly—we just heard it in the former speaker right now. We just heard them say, "Mining is the only way we are going to enjoy life as we know it." What limited and under-ambitious thinking is that that cannot see that irreparable harm—it's short-term thinking—that can come from the slaying of our precious wild places is such short-term thinking. We actually have what we need in Aotearoa to ensure that we can all enjoy good lives, have the housing and income and education and health that we need and can fund if we just would simply not have to scramble looking for tax cuts for rich, wealthy people and landlords. We could actually, instead, have well-funded public services and ensure that everyone is having a good life. But no, the answer is mining and taking school lunches off tamariki. No. That is shameful, that is short term, that is not even creative or imaginative, that's really old—it's fossil thinking. It's fossil thinking and it is not forward thinking at all. We know that the rangatahi and the communities standing up around the country, they are where our solutions are lying. They can see that the protection, conservation of Tiriti rights, of iwi, hapū, and mana whenua, making sure our local communities and experts are discussing and part of decisions about what we do and don't fund when it comes to consenting and fast-track proposals. Those are where the decision makers are; those are where the inspirational leaders are. They know that, actually, our long-term health and wellbeing and quality of life relies on us being able to drink the blinking water, for crying out loud, being able to fish kaimoana from our harbours and seas for crying out loud. They can see where our longevity and endurance lie, and it's not with fast-track proposals. TOM RUTHERFORD (National—Bay of Plenty): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It is a privilege for me to stand and speak for the first time in the general debate. A couple of weeks ago, I lodged a new member's bill which would see convicted murderers ineligible for parole if they do not reveal the location of their victim's body. The concealment of location of victim remains bill provides that offenders who refuse to disclose the location of a victim's body may be denied parole. My member's bill acknowledges the additional anguish faced by families who do not have a chance to lay their loved ones to rest because of an offender's refusal to disclose the location of a victim's remains. Furthermore, my bill will be another tool in the toolbox to ensure our justice system prioritises victims over offenders. This bill would amend two pieces of legislation. Firstly, it would amend section 9 of the Sentencing Act 2002 to include the failure of an offender to disclose the location of the body in a list of aggravating factors a sentencing court must take into account. Secondly, it would also insert a new section 28A into the Parole Act 2002. This would require the Parole Board, when considering an offender for release on parole, to refuse parole unless the board is satisfied the prisoner has cooperated satisfactorily in the investigation of the offence to identify the victim's location. My member's bill has been modelled on legislation from the United Kingdom and New South Wales. The United Kingdom passed similar legislation in 2020 and New South Wales in 2022. The United Kingdom law was brought due to the murder of Helen McCourt, who disappeared in 1988 and whose body has never been recovered. The offender was sentenced to life imprisonment with a non-parole period of 16 years and was released in 2020 and died in 2022 having never revealed the whereabouts of Helen's body. Similarly, New South Wales became the fifth state in Australia to introduce the legislation, colloquially known as "Lyn's Law", after former Sydney teacher Chris Dawson was convicted in 2022 of murdering his 33-year-old wife Lynette, who disappeared from their northern beaches home over 40 years ago. The body of the mother of two has never been found. This case was documented in the widely known podcast titled The Teacher's Pet. Both laws in the United Kingdom and New South Wales have successfully acted as incentives for those who conceal the remains of victims to front up about their whereabouts, and have prevented those who refuse to do so from being released on parole. Closer to home, Simon McGrath, the brother of Christchurch builder Michael McGrath, who was murdered by his childhood friend David Benbow in 2017, has been calling for a "no body, no parole" bill to be introduced here in New Zealand. Mr Benbow was sentenced to life with a minimum non-parole period of 17 years in March of this year for the murder. However, despite extensive police searches, Michael's body has never been found and his family have never been given the opportunity to have a proper farewell. Recently, I spoke with Michael's brother Simon about my "no body, no parole" member's bill. In the coming weeks I will be meeting with Simon in person to help broaden my understanding of the situation and anguish Simon and his family are experiencing and how my member's bill can support them and other families across New Zealand who do not have a chance to lay their loved ones to rest. Ultimately, my concealment of location of victim remains bill puts the victims of crime at the heart of our justice system. It is the intention of this bill to deny offenders the opportunity to return to society if they are not prepared to give their victim's family and friends the opportunity to be reunited with their loved ones. I look forward to this bill being drawn from the ballot, working with the parties across this House to seek their support to ensure our justice system prioritises victims over offenders, and giving New Zealand families the chance to lay their loved ones to rest and receive the closure they deserve. SPEAKER: The time for this debate has expired. The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed. NEW ZEALAND BILL OF RIGHTS (RIGHT TO SUSTAINABLE ENVIRONMENT) AMENDMENT BILL First Reading Hon JAMES SHAW (Green): I move, That the New Zealand Bill of Rights (Right to Sustainable Environment) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Justice Committee to consider the bill. Ten years ago, Patrick Gower, the former Newshub political editor, pilloried my maiden speech as a call for human rights for snails, because in that speech I had pointed out that, in my lifetime, fully half of all of the planet's wildlife has been extinguished. This is ecocide: the destruction not just of species but of the habitats and the ecosystems that they need to survive. My proposition then was that legal personhood be extended to the natural world around us. If corporations have legal personhood, why not actual living things? Te Urewera, Te Awa Tupua, and, as of yesterday, Te Pire Whakatupua mō Te Kāhui Tupua settlements do exactly that for Te Urewera, Whanganui River, and Taranaki maunga. I had hoped that we might be able to build on those remarkable settlements for a more universal law, a law protecting nature's general right not to be polluted, the right not to be degraded, the right to exist—inherent, fundamental, and inalienable—just like us. [Authorised te reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.] [Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.] When the creatures of the land, river, and sea are in distress, then I have nothing to be proud of. In the decade since I gave that speech, I fear that we have made little to no progress in protecting the natural world from our predations at home or abroad. If anything, we seem to be going backwards. If you witness the current drive to repeal, unwind, and override nearly 40 years of environmental legislation, regulation, and jurisprudence, it appears to me that, in the current moment, there is actually less political consensus on even the most basic environmental protections than there has been for most of my lifetime. This bill explicitly frames the state of the environment as a human rights issue, for which, I would hope, there would be more social licence and political consensus, because we are in the midst of a planetary crisis: of climate change; wilderness, wildlife, and biodiversity loss; and pollution. It is simply a statement of fact that each and every one of us depends on clean air, fresh water, healthy soils, and a stable climate for our very survival. You take any one of those away and our own human rights become untenable. The right to peaceful assembly, the right to freedom of expression or freedom of movement, all become less and less possible without a safe environment within which those rights may be exercised. This bill creates a new provision in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act: section 18A. This will provide that "Everyone has the right to a clean, healthy, and sustainable environment." All the other features of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act will remain unchanged. This means that the right to a clean, healthy, and sustainable environment will be subject to the same test of justified limitation as other protected rights. Now, some will argue, no doubt, that creating this new right will enable the courts to interfere with parliamentary sovereignty. It does no such thing, any more than the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act does today. It would mean, under section 6, that existing legislation would be interpreted consistently with the new right to a clean, healthy, and sustainable environment. And, under section 7, new legislation would be vetted for compliance with that right. The bill will have other considerations as well. For example, it will assist the courts in interpreting ambiguous environmental legislation. It will also become an element of administrative decision-making, which means that Government bodies would be required to consider the implications of their decisions on the right of New Zealanders to live in a sustainable environment. Including the right to a sustainable environment as an express right within the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act is important for a number of reasons. First, it would require lawmakers to consider and to squarely confront the impacts of new legislation on our climate commitments, on our environment, and on future generations. Second, it requires Parliament to be honest and transparent with the public about the climate and environmental implications of new legislation. If the Government introduces legislation that is inconsistent with the Paris Agreement commitments, or legislation that is actively going to cause environmental harm, this right will simply require the Government to be honest about that. Hon Marama Davidson: This is great, James. Hon JAMES SHAW: Third, a standalone—I know tell me, right? A standalone right recognises the implicit value of the environment rather than having its value depend on the sphere of already existing human rights. It equalises human interests with those of the environment, making clear that when we protect the environment, we protect people and communities now and into the future. It reminds us that we humans are not superior to or separate from the natural world. We do not exist independently of other life on Earth. We depend on it. Finally, in this way, this right is consistent with tikanga Māori concepts around the connection between ngā tāngata and te taiao. And, on this last point, I do need to point out that the bill is written in a way to be consistent with the existing language and style of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. And, as such, the operative part of the bill does not explicitly acknowledge the Māori world view, in which humans whakapapa, ultimately, back to Papatūānuku. So, in the general policy statement, there is a clause that refers to the tikanga Māori concepts of the connection between ngā tāngata and te taiao. Whakapapa, kaitiakitanga, mana, ki uta ki tai, taonga tuku iho, te ao tūroa, mauri, ritenga, wairua, wairuatanga—these concepts carry so much meaning and would add so much to our understanding of what the right to a sustainable environment looks like to us here in Aotearoa. And, if this bill is referred, I would hope that the select committee further develops the general policy statement in order to assist the courts in their interpretation of the right. This bill is not a radical or even a new idea. While it is in my name, I do not consider it my bill, so to speak. I may be shepherding it through the House, but it was originally proposed by Lawyers for Climate Action NZ back in 2019 and supported by 59 then Queens Counsel in an open letter. We're hearing about the respect that the members of the Government have for the courts and for the judicial system, and they're heckling. It was proposed on an explicitly non-partisan basis, and that was out of a concern that the right to an environment that is capable of sustaining human life is so fundamental to our society that it should be explicitly recognised as a standalone right within the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. Now, New Zealand is in a shrinking minority of countries that do not legally recognise the right to a clean and healthy and sustainable environment. In fact, about 80 percent of countries around the world already recognise this right in their domestic legal systems. That means that New Zealand is amongst the 20 percent of nations that do not. But it is a right that we have recognised internationally, because in 2022 it was the subject of a historic UN resolution, and New Zealand voted in favour of that resolution. We know that the window of opportunity to preserve or restore what little is left of our wildernesses and our native wildlife, the forests, and rivers and oceans and air that we depend on for our very survival, is closing fast. All human rights ultimately depend on a clean, healthy, and sustainable environment. The consequences if we fail are serious. This bill represents a simple legislative change, but an important one, and it is time for New Zealand to join the rest of the world and recognise the right to a sustainable environment. [Authorised te reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.] [Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.] When the humans have left the world, the land will remain. ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): The question is that the motion be agreed to. Hon PENNY SIMMONDS (Minister for the Environment): Thank you, Madam Speaker. As the Minister for the Environment, I rise to address the New Zealand Bill of Rights (Right to Sustainable Environment) Amendment Bill, brought forth by Green MP the Hon James Shaw. I would firstly like to extend, seriously, my best wishes to the member for his upcoming retirement from politics—10 years is indeed a noble effort and co-leader since 2015, so my very best wishes. I had not heard that your maiden speech was being characterised as "human rights for snails", but it increases the anticipation I have for your valedictory speech. While we all share—and we do all share—an absolute common objective of safeguarding a clean, healthy, and sustainable environment for present and future generations, it's imperative that we thoroughly deliberate the implications of this proposed legislation. Let me underscore that the Government remains steadfast in its commitment to environment sustainability. However, we must approach this endeavour with a blend of pragmatism as well as caution. Scott Willis: And fossil fuels. Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: Our belief lies—well, fossil fuels, it might be there to be pointed out that the additional coal from Indonesia came in through the last Government. However, let me underscore that the Government remains steadfast in its commitment. We want to approach this with pragmatism and with caution, because our beliefs lie in attaining environmental objectives through intelligent and efficient measures that use the best science and the best technology to nurture economic growth rather than impede it. The introduction of section 18A into the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, though commendable in its intent, carries the risk of it inadvertently erecting barriers to economic development and investments. It is crucial to recognise that rigid interpretations of this bill—as the member himself discussed—might impose cumbersome regulatory obligations, potentially hindering growth and job creation. And this is just something that we simply cannot afford at this time in our country's history. What we truly need are sensible and pragmatic environmental regulations that so much of industry across the country is crying out for that will yield tangible results. The existing regulatory framework has grown excessively convoluted, complex, and expensive to implement, failing to deliver the outcomes that New Zealanders rightfully expect. We believe that cutting wasteful compliance, rather than adding to it, is the key to unlocking the full potential of our nation, both environmentally and economically. Furthermore, we harbour reservations about the potential watering-down of existing environmental protection laws and the ambiguity that could come from interpretation of this amendment—how it might be introduced. We cannot afford to stifle innovation or constrain the evolution of future environmental policies in response to emerging challenges and scientific advancements. We know that in so many sectors, and particularly in the agricultural sector, we lead that innovation and advancement. I note the environmental interests are recognised already in several statutes in law, including the Environmental Act 1986, the Resource Management Act, the Climate Change Response Act 2002, and the Local Government Act 2002. We understand that fostering a conducive environment for investment is fundamentally essential to unleashing the economic growth that will drive our nation—New Zealand—forward. We seek not to add burdensome red tape but to strip it away, clearing the path so that we do get innovation and we do get prosperity. It is paramount, too, that our opposition to this bill does not diminish our dedication to sound environmental stewardship. We acknowledge the necessity for a balanced approach where economic prosperity and environmental sustainability can coexist harmoniously. We've seen many examples of where rather than legislation pushing down, actions on the ground pushing up have created environmental improvements—and we can see that across the country with the work that catchment groups do, and farmers are leading that work. We must grow our economy not as an end in itself, but a means to an end. An end where we can invest in renewable energy in the form of wind and solar farms, infrastructure like a nationwide EV-charging network—and heaven knows in our very large Southland region, we need a much more comprehensive network—and provide investment into our research and our university sector to help them develop cutting-edge emissions reduction technology which will, in turn, generate more money to be invested back into the sustainable economy, forging a path towards a more sustainable future. Some people say it's very hard to be green when you're in the red. I like to take a more positive approach: it's easier to be green if you're in the black. So there are some key things that we need to ensure that we have a better environment and also a stronger economy by cutting wasteful compliance, not adding to it. The greatest barrier to achieving a low-emissions, high-productivity, environmentally responsible economy is regulation. So, in conclusion, this Government is of the belief that legislation passed serves the best interest of our economy and our environment if we work together to craft solutions that promote sustainability without stifling growth as we believe this bill would. We need to ensure a legacy of both prosperity and protection for our country and for our grandchildren. I do not commend this New Zealand Bill of Rights (Right to Sustainable Environment) Amendment Bill to the House. I apologise that we are unable to do this for the member as he leaves Parliament, but again I reiterate that we do wish him all the very best as he leaves this House. Thank you, Madam Speaker. Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I want to start, of course, by acknowledging the member who— Chlöe Swarbrick: Speak for the fish. Hon RACHEL BROOKING: —is bringing this bill, and that is the Hon James Shaw, who has done such a magnificent job in this place, speaking for the fish and the snails, and I'm sure he's had something to say about Freddy the frog as well, and a little about climate emissions in there, too. He did say, when announcing that he was stepping down from the Greens' leadership, that he wanted to progress this bill before he left Parliament. So that is, of course, why Labour is voting for it, because I know I, at least, want him to stay here and see this bill all the way through the select committee process. So I am disappointed about the National Party position, but hopefully those other parties on the other side of the House will see the sense of sending this bill to select committee. As the member knows, I'm not a huge fan of rights and rights legislation—that sounds terrible, doesn't it? I do like the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, but there are some in my party and on this side of the House that are more about rights than I am. We have the great—one of my colleagues in my 2020 class was, of course, Vanushi Walters, who's very much all about rights and doing better with our rights legislation in New Zealand. I was trained at Otago Law School—I think it's something about what law school you go to, and I'm in a slightly different camp that regard. You know, I have real questions about the flood gates opening with any extension to our New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. Do we include housing? Chlöe Swarbrick: Yes. Hon RACHEL BROOKING: Housing seems like a sensible thing to include—I knew I'd get that response. But, then, do we include property rights? And I say, "Absolutely not" to property rights. Maybe housing and, of course, we've got this environmental question in front us today. So it would be very good for the Environment Committee or the Justice Committee to consider this bill and to really flesh out those arguments. Is this the right place for such a right to be—in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act—should it be in its own separate piece of legislation? Those are the questions that it would be right for a select committee to interrogate. So we are supporting this bill, and other speakers will speak to some of those points. But I really want to speak to why I really want to support this bill, and it goes to what the member said in his speech, and I agree with all of that. We are in a dire, dire environmental place at the moment. We know we have a biodiversity crisis as well as our climate crisis. The last Government did work really hard to address some of these issues with the very broken Resource Management Act. Everybody in the House agrees that the Resource Management Act was broken. It was both not doing what it needed to do for the environment and also not doing what it needed to do for an efficient economy. So we had the Natural and Built Environment Act with some very clear limits and targets and bottom lines. What happened to that? Oh, it got repealed in December. What else has happened? Well, today in question time, we heard that farm plans might be paused and that they need to be flexible and robust. That makes no sense. We don't know what that means, despite a whole lot of patsy questions. Today, 130 people at the Department of Conservation might be losing their jobs. We see that in the media. How many jobs at the Department of Conservation are backroom? That department is all about the front line: pest eradication, looking after a third of our country. Yesterday, the Prime Minister suggested that genetic modification was going to somehow sort out decarbonisation. That is head-in-the-sand thinking. It is not addressing the problem that we have in front of us. Of course, genetic modification—it may have a role to play. I'm not saying that it doesn't, but it is not the silver bullet. It is not the beall and endall. It is not a reason to stop doing every single piece of work that was being done to decarbonise, like the electric vehicle discount, like public transport subsidisation—all that stuff, out the window. Then, we have the full-on assault on the environment with that fast-track bill. We hear over and over again from Shane Jones that he is not interested in saving Freddy the frog, he is OK with extinction. That is not OK. We need everything that we can possibly do, every tool in the tool box, to remind people how important our environment is to us, to the economy, and to future generations. Well done, Minister Shaw. SIMON COURT (ACT): The ACT Party won't be supporting this bill. I thought I'd ask: what is environmental sustainability, James Shaw? I mean, it could be defined as the ability to maintain an ecological balance in our planet's natural environment and conserve natural resources to support the wellbeing of current and future generations. Well, that sounds really nice in a sound bite, doesn't it? But this bill is actually an attempt to legislate for that same 1970s socks-and-sandal vision of a Green world that has failed. It's failed when it's been tried in New Zealand. In 1960s, 1970s, greenies like James Shaw believed that civilisation would end because we'd run out of water, we'd run out of food, and we'd run out of energy; it turns out we didn't. Not only were those greenies wrong then but, since then, billions and billions of people have been lifted out of poverty by making one simple decision as nations, the Governments that led themthat they were going to get access to the mineral resources, they were going to use their water, they were going to do things more efficiently, like the people in Singapore who had very scare resourceshey were going to get these oil and gas resources out of the ground, and they were going to lift billions of people in the developing world out of poverty. Well, James Shaw is saying, "Oh, no, we shouldn't do that—we shouldn't do that.", that the environment somehow should have a human right, or humans should have an environmental right. It's the most confusing, incoherent approach to environmental management and actually delivering for people. It's totally incoherent. Now, Australians are much wealthier than New Zealanders because they've chosen to utilise their natural and physical resources. You know