Thursday, 9 May 2024 - Volume 775 Sitting date: 9 May 2024 THURSDAY, 9 MAY 2024 The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m. KARAKIA/PRAYERS SPEAKER: Almighty God, we give thanks for the blessings which have been bestowed on us. Laying aside all personal interests, we acknowledge the King and pray for guidance in our deliberations, that we may conduct the affairs of this House with wisdom, justice, mercy, and humility for the welfare and peace of New Zealand. Amen. BUSINESS STATEMENT Hon SIMEON BROWN (Deputy Leader of the House): Today, the House will adjourn until Tuesday, 21 May. In that week, the House will consider the second reading of the Whakatōhea Claims Settlement Bill, the committee stage of the Māori Fisheries Amendment Bill, and complete the annual review debate. On Thursday, there will be a special debate on long-term issues informed by select committees' reports on Long-term Insights Briefings, and Francisco Hernandez will deliver his maiden statement. PETITIONS, PAPERS, SELECT COMMITTEE REPORTS, AND INTRODUCTIONOF BILLS SPEAKER: Petitions have been delivered to the Clerk. CLERK: Petition of Reality Check Radio requesting that the House urge the Government to accept terms for an expanded royal commission of inquiry into COVID-19 petition of Social Justice Aotearoa requesting that the House urge the Government to establish a royal commission of inquiry into the wrongful conviction of Alan Hall. SPEAKER: Those petitions stand referred to the Petitions Committee. No papers have been presented. Select committee reports have been delivered for presentation. CLERK: Report of the Environment Committee on the inquiry into climate adaptation report of the Finance and Expenditure Committee on the Budget Policy Statement 2024 report of the Health Committee on the report of the Controller and Auditor-General Meeting the mental health needs of young New Zealanders. SPEAKER: Those reports are set down for consideration. No bills have been introduced. MOTIONS Myanmar—Condemnation of Military Regime Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Deputy Prime Minister): I seek leave to move Government notice of motion No. 1 in my name without debate. SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that course of action being followed? There is none. Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I move, That this House: Strongly condemn the Myanmar military regime's ongoing atrocities and human rights violations and abuses and calls for the restoration of democracy; Call for an immediate end to the ongoing violence, and the release of all arbitrarily detained prisoners; Call for respect for human rights and international humanitarian law, and safe and unhindered humanitarian access to all displaced persons and those in need throughout Myanmar; Support the UN's further engagement in the crisis, including through the newly appointed UN Special Envoy on Myanmar, and urges implementation of United Nations Security Council resolution 2669 (2022); Continue to support the fundamental role of the Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN) in resolving the crisis by implementation of its Five-Point Consensus, including through the efforts of the Special Envoy of the ASEAN Chair; Urge New Zealand and other governments to provide all possible support to the people of Myanmar; Continue to stand in solidarity with the people of Myanmar and their desire for sustainable, inclusive and genuine representative democracy in their country. Motion agreed to. ORAL QUESTIONS QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS Question No. 1—Finance SPEAKER: We come now to oral questions, the first in the name of the Hon Carmel Sepuloni. [Interruption] Oh, sorry; my apologies, I've got the wrong—no, there's actually something wrong on my sheet. So we'll call Ryan Hamilton. My apologies for that. [Interruption] I'm not without fault, but I'm happy to table the sheet. 1. RYAN HAMILTON (National—Hamilton East) to the Minister of Finance: What recent announcements has she made? Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance): Today, I delivered a speech to the Hutt Valley Chamber of Commerce, setting out the approach that the coalition Government will be taking to Budget 2024. It will be a different approach to those seen in recent years, because the country simply cannot afford another Budget that is long on good intentions, and short on delivery. As the OECD survey released earlier this week confirmed, the economy is ailing and there has been a substantial deterioration in New Zealand's fiscal position in recent years. This Budget can't provide an overnight fix, but it will lay the ground work for improving New Zealand's prospects. Ryan Hamilton: Does this mean the Government is pessimistic about New Zealand's economic outlook? Hon NICOLA WILLIS: No, not at all. There is no country in the world in which I would rather live and raise my family. But the fundamentals need to be sorted: getting Government spending under control; delivering better value for money; and creating an environment in which businesses want to invest, innovate, take risks, hire people, build things, and make things. The Government is doing that, and things are going to get better. Ryan Hamilton: Did the Minister make any announcements in her speech? Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Yes. I announced that the Government is establishing a new stand-alone Social Investment Agency to deliver positive change for the most vulnerable New Zealanders. I would like to congratulate the Opposition member Ginny Andersen, who has already taken the title of social investment spokesperson, in respect of this change. The Government currently invests more than $70 billion a year in social services. But despite that investment, many people are not getting the help they need when they need it, and we see evidence of that in increasing welfare dependency, declining school attendance and achievement, poorer health outcomes, and rising rates of youth and violent crime. What this demonstrates is that good intentions are not sufficient to change outcomes. Just chucking money at problems doesn't work. Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Will social investment include investment into effective and valued social services that are struggling to meet the demand of hardship they are seeing, and expecting to continue to rise, under her watch? Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Social investment will use an evidence and analytical approach to invest in those services which will have the biggest impact for dollar spent. Ryan Hamilton: What difference will taking a social investment approach make? Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Taking a social investment approach, as I just said, means using data, evidence, and modern analytics to direct investment where it will actually make a difference. The data is already being collected and it gives us a pretty good idea, but not absolute certainty, about which children are likely to be in greatest need of help. There is an opportunity to intervene early to break cycles of dependency and despair. Doing so will involve taking some risks. Not all interventions will prove successful. But if the Government redirects investment away from programmes that are not delivering, and into programmes that are achieving, it can materially improve the lives of some of New Zealand's most vulnerable citizens. The Government is resolved to do exactly that. Hon Ginny Andersen: Will her social investment approach overlay data with people's lived experience and what works to build resilience, or will it revert back to what National did before: deficit-based data that treats people as numbers? Hon NICOLA WILLIS: In answer to the first part of the question, yes. Social investment is about doing the right thing. I would encourage that member to ask herself: who wouldn't, if they could, invest to give a young child the opportunity to live a productive, rewarding life rather than a life of dependency and, potentially, crime? Data matters. Question No. 2—Social Development and Employment Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Labour—Kelston): What feedback, if any, has she received from social services, given—oh, hang on. Sorry—can I start again? I think I've got the wrong question written. Apologies, House. [Interruption] SPEAKER: Sorry. Just wait—just wait. Good. Are we all calm now? 2. Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Labour—Kelston): to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: What feedback, if any, have social service providers given her on their ability to meet current hardship demands in their communities? Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment): I regularly speak with social service providers because I value the tireless work they provide supporting New Zealanders. They have told me that, especially with the prolonged cost of living crisis, many New Zealanders are still doing it tough, and there continues to be hardship demand. Demand is varying by region and the service provided. Our Government is committed to reducing hardship by reducing the cost of living, helping more people into work, and empowering local organisations to support their communities. Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Will she look to increase the funding for food support, given organisations like the Salvation Army are reporting increased demand as a direct result of declines for hardship support through the Ministry of Social Development (MSD)? Hon LOUISE UPSTON: I reject the assertion that's been made in that comment about the service that MSD provide. But I do accept, as I said before, that there is genuine hardship in our communities, which in most cases has been caused by the previous Government's inactions which has led to an economic crisis, and families everywhere are doing it incredibly tough. SPEAKER: That is about as close as you can get to making an attack on the other side. I think it is unnecessary, it's unhelpful. Ingrid Leary: Has she received feedback that, as a result of her Government's cuts, the Dunedin Budget Advisory Service will be forced to close next year, and that this comes at a time when more and more Dunedin working families are struggling financially and needing their support? Hon LOUISE UPSTON: I want to be very clear about the fact that financial capability services will continue to be provided, as they have been, at the level they were funded to. There is a procurement process under way, which will mean that some providers that were providing a service will be different. But services will continue to be provided. Lemauga Lydia Sosene: Has she received feedback that, as a result of her Government's cuts, Vaiola Pacific Island Budgeting Service Trust, Māngere, which provides critical services for Māngere working families, will have less money to work with these struggling families? Hon LOUISE UPSTON: As I said, a procurement process is under way that may mean changes to who is providing the service in each area, but the services will continue to be provided in every region. Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Will she prioritise support for social services at this year's Budget given forecast increases in unemployment, incomes for our poorest New Zealanders not keeping up with the cost of living, and cuts to policies that did help to alleviate the pressure for many families? Hon LOUISE UPSTON: What I can commit to is that this Government will prioritise addressing the cost of living crisis, providing tax relief, supporting more New Zealanders into employment and out of the hardship. Hon Karen Chhour: How will the commitment in the coalition agreement between National and the ACT Party to provide opportunity for all in education, health, and employment reduce hardship in the long term? Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Only by grappling with the long-term drivers of hardship will we be able to reduce the demand for hardship. The Government is committed to doing this, consistent with its coalition commitments, whether through improving school attendance, supporting more people off welfare and into work, or grappling with the complex drivers of dysfunction. We are committed to taking action to reduce hardship, rather than just setting up working groups and talkfests. Question No. 3—Social Development and Employment 3. Dr CARLOS CHEUNG (National—Mt Roskill) to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: What recent announcements, if any, has the Minister made about earlier interventions for those on the jobseeker support benefit? Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment): This morning, I announced a new initiative called Kōrero Mahi – Let's Talk Work, which will help people who come on to the jobseeker benefit get back on their feet quickly. All new jobseeker beneficiaries who have work obligations must now meet with the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) within two weeks of starting their benefit to determine their next steps towards finding work. This initiative is part of the Government's plan to make the welfare system more proactive and to check on job seekers to make sure they're getting the right support and they're on the right path. Dr Carlos Cheung: What will happen when a job seeker attends a Kōrero Mahi work seminar? Hon LOUISE UPSTON: They will attend a group seminar with MSD and figure out the best way forward and the steps that they need to take. If they are work-ready, they could be connected with job vacancies straight away. If they need retraining or upskilling, they could be referred to a programme that can help them. The important thing is they are taking the steps they need to to return to the workforce as quickly as possible to avoid getting trapped on welfare. Dr Carlos Cheung: Why is the Minister introducing this early intervention for people on jobseeker benefits? Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Because, before now, some people on jobseeker benefits could go many months without interacting with MSD, because the requirement to do so didn't exist. Of about 188,000 people who are currently receiving the jobseeker support benefit, only 53 of them have employment case managers at any given time, so this early intervention is crucial for making sure that all job seekers are taking the steps they need to find work. Dr Carlos Cheung: Will sanctions apply to those who are uncompliant? Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Kōrero Mahi will be considered a work obligation for those on the jobseeker support, and failure to attend without a good and sufficient reason could result in a sanction being applied. But I want to be clear. I want to be clear: no one is sanctioned if they can't find a job. If the work isn't there, their benefit will remain. The welfare system, under this Government, will support those in need, but there are rights and responsibilities that come along with being a New Zealander receiving benefits, and there will be consequences for those who don't play their part. Question No. 4—Finance 4. Hon BARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana) to the Minister of Finance: Does she stand by all her statements and actions in relation to Budget 2024? Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance): Yes, including the statements I made this morning in a speech titled, "Getting back on track". My statements included: that workers have endured 14 years without any adjustment to tax brackets; that Government spending went up 80 percent; that even with this increasing spending, health waiting lists have grown, educational achievement has fallen, and violent crime has soared; that this year's Budget won't be an instant fix but that, instead, it will lay the ground for steady progress for today, tomorrow, and the longer term. Hon Barbara Edmonds: Are the 17 percent of New Zealanders that are going to see no direct benefit from her tax cuts immune from the cost of living crisis? Hon NICOLA WILLIS: No, they are not, and that is why they are grateful that they have a Government that is focused on the strong economic management needed to get inflation tracking down and interest rates tracking down too. I'd also remind the member that her position is that the other 83 percent of New Zealanders don't deserve tax relief either. Hon Barbara Edmonds: Is she committed to using data, evidence, and analytics; and if so, what data or evidence does she have that her tax breaks for landlords will reduce rents? Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Yes. I have advice from the New Zealand Treasury that our proposals will put downward pressure on rents. Hon Barbara Edmonds: If she is so committed to data, evidence, and analytic, how many, if any, economists support her tax cuts? Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I would invite that member to tell this House how many economists think it was wise for the Labour Party to invest billions in the middle of an inflation spiral. Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order. SPEAKER: You don't need to take the point of order. It's not appropriate to ask the Opposition to take a position that would require them to speak in the House at a time when they clearly don't have the floor to speak. So please answer that question in a different way. Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, as I have not delivered our tax package yet, it would be very difficult for an economist to be informed enough to comment on it. Hon Barbara Edmonds: Does she "dread what comes out of the forecasters' mouths" because she knows her actions are causing the deteriorating economic conditions and her Budget will do nothing to fix it? Hon NICOLA WILLIS: No. I dread it when I see declining growth in our economy and declining revenue because I know what that means in the lives of everyday people. What it means is they are struggling. What it means is that there are fewer customers coming through the doors of small businesses. What it means is that inflation has eaten away at their purchasing power. What it means is that high interest rates are hurting them when they go to pay their mortgage. If that member would like to actually read a chapter from real life, she'd understand that declining Government forecasts are bad for all of us, and she shouldn't be smug about it. SPEAKER: I just remind members, it doesn't matter how loud the House gets, the broadcast actually goes out with the Minister's voice, not the kerfuffle that goes with it. Question No. 5—RMA Reform 5. LAN PHAM (Green) to the Minister responsible for RMA Reform: Does he agree with the Prime Minister's statement that this is "a Government that believes in localism and devolution"; if so, why is the fast-track consenting process concentrating so much power in three Ministers? Hon TAMA POTAKA (Minister of Conservation) on behalf of the Minister responsible for RMA Reform: Absolutely. We are a determined Government that believes in devolution and decentralisation of pūtea and decision making where appropriate to enable whānau and communities to do what is the best for their people—like that fantastic announcement last weekend from the Prime Minister and my learned colleague from Pakuranga, Minister Brown, to deliver Local Water Done Well for Tāmaki-makau-rau, affording a 25 percent water rates increase while retaining local control of water assets. I also stand by the Prime Minister's statement that we're going to get things built in this country, in this whenua. For too long, Māori and all New Zealanders have had to suffer from a lack of development in their communities, often meaning less productivity, slower growth, a lot of cousins moving to Australia, and marae up and down the country having fewer people to serve in their kitchen, on their paepae, because there are no jobs or industries in their regions. Lan Pham: At what point in the fast-track consenting process will local communities be able to participate? Hon TAMA POTAKA: On behalf of the Minister responsible for RMA Reform, there are different points within the process where communities, including iwi and Māori organisations, can engage with those organisations and groups that are seeking to propose projects through the fast-track approvals process, and I encourage all members to read the bill and to tautoko it. Lan Pham: Will the Minister require local government planning frameworks and regional strategies developed at a local level in partnership with iwi and hapū to be mandatory when considering whether to approve projects under the fast-track process? Hon TAMA POTAKA: On behalf of the Minister responsible for RMA Reform, as you will see throughout the legislation, there are different touch points in which policy planning documentation is important. So, for example, Te Ture Whaimana, in relation to the Waikato River and its tributaries, and also the legislation around ngā hapū o Ngāti Porou me ngā rohe moana. Lan Pham: What assurances, then, can the Minister provide to concerned communities that their local environment will be protected under the fast-track process when the usual environmental protections can be ignored? Hon TAMA POTAKA: On behalf of the relevant Minister, there is no licence to desecrate the taiao in this process. We are very focused to actually get things done, and within the Fast-track Approvals Bill you see various protections for the taiao, whether or not that's the panel suggesting and setting conditions to protect or Ministers declining projects where they create too many adverse environmental effects. We hope that the proposed projects also for fast-track approvals include those projects that seek to reduce net emissions across this country. Kia ora tātou. Lan Pham: How are local communities meant to have their say on the projects impacting their environment and their community when these projects haven't been announced? Hon TAMA POTAKA: On behalf of the Minister responsible for RMA Reform, let's ensure that the excellent select committee processes the bill in due process and we can bring that matter back to Parliament for decision. Kia ora tātou. Lan Pham: Does the Minister agree with Te Uru Kahika, the collective of regional and unitary councils, that "local views risk being bypassed for expedience" in the granting of fast-track consents, and, if not, why not? Hon TAMA POTAKA: On behalf of the Minister responsible for RMA Reform, I can state that yesterday I heard Helmut Modlik of Ngāti Toa Rangatira talking about his aspiration to have more sustainable developments in Porirua, and we absolutely tautoko that. We see that there can be an appropriate balance between the economy, the taiao, and society, and for too long we have seen too much red tape, green tape, and all-coloured tape ramping things up and going nowhere. I want my cousins to have jobs in New Zealand and not have to move to Australia to look for jobs. Question No. 6—Energy 6. Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram) to the Minister for Energy: Does he stand by his statement in relation to fossil gas that "the reality in terms of storage is we don't have significant storage in New Zealand"? Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister for Energy): Yes. I'm advised that we don't have significant gas storage in New Zealand. There is one dedicated gas storage facility but only 6 petajoules of the 12 petajoules it can store can be used, as the rest is needed to maintain reservoir pressure. Six petajoules is around 15 days of gas supply for the New Zealand market. Hon Dr Megan Woods: Is the detailed business case funded by the previous Government on a multi-technology or portfolio approach of flexible geothermal, demand response, grid-scale batteries, and hydrogen biomass solutions to find an alternative to gas to address the dry-year problem still being progressed by his Government? Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, no, because the last Government was very much focused on picking winners rather than letting the market actually build the energy that New Zealand needs. They banned oil and gas exploration and then they spent the last number of years on pumped hydro down the bottom of the South Island, a project that wasn't even going to come on stream until 2040. We have a low residual notice for energy shortage tomorrow morning, with New Zealanders being told they have to turn the heaters off tomorrow morning. How would a pumped hydro in 2040 help them? Hon Dr Megan Woods: Was the funding that was cut from exploring the portfolio approach, not pumped hydro, reprioritised into alternative dry-year risk or renewable work programmes, or was it returned to centre? Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, the answer to that question is the Government is not taking the approach the last Government took, which was to pick winners and to force technologies into the market, but to make sure that the market settings are right to drive investment. And the market was telling that Minister that by putting all the eggs in one basket or focusing on picking winners, there was a chilling effect on investment in our energy market. We now have a Transpower warning that there is going to be low energy available tomorrow morning—customers told not to charge their electric vehicles, turn the heaters off—that is a direct result of that last Government's policies. Hon Dr Megan Woods: Point of order, Mr Speaker. SPEAKER: A point of order, the right honourable—sorry, the Hon Dr Megan Woods. Hon Dr Megan Woods: I know who you meant, Mr Speaker. SPEAKER: Yes, I know you do, but perhaps the listeners would like to know; you're not that well known. Hon Dr Megan Woods: Ha, ha! I asked—[Interruption] I was actually trying to be kind. SPEAKER: Hang on; it is a point of order. Hon Dr Megan Woods: I was trying to be kind, Mr Speaker, but I asked the Minister a very straight question. It was about whether the money that was reprioritised from the money that was already allocated to examining dry-year risk had been reprioritised into other dry-year risk programmes or renewable programmes, or had it been returned to centre. I didn't get an answer to that question, nor was it addressed. SPEAKER: Well, that's your opinion. It may not necessarily be mine, but I think the Hon Simeon Brown would probably relish the opportunity to say some more on this matter. Hon SIMEON BROWN: Oh, I'd love to. Hon Dr Megan Woods: Well, where's the money? Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, the member's asked the question and I made it very clear that we have put an end to that particular project, and what we are focusing now on is making sure the market settings are correct. So, yes, the money was returned, because we're not going to waste taxpayers' money like the last Government did on ghost projects like Lake Onslow, which weren't going to come until 2040, when we have information such as this [holds up graph] where the number of low residual notices from Transpower have increased dramatically from zero up to 15 per year since that last Government cancelled oil and gas exploration. David MacLeod: What reports has he seen on energy security? Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, Transpower have today released a customer advisory notice that tomorrow morning there is a— Hon Dr Megan Woods: Well, get used to it; you're the Minister of Energy. Hon SIMEON BROWN: —shortage in energy, and we will get—and the member over there says "get used to it". Well, we are getting used to it, because as Transpower show [holds up graph], since 2018, when the last Government cancelled oil and gas exploration, the number of low residual notices has increased significantly from zero under the last National Government. So getting used to it means turning the heaters off, means not being able to charge your electric vehicles, which means that is the risk that they are facing because of that Government's policies. Hon Dr Megan Woods: Where did the money that was budgeted for the detailed business cases for dry-year risk go? Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, I think I've answered that question multiple times. It's been returned, because we're not going to waste money on ghost projects. We've returned it to the centre, because we're not going to waste it on ghost projects which have left New Zealand with energy insecurity—a direct result of that last Government's policies. They banned oil and gas exploration in 2018. They then focused on a ghost Lake Onslow project which wouldn't have come into effect till 2040. How is that going to help keep the heaters on tomorrow morning? Hon Nicola Willis: Can the Minister advise what type of fuel is better for heating people's homes: natural gas, coal, or ghost business cases? Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, it's a very good question. I can tell you very quickly: ghost business cases won't keep the lights on or keep the heaters on. I tell you, if we had a choice, I'd much rather we had the gas being burnt to keep the lights on. What's happened because of the oil and gas exploration is we are having more and more coal being burnt at Huntly, which has twice the carbon intensity. That party on the other side of the House, their policies are pro-coal. Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order, sir. Thank you very much. Sir, I was just wondering how the third leg of that supplementary question was in line with the direction you gave the House yesterday. SPEAKER: Yeah, you may well ask that, but if you read the primary question, it was inevitably going to lead to discussions about the impressions that one side of the House has of the other. So I was listening for that—listening very carefully for that. While it might not be absolutely within the scope of what I said yesterday, I don't think it is outside the scope of the question or that it was an unreasonable response. Question No. 7—Health 7. TANYA UNKOVICH (NZ First) to the Associate Minister of Health: What recent announcements has she made regarding the repeal of the Therapeutic Products Act 2023? Hon CASEY COSTELLO (Associate Minister of Health): Yesterday, I announced that the Government will repeal the Therapeutic Products Act 2023 by the end of this year—promise made, promise kept. Repealing the Act responds to the concerns of industry, consumers, and practitioners who felt the Act would lead to overregulation of low-risk products, impose unnecessary costs, and lead to products becoming more expensive or unavailable. Repealing is also cost-effective. Funding hadn't been provided for all the change needed to put this Act into effect—for example, creation of the new regulatory agency and associated IT systems that would have been required. Tanya Unkovich: Can she provide any examples of how the Act would have led to overregulation? Hon CASEY COSTELLO: As an example, low-risk medical devices like bandages and tongue depressors would require approval from the New Zealand regulator, with no clear guidelines about how these devices would be assessed relative to higher-risk devices like pacemakers. The Act would have also required medical device exporters to obtain New Zealand market authorisation, even though what matters to the exporter is meeting standards required in their markets. This double regulation imposed red tape and cost, instead of encouraging economic growth. Tanya Unkovich: What plans, if any, does she have to replace the Therapeutic Products Act? Hon CASEY COSTELLO: This Government knows that replacing the Therapeutic Products Act with a lasting, robust solution that appropriately balances oversight and efficiency is critical. I believe that many of the problems associated with the Act stem from it trying to do too much by including natural health products. As such, I plan to develop two separate pieces of legislation for consideration: one related to medicines and medical devices, and the other for natural health products. Tanya Unkovich: What benefits does she consider can be gained from this approach? Hon CASEY COSTELLO: Benefits for all who rely on health products. Medicines and medical devices require different regulatory approaches than natural health products because of the varied profiles; industry, practitioner and consumer needs; and opportunities for innovation. Modern risk-proportionate regulation of medicines and medical devices will allow New Zealand to benefit from innovations such as gene therapy and artificial intelligence, while managing the avoidable harms we have seen from medical devices such as surgical mesh. Tanya Unkovich: Why does treating natural health products separately make sense? Hon CASEY COSTELLO: Advice from officials and my conversations with industry groups such as the Natural Health Alliance and Natural Health Products New Zealand identified that the Therapeutic Products Act would have imposed unnecessary costs and red tape on low-risk products. This would have limited consumer choice and negatively impacted traditional medicine practitioners and rongoā Māori. Meanwhile, unlocking the potential of our natural health products export sector is estimated to be worth nearly half a billion dollars in export revenue every year. Question No. 8—Trade 8. DANA KIRKPATRICK (National—East Coast) to the Minister for Trade: What actions has the Government taken to support New Zealand trade? Hon TODD McCLAY (Minister for Trade): It's been an important month for New Zealand exporters. Not only did the EU-NZ free-trade agreement officially enter into force last week, many months sooner than expected, but on Tuesday, I announced on behalf of the Government the launch of negotiations for a comprehensive economic partnership agreement (CEPA) between New Zealand and the United Arab Emirates (UAE). The UAE is an important bilateral partner for New Zealand, and this launch of formal negotiations is an exciting step towards growing our trade and economic relationship. Dana Kirkpatrick: What opportunities would this trade agreement with the UAE create? Hon TODD McCLAY: The UAE is a key export destination and a hub in the Gulf region. Currently, we export around $1 billion worth of goods and services to the UAE, an increase of 17 percent over the last year. By investing in this relationship, we'll open up further opportunities for New Zealand businesses and enhance cooperation across a range of fields, including agriculture, food production, and sustainable energy. This will help grow the economy and create higher-paying jobs for New Zealanders. Dana Kirkpatrick: How would an agreement with the UAE benefit New Zealand? Hon TODD McCLAY: A CEPA with the UAE will contribute towards the Government's vision of becoming an export powerhouse for New Zealand, to our target of doubling exports by value over 10 years, and help rebuild our economy. By strengthening our trade relationship with the UAE, we can bring increased returns for New Zealand businesses, support job creation, reduce the cost of living, diversify the economy, and put more money in the pockets of everyday consumers in New Zealand. Dana Kirkpatrick: What else has the Government done to support New Zealand trade with the Middle East? Hon TODD McCLAY: Not only would this CEPA strengthen economic ties between New Zealand and the UAE but it will also complement our ongoing negotiations towards a free-trade agreement with the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC). I was pleased to advance these discussions during my recent visit to Saudi Arabia last week, and my discussions with the Saudi and GCC counterparts. Trade agreements are an important tool in this Government's plan to rebuild our economy, and a strong economy means we can provide the quality public services that New Zealanders expect. Question No. 9—Tertiary Education and Skills 9. Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour) to the Minister for Tertiary Education and Skills: Does she stand by all of her answers to oral question No. 5 on Wednesday, 8 May; if so, why? Hon PENNY SIMMONDS (Minister for Tertiary Education and Skills): Yes. [Interruption] Hon Dr Deborah Russell: Oh yes, there's a second one. Point of order. SPEAKER: I'll tell you what—what about you just give me a moment to do those things, rather than chipping from the sideline. There are two legs to that question. The Minister should attempt both those legs. Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Yes, I made my expectations clear that Te Pūkenga should work to implement Government policy. Hon Dr Deborah Russell: When she made her expectations clear in the meeting with the chair and CEO of Te Pūkenga on 30 November 2023, had Cabinet taken a formal decision to disestablish Te Pūkenga; if not, what decision with regard to Te Pūkenga had Cabinet taken at that stage? Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: Yes, Cabinet had made a decision. Hon Dr Deborah Russell: Did she indicate to the chair and the chief executive of Te Pūkenga at her meeting with them on 30 November 2023 that she had expected they would have already presented her with a detailed plan for Te Pūkenga's disestablishment? Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: No. Hon Dr Deborah Russell: Did she receive advice from Te Pūkenga or any other officials that her expectation could give rise to personal grievance claims on the part of affected current, former, or potential employees? Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: No. Hon Dr Deborah Russell: Why can't she explicitly rule out in this House that she directed the chair and the CEO to begin disestablishing Te Pūkenga? SPEAKER: That's in the nature of a yes or no answer that's being required. Can you just think about how that's asked? The Minister should consider that when answering the question. Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: I made my expectations clear that Te Pūkenga should cover the disestablishment of Te Pūkenga, as was the Government policy. I made my expectations clear that Government would begin disestablishing Te Pūkenga within the first 100 days, that Te Pūkenga should operate in a manner that was consistent with Government plans, and that Te Pūkenga should support as much regional decision-making as possible. I also made my expectation clear that Te Pūkenga should ensure vocational education and training continues and staff and students were supported. Question No. 10—Local Government 10. SAM UFFINDELL (National—Tauranga) to the Minister of Local Government: What announcements has he made on restoring democracy in Tauranga? Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Local Government): Great news for the people of Tauranga: the coalition Government is committed to democracy, and that's why we've announced that—no ifs, no buts—democracy is being restored to Tauranga this year with election day taking place on 20 July. I want to encourage the people of Tauranga to vote in their upcoming council elections, or even stand to be elected, as democracy is restored and Tauranga moves forward. Tom Rutherford: What does this mean for the people of Tauranga? Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, it has been 3½ years since democracy was stripped away from the people of Tauranga, but now they will finally have a say over how their city is governed. That is good news for the hard-working ratepayers of Tauranga, who deserve to have a seat at the table on the decisions affecting their city. Tom Rutherford: When do nominations open? Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, nominations for the mayoralty and councillors have already opened, and I encourage those in Tauranga who wish to represent their community and stand in the upcoming election to nominate themselves now. Nominations close on 24 May before the all-important election day in Tauranga on 20 July. SPEAKER: It's a very good advertorial, but I would suggest the Minister's staff advise him about his responsibilities. They are not the Electoral Commission. Cameron Luxton: Thank you, Mr Speaker. How will the people of Tauranga be impacted by his announcement to restore citizens initiated referenda on Māori wards? Hon SIMEON BROWN: The coalition Government is restoring the rights of communities to determine whether to introduce Māori wards as part of the coalition agreements. We will be reversing the previous Government's changes that denied local communities the ability to determine whether to establish Māori wards. Local community members deserve to have a say in their governance arrangements, and in Tauranga, they will be required to have a referendum between now and the 2028 local body elections. Question No. 11—Climate Change 11. SCOTT WILLIS (Green) to the Minister of Climate Change: How exactly does the Government plan to meet its pledge at the COP28 Climate Change Conference to triple renewable energy generation and double renewable energy efficiency by 2030? Hon SIMON WATTS (Minister of Climate Change): At COP28, New Zealand signed a commitment with 132 other countries to triple the world's renewable energy generation and double energy efficiency by 2030. This is a global pledge and recognises that some countries are starting from different places than others. New Zealand plans to play our part, including our commitment to double our renewable energy. Scott Willis: Why is this Government blaming the consenting framework for holding back renewable electricity generation when there are approximately 2,000 megawatts of unbuilt but consented wind and solar? Hon SIMON WATTS: What is clear is that this country does need to significantly increase the amount of renewable energy available in this country, and one of the major barriers in order to increase that investment is through regulation, and this Government has recognised that and is implementing legislation to reduce that regulatory burden. Scott Willis: What steps, if any, has the Minister taken to remove the regulatory barriers to independent and social retailers entering the electricity market and competing on a level playing field, as recommended by the energy hardship panel? Hon SIMON WATTS: Those aspects as described by the member are not within my ministerial delegation; however, what I am committed to do, in working with my Cabinet colleagues, is to ensure that we do deliver upon our coalition commitments to double renewable energy by 2050. Ricardo Menéndez March: Point of order. I'd just like to test Speakers' ruling 171/5—that if a Government transfers a question, which was the case with this one, the Minister should be in a position to answer supplementary questions which flow from the primary, and we had the Minister, basically, say that it is not within his purview to answer what my colleague Scott Willis said. So I just wanted to test that Speakers' ruling and whether his answer actually met the standards we would expect when transferring a question. SPEAKER: I would refer you to further parts to the Standing Orders. The reality is that the Standing Order you referred to relates to primary questions; it's not possible for a Government to anticipate where supplementary questions may go to. Please don't quote Standing Orders to me; that wouldn't be a good thing. Ricardo Menéndez March: It does say "Ministers should be in a position to answer supplementary questions." SPEAKER: That's right, but the Government cannot anticipate how far or how broad those supplementary questions might go. Are there any further supplementaries? Scott Willis: Does the Minister agree with the Rewiring Aotearoa report that home energy efficiency, full electrification, and solar is a key part of the solution to reducing emissions, and, if so, does he support loans and grants to enable greater uptake? Hon SIMON WATTS: What is clear, and what this coalition Government is committed to, is to increase significantly the amount of renewable energy in this country, and the reality of what that will deliver for New Zealanders is the electrification of transport and other aspects of businesses in their communities, and that will ensure that we meet our climate targets that we are committed to delivering. Scott Willis: Will the Community Renewable Energy Fund be extended beyond July 2027 and expanded; if not, why not? Hon SIMON WATTS: That's not within my ministerial delegation. Hon Dr Megan Woods: Has his colleague the Minister for Energy shared advice with him prepared by his officials on 10 November that consenting policies won't be sufficient to deliver on climate targets, as they by themselves do not decrease emissions, and that there will also need to be policies that prompt demand shifts from fossil fuels to renewable energy, and that demand-side policies will be key for meeting the next couple of emissions budgets, especially if the Government stops the Government Investment in Decarbonising Industry (GIDI) funding? Hon SIMON WATTS: I was not the Minister on 10 November. Scott Willis: What advice, if any, has the Minister received regarding the fast-track consent process leading to the development of more mines for more renewable energy projects, on balance? Hon SIMON WATTS: The role that I participate in as part of that broader programme of reform is as part of the ministerial oversight in regards to Resource Management Act reform. What is very clear is that we need to deal with both the challenges we have around energy security today, but also prepare for a future of energy security in the future, and doubling renewable energy will ensure that we are prepared for the energy security requirements in the future. Hon Nicola Willis: Can the Minister confirm that the acronym GIDI refers to a fund that took emissions revenue off everyday working New Zealanders and used it to pay large subsidies to profitable corporates, including many offshore businesses? Hon SIMON WATTS: I can indeed confirm to the member that that was the outcome of that policy, and, as a result of that, this Government has clearly signalled that we will not continue untargeted spending in regards to what was previously done by the last Government. We are focused on doubling renewable energy and implementing realistic projects at pace to meet our climate targets. Question No. 12—Health 12. RACHEL BOYACK (Labour—Nelson) to the Minister of Health: Why has Te Whatu Ora signalled a scaled-back project for the Nelson Hospital rebuild? Hon Dr SHANE RETI (Minister of Health): I reject the characterisation in the question. This Government is absolutely committed to the people of Nelson and to delivering a hospital that will meet their needs. That is why Health New Zealand has learnt from other large-scale infrastructure projects, and are now looking to phase this build. This potentially allows for buildings to be commissioned earlier and patients to be seen sooner, all whilst work on the remainder of the site continues. This Government is committed to delivering better public services, and that means getting smarter on how we deliver key infrastructure projects. Rachel Boyack: Why is he signalling a preference for small, separate buildings when advice provided last year was that a full rebuild was the clinically preferred option? Hon Dr SHANE RETI: Health New Zealand has learnt from other large infrastructure projects, and we are now of a view that looking to phase these projects will reduce risk and potentially—as I mentioned in my reply to the primary—allow earlier commissioning of sites. Rachel Boyack: Can he guarantee that all beds and critical services like laboratory services will be housed within an IL4 grade building that can continue to support clinical patient needs when the Alpine Fault ruptures? Hon Dr SHANE RETI: This project is still in design phase towards a business case, but we will deliver a facility that is fit for purpose and serves the needs of the people of Nelson. Rachel Boyack: Why does demand modelling need to be redone when it was only completed in 2023, and Nelson's population isn't getting any younger or smaller? Hon Dr SHANE RETI: I have seen data points for bed modelling from 2018, and we want to deliver a facility that is fit for purpose. Hon Nicola Willis: Can the Minister confirm whether Health New Zealand has taken lessons about what went so terribly wrong that led a hospital that was announced in Dunedin in 2017 to still not be delivered? Hon Dr SHANE RETI: I can confirm that the lessons learnt from that project will be applicable to other builds, such as the build in Nelson that the member is asking about. Rachel Boyack: Will he commit to completing the new hospital by 2031 on budget and with at least 255 beds? Hon Dr SHANE RETI: I can confirm that the current project is on track, including the enabling works, which, as I understand it, involve movement of the power generation from one side of the road to the other—surely, a good signal that we will build this facility and have it fit for purpose. MOTIONS Climate Adaptation—Finance and Expenditure Committee Inquiry Hon SIMON WATTS (Minister of Climate Change): I move, That the Finance and Expenditure Committee conduct an inquiry into climate adaptation, with the following terms of reference: Inquiry into climate adaptation (1) The purpose of the inquiry is to develop and recommend high-level objectives and principles for the design of a climate change adaptation model for New Zealand, to support the development of policy and legislation to address climate adaptation. (2) For this purpose, the committee must consider the following topics: (a) the nature of the climate adaptation problem New Zealand faces (b) frameworks for investment and cost-sharing (c) roles and responsibilities (d) climate risk and response information-sharing (3) The committee may, as it thinks fit, consider other matters relevant to the purpose of the inquiry. (4) The committee must take account of submissions received by the Environment Committee on its recent inquiry into climate adaptation. (5) The committee must finally report on the inquiry by 5 September 2024. I want to move a notice of motion through the House for the Finance and Expenditure Committee to conduct an inquiry to look at how we can help New Zealand prepare for the impacts of climate change. Damaging natural weather events are only going to become more frequent and severe over time. These events are costly to New Zealand and stop New Zealanders from enjoying a way of life and an economy that protects our people, communities, industries, and environment. What we have learnt from previous events, including the Auckland floods and Cyclone Gabrielle, is that we need an enduring and long-term approach to provide New Zealanders and the economy with certainty as the climate continues to change. That's why I am moving this motion. The Finance and Expenditure Committee is the appropriate committee to undertake this inquiry, as it has representatives around the table from every part of this House. The inquiry will support creating a framework that will help communities and businesses know what investment will happen in their area. This matter is one that I have discussed with colleagues across the House, both within the coalition Government and the Opposition. I am immensely grateful for the support expressed thus far for this work. I am additionally pleased to be able to work together on this issue as we prepare New Zealand for the impacts of climate change. I look forward to having more to say on this topic shortly. But what I will say for now is that I hope that this will be the beginning of a programme of work across political lines to develop an enduring framework to address climate adaptation and provide Kiwis certainty as we prepare for a world impacted by climate change. Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Labour supports this notice of motion in the House today to move the Finance and Expenditure Committee to conduct an inquiry into climate adaptation, and are happy to work with colleagues across the House on this important piece of work. The purpose of the inquiry—to develop and recommend objectives and principles for the design of the framework that we need for successful climate adaptation for all New Zealanders—is an important piece of work that it is important that we turn our collective minds to. I agree with the Minister who moved this motion that it is imperative that we develop enduring and long-lasting policies and frameworks to put around our approach to climate adaptation. The solutions that we come up with need to outlast any one Government. I personally think that the work around climate adaptation and how governments deal with it, be it local or central governments not just in New Zealand but around the globe, is one of the most complex pieces of public policy that we will have to face in the 21st century. This is not easy work, and it is important that we work together, and Labour is happy to commit to working within that spirit. I'm also pleased to see this work taking place at the Finance and Expenditure Committee. Chlöe Swarbrick: Great committee! Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: It is not only a great committee, as Chlöe Swarbrick says, but it is also important that we tackle and address that fundamental question of the funding and the financing and who pays and have that advice as we tackle the work around climate adaptation. We in New Zealand know only too well the effects of extreme weather events. Wild weather knows no partisan politics, and it is important that we pool our resources. New Zealanders want to know that we can be resilient to the effects of climate change. We've seen this time and time again that we must be, and we welcome this conversation at the Finance and Expenditure Committee for the cross-party work on this important issue. CHLÖE SWARBRICK (Co-Leader—Green): E te Māngai, tēnā koe. Tēnā koutou e te Whare. Just wanted to, on behalf of the Greens, acknowledge the Minister of Climate Change for continuing, particularly, the work of the Hon James Shaw in a cross-partisan manner on this incredibly important piece of work. The Greens, of course, will be supporting this notice of motion when it comes to referring this work to the Finance and Expenditure Committee—as they've just been stating very loudly across the House, a great committee, that Finance and Expenditure Committee. But if we're to reflect on why it is that this is so fundamentally important to New Zealanders, just over a year ago we were hammered in the North Island by deadly and devastating climate change - charged weather events, and this followed so-called unprecedented, so-called one-in-100-year weather events that had battered Northland, the East Coast, the West Coast, and the top of the North Island every single year in recent living history. We are living in an age of consequences, and New Zealanders are still grappling with the clean-up of many of those climate change - charged weather events, dealing with insurance issues, and dealing with disconnected infrastructure. This, of course, is incredibly important to reflect upon in those terms of reference at the Finance and Expenditure Committee. There can be no work in this place that is more important than addressing that existential climate crisis, and while I commend the Minister for taking up that work as progressed by the Hon James Shaw on climate adaptation, we would continue to encourage him to go a step further in working across the aisle on the issue of climate mitigation, because, obviously, we can't solely focus on adaptation; we also have to pull our weight and do our part when it comes to dragging down the emissions curve. I might also make the point that good mitigation is also adaptation, when we're talking about how we design our towns and cities and how we design infrastructure and transport systems that are resilient. The really cool thing about that, that kind of climate action, is the massive co-benefit for improving people's lives so that they are able to get around and interact with their communities, in more nature-based communities and spaces. To that effect, we also need to outline that getting a new bucket—that is, to adapt to the changing climate—doesn't actually mean all too much if you're not also focused on stopping the increased leakage. We commend this move from the Minister and would just like to shout out to all of the communities who may be tuned in to Parliament TV on a Thursday afternoon, to make it clear to them that this is their time to have their voices heard, because there are also some critical discussions that have to be made about who bears the cost, as the Hon Dr Megan Woods was saying. As we've seen, climate change - charged weather events also amplify inequities that are already baked into the way that our economic system works, so we need to be having these really critical discussions about the