what? You can only dig the iron ore up once, but then you can sell it to somebody else for money and you can use that money to build better hospitals, better schools, and better roads, James Shaw. Food production has increased so much over the past 30 or 40 years, it's likely—now, I'm just reckoning, but no more reckoning than this bill is that might work—there's probably more obese people in the world now than there are starving, because we produce so much food. That might be radical, but it's probably true. If all of these nations had to decide "Do we raise our people out of poverty now or do we lock up our resources and stay poor and unhealthy?", James Shaw would choose the latter. That's what his bill is driving for. Now, instead, could we use our resources to generate wealth, to treat water, to deliver energy so that we can heat our homes, healthier homes? Could we build landfills, instead of dumping waste in estuaries in the sea? These are all trade-offs that James Shaw's bill would make impossible. Adding another law which imposes costs on communities and individuals without any understanding of the benefits—that's the trademark of lefties and greenies like James Shaw, the Green Party, and the Labour Party. No idea of the costs or the benefits from a former Minister of Climate Change who was part of the Government that banned oil and gas generation and then, just shortly after, millions of tons of coal started arriving from Indonesia; set up a climate commission to provide sterling advice like banning natural gas connections from new homes for hot water and cooking. Now, we just have to look back at this member's track record. The Labour-Green 2017 agreement shows you what they mean by "sustainability". I just clipped a few things from that agreement: reduce congestion and carbon dioxide emissions by cancelling the East-West Motorway Link—that's a piece of roading that's supposed to get heavy trucks off local roads so that urban development can occur. That's what he means by sustainable development: keep those heavy trucks on local roads. And what about begin work on Auckland light rail? Well, cancelling transport projects to get heavy trucks off roads and spending hundreds of millions of dollars on colourful drawings won't get us to where we want to get to, even when it comes to human wellbeing or environmental improvement. We've tried James Shaw's method. It's called the Resource Management Act. It's failed us for 33 years. This approach is totally unsuited to resolving inherent conflicts between people, the wellbeing we seek, and our desire to protect the environment and those special places. The result of New Zealand's socks-and-sandals sustainability experiment is that every year New Zealanders spend $1.3 billion trying to consent infrastructure so we can build more affordable homes and build transportven infrastructure that's desperately needed, like water treatment plants, held up. Every generation's going to have to work hard to grow their health and their wealth so we can feed our children first. That's the legacy we want to leave to our children and grandchildren, not this nonsense. TANYA UNKOVICH (NZ First): I feel honoured to stand on behalf of New Zealand First to do this call on the Hon Shane Jones—beg your pardon, beg your pardon! How did I get that mixed up? On the Hon James Shaw— Chlöe Swarbrick: Now vote for it! TANYA UNKOVICH: What was that? Chlöe Swarbrick: Vote for it! TANYA UNKOVICH: Yay! Hon Member: Brothers from another mother. TANYA UNKOVICH: Brother from another mother, that's right. But look, I firstly wanted to acknowledge you and your contributions, and to wish you all of the best, on behalf of our party, for your future. Hon James Shaw: Kia ora. TANYA UNKOVICH: Thank you. So the New Zealand Bill of Rights (Right to Sustainable Environment) Amendment Bill—now, this aims to introduce a new section, section 18A, into the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. Now, this section would ensure the right to a sustainable environment into law, affirming that every individual has the right to live in a clean, healthy, and sustainable environment. Now, New Zealand First recognises the importance of environmental stewardship and believes in achieving a balance between environmental protection and the responsible use of natural resources. The party advocates for evidence-based approaches to environmental issues and supports cooperation between Government and industry to achieve better environmental outcomes. New Zealand First also emphasises the importance of conservation, productive policies, and engagement with local communities to protect New Zealand and, of course, our unique ecosystem for our future generations. We have a fundamental principle and that is that all environmental policies are to be proactive with a view to creating employment and sustainable wealth, whilst improving one of our few competitive advantages. So New Zealand First will not support this bill. Now, while we acknowledge the importance of environmental sustainability, the party is cautious about enshrining specific rights in legislation without considering the broader implications. New Zealand First believes that any right must be balanced with corresponding responsibilities and that the proposed amendment may not adequately address the complexities of environmental policy and decision making. Now, another reason that we do not support this bill is because of its potential impact on economic development. We prioritise sound economic policy alongside environmental stewardship. The party is concerned that the inclusion of a right to a sustainable environment in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act may inadvertently restrict economic development—any opportunities—or even create a legal uncertainty that could deter investment and growth. Also, New Zealand First is somewhat concerned with a lack of clarity on implementation and while the bill aims to recognise and protect the right to a sustainable environment, New Zealand First seeks clarity on how this might be done and how it can be implemented in practice. The party is concerned about potential conflicts with existing legislation and the practical implications for policy development and the decision-making processes in the future. So in summary, while New Zealand First shares the goal of environmental sustainability, the party does believe that the New Zealand Bill of Rights (Right to Sustainable Environment) Amendment Bill may not be the most effective or appropriate way to achieve this objective. Hence, as mentioned, New Zealand First will not be supporting this bill any further. HANA-RAWHITI MAIPI-CLARKE (Te Pāti Māori—Hauraki-Waikato): [Authorised te reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.] [Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.] I rise on behalf of Te Pāti Māori in full support of this bill, the New Zealand Bill of Rights (Right to Sustainable Environment) Amendment Bill. The human right to a clean, healthy, and sustainable environment, with tikanga Māori concepts of connection between [Authorised te reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.] [Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.] For the majority of us on this side, this is the whole reason why we are here. That is why I'm going to fully use my five minutes as much as I can. Everyone has their connection to the land and water, which grounds us to our ancestral way of life. However, my personal connection will be our awa. As a Hauraki-Waikato kaitiaki, as a mokopuna of Waikato, our awa is our biggest asset on a spiritual level. We have been stripped of our right of connection to our awa due to the overwhelming capitalism that continues to take from our pepeha. The climate is constantly evolving—that is its sole purpose. It's been changing since the beginning of time; however, it is the human change that needs to seriously be addressed. Without our kāinga of Rāhui Pōkeka next to our tūpuna awa, the detrimental harm that our tūpuna goes throughor context, our awa gets hammered left, right, and centre, from big corporations like AFFCO, Fonterra, Tegel, Genesis Energy, and the old coal mining industry. Now, I come from a third generation freezing works whānau, and as an iwi and hapū we have a long relationship with Genesis Energy. I have many whānau that work within these industries because they need to provide kai on the table for their whānau. They heavily over-contribute to the 98 percent of our country's economy in the meat and dairy industry. They are providing kai for many people on an international scale; however, they can't even afford the bread and butter in the supermarkets, and we are left to continuously hurt our awa without even realising how much harm we are causing due to needing to put bread and butter on the table. The reason I bring this up is because this is the whole overall contributing system that most rural communities face for tangata whenua in real time. This is our everyday reality that we face. In a study by the Environmental Protection Authority, Māori are more likely to live in area with poor environment quality, with 51 percent of Māori living in areas with high air pollution, compared with 36 percent of non-Māori. In a Ministry for the Environment study, Māori are more likely to be exposed to contaminated drinking water, with 24 percent of Māori drinking from sources that do not meet water standards, compared to 16 percent of non-Māori. I want to specifically touch on, with the tikanga Māori concepts of connection between [Authorised te reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.] [Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.] I consistently talk about our mātauranga Māori and connection to the rongoā of taiao, and parties opposite like New Zealand First consistently, continuously mock me in the media and even in public for my understandings of mātauranga Māori, maramataka Māori, māra kai cultivation, Matariki practices, or even when I noted that our marama had a kurahaupō which would see extreme weather events, after followed Cyclone Gabrielle. Now, I'm not surprised by that because we are the living, breathing reverses of the Tohunga Suppression Act. So they just simply don't understand. They just simply don't understand our mātauranga Māori and its connection and its rongoā to our taiao. Mātauranga Māori, tikanga Māori, indigenous customs and practices a rongoā for our taiao. [Authorised te reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.] [Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.] Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour): Can I begin by thanking all parties of the House for cooperating at the usiness ommittee to allow this to have a first reading before James Shaw leaves. In this increasingly polarised, fractured world, it is fantastic to see our Parliament cooperating around a process step like this so that an important issue like this can be heard, even though the bill's going to go down, it appears. So I just think that we can congratulate ourselves for maintaining some sort of civility in this place in order to govern our country. So can I thank the Government members for their support of that. There is no doubt that the world has serious environmental problems. This graph comes from The Guardian today: it shows that for the last 10 months, consecutively, we have the highest temperatures ever recorded—ever—beyond the projections. Now, it may well come right because of the end of El Niño, and we might come back to some projections that aren't quite so scary, but by the end of the year we will know whether we are off the chart forever. So we have serious climate problems. We know that in New Zealand we have declining water quality in our rivers and lakes. And we know that despite that the current Government is going backwards on climate. You know, we need to decarbonise transport and industrial heat. In order to do that, we need to build a lot more electricity, renewable electricity. In order for that to be affordable, we need to be able to allow those investors to hedge against intermittency. And yet the Government cancelled even finishing the costbenefit analysis on project Onslow that the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment had already said stacked up as a good idea. We already had fast track to address the issues that Simon Court addressed, to speed up the process, because it does take too long and cost too much, and we had fixed that. But the current Government allows them to override the protections in the Conservation Act and the Wildlife Act and in the Resource Management Act, and we already know that in respect of the water space. We heard today that the Government is not only delaying the ational olicy tatement reshwater anagement to be required to be implemented; they're actually talking stopping regional councils implementing it even if they want to, which is a terrible thing. We also know that they're going to downgrade farm plans, which are a replacement for regulation, but they're going to be softer plans without certification and order. So we need stricter rules in New Zealand environmentally, to make it less easy to do that sort of thing. That said, if this goes to select committee, we have to look at whether it should sit in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act or not, because the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act really protects personal freedoms: the right not to be tortured—I'll read out a list of them in Part 2 of the Act, where they're listed—the right not to be deprived of life or subjected to torture or cruel treatment, to be subjected to medical or scientific experimentation; the right to refuse medical treatment, electoral rights, freedom of thought, conscience and religion, freedom of expression, manifestation of religion and belief, freedom of peaceful assembly, freedom of association and freedom of movement. Those are the core rights that are protected by the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, and they are individual freedoms and liberties that we are protecting. We have to be very careful to decide whether this sort of thing should sit in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act—which I'm a bit doubabout myself, even though we're supporting it to select committee—or whether it should sit in separate legislation. If we invite the courts into this space, we are at risk of undermining the clarity which should apply to the freedoms that are protected by the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, by bringing in things that are more contentious as to resource allocation, as to what is the appropriate remedy within the purview of the senior courts to make declarations of inconsistency—which could bring the court system into conflict with this place, Parliament, and I'm not sure that's the right way to go. So the Labour Party will be supporting this to select committee, and we hope other parties will too. But the issue as to whether this sort of provision should sit in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act or some higher environmental legislation is a very proper issue to discuss as a country. Because those rights that I referred to, those basic human rights, including the right to freedom from discrimination, they are of a different nature to some of the things that you need to do to protect the environment and I'm not personally convinced that either they or social rights should sit in this legislation, particularly given that we have created this obligation for the Parliament through the amendment that we made to the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act in the last Parliament, to respond to declarations of inconsistency. I congratulate the member for bringing this bill to the House. DAVID MacLEOD (National—New Plymouth): Tēnei te mihi ki a koutou katoa. Ki a koe te rangatira, tēnā koe. What a complex world we live in. The way I look at this is that I empathise with the sentiment of what's trying to be achieved here and I think that around the House with many of the debates that we have, we have common goals, but we have different roles and different paths of being able to get there. It's the simplest way I can describe it, the difference between that side of the Hose and this side of the House, but I do empathise with having a world that has the best environment that we can get. The other side of that conversation to me is endearingto have a pragmatic outcome for our country, in New Zealand, but indeed the world. Because as we know, the environment has no boundaries in itself. e are a country that factually feeds more than 40 million people around the worldnd we could say that we don't want to do that anymore and we're sacrificing our own environment here as a result of that. But this is the economy that provides us the lifestyles in the New Zealand that we enjoy today. I wanted to acknowledge the former speaker, the Hon David Parker, with what he said about the fact that this diversity that we see across the House should be celebrated. hat's what MMP actually produces, diversity of ideas. I feel that this House is stronger because of it, because it's the stretching of each other's ideas and each other's mindsets that actually provides the best possible decisions. I've seen that myself personally in governance roles with boards and you don't want a groupthink mentality around tables like that, you want diversity of views. So it's great to see different views, even though it frustrates some views of many of us, but it's something that we should actually celebrate indeed. So, you know, as mentioned you're shepherding this bill through the House—sorry, not you Madam Speaker, but the Hon James Shaw, and I'm on this side of the House here and I'm not in a position to be able to support the bill. But I do want to talk about the environment because a comment was made that I want to talk to you. And the comment was that the environment today is worse than 10 years ago when you actually began in the House. My challenge to that is my experience of over 22 years in the Taranaki region as its chair of the regional council, is I can point factually to some scientific evidence where we are making progress. It is a trend in the right direction, and we've got a long way to go, but we are getting better, and we should actually pat people on the back more than actually lambaste them, because I'm a believer in actually more of the carrot approach rather than the stick approach. And we do see a lot of lambasting of individuals rather than supporting success and growing that success in itself. I think there's a great thing that comes out of that. In Taranaki, for instance, and I know it's only a small part of Aotearoa New Zealand itself, but Taranakiyou know I was proud to have my Taranaki here yesterday and you talked about the fact that Taranaki maunga is going to have the rights of an individual, of a person itself and I support that. I think it's a great outcome and it's a long time coming. It's been a long journey in itself, and I believe the environment is going to be better for it as well. Taranaki maunga has had some great programmes on it recently, particularly the predator control programme that's looking after our taonga species on that maunga. And we heard the member from the Māori Party speak to that yesterday about the fact that it has been sacrificed by the fact that we had pests introduced to that environment and we're in a recovery mode right now. But we've also done a great job around the ring plain of Taranaki; it just doesn't stop on the National Park; it actually goes around the ring plain. And we've got farmers, we've got everybody that's using the environment, the landscape, actually believing and making the environment better with regards to that. I wanted to finish offyou know, I won't get the opportunity, the Hon James Shaw, to thank you for your contribution to the country and to this House itselfnd I want to acknowledge that. I've been looking from afar at politics for many, many years, and although I don't know you particularly well, you do come across as a man who is very courteous, who has great honesty and high integrity. hose are values that everybody should actually strain for. So I appreciate that. So unfortunately, with my time running out, I'm not in the position to support this. It has complexity with legislation, but I wish you well in the future. Thank you, James. ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): Madam Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to take a call on this important bill. This is a bill that the National Party MPs have, speech after speech, said that they generally agree with. They have spoken about how the member bringing this bill, the Hon James Shaw, has made an incredible contribution to not only this Parliament's understanding of climate change but public life in New Zealand. The member who has brought this bill has advanced not only New Zealand's public conversation about the environment and about our rights and interests in climate change and the things that we owe to Papatūānuku and our environmental commitments as people on this planet, but he has also moved the conversation along for the entire world. It is a stain on the record of this Parliament that we are not sending it to select committee. All of the members of this House should be able to see that this is something worthy of debate, that this is something worthy of cross-partisan discussion, that this is something worthy of us coming together as a Parliament and putting aside our political interests for the rights and interests of generations to follow us. Whether or not you support a rights-based framework; whether or not you think the regulation is the way that we should deal with climate change issues and issues in the environmental regulatory space; whether you think that the free market will just sort it out and some dream of techno-futurism is going to fix it in a moon-shot kind of way, this is something that we should be having a discussion about. This is something the young people strike on Friday afternoon, School Strike 4 Climate, was about. This is something that teenagers that young people at universities that young people all over Aotearoa expect leadership from at a parliamentary level. I'm proud to be able to speak in support of this bill, but I want to get into the detail of this at select committee. I wish the parliamentarians around the House were allowing that opportunity to occur. Yes, my colleague the Hon David Parker is right that it is good for this Parliament to be able to come together and to be able to debate this bill at this point. It is useful for us to be able to acknowledge that the kind of contribution that one member can make to advance this conversation is important—and that's why we should have this debating time with him here in the Chamber. But the kind of contribution that one member can make is vastly outstripped by a number of MPs getting their heads together in a select committee room and being able to have this conversation with not only the expert advice that is afforded to select committees but also available through the advice from the Ministry for the Environment and the useful work that has been done out there in the community on this issue. I wish we could have this conversation. I'm so disappointed in the parties that are not voting for it, and I urge them to change their minds. Dr VANESSA WEENINK (National—Banks Peninsula): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It's an honour to speak on this bill, and I acknowledge James Shaw for bringing this to the House. It is one of those things where sometimes when you are new to things and you look at it, you don't understand what it's about when you first read the title I first thought that it might be that you were bringing the rights of Papatūānuku to have the rights of personhood. That's what I first thought it was, which would have been very ambitious. Chlöe Swarbrick: That's next. Dr VANESSA WEENINK: Is that the next one? OK, is that your one, Chlöe? Yeah, that'd be interesting. Unfortunately, the National Party doesn't support this bill, as you know, and it's not because we don't care about the environment. We absolutely are focused on having sustainable environmental objectives, as well as having economic development. We think that we can do both. Now, Rachel Brooking spoke about the Resource Management Act (RMA) being unwieldy. In fact, there's general agreement across the House about the problematic nature of the RMA. I think when it was first introduced, the RMA was fewer than about 400 pages, and now it is well over 800 pages, and all of those insertions of amendments and schedules and additional clarifications over time has led to this kind of legislative quagmire. So I think that we should keep it in mind when we're considering this bill, because the National Party has assessed that this bill poses risks of increasing the potential for legal challenges and uncertainties surrounding the interpretation and the application of the bill. So the effect that that would have would be to hinder effective environmental management and decision-making. We think that we can actually have both a better environment and a stronger economy by cutting wasteful compliance, not by adding to it, and we believe that this bill would be adding to confusion and red tape. My colleague David MacLeod mentioned that he's seen environmental improvements over time without the need to add legislative requirements and to compel people, and I've also seen some examples of that in my own electorate. A great example of that is through the Banks Peninsula Conservation Trust and the work that they have done in covenanting areas of land to protect them in perpetuity. That is something that the landowners have done voluntarily. They formed this trust together and worked with the Hon Dr Nick Smith to have the right to grant covenants, and then, together, they have worked through that process and have been extremely successful, and over 16,000 hectares of land is now under covenant because of that process. So we can see very good examples of where environmental protections happen without the need to compel. As other members have mentioned, there is a risk of bringing social rights into the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, and there are the implications that that might have. The idea of the right to housing or the right to healthcare other things that have been previously postulated as things that might be human rights, and they're very difficult to then manage and to have oversight of. In summary, we think that although there are great intentions and ideas behind this bill that we agree with on some level, the problems that can come from good intentions that aren't implemented well should be something that the House is cautious of and that we guard against. So it's useful for us to have considered this and to discuss it, I think, and, like the Hon David Parker mentioned, it shows a level of civility in this House that we are able to do that for you in this time, Mr Shaw. So I'm glad to have been able to discuss this matter, and although I like some of the ideas, I do not commend this bill to the House. Hon JAMES SHAW (Green): Yeah, thank you Madam Speaker. So I thank members around the House for their kind words, and I've been considering how to respond to some of the arguments made in that light. First of all, I would like to thank the Labour Party and Te Pāti Māori for their support for the bill. And I do want to recognise Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke for her speech, which I thought was probably, actually, the most evidence based, considered, and logical argument that I heard this afternoon, making those connections for exactly why the state of the environment does actually affect our human rights and therefore why it is important that we recognise that as such. I just want to respond to a few of the other points before I move on. One of which is, you know, the argument that David Parker made around the, kind of, slippery slope argument: the idea that if you introduce this, you might have to introduce a number of other things—I think Rachel Brooking, actually, sorry, made this pointone of which is around property rights. I would just say, if you want to create a human right to property, you'd want be very careful what you wish for, because you might have to hand back all the land that was stolen and swindled and confiscated. I want to say that this bill is a limited and a special gate—it will not open the flood gates to other rights being introduced into the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. There was the fantastic speech by Simon Court. Of course, he said, "Here's a reckon"—and it's probably true, hence outlining how this Government makes its decisions: pub talk translated into Government policy. Despite the fact that they've got this steadfast commitment to actual evidence in their coalition agreements—this idea of just, like "Oh, wait, here's some reckons. They're probably true. Let's govern the country on that basis." I'd like to thank Lawyers for Climate Action, particularly Jenny Cooper KC and Dr James Every-Palmer KC, for proposing any drafting and promoting this amendment, and, more recently, their executive director, Jessica Pelairet, for her support as the bill made it to first reading. I also want to thank the 59 King's Counsels who supported the amendment—and if David Parker wants a debate about what the appropriate place is, I can find him 59 King's Counsels to have that argument with—as well as organisations like World Wide Fund for Nature, who are supporting it. Now, I was first introduced to the concept of ecocide, wild law and nature's rights law by a UK barrister Polly Higgins. Those conversations with Polly inspired me to make the rights of nature part of my work here in Parliament, which I laid out in my maiden speech. Now, sadly, Polly died of lung cancer in 2019, which is the same year that Lawyers for Climate Action first proposed the bill. But I do want to thank Polly for her leadership, and I dedicate this first reading to her and all of those who are working for Earthjustice. I want to thank Ngāi Thoe, Whanganui, and Taranaki iwi for having introduced nature's rights law into our legal framework here in Aotearoa. The country owes you all a huge debt of gratitude. I also want to acknowledge the Hon Christopher Finlayson for his leadership on the Crown side of that story as well. And a brief story, which was, I think, during the 2011 election campaignI was covering for Russel Norman in the seat of Rongotai. So I was in a debate that Christopher Finlayson was in. The Whanganui River settlement had just gone through. I said to him, "How did you get that past Cabinet? You've just introduced nature's rights into the New Zealand statute. How did you get that past your colleagues in Cabinet?" And he looked at me and he said, "Well, it's a very interesting area of law.", and then walked off. In other words, I suspect they had no idea what was in it. So, look, I want to conclude with another comment from my maiden speech, which is that my first female ancestor in New Zealand, Annie Mathilda Baggett, was the granddaughter of a Jamaican plantation slave during a time when slavery was seen as a vital component of the global economy and the abolition of slavery was opposed as a threat to financial stability and economic development. People pollute the atmosphere. They destroy rivers and species and ecosystems for the very same reasons that they used slave labour or seized land that once belonged to a people that they considered to be inferior. There is always debate and controversy about the expansion of rights. Whenever the status quo is threatened, there are always doomsayers saying that civilisation will collapse, or vested interests that are predicting that the economy will be destroyed—and we heard some of those arguments today. But the changes that seemed so threatening never are, in hindsight, and the warnings that seem so serious to so many people always sound so absurd to subsequent generations. Thank you, Madam Speaker. [Applause]. A party vote was called for on the question, That the New Zealand Bill of Rights (Right to Sustainable Environment) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. Ayes 55 New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6. Noes 68 New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Motion not agreed to. RESTORING CITIZENSHIP REMOVED BY CITIZENSHIP (WESTERN SAMOA) ACT 1982 BILL First Reading TEANAU TUIONO (Green): I move, That the Restoring Citizenship Removed By Citizenship (Western Samoa) Act 1982 Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Governance and Administration Committee to consider the bill. Faafetai i lau afioga le Fono Fetalai mo lenei avanoa. E muamua ona ou faatulou atu i le paia o le atunuu i ona tulaga faalupe. Ou te faatulou atu foi i le paia o alii ma tamaitai faipule ua tatou faatasi i lenei aso. Malo le soifua manuia ma le lagi e mamā. I want to acknowledge elders both past and present and those who are with us in the House. I want to acknowledge reverend ministers and their families, and community leaders, dignitaries from the Samoan High Commission, and I note that the Speaker of the Samoan Parliament is with us today in the public gallery with his delegation of Samoan MPs from both political parties. I want to acknowledge other former MPs who are here today. I note former National Party MP Anae Arthur Anae, who is in the public gallery. And it is always good to see the Hon Aupito Su'a William Sio back in this House. I want to acknowledge Faʻanānā Efeso Collins, who did his best to teach me a mihi in Samoan, and noting that I am probably the worst Samoan-language student he ever had. Although I am not Samoan, can I say that I am Samoan-adjacent. All Pasifika peoples, all tangata moana are adjacent to each other. I mentioned Efeso, because, like others from our generation, as this House was moving through the Dawn Raids apology, he reached out to me, like many others, to tell me that there was more injustice to unravel, that there was further to go on this journey. Another Samoan friend of mine Renee Dingwall's dad, Su'a Hans Schwalger, who's over in Samoa at this time, told her to tell her friend—me—to get rid of this Western Samoa citizenship Act. So, Efeso, Renee, and all the Samoans who I grew up with, this is for you. Our parents' stories are our stories. Our grandparents' stories are our stories. Those narratives form our community's narratives. These conversations can be tough conversations, but they are important if we are to grow as a family of Pacific nations. I want to acknowledge Aupito Su'a William Sio, who guided us through one of those tough conversations through the Dawn Raids apology. It is important work and we must continue to build on that work, and I see this as another step in that journey. This is not the first time there has been an attempt to address this issue. I did note, before, the presence of former National MP Anae Arthur Anae in the public gallery and community members that brought a petition to this House in 2003. Over 9,000 people signed that petition. I also note, and I noticed in the gallery, that my Auckland University fellow alumni Dr Tofilau Nina Kirifi-Alai is here as well, along with Seiuli Savea Peseta, and there are many others listening from home. I make this observation—and it is this: if you have Pacific Islanders from different political parties, who, in our own different ways, want what is best for our communities, then that is something that this House should take note of. That note should be that we need to have our communities heard at the select committee. There is a bit of history here, and I want to traverse it a little bit; it's in the context of the bill. It is Samoan history, but it is also New Zealand history, learning about the Mau movement and the independence movement in Samoa is such an important part of our history, which would give New Zealanders a deeper understanding of New Zealand's imperial aspirations in the Pacific at the turn of the century, and the painful consequences of those aspirations. What a lot of New Zealanders don't know is that New Zealand administered Samoa for 48 years as part of the World War I effort, on behalf of Britain from the then German colonial rule. New Zealand administered what we now know as Samoa, and the Americans administered what we now know as American Samoan. The New Zealand administration was so appalling and so bad that Prime Minister Helen Clark had to apologise in 2002. In 1948, New Zealand citizenship was established. We went from being British subjects, to New Zealand citizens. It was in 1982 that the Privy Council ruled that all Samoans born between 1924 and 1948 were British subjects and, because of that, from 1949 onwards, they were New Zealand citizens. As the years go by, more of these elders will pass. It is estimated that there are less than 5,000 remaining. These are important stories that need to be heard and that is why this House needs to send this bill to the select committee. In terms of the Privy Council, I want to acknowledge the pivotal role played by Falema'i Lesa and her family and the committee's organisers who pushed that case. Falema'i's contribution, we honour not only her personal and individual journey but the collective struggle of Pacific peoples for equality and for justice. Fairness is at the heart of this bill. We had a group of New Zealand citizens who had their citizenship recognised and then had that citizenship removed by statute. That is unfair—plain and simple. States should not be able to remove citizenship wholesale like that. It is unjust. This bill will address this injustice in two ways. It will repeal the Citizenship (Western Samoa) Act, remove it from the statute book; and the people who lost citizenship in 1982 will be entitled to apply for and receive citizenship by a grant under the Citizenship Act 1977. This is important. The bill does not confer citizenship directly, but it instead creates automatic eligibility to apply for and receive citizenship. It would not create new rights to citizenship for descendants of those whose citizenship was removed. As I said earlier, the youngest of these elders is now 75. That is why it is important that now is the time for us to address these issues while they are still here. Our international standing derives from our ability to influence the Pacific. Relational diplomacy is so important, particularly in the Pacific where we have geopolitical tensions playing out between bigger nations. This is something that we can do and do well. The wellbeing of our people, economy, and environment are closely linked to that of our Pacific neighbours. It is our responsibility to continue striving to improve and maintain these relationships. That relationship is always worth strengthening. Supporting Samoan elders signals to the Pacific that we take those relationships seriously. That is why this House should send this bill to select committee. There has been speculation in the media that this will cause mass migration. That is not my intention. Citizenship broadly happens in three ways: by birth, descent, or by grant. This is citizenship by grant. Can we have a discussion on what the grant could look like that is practical and workable? I think we can. Solutions that could suit different perspectives of members across the House. We can, but only if we send this bill to select committee. The Pacific is one ocean but it has many waves. Each island represents a distinct wave in the vast ocean. They are all part of the same body of water. It speaks to the shared heritage, struggles, and aspirations of Pacific peoples, emphasising the unity and the interconnectedness that transcends geographical boundaries. This highlights the significance of recognising and honouring the collective experiences and histories of Pacific communities, acknowledging the common challenges that we have faced and continue to face. Just as waves merge and flow together in the ocean, Pacific peoples come together united by our shared ancestry and cultural ties to navigate the currents of history and shape our collective identity. I started with the words of Faʻanānā Efeso Collins, and I want to conclude with some of those words from his maiden speech. In his maiden speech, he talked about a saying in Samoan, and it goes: "E le tu fa'amauga se tagata—No one stands alone, no one succeeds alone—and, for [him], no one suffers alone." I want to add a little bit to that: that we succeed best when we succeed together. So I ask for this House to send this bill to the select committee. Madam Speaker, fa'afetai tele lava. Meitaki ranuinui. Thank you to the community for coming out today. Hopefully, your presence here in this House will inspire parties to vote for this bill in this first reading and to send it to the select committee. Thank you, Madam Speaker. ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): The question is that the motion be agreed to. CAMERON BREWER (National—Upper Harbour): Talofa lava. We in the National Party are opposing this Restoring Citizenship Removed By Citizenship (Western Samoa) Act 1982 Bill, and I just want to take you through some of our thinking. I also want to acknowledge my long-time friend and former colleague and boss Arthur Anae in the Speaker's gallery, and I reinforce what the previous speaker, Teanau Tuiono, was saying as far as the work and the advocacy that he has done—as have many, over many years—when he was a National MP from 1996 to 2002, and ongoingly. Only a couple of weeks ago, he was getting around the halls of Parliament, lobbying for progression on this issue. So I want to acknowledge Arthur for his long-time fight and, of course, the many other Pasifika MPs. We have the Pacific select committee room, and we know how well represented the wider community, Samoan New Zealanders, have been over many years now. I also want to acknowledge and pick up from the sponsor our late friend and colleague Efeso Collins, and I think it's somewhat fitting today that the Business Committee came out and announced that there will be a parliamentary acknowledgment of Efeso, after question time, at 3 o'clock on Tuesday, 30 April. I'm pleased his former leader James Shaw will be here, before his valedictory the next day or two after that, to pay tribute to Efeso. So, given the audience for this piece of legislation, I thought it was important to put out a public service announcement: 3 o'clock, Tuesday, 30 April for a tribute to Efeso. Our main point on this piece of legislation is that it presents itself in a member's bill situation, where we don't think it's the right format or forum. We believe that this has been well canvassed and well argued over many years—one could argue 42 years, since 1982. If we look back since 1982 and that Muldoon administration, that National Government, we've had three Labour Governments since—the fourth, the fifth, and the sixth—we've had 10 Prime Ministers, we've had an array of wonderful representation from our Pasifika community and from our Samoan community, and we've had an apology from a previous Prime Minister, Jacinda Ardern, on the Dawn Raids, in 2021. Again, that was an issue going back to the 1970s, and, of course, the National Party supported that apology. So where there is a will to change things, from a Government perspective—and we've had 10 Prime Ministers, and two National Governments and three Labour Governments since then—there has been the ability to make a statement and to do things. As we saw with the apology for the Dawn Raids, the Labour Government stepped up there, and also the sponsoring member, Teanau Tuiono, talked about Helen Clark's apology in 2002. So previous Governments have had the will and done the thing. But our point is that the Governments of the past, of many stripes, of many different colours—red, blue, green, Te Pāti Māori, others—have not taken this up, and we would argue it's because legally the arguments have been exhausted over a 42-year period. We are concerned that it creates a legal precedent. Legal experts will say to you that retroactively—retroactively—interesting word— Hon Member: Retrospectively. CAMERON BREWER: —no, "retroactively" is the legal terminology—reinstating the citizenship of citizens affected by this Act sets a problematic precedent, and we want to ensure, as have previous administrations, led by 10 previous Prime Ministers over four decades, that we have a legal framework in place that equates to fairness and equity. So our concern is that it does create a number of unprecedented measures, and it also creates a situation where we have got a focus at the moment on managing the immigration settings and adopting them accordingly to fit today's demands, and 173,000 non - New Zealand citizens migrated here in 2023. You would have seen our immigration Minister, Erica Stanford, unveil a range of changes to the likes of the Accredited Employer Work Visa scheme, and also, at the weekend, she put in a number of measures that will address migrant worker exploitation. So we have got huge challenges and huge workloads ahead of us and a number of legal precedents that we believe that previous administrations—three Labour Governments, two National Governments—have looked at it— Chlöe Swarbrick: You're in charge now. CAMERON BREWER: —and have not proceeded on goodwill, and some of those people and some of those Governments have been led by constitutional experts like Sir Geoffrey Palmer. This is an exhaustive piece of work that's looked at it, and successive Governments have—unfortunately for the other side of the House; unfortunately for their argument—not proceeded on a number of firm grounds. We, as a Government, understand and continue to foster the strong relationships with Pasifika and Pacific nations. I want to acknowledge the great work that the very busy health Minister, Shane Reti, is doing as also Minister for Pacific Peoples, and if the bill progresses, it does and it will have implications on current citizenship settings. So we have given this—previous parliaments—considerable, considerable time, energy, and argument over four decades, and we believe, on balance, that for this to go to select committee at this stage, in a member's bill format and forum, is not appropriate. The members opposite say, "Oh well, you're in charge now." Well, can I just remind them that they were in charge, with the biggest majority in MMP history, six months ago. They were in charge, with a single-party majority, just six months ago. Everyone has looked at this. Successive Prime Ministers have looked at this. Successive Governments have looked at this. We on this side of the House have also looked closely at it. We have also been talking to friends like our friend Arthur Anae. We have also been lobbied hard. We have also taken legal advice. But, on the balance of it, National will oppose this bill. Thank you. Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Labour—Kelston): Talofa lava, Madam Speaker, and talofa lava to the House. To all of our Samoan community who have come along today to support this bill, can I acknowledge you. Many of the people that are here today are not just here to support the kaupapa of today; they were here in 2003 outside Parliament. They were one or many of the 90,000 people that signed the petition at the time and have been fighting for this change for decades. Can I acknowledge the Green Party member Teanau Tuiono, one of only six Pacific members of Parliament at the moment. Can I just say on record that the other side who are in the Labour Party stand behind Teanau Tuiono with respect to this bill that he is attempting to pass. I'm going to start with the Dawn Raids apology. The Dawn Raids apology was a formal acknowledgement of the discriminatory implementation of immigration laws that led to the Dawn Raids. However, beyond the Dawn Raids, the Muldoon-led National Government continued on their trajectory with the 1982 retrospective removal of the right to citizenship for those Samoans born between 1924 to 1948. So I do find it very interesting that the member Cameron Brewer says that he doesn't want to retroactively reinstate citizenship for Samoans when it was retrospectively taken away from them. The removal of citizenship rights for any country is contentious. In fact, New Zealand has been at the forefront in some incidences of criticising other countries internationally for this. Sadly, the New Zealand Government did exactly this themselves in 1982, and this continues to be something that is deemed controversial—and rightly so. The actions that followed the Dawn Raid apology were not exhaustive. As part of the apology, we provided educational scholarships, access to the Manaaki New Zealand Short Term Scholarship training courses, support for Pacific artists and historians to develop a comprehensive written and oral account of the Dawn Raids, but no one at that time implied that the work required by New Zealand Governments to demonstrate a genuine understanding of the discrimination and trauma the Pacific community had endured was complete. The apology provided a platform for remorse, remembrance, and reflection of that dark time that should, and could, inform ongoing future policy decisions. What we have before us is another opportunity to honour the spirit of the Dawn Raids apology, and we truly hope that other political parties in this House will see this. I'm not going to pretend that this is where it ends. It would be remiss of me not to mention the policy Labour took into the last election where we would have provided the opportunity for some that were here illegally to regularise their immigration status. This work has not been forgotten by the Labour Party. Turning my mind back to the bill in front of us, Teanau Tuiono has stated clearly we are talking about 3,000 to 5,000 people, not all of whom would want to take the opportunity up. It is the right thing to do, at least to allow the bill to go to select committee. Off the back of the significant contributions Samoans have made to Aotearoa, it is the right thing to do; on behalf of the nearly 200,000 Samoans who have made New Zealand their home, it is the right thing to do; in the spirit of the 1962 Treaty of Friendship between Samoa, where we pledged the two countries would be governed by a spirit of close friendship, it is the right thing to do; and with the acknowledgement of the discriminatory immigration policy our Samoan community endured before and during the period that this legislation was passed, it is the right thing to do. I want to implore all political parties to at least support this to select committee. There is no precedent being set when it is only being considered at select committee. That is where we get to consider the advice, the submissions from the community, and to hear from the legal experts. We don't need to hear from the people who think they are legal experts in the House today. [Applause] ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): Order! Order! Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: Labour is represented by our Samoan community. Labour is here to support the Samoan community. We stand by our Green Party brother in supporting this bill today. Dr PARMJEET PARMAR (ACT): Thank you, Madam Speaker, for this opportunity. I would like to start by congratulating the member Teanau Tuiono for his member's bill being drawn from the ballot. I know it's quite exciting to have a member's bill drawn but it also brings a bit of nervousness until you know which way different parties are going to vote. So this bill is the Restoring Citizenship Removed By Citizenship (Western Samoa) Act 1982 Bill. So, basically, this bill is to repeal that 1982 Act, and I want to just ease that member's nervousness by saying that the ACT Party has decided to support this bill to select committee. Yes, I know, some members are looking quite surprised, but this is what the ACT Party stands for: we believe in equality; we believe in fairness. So we want to really assess this bill on the basis of these two things, equality and fairness, and I think we will get this opportunity to do that in the select committee process because we would like to hear from submitters—what submitters have to say on this bill. We would also like to see what advisers have to say on this bill. But I also want to point out this: while I acknowledge the community leaders from the Samoan community here in the gallery—thank you so much for taking the time out to be here today—in the select committee process we expect that the Samoan community leaders and Samoan community members will support this bill. I'm assuming all of them will support this bill. But it will be important for us to hear from other people as well, overall, like from New Zealand, to see what they think about this bill. And our support is at this stage only for the first reading. So we will decide how we will vote on this bill after we get the opportunity to see what the select committee process looks like and what submitters have said and what advisers have said. I also want to acknowledge the member for reaching out to me and some of my caucus colleagues as well, advocating for his bill. So thank you for that. Clearly this bill is—overall, when it's looked at—something that is to look at a historic matter. And when we look at that historic matter—this is my view—which, obviously, we want to explore in the select committee process, at the time, the citizenship of those people was revoked because those people acquired Samoan citizenship. And they acquired Samoan citizenship because Samoa became—at that time, it was Western Samoa— independent in 1962. So it was considered that people—those who acquired Samoan citizenship—chose their allegiance to Samoa over New Zealand and that was the reason why their New Zealand citizenship was revoked in that 1982 Act. So it's very important for us to note this. I would also like to bring to everybody's attention that our view is by passing that legislation, what New Zealand did was perfectly fine within the legal framework of that time. So New Zealand was within its rights to do what it did at that time. And referring to the member's letter that was attached to the email that came from a member, the member has listed various reasons why this bill should be supported. One of the reasons that is listed in the letter, which I want to talk about, is the member says that this bill will address the racist origins of the Act. We want to say that we do not see that that 1982 Act was about being racist, because if it was about being racist then we know that even in 1982 there were people from so many different parts of the world; the citizenships of all those people would have been revoked if it was based on race. But the basis was because Samoa became independent and people decided to acquire Samoan citizenship, and because they had acquired Samoan citizenship their New Zealand citizenship was revoked. So this is really important to note. But as we have said, we want to go with a very open mind to the select committee process and see what submitters have to say. And as I also said, it's not just about one community, what they are saying, but we would like to hear from the wider community—whole of New Zealand—and also advisers to see where this bill sits for going forward. And with that, Madam Speaker, I would say that we are supporting this bill in the first reading. Thank you. Hon CASEY COSTELLO (NZ First): I would first like to acknowledge Teanau Tuiono for bringing this bill to the House. I think it's an important piece of work, the Restoring Citizenship Removed By Citizenship (Western Samoa) Act 1982 Bill. I would also acknowledge—and I think it must be with great sadness—that this bill is being brought to the House without Efeso Collins being here to share it with you. New Zealand First is here to listen to the Pacific community, our leader—and excuse me for my pronunciation—Vaovasamanaia Winston Peters, has advocated through initiatives such as the Pacific Reset, and continues to advocate for our Pacific communities. We support our Pacific neighbours and the communities that make up our country. That is why New Zealand First will be supporting this bill to select committee. It is the select committee process that will give us an opportunity to consider and make amendments that are necessary. The bill is attempting to restore citizenship to those in Western Samoa that lost it when the Citizenship (Western Samoa) Act 1982 was passed. We acknowledge that, yes, for over 40 years, the effect of this bill has been reviewed and considered and reflected upon. It will mean that approximately 5,000 people who lost citizenship in 1982 will be able to apply for and receive citizenship by grant. We acknowledge this doesn't confer citizenship directly but creates automatic eligibility to apply for and receive citizenship. We know there's been numerous attempts to repeal this Act, and I acknowledge the petition in 2003, and, again, the former MP Arthur Anae for his work. Now this member's bill is before the House, we think it is an important consideration. I myself enjoy wonderful whānau members, who are in New Zealand, from the Samoan community. I've lived and worked most of my life in South Auckland and we are enriched and blessed by the contribution the Samoan community makes to our schools, to our communities, to our collective organisations. I would like to see robust conversations. There will, of course, be considerations we have to reflect on. We have to understand the impacts, and, of course, being a Government, we have to consider the financial implications. We know that will be a process, and that process should take place in select committee where we can hear fairly, calmly, and rationally from those who are affected. We will not lose; I think we will gain from the opportunity of this conversation. I think it is really important to reflect that we have all been blessed. I have worked with wonderful men and women who have come from Samoa, some of whom have saved my life on a couple of occasions, so I acknowledge that completely. When, I think, many of us gave our maiden speeches in this House, we talked about the opportunities to work in a bipartisan way, to work across the House to find our common ground, to talk about what brings us together rather than divides us. I think this is an opportunity to demonstrate how we can do that. I look forward to the opportunity, and New Zealand First look forward to the opportunity, of having these discussions and really analysing what we are going to achieve here. The fact that this matter has been sitting around for 40 years should not be something that we're afraid of. It should be the reason that we actually take the initiative to sit down. So, again, I commend the member for bringing this to the House. I acknowledge the sadness that must exist because Efeso's not here to join in this, but I take pleasure in supporting this bill to the select committee. MARIAMENO KAPA-KINGI (Matarau—Te Pāti Māori ): Tēnā koe. Tēnā koe, e te Pīka. [Authorised te reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.] [Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.] I stand to acknowledge and be grateful and to fully support this idea and this discussion today, and without it I think we would not be doing our job as Te Pāti Māori. The whakapapa of this bill takes us back in time to an era not so long ago, in the time of the Polynesian Panthers, of the Dawn Raids. And, you know, the picture that comes to mind right now is Hone Harawira, and many of those [Authorised te reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.] [Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.] of a time where Māori and Pasifika joined together to fight back against the relentless infringement of our rights as Pasifika and Māori that a Muldoon or National Government—not too dissimilar to our current one—inflicted upon us. This era saw the rise of Pacific activism, which responded to openly racist treatment. It was 1976 when Dawn Raids began targeting Pacific households accused of harbouring overstayers, despite it being those of European ethnicity who made-up two-thirds of all overstayers in New Zealand at the time. Events such as this inspired activism from the Polynesian Panthers and it is important I recognise here not only their commitment to their people but also ours. They fought alongside us during the 1975 land march, Bastion Point, and for the right to equality during the Springbok Tour. And while the communities most impacted by events of the Dawn Raids have finally received their apology from the Crown—and there's been a few apologies in the last maybe 24 hours, but I suggest that the Government might have to be prepared for more apologies to come, from that side I mean—there has been little action taken to prove the sincerity of this. The affected community have not yet truly received their fair compensation. The amendments to this bill are the start of that process. The bill will restore the right of citizenship to our Samoan community born between 1924 and 1949 that was stripped away with the introduction of the Citizen (Western Samoa) Act of 1982. Amendments to this bill will remedy and illustrate restorative action to the racial discrimination that our Pacific community were most certainly subject to during this time period. It is our responsibility to ensure that those unfairly treated by this very institution are both witness to, and recipients of, restorative action. And it is important that whatever this restorative action may be, it is those impacted communities—those impacted communities—who inform us what this action is and that it is not those of us in this House who have never walked a day in their lives that dictate what it is that they think they need. So I can stand in support of this bill—and I'm thrilled to and our party are absolutely glad to, and so we should—as presented by our whanaunga Teanau. So mihi [Authorised te reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.] [Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.] as we Māori can both acknowledge and understand what it is to experience a historical and ongoing mistreatment from this institution. I'm glad we—well, I want us to get to select committee. We should have select committee on this—if we don't we are still saying we know what's best for you. And that is simply not the truth. It is not that we should describe what it is for others that don't look like us, sound like us and feel like us. And I'm saying that as a Māori. Hon BARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana): Ou te faatalofa atu ma le faaaloalo. Malo le soifua maua ma le lagi e mamā. The 685s to the world! For those members of the House who do not know what 685 means, it is the calling code for Samoa, but it took the 682, the Cook Islands, to bring this bill to the House, I acknowledge. There's only a couple of times we like losing to the Cook Islanders, but today we'll give it to you, my brother. Today is a historical day because we have seen the Labour Party support the Greens, we have seen Te Pāti Māori support the Greens, we have seen the ACT Party support the Greens—never thought I'd see this day—and I've seen New Zealand First support the Greens, support the bill. And that is a historical day because today rights the wrongs of what happened in the 1980s. Now, the unfortunate thing for me is I did not learn about our New Zealand history until I chose to learn it at university, and that is something wrong with our country, that something as remarkable as the stripping of citizenship rights for Samoan people who were born during a period where New Zealand administered them, was their Government, was removed through an Act of this House. There is no point paying homage to the wars that we fought in Samoa, and that plaque above the head of the Speaker, if we do not right the wrongs of the past. And what we have seen is through community advocacy, through a simple and very humble woman, Falemaʻi Lesa, we have seen what is possible through the power of people. The Samoan people in this country are proud of our roots and of our homeland. We are proud that we are the third most spoken language in this country. We are proud that we are the fastest growing Pacific population in Aotearoa New Zealand. And yet, we have hidden a historical wrong which is finally brought to the House which this Labour Party wholeheartedly supports. And we want to thank those who have paved the path for this. We want to thank our elders, our mafukaga Ministers, Anae Arthur Anae, we want to thank auntie Paula, who keeps sending me emails to make sure that I support this bill, and all our aunties and uncles, when they tell you you better support this bill, we better support this bill because the punishment that happens in our community is harder than any punishment that we would ever experience in this House! I also want to pay homage to the Wellington lawyer George Rosenberg who supported Falemaʻi Lesa during that court case. He understood the importance of why they had to test that. For me, my father would have fallen within the Samoan citizenship Act because he was born in Samoa in 1945, and there's a lot of our generation—the generation just above mine—that would have fallen within these particular rules, had they been left in. But what has happened is that was removed and then, like my father and many other fathers and mothers who are here within the House today, they would have had to go through a process when, by right—by birthright—they were born in a time when New Zealand administered their country. So I want to thank the people who have brought this here today. I want to thank the rest of the parties who are supporting this bill. I want to ensure that the generation that comes after me—the generation of our children who, again, are the fastest Pacific population in New Zealand— Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Fastest growing, not fastest! Hon BARBARA EDMONDS: Fastest growing—fastest growing. Well, actually, some of them are quite fast. The fastest-growing population—that they learn this history, not because we've had to bring it to the House but because New Zealand is going to teach its history in the schools. So that is the stage that we need to start pushing. But for tonight, we give our alofa and we celebrate what is a milestone of achievement. The 685s to the world, brought to you by the 682, but we take it. Fa'afetai tele lava. TOM RUTHERFORD (National—Bay of Plenty): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Firstly, I want to acknowledge the contributions that have been given on this debate so far from across the House. The first contribution given—and congratulations to the member for having his bill drawn from the biscuit tin. It is a tough feat to get one drawn, so congratulations and well done. Listening to the debate this evening from across the House has been engaging. It's been challenging on a personal level. It's been thought provoking. It's created an environment where people have felt safe to make their contributions to why they believe they should support or oppose the bill that is in front of us. So I want to acknowledge, firstly, the bill being drawn and having it here debated today. I also quickly want to acknowledge those in the community that have joined us this evening. For many, first time ever coming to Parliament and experiencing the halls of power in New Zealand, welcome, welcome. We stand here to represent and work on behalf of you. We may not always get things right, we may not always achieve what we want to deliver on, but I want to acknowledge you being here and your presence. Thank you for making that effort to be here. My colleague, Cameron Brewer, really outlined our party's position on this bill in his excellent 10-minute contribution. But I do want to acknowledge what is glaringly obvious, that the bill has the support of the wider House. And so if the bill comes to the Governance and Administration Committee—I'm not sure yet which select committee the member is intending to nominate. If it does come to that select committee though—he's nodding, he's telling me yes; good man—then I look forward to the further discussions we're going to have on the bill. I look forward to understanding the perspectives that we're going to be hearing on that select committee and the real-world implications that this bill may be having for people. And I appreciate the opportunity that those people will have at the select committee with the wider support that has been given across this House. Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. LEMAUGA LYDIA SOSENE (Labour—Māngere): Aua le kovana e Ua e fa'afiti E te le iloaina O se fanata'avili A e molimau tamaiti ma le afafine o Kilisi O oe lava na e fa'apa e le fanata'avili "Oh Governor, you have lied. You say you don't know whose machine gun it was, but the children and the daughter of Kilisi all bear witness that you alone pulled that trigger." I stand here today, I welcome our Samoan community, in particular our guest Fofoga Fetalai and delegation, those who are listening at home and offshore. I began my talanoa, my kōrero, with a song, a song that was written for the time, a historical account of Samoa's Black Saturday, when Tupua Tamasese Lealofi III was martyred during a peaceful march against New Zealand's and Great Britain's rule of Samoa. That particular incident: there was a horrific shooting by New Zealand military police of the Mau independence demonstrators in Apia, Samoa. That particular day, 11 Samoans died, including the independent leader, Paramount Chief Tupua Tamasese Lealofi III, on Saturday, 28 December 1929. For the record, the Paramount Chief Tupua Tamasese Lealofi III was the great-grandfather of our former colleague Anae Neru Leavasa, former Labour MP for Takanini. Madam Speaker, on the walls of this House are 12 carved, circular rimu memorial wreaths around the balcony, and just above your head bears the name of significant engagement involving New Zealand troops in World War I. It's the memorial wreath and ribbon of Samoa's name engraved in there. Many New Zealanders do not know or do not understand that New Zealand administered Samoa for 48 years, from 1914 to 1962. The New Zealand administration was worse than the German administration of Samoa, 1900 to 1914, and in 2002, the Rt Hon Helen Clark, former Prime Minister of New Zealand, gave a formal apology. Madam Speaker, you have heard my colleagues traverse today's bill, and I want to in particular thank Teanau Tuiono, and we remember our brother Fa'anānā Efeso Collins because we miss him. Madam Speaker, you've heard Carmel Sepuloni, deputy leader for the Labour Party. You've heard Barbara Edmonds, finance spokesperson for the Labour Party. We are the daughters of the descendants of Samoa. We support this bill, the Labour Party supports this bill, and I want to thank the other parties for their support, that they support this bill to the select committee process. I want to call and challenge the National Government. I want to call on you because you need to reconsider your position for this bill. Our Samoans have been in this country for decades. We are asking for your support that you would hear, through the select committee—Samoans need to have their say. Many Samoans have served this country for many, many decades, and what legacy do we want to leave for our young people, the future of tomorrow? So those are the points that I wanted to raise. As you've heard, as you can see, the Samoan community is here in force. You've heard Barbara talk about "685 to the world", because it's not just them up there; there's a whole global audience listening to us. Madam Speaker, I really do thank you for the opportunity. I want to acknowledge all of our colleagues that are here from the Labour Party to support this bill through to the next stage. So, Madam Speaker, I finish off those words, and I thank you. Fa'afetai tele mo le avanoa manuia. TIM COSTLEY (National—Ōtaki): Thank you, Madam Speaker. A really special moment to speak this evening on this bill, and I will just try and keep my time a little shorter so that we can get the final speech in before dinner because I think it's important that we honour and acknowledge the guests and not have them have to come back. So I'm just going to try and condense this, if that's OK with the House, in respect of our guests here, and, look, I love Samoa. They gave us Tana Umaga and Jerry Collins; how could we not love this country? I had the pleasure of flying Jerry Collins in the back of my helicopter once and I can tell you he had the loudest and highest pitched scream I've heard in my life. But it was a real honour because they were two guys that I really looked up to in their heyday. And I do want to acknowledge, you know, that it can be at times difficult to engage in a debate without getting too emotive and losing focus. You know, we talk about—and the member opposite mentioned—the wreath acknowledging Samoa. And on the one hand, I acknowledge that this was about opposing colonial rule and not wanting to put one country and their occupation and their rights of citizenship—but also the responsibilities that came with it—above another country. And yet, it was also done when New Zealand went in, in 1914, as was just mentioned—it was done without firing a shot; it was completely peaceful. And isn't it appropriate that we can have this discussion and, as it no doubt moves through to select committee and wherever it may go from there, that we can bring different perspectives, that we can have these conversations, but we don't have to be firing shots at each other. It's actually OK to tease out some of these ideas and to use the parliamentary processes we have to work through this and to talk about these things. I note that what this bill does is restore citizenship not to those in more recent times from Samoa, not to those who were living in New Zealand—because they always had it, and even in 1982 their citizenship was, of course, protected if they were living in New Zealand. But the specific date period is nothing actually to do with New Zealand's colonial trusteeship, as it was known at the time of Samoa, but it's actually around being a British subject; it's not about New Zealand. And so I think we do need to think through this thing. We're giving New Zealand citizenship in response to British citizenship. So it's actually not quite as simple as maybe some of the emotive arguments bring out. So I do think it's important that we consider exactly why it is, without just getting into the kind of Russian doll of "the Privy Council said this, but then that Government said this and now we're going back to the other one." So I think there are some complex issues to go through if we want to genuinely look at these issues. Are we looking at the colonial rules, are we looking at the old citizenship, or are we looking at what is best for New Zealand, which is ultimately what this House has the responsibility of doing. So, with that, and in a view of the time, I'll end my contribution here. I do again just want to acknowledge all those that have spoken before and those that have come to tautoko support this bill tonight. TEANAU TUIONO (Green): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Fa'afetai tele lava to all the members of the House who have engaged with the debate today. Also, I want to once again say thank you to all the community members for coming to Parliament, and to emphasise that this Parliament is your Parliament—this is your place, this is the people's place, as well. And, once again, to recognise, acknowledge the Speaker of the House of the Samoan Parliament and the Samoan members of Parliament that are here with us today, and people from the high commission. Thank you to those members that understood the intent of the bill. Fairness is at the heart of the bill. It's very simple: we had a group of New Zealand citizens who had their citizenship recognised, and then they had their citizenship removed by statute. It's just unfair, plain and simple. States should not be able to remove citizenship wholesale like this. It is just not the right thing to do. I just wanted to address some of the comments from the National Party. I hope that when this comes to the select committee, they will engage with it in a open mind—that they will engage with this topic in a way that the community needs those stories to be heard. As they were speaking, I was actually reflecting on the powerful debate that we had when the Dawn Raids apology was moving through this House. I reflect on the words of the then National Party leader Judith Collins, where she actually talked about this bill. One of the points that she said, and that I agreed with, is perhaps it would have been better if the National Party and the Labour Party both did the ifoga, because during that time period the Dawn Raids happened through both Governments as well. So it is in that spirit I invite the National Party to engage in this. I do also want to emphasise that this is automatic eligibility for a citizenship by grant, which we could and we should talk about. What are the parameters of what that grant could look like? Because I do take that point and acknowledge that point that has been shared by members and also within the media as well: we don't want to be enabling mass migration. This is a call for the Samoan Government. It is something that should be done bilateral, between Governments. But what we can do is provide a pathway for citizenship for those elders who had their citizenship taken away from them unjustly and acknowledge that some of them are here tonight. I want to acknowledge the comments from my relatives in the Labour Party—I was going to say "Samoan party"; maybe I can tonight, right?—and thank them for their comments. I was reflecting on the history that Lemauga shared, about history that New Zealand should know about—because it is not just Samoan history, it is our history. If we really learn about that history, we can get this relationship right, we can get this relationship well, because that is what we need as a region. We need to understand the history. It is a painful history, but it is something that we must unravel. It is something that we must deal with. There are things that we do well and I think we should continue to do well, and that is that relationship diplomacy. There are tensions here, political tensions in the Pacific, and we can navigate that well when we do relationship diplomacy. This bill is relationship diplomacy. If we treat the elders of Samoa with respect and dignity, and offer a pathway of citizenship back here to Aotearoa New Zealand, that is good for Aotearoa and good for Samoa and, ultimately, good for our region. Fa'afetai tele lava. Meitaki ranuinui—682 to 685. I commend this bill to the House. ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): The question is, that the motion be agreed to. Those of that opinion will say Aye, to the contrary, No. The Ayes have it. Hon Members: Party vote. [Singing in the gallery, Applause] ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): I'm going to put the question again. The question is, that the motion be agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question, That the Restoring Citizenship Removed By Citizenship (Western Samoa) Act 1982 Bill be now read a first time. Ayes 74 New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8; Te Pāti Māori 6. Noes 49 New Zealand National 49. Motion agreed to. Bill read a first time. ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): The question is, That the Restoring Citizenship Removed by Citizenship (Western Samoa) Act 1982 Bill be considered by the Governance and Administration Committee. Bill referred to the Governance and Administration Committee. ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): Members, the House is suspended until 7:30 p.m. Sitting suspended from 6.03 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.