interface with Te Tiriti o Waitangi, about the interface with whether we're going to take the same approach to those who have baches or those marae that are on coastlines, for example. So, once again, just wanted to invite New Zealanders across the country—iwi and hapū, businesses and otherwise—to engage in the select committee process, at that great committee that is the Finance and Expenditure Committee, and invite the Minister to go a step further in cross-party work on mitigation. Hon ANDREW HOGGARD (ACT): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I too commend this motion on behalf of the ACT Party. A couple of points I'd like to make on this. Firstly, I understand there has been a lot of work previously done on this by the Environment Committee, and we would like to ensure that that work carries through to the new committee and that it isn't lost. One other thing we would be really keen to see is an emphasis in the committee, looking at how can we help remove the red tape that often gets in the way of people being able to do some of this adaptation work on their own. This is especially important in the rural community. And, you know, adaptation isn't just about Government doing everything for you; often it's been you being able to do stuff to make sure your own property is prepared to survive extreme events. I'd like to talk a little bit—I'll just give you three examples of where that red tape has gotten in the way of people being able to adapt their own farms. Firstly, culverts: they seem like a very boring subject. Chlöe Swarbrick: We love green infrastructure. Hon ANDREW HOGGARD: Yeah, excellent. They're great for keeping stock out of waterways, stopping sedimentation. But then we have an issue where, in the recent Gabrielle cyclone, we had issues where the water was so intense that culverts were often blown out in farms. When the farmer goes to replace that culvert, the challenge is they have to get a resource consent if they want to put in a bigger culvert. Now, mother Nature has just told them they put in one that was too small to start with. So why are we creating this cost and making this barrier to people doing the right thing and putting in correct and sensible infrastructure? Another example, again, highlighted really close to home for me during Cyclone Gabrielle was around emergency repairs where often the rules got in the way of people being able to strengthen up riverbanks to put stuff in place to prevent further destruction happening on their properties, of riverbanks being eroded away, putting more sediment into waterways, affecting critical infrastructure. Often there were rules in place where, "No, no, you can't go in there; you can't do anything; you can't put that in there. We'll get to it. The council will take care of it. Just wait. Just wait." And it never happened. We've got to get out of the way of this. Finally, gravel extraction: it's an issue for many farmers up and down the country. I'm not talking about sending a digger into the river itself; I'm talking about being able to stay out of the waterway but remove that gravel from the bed of the river. At the moment, there's so many rules and regulations getting in the way of people just being able to do sensible extraction, being able to keep the gravel banks low in many areas against their properties, and this is going to just create more of an opportunity for floodwaters to extend into farmland, to housing, to everything else. And so it's vitally important that the committee spends the time, looks at all of these bits of red tape that may get in the way of people doing this sensible work. So my plea to the committee is to look at how they can make common sense, a little more common. Thank you. JENNY MARCROFT (NZ First): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I'm really pleased to stand on behalf of New Zealand First in support of the notice of motion into an inquiry into adaptation, as presented by Minister Simon Watts in the House this afternoon. It was my pleasure in the 52nd Parliament to be part of the Environment Committee— Hon Dr Duncan Webb: A great committee! JENNY MARCROFT: —as we went through—along with the great Dr Duncan Webb and other members of the House, right across the House. It was a great committee in terms of the work we did on the zero carbon bill. And setting that precedent of working in a cross-party manner on such an important issue, it is good to hear from members who have stood in this House this afternoon saying that that is the spirit in which we should conduct this inquiry into adaptation that goes through the Finance and Expenditure Committee. One of the things that the select committee did in the 52nd Parliament was travel to the United Kingdom to hear about their climate legislation, which by that stage had been 10 years in the making. One of the points that they made very clearly to us was to really make sure we looked at adaptation as a really important piece of work to do. So it is good to see that now, some years later, the focus is on adaptation. Adaptation has been a focus of the work that Minister Shane Jones was doing as part of the Provincial Growth Fund, and I'll raise an example here. He put money into the Taradale stop bank. Now, if that piece of adaptation work hadn't happened, when the cyclone went through there would have been even greater damage happen because of the floodwaters—from the banks, obviously, if they hadn't been rebuilt. That's just an example of how New Zealand First is very supportive of adaptation, because we have got a changing climate; there's no doubt about it. And it's good to see that this is going to be a cross-party piece of work. I'm very much pleased to support the inquiry. Thank you, Madam Speaker. HANA-RAWHITI MAIPI-CLARKE (Te Pāti Māori—Hauraki-Waikato): Tēnā rā koe, e te Pīka, otirā, tēnā rā tātou e te Whare. E tū ana hau ki te waha i ngā kōrero mō Te Pāti Māori i te rangi nei. E tautokotia ana katoa i tēnei pire, ā, e mihi ana ki a koe e te Minita mō te Taiao. [Greetings to you, dear Speaker, and to you all present in the House. I stand to represent Te Pāti Māori today. To fully support this bill, and to acknowledge you also dear Minister for the Environment.] I'd just like to stand today in full support of this recommendation from the Minister of Climate Change, and Te Pāti Māori does support anything in terms of adaptions within our taiao space. I also want to bring to the House today a briefing on Māori climate adaptations, which is the rongoā to moving towards a brighter future for our tamariki mokopuna. The recommendations given would see (1) give effect to Te Tiriti o Waitangi and the Treaty of Waitangi; (2) inform Māori about the risk to their whenua now and over time with good data and information; (3) recognise the value of mātauranga Māori equally alongside other knowledge systems; (4) recognise and respect culture and identity, values, and practices of local communities; (5) acknowledge and protect Māori rights and interests; (6) enable negotiation where settlement land is lost; (7) conserve, protect, and develop taonga, papa kāinga, marae, urupā, and other significant sites; (8) enable both the Crown and Māori to deliver on their respective roles and responsibilities; (9) ensure local government also uphold Te Tiriti o Waitangi; and (10) encourage the sharing of best-practice data and case studies among Māori communities. So I've given all the way from one to 10 our recommendations on not only adaptation but Māori adaptation from the Māori world view, and also understanding the detrimental effects that not only Aotearoa has seen but te ao whānui in terms of the highly severe weather events. What I do want to turn to is the different marae who have been heavily impacted during Cyclone Gabrielle; different marae across Te Tairāwhiti, Ngā Puhi. Also looking at the Kahungunu area, where the majority of marae that were impacted by floods—there was a reason behind that, because the majority of those areas, most of their repo—their wetlands—had been destroyed. So I roto i te ao Māori ko tētahi o ngā pakiwaitara o ngā pūrākau, ko Hinemoana tū i te repo [So within the Māori culture, there is a story of Hinemoana of the swamp lands], the God or kaitiaki of the wetlands has been destroyed. That is the lung system towards making sure that our marae are safely protected. I also want to bring to the House a study by the Environmental Protection Authority. Māori are more likely to live in areas with poor environment quality, with 51 percent of Māori living in areas with high air pollution, compared to 36 percent of non-Māori. In another study, from the Ministry for the Environment: Māori are more likely to be exposed to contaminated water, with 24 percent of Māori drinking from sources that do not meet water standards, compared to 16 percent of non-Māori. So, yes, we fully support and tautoko this recommendation; however, we would like to see Māori adaptations and Māori world views come forward into this recommendation. Tēnā rā tātou. Motion agreed to. ANNUAL REVIEW DEBATE In Committee Debate resumed from 7 May on the Appropriation (2022/23 Confirmation and Validation) Bill. CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The House is in committee for further consideration of the Appropriation (2022/23 Confirmation and Validation) Bill. This is the debate on the financial position of the Government and the annual reviews of departments, Officers of Parliament, Crown entities, public organisations, and State enterprises, as reported on by select committees. The Business Committee has determined that the time for the debate be extended by 30 minutes. There are therefore two hours and 56 minutes remaining in this debate. The Business Committee has determined that Ministers may use this additional 30 minutes to answer questions. In addition, New Zealand National has been gifted 10 minutes by ACT New Zealand and five minutes by New Zealand First for National select committee chairs to deliver their reports. Therefore, New Zealand National has 45 minutes remaining, New Zealand Labour has one hour and 19 minutes remaining, the Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand has 20 minutes remaining, ACT New Zealand has 29 minutes remaining, New Zealand First has nine minutes remaining, and Te Pāti Māori has 20 minutes remaining. The Government has indicated that the Minister for Media and Communications, the Minister for Social Development and Employment, and the Minister for Disability Issues will be available today to respond to member's questions. Each debate will be led off by the chairperson or another member of the committee that considered annual reviews most closely related to the Minister's portfolios, though these speeches should be a non-political report-back to the committee from the select committee. The Minister for Media and Communications is here for 45 minutes to respond to members' questions. Media and Communications PAULO GARCIA (Deputy Chairperson of the Social Services and Community Committee): We in New Zealand face a very rapidly changing media landscape, and with the rapidly changing landscape, traditional media has found that they are challenged to meet the costs that they incur in creating or preparing their media presentations and reporting as against what the country and the world is already undergoing, which is a switch to the online availability of news and the availability of news 24/7. It is a point in time where traditional media are facing the pressure to innovate and ramp up or think of strategies in order to be able to continue their traditional way of providing their reporting. Advertising revenue has fallen quite considerably and is dropping dramatically. We are seeing that print ads and traditional ads on traditional media are getting harder and harder in terms of competition by online platforms that the current market has started to quickly turn on to and get used to, having the opportunity to look at advertising 24/7 on their phones at any time, on demand. This has been a great challenge to the traditional media outlets. We have seen that while this is happening, of course, traditional media has received the brunt of that change and are struggling with their current means of getting to the public. So I actually would like to ask the Minister to comment, particularly on how he sees this changing landscape and how he sees that things will continue to evolve on to online media and away from traditional media. It's rapidly changing. I also find myself just resorting to my phone constantly in terms of trying to find things and trying to access information and access news. In the House, we are all aware that there is news media on our TVs 24/7, all into the night and in the early morning hours, so I think I want to start this session with a request for the Minister to make comments on this rapidly changing landscape. Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Madam Chair, thank you so much. As the chair of the select committee mentioned before, it has been a challenging year for broadcasting and media, but, I think, in this case, more so for Māori and Pasifika media. So in the annual reports of TVNZ, and also for RNZ—it is good to see in these reports that TVNZ's annual report states that "TVNZ is committed to reflecting and advancing te āo [Māori] and te reo Māori." For RNZ, there's been a 12 percent increase in the number of broadcasting hours of Māori content compared to the previous year. However, Minister, we know that there is still inequality and inequity in the media industry. Non-Māori media receives $70 per hour for broadcasted media, whereas Māori media receives only $30 an hour for equivalent content. In addition to that, we also see that advertisers in this particular case also view Māori media as niche and serving only a limited audience despite the enormous audience they now do present for both Māori and non-Māori alike. So my question to the Ministers is: how would the Minister address this gap in the cost and in the funding between non-Māori media and Māori media. Hon WILLIE JACKSON (Labour): Thank you, Madam Chair. Can I congratulate the Minister, first of all, for the new position— Hon Paul Goldsmith: Very kind. Hon WILLIE JACKSON: —well done—and agree with the member previously who talked about testing and challenging times for the media. It most certainly is. It most certainly is and it's a tough time for whoever the Minister is. That's certainly what we would concede on this side of the House. Looking forward, the Minister certainly has some challenges in front of him, particularly with the industry looking for a plan at the moment. So we have a number of questions today around that, given that the previous Minister had talked about a plan that was apparently presented at Cabinet—or wasn't presented at Cabinet. What I'd like to find out from the Minister, to start off with, is what has happened to the Cabinet paper that the previous Minister proposed and when will it be released? I think that a lot of people are really looking to see what this coalition Government is going to do in this area, what are they proposing. Jenny Marcroft: Point of order. Just a couple of points of order, Madam Chair. I'm just wondering how a question about a Cabinet paper fits into an annual review. Could you clarify? CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): In terms of the debate, we are looking at what happened in the previous six months and the current six months, but I would say it's up to the Minister. If he feels that that is not an appropriate question to answer, that is up to the Minister to state that. Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm sure the Minister will be able to handle that question, Madam Chair. Also the industry is looking for a plan at the moment. It's one of the big, big questions that the industry is asking. I just have one or two more questions before maybe the Minister answers. We prioritised as a Government—$117 million was reprioritised over four years to Radio New Zealand and New Zealand On Air to address priority challenges. I wouldn't mind just finding out if the Minister has any update on how those funds have addressed some of the challenges, the current challenges in front of us. And just one other question before I sit down. The Public Interest Journalism Fund provided an interim report in August 2023. Can the Minister answer us or respond in terms of how many roles were created from the Public Interest Journalism Fund and how many will be maintained? Thank you, Madam Chair. Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister for Media and Communications): Well, thank you, Madam Chair, and, members, for your insights and questions. A good summary of the situation by my learned colleague Paulo Garcia, and questions from the Greens and the Labour Party. Look, I think the only point I'd make at the start is that I think it's widely agreed that parts of the media industry across the country, and indeed across the world, are struggling with the very rapid transition in the way that people get their news and their information—because it's blindingly obvious to everybody that people's habits have changed dramatically over the last few years in the way that we collect our information, what we look at on screens, and how we gather the daily information that we get. But it's been varied, and so radio continues to go relatively strongly, and commercial radio continues to be relatively strong in this country. So that element of the broader media setup is responding 30 or 40 years after its projected demise when TV killed the radio star; actually radio continues to do relatively well. Print and TV media have had a more challenging environment of late, particularly because of the drop-off in revenue from advertising. And that is largely as a response from competition from online offerings. It's also a reflection of the relatively difficult trading environment that we see across the country as a result of, frankly—and I don't want to get off-piste—a very difficult economic environment that we've inherited as a new Government, where we've had low growth. So people have been struggling with the cost of living, with inflation, and higher interest rates. So people don't have as much money to spend at the moment. And that's why this Government has this overwhelming priority of focus on economic growth, rebuilding the economy, getting inflation under control, and restoring higher incomes, putting some money back in people's pockets. And so the media context, just like every element of business, will benefit from that to the extent to which we, as a country, succeed. And so— Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Point of order. Unless I'm mistaken, there is no Minister in the House. Oh, there's a Minister in the chair, of course. CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Yes, there is. Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, thank you for that interruption. I was giving a survey of the situation, and so, as a new Minister, I'm obviously working my way through the process of meeting as many people in the industry as I can. And so, particularly next week as we move into a recess, I'll be working my way through the many industry groups, because—look, I think there are two challenges: as well as the economic sustainability of parts of the media, which is continuing to be challenging, although I have every confidence in the ability of the many businesses operating in this area to adapt. Over the last few weeks where we had very difficult times of retrenchment and redundancy—particularly in some of the TV and Newshub—we're already seeing some new options being developed. And so we as a Government, of course, don't want to get in the way of that and to confuse that in any way. But another challenge, of course, across the broad media landscape, that is a challenge—again which is a global one—is around trust issues. We're conscious that, looking back over the last period, the Government did make investments into the various funds, and that, frankly, is challenging, because people do worry about that and what impact that has on the media trust situation. So for any changes or any ideas we're considering in the context of the media, we have to be very mindful of the impact that that has on perceptions. And so we're very mindful of that. I can't remember, actually, the questions that were asked by the Minister Jackson, but I'm sure he might relitigate them further on. I've moved on. But we certainly do want to work collaboratively with the sector. And the broader issues that we're dealing with, or trying to respond to, is what, if anything, can the Government do to even up the playing field, I suppose, between local providers and international ones, and also to ensure that New Zealanders still have access to the New Zealand productions, New Zealand stories, on their screens. We have obviously made a significant investment, as a Government, on that, in three ways, through the New Zealand Film Commission, and funding through the film industry through NZ On Air, and, thirdly, through to Te Māngai Pāho, which has a particular focus on te reo. And we make significant interest investments on all those things, and they need to be seen in the whole, and we'll continue to do that. And so we have those levers to pull. And so I'm very focused, as a Government Minister coming into this, to ensure that we're getting good returns and good value for money and good results from that investment and also that New Zealanders continue to be able to see their stories online and on their screens. Obviously, a longer-term issue is that there's been a very a big change in New Zealand's habits in terms of what they're watching, and we've seen the rapid development of online streamers—Netflix being the largest, but a number of others. And so there is an open question: how can we ensure that those big companies continue to invest and invest in New Zealand production and New Zealand stories? And I don't want to, certainly, over promise on that area, but we've certainly got to have those conversations and to see if we can improve the current situation. So that's some of the issues. Looking back in terms of the annual review, I am mindful of the fact that we've had, over the last year, $19.6 million spent by the previous Minister on his failed merger of TV and RNZ, and so we're mindful of that, and we don't want to be making those sorts of mistakes further down the line. REUBEN DAVIDSON (Labour—Christchurch East): Thank you, Madam Chair. I think it's really important, before I get into my questions, to establish a little bit of context. Specifically I want to address the immediate issues that we're seeing in news media and broadcast news media in Aotearoa New Zealand. I want to start by acknowledging that I think we didn't move fast enough to address really significant change like the imminent closure of Newshub and the significant changes to news services available from Television New Zealand. One of the things I think that we didn't acknowledge and one of the questions that I will get to on that is the impacts that this has on jobs. Those jobs are people. There were conversations that would have been happening in the evenings when we were not addressing those issues here in the House with people going home from meetings that were filmed, that they walked out of after hearing the news. Ten minutes later, they're in front of cameras having to answer questions about it, and then having to go home and look their family in the eyes around the dinner table during difficult economic and financial times and not have the certainty that they would have a job. And I think that it's really disappointing that the Government wasn't able to move faster, wasn't able to engage, wasn't able to address those concerns. And in some instances, in fact, coalition partners—some members of the Government—made really insensitive comments about that very fact, and I think that's pretty disappointing. I think it's easy for us to lose sight of the people in media who so often sit up here like cherubs, staring down at us during question time. They're not shooting arrows of love, they're truth-seeking missiles, which is why some members try to avoid them on the tiles because they try to avoid those questions. But not only do those reporters, those journalists, those people who work in news media—they don't just put themselves at risk here in the House, trying to ask questions of us, they actually literally go into war zones. They've put themselves in front of artillery, in front of gunfire, in front of missiles. They've put themselves in the real face of danger to make sure that they can tell stories and speak the truth to issues going on globally so that New Zealanders can be informed and aware of those. And the work that they do shapes our future because it charts and tracks our history. The significance of that should not be lost on the Minister or on anyone in here around the impacts that cuts and losses in our media sector have. Now, the Minister spoke just previously about habits changing and about people potentially being less inclined to seek out or watch news content. Now, there's actually a little more subtlety to that, in my opinion. People more than ever want to seek out news, they want to seek out factual information. The thing that has changed is the platforms on which they get that news from. Currently, that's seen a significant shift in gatekeepers. Those gatekeepers have shifted from being local media platforms—in many cases locally and independently - owned media platforms—and it has shifted instead to some of the largest and most powerful media entities; in fact, largest and most powerful companies we have seen in history. And so it is our responsibility in this House to ensure that we can guarantee and secure a plurality of media for New Zealanders. So my questions, in finishing, are: what industry feedback has the Minister seen in the last year from New Zealand's major news media players about the Fair Digital News Bargaining Bill? Secondly, what feedback has the Minister seen from smaller, independent media outlets over the same period? Has the Minister seen any opposition to the bill; and if so, who has that opposition come from? Those are my questions for the Minister, thank you. Hon WILLIE JACKSON (Labour): I enjoyed the Minister's kōrero earlier. He never answered one of our questions, so I'll repeat the questions for the Minister. Hopefully, he'll answer my colleagues, who asked some— Hon Paul Goldsmith: I'll write them down this time—I'll write them down. Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Well, also my colleague from the Greens—somebody's questions would be good today. This is normally what happens in these sessions, isn't it, Madam Chair? So I want to just, though, add on that when Newshub did close down, I thought it was a catastrophic situation, and it still is actually for New Zealand media. The deal they've come to is—well done to the Stuff set-up, but it is a worry in the industry that, in fact, if we're going to just end up with how we've ended it up there, then that could be the future in terms of broadcasting and media in this country, and I think the Minister should be aware of that. I certainly know that Jenny Marcroft is aware of that, given her background, also. So the need, as I keep saying, for a plan is incredibly important, and that's why I repeat the question to the Minister: what has happened to the Cabinet paper that the previous Minister of broadcasting proposed, apparently—I'm not too sure. But from what we read and heard, something was proposed at Cabinet but not backed by the Deputy Prime Minister, if the media reports are right, and so what has happened to that plan, because the industry is absolutely interested in what the Government could do. Will there be any investment from the Government? Will there be support in terms of New Zealand On Air, perhaps? There was talk that the market could look after things. The market is broken—it's broken. So the need is for agencies to be able to work collaboratively together, and for the Government to get alongside some of these agencies and for a sympathetic Minister to perhaps get in and maybe broker deals. What is the update in that area, because the Government's handling in terms of the media was atrocious in the early part of the Newshub— Hon Member: Oh, rubbish. Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Well, if someone thinks it was well handled, I'd like to hear where and how, because you had a Minister who was replaced along the way. So it was really sad to see that response from the Government to Newshub earlier on. But I want to repeat these questions again for the Minister: where is that plan? Also, $117 million was reprioritised over four years—over four years—to New Zealand On Air to address priority challenges. What is the update on how those funds have addressed some of these challenges? Also, the Public Interest Journalism Fund provided an interim report in August 2023: how many roles were created, and how many will be maintained? I was the guest speaker at what is called Te Rito, who did some terrific work under the Public Interest Journalism Fund. I was the guest speaker there two or three weeks ago, and— Hon Paul Goldsmith: Oh, they didn't ask me. Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Well, actually, the original speaker was meant to be the Minister of broadcasting, but that position changed around about the day before the graduation, and, of course, Mr Goldsmith was not available. So I attended, and it was a wonderful graduation, but I want to know from the Minister: of the Te Rito cadets who have graduated, how many have gone on to work in the industry, and what are the current costs involved in running that programme? I'm really interested to hear about that. But also a lot of work went into the Broadcasting Act, and maybe the Minister can give us an update in that area. The ministry has been conducting a review of the Broadcasting Act to strengthen the media system in New Zealand. Where is the review currently at, and are we on track for planned consultation to begin? So it would just be good if the Minister could answer maybe just one question today. Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister for Media and Communications): Well, I'm very happy to answer one question. The Hon Willie Jackson asked about the reported Cabinet paper in relation to Government plans for the media. The only thing I'd say on that is I'm not going to talk about what are the Cabinet's considerations and what papers may or may not have been before Cabinet. That is, certainly, we continue to consider a wide range of matters, and if I need to take some papers to Cabinet in relation to this portfolio, I will. Then, in the fullness of time, I'll announce that. In terms of the programme in terms of the public interest fund, well, yes, some jobs were created and that was a useful purpose—that progress has come to an end. In terms of numbers and investment, one set of numbers I do have available to me here is the total cost for the Strong Public Media programme that he was responsible for. Because I've heard a lot of comment from the other side about the state of things. Of course, they were in Government for six years, and they did manage to spend $19,604,000 on a programme to merge Radio New Zealand and TVNZ, which was nixed—nixed—by the previous Prime Minister, Mr Hipkins, I think, on 8 February. So they managed to spend $6.1 million on a business case. Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Point of order, Madam Chair. Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, this is an annual review— Hon Dr Duncan Webb: I know, I know, but there is a point of order, and it is this: I appreciate the Minister wasn't at the Business Committee, but the National Party has been given an additional 30 minutes across the rest of the annual reviews, which will go into next Wednesday. It's important, in the spirit of which that 30 minutes was extended, that that's spread relatively evenly across the portfolios which remain. So I appreciate this isn't a Standing Orders point of order, but it is one where it was quite clear that the idea was that all of the upcoming Ministers would have an opportunity to give concise replies to the questions that were raised, not for Mr Goldsmith to have long speeches on broadcasting. CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Look, thank you for that point of order, and that was raised clearly at the start of the session, so Minister Goldsmith is aware of that. Actually, that point of order has reduced Mr Goldsmith's time because he's due to leave at 3.45 p.m. He tells me he's completed, so if somebody's got a 30-second question, we have time or we'll—Paulo Garcia. PAULO GARCIA (National—New Lynn): Just quickly, can the Minister comment on the roll-out of ultra-fast broadband, and I ask how he has seen the uptake of it has been, the number of homes and businesses that this is projected to affect, and how that looks for New Zealand going forward. Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister for Media and Communications): Just a 10-second answer to that question: it was one of the greatest investments in infrastructure in our recent history so that 87 percent of the country now has access to ultra-fast broadband and New Zealanders as a whole are very well equipped to engage in the modern world of media and communications. Social Development and Employment CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): So, members, our time with the Minister for Media and Communications has ended. The Minister for Social Development and Employment is now available for a further 10 minutes to respond to members' questions. As this portfolio was previously debated on 1 May 2024, the chairperson has already led off this debate. We will therefore move straight to members' questions, and I just want to note that we do have time for disability issues later, so this is not about disability; this is about social development issues—10 minutes. Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment): Thank you, Madam Chair. I wanted to address the questions that were posed to me at the end of the last session, because I know the member put quite a lot of time and energy into asking that. So these were questions from the Hon Willie Jackson, who was asking about He Poutama Rangatahi in the year 2022/23. I want to correct a statement he made in saying that it was a National Party initiative that was put on hold around 2017. That's not correct; it was launched in 2017. It is of course fantastic to see that He Poutama Rangatahi has—although it's moved from the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment to the Ministry of Social Development—continued in the year in review to deliver to a number of young people. For the year in review, there were 35 new programmes. This is, of course, an initiative that's focused on young people aged 15 to 24, who are not in employment, education, or training. It also addresses one of the other questions that the Hon Willie Jackson posed around whether or not the Government had an intention to continue programmes that were community-centric. I'm sure he realises that He Poutama Rangatahi is co-designed with the community provider, which is what, in many ways, makes it successful, because it is locally led and locally delivered. The other thing that I want to say is that, of course, we will continue to collect data and evidence about the programmes that are funded and whether they are working or not. In the 2022/23 year, 2,710 young people participated in the programmes, which I think is a great result. Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Labour—Kelston): I'm going to quick fire these questions because I really think it's important that we ask questions for the general public and that they get to hear the Minister answer them, and I'm hoping that I get quick fire responses from the Minister as well. There are a number of employment programmes that have been invested in over recent years that have proven to be effective, and actually there's the reporting to show that they are effective: Mana in Mahi, Flexi-wage, He Poutama Rangatahi, Apprenticeship Boost are a few of them, just to name a few. I want to know from the Minister whether or not she's planning on continuing to invest in those types of positive employment programmes that are particularly good for our young people who find themselves unemployed. Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment): Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm not going to cover off questions that I replied to in the previous session, but what I will say is that we will continue to ensure that programmes that are delivered—assessment is undertaken to ensure that they are effective, and if they are not effective, funding won't continue. Of course, there are a range of measures that the programmes are assessed by. Some of them might have been assessed as promising, others haven't been reviewed yet, and I want to act with pace to ensure that programmes that are funded at the moment are delivering as we expect. Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Labour—Kelston): In light of the cuts being made to the public sector at the moment and taking on board what we have heard—that there are going to be backroom function cuts—I want to ask the Minister whether or not she anticipates any impact on research, on evaluation of these employment programmes, on insights. Currently the Ministry of Social Development, because of our investment, has been able to report quite thoroughly on the effectiveness of employment programmes. Will that continue, given the cuts that are being proposed to backroom functions? And will those cuts include the insights team at the Ministry of Social Development (MSD)? Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment): Madam Chair, I will confirm that the period that is under review is up to 30 June 2023. Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Point of order. Madam Chair, I have asked a question that's retrospective with regards to the ability for MSD—proven ability over the course of the last year—to report on performance of those employment programmes. And now I'm asking whether that will continue. I think we're allowed to in this debate. CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Yeah, that's a fair question. Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Madam Chair, I did say in the answer to the last question, if the member had bothered to listen, that we will continue to assess programmes for their effectiveness. Where programmes are assessed as effective, of course they will continue. Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Labour—Kelston): Will the cuts to backroom functions impact the ability of the Ministry of Social Development to continue to measure performance in the way that they have been able to in the last year, particularly with regards to employment programmes? Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment): Madam Chair, of course, as part of the hearing we talked about the ambitious jobseeker target, to reduce the number on jobseeker benefits by 50,000. And of course that will mean that we need to have data and insights and look at programmes that the evidence tells us work. Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Labour—Kelston): Over recent years, the Government previously had worked hard to always beat their forecasts of unemployment and the numbers of beneficiaries anticipated to come on to benefit, and I think, when we look back, that is very evident. What is the Minister doing now to ensure that that continues and that we don't reach the heights of unemployment that have been forecast? Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment): Well, of course, it's very unfortunate that we are in a position and we have a set of economic conditions that means Treasury has forecast unemployment to grow. That is why we are working at pace to reduce the number of people who are on Jobseeker benefit—and announcements like the one I made today. Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Labour—Kelston): Given that the Kaiwhakaoranga programme has been running for a number of years and the feedback from our Muslim community in Christchurch has been positive with respect to the case management service that they have received through this programme, why is the Minister now deciding to cut funding to that programme? What advice did she receive? And what response has she received from the community? Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment): It was actually the Minister before me, the member who's resumed her seat, who ensured that the programme was for five years, and early last year the indication and the decision was communicated to the community that it would not continue past the five-year mark. I'm very confident that all of the financial support and assistance that is available today will continue to be available from 1 July, and the feedback that I've had from the community is that they are far more confident and capable in their ability to access services that are available. Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Labour—Kelston): Over recent years, including the past year, the Ministry of Social Development has been very much focused on ensuring that those who need support through the welfare system and are eligible or entitled to that support are getting access to that support. Is the Minister going to continue supporting that work so that everyone who is eligible for welfare assistance is able to access it? Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment): Of course. Hon Carmel Sepuloni: What was the answer? CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The Minister said, "Of course." The Hon Carmel Sepuloni—you've got about one minute remaining. Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Labour—Kelston): Sure. One of the reasons that it's been very important that the Ministry of Social Development has focused on ensuring that people have access to anything they might be eligible to through the welfare system is because we are legally required to, through the Social Security Act. What other ways does the Minister think she can ensure that people can get access to their welfare support through the welfare system? [Pause] One more question? CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The Hon Carmel Sepuloni. Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Labour—Kelston): There have been varying levels of investment into social services over recent years, particularly in light of some of the unexpected events that have arisen—COVID, weather events—and still many of our social services are under pressure because of the cost of living challenges that New Zealand families are facing. Is the Minister planning on investing more into our social services to support them to meet the demand they are experiencing? Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment): The first priority of this Government is to address the cost of living crisis so that families aren't under the level of pressure they are under, and, of course, I will always be responding to and listening to any pressure that organisations are under. Disability Issues CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Members, our time for social development and employment has ended. We will move to disability issues for 30 minutes, for the Minister now to respond to members' questions on disability. PAULO GARCIA (National—New Lynn): I acknowledge that the Minister wasn't able to come to the select committee to answer questions during the annual review process. But now that there is an opportunity to run questions by her at this time in Parliament, that is appreciated. The select committee did ask and receive answers to a number of written questions which may be worth exploring further here today, or in another opportunity, but further remarks from the Minister in the chair would be appreciated today. The key topics of interest that came through the written questions were the establishment of Whaikaha. Any costs establishing Whaikaha in the year this annual review covers, and any impact of the time frame in which Whaikaha was established—it was established very quickly. Another theme that came through the written questions was: what were the key drivers of Whaikaha? It'll be interesting to know, from the Minister, whether this was driven by the number of people with disabilities, and whether this has changed over time. There were also questions about the current work plan of Whaikaha. There's a number of longstanding issues, in terms of providing disability support services, that predate Whaikaha. I'd be interested to know—from the Minister, from Whaikaha—how and whether these influence the work plan that we have, going into the future. Thank you, Madam Chair. Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Disability Issues): Thank you, Madam Chair. I do appreciate the opportunity to answer some of the questions that the member raised, given the situation that—we didn't get to go through it in detail in the select committee. So, I want to put some of that on the record now. In July 2022, the Whaikaha—Ministry of Disabled People was established, with high expectations and a budget of about $2 billion. There was clear evidence, within the first year after establishment, that there was insufficient funding for the Ministry to provide the public services that it was established to provide, let alone to respond to the high expectations set out in the establishment Cabinet paper. Information from the 2023-24 Estimates process also tells us that an additional $863.6 million over four years was required to respond to the then emerging cost pressures. A tracking of expenditure from when disability supports were funded through the Disability Directorate, which was in the Ministry of Health, tells us these funding issues aren't new. Crown expenditure on disability support services adjusted for inflation has roughly doubled from 2005-6 to now. Since 2018, the population receiving disability support services has increased from about 32,000 to almost 50,000 people. The number of disabled people accessing supports is currently increasing by 3,000 to 3,500 people per year, with their needs becoming more complex. The Ministry now funds disability supports for approximately 50,000 people, and equipment and modification services for approximately a 100,000 people, with an annual budget of $2.3 billion. The increased demand for supports and related fiscal pressures became evident again in late 2023, and the Ministry forecasting the appropriation for disability support was at real risk of being breached due to the growth in the numbers of people accessing supports and the increased costs of these supports. On 18 March, adjustments to the flexible funding rules were required to ensure disability supports were prioritised to those with the highest need. Clarification of those changes were announced on 24 April. The Government has made a within financial year budget allocation to respond to the increased demand for disability supports, and Budget 2024 will respond to these issues. This is not an approach that can be sustained. Disabled people need confidence that disability supports are financially sustainable, and that supports provided are consistent and fair. The 2023-24 Estimates hearing raised the concern that the needs assessment and co-ordination services, or the NACS, across the country were inconsistent in their approaches to assessing eligibility for disability supports, and in the allocation of disability supports. That is why, on 30 April, I announced an independent review of the disability support system. The review will look at what can be done to strengthen the long-term sustainability of disability support funding and services to provide disabled people, their families, and carers with certainty around what they can access. The review will report back within six weeks on the short-term measures required to stabilise the system, with the second phase of the review making recommendations on longer-term policy and funding settings. We need a system where the expectations for support are better aligned to the funding available. The disability support system needs to be cost effective and fiscally sustainable, allow disabled people choice and control over the services for which they are eligible, and, importantly, we need to ensure disability support funding is not required to ensure disabled people's fair and easy access to mainstream public services. Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Labour): Thank you, Mr Chair. Unsurprisingly, I've got a few questions for the Minister for Disability Issues around specific changes to disability support funding that were announced and implemented with immediate effect on 18 March, which removed flexibility from that funding to the point that many within disability communities have described that as devastating and the fact that they were blindsided by those changes. Now, the flexibility for that funding was introduced a couple of years back, and it was done so because of the diversity of the disability community and of disabled people themselves, and therefore their needs. This was, I understand, a funding pool that was under-utilised because while the needs existed back then, they just weren't able to access the funding to meet those needs. Now, as we all know, and we've determined in the House over the past month and a half or so, the former Minister knew about the funding shortfall within Whaikaha back in December last year and did nothing to address that. That then led to the changes that were announced on 18 March. I have some questions that have been raised by a number of people—disabled people, carers, and the wider disability support communities—about this. I'd really like to know what the Minister can tell us in terms of the total number of people who have been impacted by the changes that were announced and implemented on 18 March, and that would be everyone who was accessing the different funding support pools that were impacted. I would also like to know from the Minister: what were the total savings that were made as a result of those 18 March changes? Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Disability Issues): I have a note in front of me from the whips that says I must keep my answers short, so I'm not going to cover things that I've already covered, and nor will I cover things that I contained in the review. Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Labour—Kelston): I would like to know what exactly was in the annual review or came out of the annual review that led the Minister to prioritise a review of the name of the ministry, and what came up in the past year through that annual review that caused that to be something of urgency and for the Minister to think moving away from Whaikaha—Ministry of Disabled People should be what she's focused on? TAKUTAI TARSH KEMP (Te Pāti Māori—Tāmaki Makaurau): Tēnā koe. Tēnā tātou. A few questions for the Minister. Māori experience disability at a higher rate than any other population group in Aotearoa. One in three Māori have some form of disability, yet we have the least access to support in health and disability services. The pandemic as well as Cyclone Gabrielle highlighted these massive inequalities for our people. This is also backed up by statistics. Our tāngata hauā community feel they are being systematically targeted by Government organisations and Crown agencies and treated as economic burdens. The evidence for this is in access to employment, education, housing, cultural access, transport, healthcare, Government funding, and whānau relationships, plus the inaccessible attitudes within Government organisation structures. So the question is what is the Minister's strategy to address inequalities across all sectors for Māori with disabilities? It has been shown that as the wellbeing of indigenous and disabled whānau is improved, so are the outcomes for everyone. Despite this, Māori have no official presence at the Disabled People's Organisations Coalition table. Te Ao Mārama Aotearoa is the only pan-tribal and pan - disability rōpū in the country, but they are denied a voice at the table. This is a breach of the United Nations' Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and Tiriti rights. Can the Minister ensure that Māori disability organisations are formally included in the decision making at this tēpu? Another question is also that we want to know if the Government is considering a strategy to support cultural access for Māori with disabilities. For example, there are only 12 qualified sign language interpreters who can translate into and from te reo Māori. Would the Minister consider te reo rotarota, Māori sign language, an official language to support our deaf community in accessing their culture? Disabled beneficiaries: there are over 80,000 people on the benefit for health-related reasons. The Government has committed to cutting benefit numbers by 50,000. This reduction won't just apply to those work-ready; the Government will also be targeting people who are on disability related benefits. How will the Minister ensure that this will not lead to further systematic discrimination of our disabled community so that they are able to live with dignity without needing to repeatedly prove their disability to Government to keep their benefit? What analysis has been done on the disproportional impact that indexing benefit increases to inflation will leave on people with disabilities, as current modelling suggests that a disabled couple would be $9 a week worse off in the first year and $33 a week worse off by 2026 because of this change? That doesn't take into consideration the cost of living increases that will occur. Kia ora. Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Labour—Kelston): I raise a point of order, Mr Chair. I was just reflecting and spoke with a colleague just to check, the Minister for Disability Issues previously stood up and said she wouldn't respond to the Hon Priyanka Radhakrishnan's questions because they have previously been answered in the House. That is not the case. We did not get any answers to those questions previously. And the question I asked was not answered. There was no attempt, and the Minister is supposed to attempt to answer the questions, despite the fact that there was a reflection on the annual review and it is in the public interest that that question is answered. I would like the Chair to consider the role of the Minister in her chair and what she is supposed to be doing in this debate. CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): I just wonder if the Minister wanted to answer some of those questions. Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Disability Issues): Yes; thank you, Mr Chair. I'm very conscious that the National Party has already been granted an extension, so, actually, I'm very conscious of time. So I want to address the questions that were asked by the member the Hon Carmel Sepuloni, who's resumed her seat, just to say that the scope of this annual review is the Ministry for Disabled People. I just do want to put on record that there are a number of— Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Why can't she say "Whaikaha"? Hon LOUISE UPSTON: —Māori groups that have been set up. I can say "Whaikaha". I'm sorry, I can't say it in sign language. It is also the Ministry for Disabled People. There are three official languages. So I want to address that member's question. I do fully accept, and I fully understand, that member's deep concern about double disadvantage for Māori disabled people. So there are a number of groups that have been set up with, or aligned to, the ministry, including the Disabled People's Organisations Coalition, and one is Te Ao Mārama Aotearoa. I would be happy to provide the member with additional information in writing about the organisations that are representing and making sure that Māori disabled people are represented. The other point you make about the lack of te reo Māori sign language interpreters was very evident at the New Zealand Sign Language Awards that were held here in Parliament on Monday night. I will undertake to ensure that that is an issue that is addressed in the upcoming review of the New Zealand Sign Language strategy, because I fully appreciate and understand that access to language is so critical, whether in te reo, whether in English, or whether in sign language. CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): I'll give this call to the Hon Priyanka Radhakrishnan, but if you could repeat the questions that you posed previously but keep them really succinct and clear so that we can hear them and make a determination whether they had been asked and answered before. Thank you. Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Labour): Thank you. Thank you, Mr Chair. I will repeat the questions— CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): And noting there's a very short time frame, so you want to be— Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN: Yes. How many people in total were impacted by the changes that were announced and implemented with immediate effect on 18 March, what total savings have been made or will be made as a result of those changes, and what other options were considered other than removing flexibility? Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Disability Issues): There was an increase in flexibility that was created because of COVID that was never adjusted—in all fairness, should have been—and the number is 34,000. KAHURANGI CARTER (Green): We know New Zealand's dirty little secret is that having a disability is a pathway to prison and poverty, and we can and we must do better. There are many ways that we can do this, and consulting with disabled communities is key to improving equity for disabled communities in New Zealand. I thank you for the opportunity to be a part of this appropriations annual review debate on disability to ensure that we are working alongside community to enable resources, opportunity, and aroha to our disabled communities. I note both within the Whaikaha 2022-2023 annual review report and responses to written questions presented to the committee there are multiple references to engagement processes to ensure adequate consultation with communities; however, my first question relates to how these processes and networks are functioning in reality in light of recent funding decisions. The annual review report and supporting documents highlighted various engagement structures within Whaikaha, such as the transformation management board, the strategic advisory group, and nōku te kainga noho, nōku te whakatau steering groups. Can you explain how these structures are supposed to facilitate consultation with disabled people, disabled Māori, and their families, and why they were not utilised in the decision-making process regarding the changes to the purchasing rules on 18 March? Moving on, my concerns not only relate to consultation process within the ministry but widen to the resource and funding pressures highlighted in the 2022-23 annual review report. Firstly, the annual review for the 2022-23 year highlights several contributing factors to growing financial pressures within the disability support system, including changes to the cost of labour and growing waitlists for specialist services. Is the Minister confident in the funding allocations over the last 12 months, specifically focusing on operational and support allowance, and were they adequate to meet the growing demands and needs? Secondly, given the identified challenges such as growing waiting lists for specialised services and increasing pressure on services supporting autistic people, what initiatives or strategies did the ministry undertake during the 2022-23 year to address these capacity constraints and improve service delivery? Finally, I noticed in the annual review and the supporting documents the introduction of the work programme My Home, My Choice, which is great because it works alongside our disabled community to access residential care settings. However, can you elaborate on the specific budget and appropriation measures that have been taken over the last year to increase the range of options available for people who prefer alternatives to traditional residential care settings? How has the ministry worked to ensure that these alternative options meet the diverse needs and preferences of the disabled individuals and their families, giving them some choice? Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Disability Issues): I thank the member for her questions. And because I need to keep my answers brief, I shall try and rattle through them. It's been traversed in this House that the communication of those changes was handled badly in that that caused distress and concern. I don't want to rehash that, but I do want to say that the review that's under way at the moment is based on some of the cost pressures that you referred to earlier, and it is about making sure that we have a disability support service that does meet disabled peoples' needs, that does allow them access and choice, also ensures that the Government agencies who have primary responsibilities in some areas that their services are available as they should be. So my commitment to you in terms of the review that's under way is that before any decisions are taken, there will be consultation with the disabled community. LAURA TRASK (ACT): Thank you, Mr Chair. My question is to the Minister, and I appreciate that this is a debate on the annual reviews, but it's a bit of a forward-looking question, and I know we have some scope for that, so I hope you accept it. I'm wondering, what the Minister's plan will be going forward in regards to the Accessibility for New Zealanders Bill, given that members of the disability community felt the proposed bill by the previous Government was a slap in the face and the community felt the cries for change weren't being heard? The bill proposed by the previous Government was tokenistic and does not go far enough to address the very real issues that those living with disabilities face. Access to buildings, transport, education, digital information, recreation, and employment have a profound effect on a person's quality of life, and we here at ACT believe we can do better, and we must restore the trust from the disability community in the Government. Some comments from the community: Blind Low Vision NZ state, "It doesn't have credibility with the community it purports to advance, because it ignores the discrimination that people who are blind, deafblind or have low vision experience on a daily basis." A submitter to the Social Services and Community Committee on this, the previous Government's bill, said, "This is systematically ableist to its core and would probably do more harm than good. This bill is a token. The Labour Government chose to take a longstanding ask of disability advocates in our lives to take its language, pretend they were listening, and twist it until it was unrecognisable and meaningless." So, to the Minister, what is her plan for the Accessibility for New Zealanders Bill, and how are you going to address this going forward? Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Disability Issues): Thank you, Mr Chair, and I thank that member for her comments about the accessibility bill, and I unfortunately have to agree. This was another example, like the creation of the Ministry for Disabled People, where expectations were enormous and, then, what was delivered has been a massive disappointment. And the accessibility bill was exactly one of those cases. The challenge we have now is that the bill is so fundamentally flawed, and I don't recall actually many, if any, submitters that were in favour of the bill when it was before the select committee. So the question that I have to consider is whether there is anything redeeming in the bill or whether we go back to the drawing board. As I said, my focus at this time is to ensure that the review into the disability support services is undertaken robustly. And, I know, having heard from many disabled people, they want this sorted. They want certainty and consistency of service. So that is my number one priority. But I will come back and address the issue of the accessibility bill, because the underlying problems of access that you spoke about in your contribution still exist and they create real challenges for the quality of disabled people's lives. Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Labour): Thank you, Mr Chair. I thank the Minister for Disability Issues for answering one out of the three questions I asked previously. She might've missed the other two, so I will put them to her again. I would like to know—this is a question in the public interest; many have asked me about it—what are the savings that will be realised as a result of the changes that were made on 18 March, given that they were done in response to Whaikaha's funding shortfall, as the previous Minister outlined. So what are the savings? Secondly, given that this is an annual review debate looking at progress towards strategic intentions, one of the intentions, of course, of Whaikaha is to ensure that disabled people, carers, and the wider disability communities are supported to be able to thrive, and given that that trajectory of enabling more choice and control has been derailed as a result of the changes that this Government has introduced on 18 March, I would like to know what other options were considered other than the changes that were announced on 18 March? So I will just outline those two questions again just so that we're absolutely clear in terms of what I'm asking for—and the answers can be very pithy and short; I'm just asking for a number. What are the savings that will be realised, given that the changes were in response to a funding shortfall? Secondly, what are the options that the Minister considered prior to making the changes on 18 March—so rather than just removing flexibility, what other options were considered? Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Disability Issues): The first exercise in terms of the changes that Whaikaha made was about limiting the growth in expenditure; it was not a savings exercise. I have addressed the issues of the disability support services and the review that is under way and I'm not going to go into further detail. Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Labour): I refer to a press release that was put out on 20 March, where the former Minister for Disability Issues said that no disabled person will lose access to funding for essential services, equipment, or support. Now, given that the changes that were made on 18 March have limited—and I'll just use one example: travel, domestic travel. So disabled people now have been saying to me that while they can move around within their community to access services, many have family who live in a different region, for example, and now there is no access to the funding that they had prior to 18 March to be able to go and visit their own family that lives in a different part or in a different region, which is then leading to them becoming more isolated as a result of this. How, then, does the Minister reconcile the two? This is clearly a cut to funding that doesn't allow a disabled person to travel to see their own family. In many cases, family can't themselves travel to come to see the disabled person. How is that not losing access to funding for something that is an essential support? Nope? I'll keep going, then. I also have a question for the Minister based on what her predecessor has said in the House, which is that prior to the changes that were made to purchasing rules on 18 March, there were—and I quote—"no regulations, no rules, and no settings." Can the Minister confirm whether there were in existence any purchasing rules, and, perhaps, the four criteria that are the purchasing rules—can the Minister confirm to this committee whether any of those were in place prior to 18 March? Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Disability Issues): What I can say—and I was hoping not to quote this—is the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet stocktake of Whaikaha, which identifies significant risks that were in this financial period that absolutely directly contribute to changes that were necessary earlier this year: financial risks, operational risks, legal risks, people leadership risks, high stakeholder expectations. This is the mess our Government will fix with this independent review into disability support services, to ensure disabled people get the support they need. CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Members, that's time. Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance): Could the Minister just extrapolate— CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Apologies to the Minister; that's time, and I was asking if an honourable member would like to report progress—move the motion. Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance): I move, That the committee report progress on this bill. Thank you, Mr Chair. Motion agreed to. House resumed. CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Madam Speaker, the committee has considered the Appropriation (2022/23 Confirmation and Validation) Bill and reports progress. I move, That the report be adopted. Motion agreed to. Report adopted. NEW ZEALAND SUPERANNUATION AND RETIREMENT INCOME (CONTROLLING INTERESTS) AMENDMENT BILL Third Reading Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance): I present a legislative statement on the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income (Controlling Interests) Amendment Bill. DEPUTY SPEAKER: That legislative statement is published under the authority of the House and can be found on the Parliament website. Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I move, That the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income (Controlling Interests) Amendment Bill be now read a third time. The Government recognises that the New Zealand super fund was put in place to ensure maximum returns over the long run to support the payment of New Zealand superannuation into the future. We also recognise that the guardians of the super fund must continue to manage the fund in a manner consistent with best-practice portfolio management and independent from political direction by Government of the day. This bill, therefore, must strike a careful balance. We want to ensure that the New Zealand super fund is there to support future New Zealanders, while at the same time ensuring the guardians have the right tools to maximise the fund's returns. The New Zealand super fund prohibition from taking controlling interests in companies formed has been in place since establishment. Part of the rationale for this at the time of establishment was that the size and the maturity of the fund at the time, and the relatively small exposure to direct investments within global practice investment management back in 2001. I think it is also the case that it reflected concern from many about the potential for the super fund to become a politicised vehicle for investment. Today, the fund has matured and I would reflect over successive Governments has demonstrated its independence, and we see a different story now. The guardians' governance has evolved to provide effective oversight of complex investment strategy and, at the same time, direct investment globally is now a much more common feature of best-practice portfolio management and the New Zealand super fund is now considered a mature fund. In this new environment and this changed context, a prohibition on taking controlling interests in companies is no longer needed; it is obsolete—and that is why this bill is in the House. The bill removes the prohibition on the New Zealand super fund taking a controlling interest in companies. This will ensure that the guardians in future have the tools to manage direct investment and therefore the ability to seek out a much wider range of investment opportunity, including in New Zealand. We're also, at the same time, making a range of minor and technical changes that will ensure that where there is a controlling investment made by the New Zealand super fund, it doesn't result in an entity being treated as though it is part of the Crown. This ensures the entities invested in are not subject to obligations that were designed for public sector organisations. I thank submitters and the select committee for their valuable time and discussion on the bill, and members in the House for what I think has been a useful debate. I'm assured by the process we have conducted that the bill best reflects the Government's policy intent and the realities of investment for sovereign wealth funds. I will thank the previous Government for introducing the bill and I'm pleased to see our Government support the bill through its remaining time in the House. I would reflect that a sentiment shared across those who have been speaking to the bill—I think it would be fair to reflect—is to see the New Zealand super fund capable of investing more of its resources in New Zealand where that is consistent with its statutory purpose of providing commercial and prudent return. It has been the observation of many of the contributions to this debate that by allowing the super fund to take a controlling interest, a much wider array of potential investments is opened up and that it also will allow the super fund, in some cases, to become a more active investor. I'd like to reiterate my thanks to the Finance and Expenditure Committee for the efficient and effective deliberation of the bill, and to the submitters who provided valuable insights and supported the committee in forming a view on the bill. I entered the first reading of this bill with some concern about the potential for this to lead to less independence for the fund and the potential to have impact on competition with other market investors in New Zealand. I'm satisfied from our deliberations that the bill will have limited impact on competition with other market investors due to the size and scale of the fund's direct investments and that the existing measures which exist in the super Act will preclude the kind of inappropriate influence that we have discussed. The amendment positively should also provide a larger opportunity set for New Zealand investments—as I said earlier—and potential to increase the risk-adjusted return of the fund. This bill could well have the effect of both furthering that commercial purpose while also serving a wider "New Zealand Inc" objective. We can see potential that the super fund could, in future, for example, take a controlling interest in a piece of nation-building infrastructure, and I think that that is a prospect that would excite many in the House. In addition, I note that the bill does not alter the guardians' independence from political influence in relation to investment decisions. It requires the board of the guardians to include in the statement of investment policies, standards, and procedures the details of a governance framework for the implementation and operation of controlled entities. As I noted in the committee of the whole House stage of the bill, I have been satisfied that the guardians are well advanced in their thinking about how they will adopt these practices upon the passage of the Act. The bill also provides for the amendments contained within it to be reviewed within 10 years as part of the regular five-yearly statutory reviews of the fund, and I think it is a sign of the maturing nature of the fund—and actually of New Zealand's investment context—that we have seen this adaptation occur, and it is not impossible to envisage that future tweaks could be made again in future. So, to conclude, our Government recognises the role of the New Zealand super fund in providing long-term security to future generations of New Zealand superannuitants. We think it is important that where the fund is a custodian of New Zealand taxpayer funds that it invests those funds wisely. We think it is not wise for the fund to be artificially precluded from making good commercial investments in New Zealand entities where it either intentionally or unintentionally comes to have a controlling interest. This bill allows a wider tool kit to execute investments, a larger opportunity set for New Zealand investments, and it provides the potential to increase the risk-adjusted return of the fund. These changes have the potential to create positive benefit for all New Zealanders. The bill is consistent with the guardians' mandate to invest the fund on a prudent commercial basis and in doing so manage it in a manner consistent with best-practice portfolio management. This bill is very much in step with developments we have seen with similar funds in other parts of the world, and is consistent with developments in the way that funds of this sort are investing. I commend this bill to the House. ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that the motion be agreed to. INGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri): Thank you. I'd just like to acknowledge the collegiate discussion across the House in relation to this bill, which, as the previous speaker said, is very much a coming of age for one of our great institutions that serves all New Zealanders in several respects actually, not only in terms of the investment capital that it provides but also in securing New Zealand's international reputation as a transparent, stable, and open place to do business, that is good for investment. It's a great thing that we are marking this coming of age of a fund that was originally established in 2001. Just in case you're wondering, the music du jour at the time was Space Oddity—quite a bit of time has passed. The fund was, of course, the brainchild of that fantastic man Sir Michael Cullen, who came from down my ways. In fact, he was the MP for St Kilda, our area with our good Scottish heritage, which is known for financial acumen and—some would say—prudence. I think this was very much reflected in his vision and the prudence with which the original legislation was limited to be able to make sure that the Guardians of New Zealand Superannuation did not take unmitigated risks while they were feeling their way, in terms of investing for New Zealanders. So, at that point in time in 2001, the fund was very much about exposing the fund to investments, being able to take an incremental approach and grow the fund in a sure-footed and secure way to build the trust and credibility, and that is exactly what's happened. Fast forward to 2024 and we have the new bill now, which does seek to add a controlling interest element. I would like to commend both Grant Robertson, the previous Minister of Finance, and also the Minister of Finance, Hon Nicola Willis, for shepherding this through. Really, they have been shepherding this on behalf of this House, which is in great agreement about the fact that the fund should be able to have controlling interests. That door was opened a little bit in 2015 when there was a partial removal of the restrictions, which allowed the Guardians to create and control fund investment vehicles, but it wasn't to the extent that we have today. Some of the reasons have been outlined by the Minister; this is about being able to have direct investment into a wide range of investments. I would actually say that not opening this possibility up for our country at this point in time would pose risks for two reasons. One is the risk of having to potentially change the age of superannuation—we on this side of the House would not want to see that move entitlement move. We have been very clear about that. Prior to the last campaign, there were comments from the other side of the House, from the National Party, about potentially raising the age of entitlement 67 to be able to manage the ageing population and the pressures on it. By doing this and allowing the Guardians to be able to take a controlling interest to grow the fund appropriately, hopefully we can put paid to that, but also, actually, to enable the capital for investments in our country to come from domestic markets. We do not want to see reliance on foreign investment for some of our strategic assets. Again, this mitigates, to a degree, the risk of that. It also enables international competition in New Zealand to be able to be on a level playing field with other countries that we compare ourselves to. It really enables us to build resilience all over, in terms of the stability of the market, the timing, and the more interdependent global economy that we find ourselves in now, compared to back in the days of 2001, when Space Oddity was playing on the, probably, transistor radio. As has been referred to again by the Minister, the risks around doing this have been thought through very carefully and mitigated The requirements mean that the Guardians will not be treated as a public entity, will not be required to perform the types of reporting that public entities are. Also, there is a lot of transparency and accountability around the governance, particularly in terms of the statement of investment policy standards and procedures, where the details of the governance framework for the implementation and operation of controlled entities will be laid out. So, once again, that speaks to New Zealand's very high—usually number one; sometimes number two—placing by Transparency International around how we do business, what our money flows are, the ability of not only New Zealanders to trust the fund but also for foreign investors to know that New Zealand is a safe and stable place to do business. We need those governance frameworks in place. That has been thought through and looked at very carefully, I understand, by the Finance and Expenditure Committee. We've heard that along with the statutory safeguards there is an additional one: a 10-year review. I know Sir Michael Cullen would be very pleased to see that in the legislation, just to provide that oversight, again, to make sure that this is travelling slowly and sure-footedly in the right direction. So I'd like to thank those who did submit to the Finance and Expenditure Committee. I think this legislation, if I'm right, did come up during the previous Parliament, but has been shepherded through by various MPs from both Parliaments I think. Those who submitted gave very thoughtful submissions. It is a time-consuming thing to do, and I know that their submissions were treated seriously and that they contributed to the confidence with which this House is able to move ahead. I don't think there's much more left to say. We are in agreement. So I'll end my contribution there and say this is a good piece of legislation. I feel very honoured and privileged to stand in this House, with my whakapapa to the great Sir Michael Cullen, and also due to the fact that the Hon Grant Robertson, who put so much work into this, comes from Dunedin. With that, I commend it to the House. Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Thank you, Mr Speaker. The Green Party is in this case also in support of the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income (Controlling Interests) Amendment Bill. One of the things that was debated hotly and at length in the committee stage was the title of this particular bill, which, granted, is quite lengthy. In this particular case, the previous speakers have already mentioned in terms of the history of this bill that this bill was one of those bills that was introduced under the previous Government, and it's being brought to the House today in its third reading. Unfortunately for me, I was not present for the first reading of the bill, but I was present for the second reading of the bill and, like the Minister of Finance has already previously stated, one of the things that was debated at length was the independence of this particular legislation. However, I note that something that was mentioned during the committee stage in this case was section 64 of the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Act, which is around the ministerial direction that in certain cases the Minister is able to provide to the Guardians of New Zealand Superannuation on the funding for the New Zealand Superannuation Fund (NZSF). In this particular case, however, it must be said—like what the previous speaker has already spoken on—that the New Zealand Superannuation Fund has had a reputation for being world leading in environmental, social, and governance integration. So for that, I think the Minister has made it clear that she is confident in the ability of the New Zealand Superannuation Fund to actually undertake that particular business. Again, like we mentioned in the second reading, in this particular case the NZSF itself has also independently contained a list of exclusions, and I think this is one of the reasons why the NZSF is considered to be world leading in terms of environmental, social, and governance integration. It is because of the fact that they take a very ethical approach to the way that they are funding, and they are making their funds in this particular case, not so much prudishly, but, I guess, conservatively, like the Minister has suggested. But it is stated that the New Zealand Superannuation Fund does not fund things around the tobacco industry, and it does not fund it in terms of mining in West Papua or whale meat or Tokyo Electric Power. So I think, with that, the Green Party is confident that the New Zealand Superannuation Fund is doing something that is good for both the people and the planet. One of the other things we would like to pick up on—and this was also mentioned previously—is that we see the New Zealand Superannuation Fund evolve and kind of grow, and this is why we have this particular amendment. Although it is not overtly substantial in terms of amendment, it is incredibly important in terms of the repercussions and also the ability for the Guardians to expand on their controlling interests. In this particular case, like a previous speaker said, one of the things that the Green Party is particularly heartened by is the fact that the Government has retracted one of their election promises or election announcements, which was to increase the superannuation age to 67. So we are also happy to see that the Government has decided to keep the superannuation age at 65 years of age. I think that as we see the expanded portfolio of the NZSF, we're also hoping to take into consideration other restrictions that are currently in place for New Zealand superannuation. In this particular case, I am reminded that one of the members talked during the committee stage about the South Africans in their electorate, and that is a reminder of my own communities—within the Chinese communities and migrant communities—in terms of the limitation that is placed on the superannuation, which is that you have to be in Aotearoa New Zealand for 10 years in order to be eligible for New Zealand superannuation. I think that that is something that as we see the expansion of the portfolio of the New Zealand Superannuation Fund and, potentially, increased revenue streams for this, we are able to see, potentially, something that will be beneficial to the migrant community by seeing a reduction in that wait time of 10 years, or a decade. Particularly, I think that in this case, when we're looking at—as was addressed previously—certain populations where their scientifically proven age and also life expectancy does not go too far beyond the age of 65, we do see, particularly in this case, that Māori and Pasifika populations are not receiving the full benefit of the New Zealand Superannuation Fund that they deserve. Again, in this particular case, within the Pasifika communities, we're looking at the fact that they're being penalised not only in terms of the life expectancy that we observe but also in terms of the fact that if they have to wait 10 years for them to gain the enjoyment of the New Zealand Superannuation Fund, we're going to see that a significant number of people will not be eligible for that. But in saying that, overall, the Green Party is in support of this particular bill. What I really appreciate is that it was one of the first bills I spoke on in this House as the Green Party's newest—though I'm no longer the Green Party's newest MP. Todd Stephenson: It keeps changing. Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN: It does change a little bit. But in this particular case, as the senior spokesperson for the Greens—what can I say? I am really enjoying it. I really appreciate all of you here. It's been a really good and robust debate, and I enjoyed the second reading of this bill and also the committee stage. But, in any case, the Green Party commends this bill to the House. Thank you. TODD STEPHENSON (ACT): Thank you, and thank you for the contribution from Lawrence Xu-Nan—not the newest member of the Green Party. We're glad to have you here, too. We love a diversity of opinions in this House, although we may not have a diversity of opinions on this particular bill. I rise to speak for a second time on the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income (Controlling Interests) Amendment Bill. It is a mouthful but a very important bill. As I think has been outlined already, this is a bill that started off its life in the 53rd Parliament, went through the Finance and Expenditure Committee, which I was not a member of, but ACT was represented on, and actually was well scrutinised. We've now picked it up here in the 54th Parliament, and it's now at its final reading. Superannuation is extremely important, and I think, when the superannuation fund was established way back in 2001, we did live in different times, and I think this update to allow a controlling interest is appropriate. It is proper that we actually do look at some of these major Government entities and investment vehicles and they are updated. I was actually just reflecting, as I was sitting here, that one of the things I've got a real interest in is Pharmac, which is our medicines procurement and funding body, and that actually hasn't had an update and a look at probably in 33 years. So it is proper that we do actually look at some of these things and adjust them for the appropriate times. And that's really what this bill is doing. It's saying, "Well, when it started, it may not have been appropriate to take a controlling interest, but now times have changed and investment decisions are made in a different way, and controlling interests can actually allow a fund like this to grow and actually deliver its objective." And its objective, obviously, is to grow a great fund and ensure that New Zealanders in retirement can actually have a comfortable retirement. One of the other things I think is very important—I know it has been touched on a number of times, but I just do want to touch on it one more time—is maintaining this discipline around how these funds are invested, so that even though the fund will be able to take a controlling investment in different projects or companies, or whatever it might be, it is being done in a way that actually ensures that returns are delivered to the members. That's very, very important. We really need that financial discipline, ensuring that investment opportunities are well thought through and are actually providing for Kiwis' futures and continuing to deliver excellent returns of something like just under 10 percent over the life of the fund. And so I know probably—hopefully—members of the Guardians of New Zealand Superannuation are sitting here watching us today in anticipation that we'll be passing this legislation. Obviously, we're still yet to vote on it, but there are some very key provisions in the bill where they will actually have to update their investment policies and standards and procedures and actually provide an update on how they're going to use this new power that is being granted to them. And I think that is really important. The other thing I did—because, as I said, I wasn't here in the last Parliament—was look back at some of the submissions that were made in relation to this bill. I just want to talk about a couple because I think it's important that we actually do reflect on those. A couple of the ones I've picked out were from Age Concern New Zealand, which, as people would know, is a charity of older New Zealanders. They actually have a network of 30 Age Concern, I suppose, groupings throughout 40 locations across the country, and they did do a submission in relation to this bill. Interestingly, the points they made were that they didn't actually have a strong view on the actual amendment and the controlling interest, but they wanted to ensure that we were doing everything that we could do as parliamentarians to ensure that the fund was protected and grew. They did go on to say that they knew there was an increased potential for these larger investments to actually, effectively, contribute to the fund and grow it more effectively over time. But they also wanted to reiterate that it was very important that the superannuation fund is secure and stable and that New Zealanders have ability to plan for their futures and live with dignity in older age. I think that's very, very sound advice from them, and they really went on to reiterate about this need for protection and to make sure we are thinking ahead to the future. The other one I did pick out too was the New Zealand Council of Christian Social Services—again, an organisation with six founding members: the Anglicare Network, the Baptist Churches of New Zealand, Catholic Social Services, Presbyterian Support, and the Methodist and Salvation Army churches. Again, they say they really represent over 250 organisations across New Zealand supporting services. They just went on to, again, say they actually supported the amendments that we're discussing today, in allowing the fund to take controlling interests, and they thought that, again, by making this change, it would actually provide value for the investment and allow funds to be expanded and really provide more value for future members and for the Government needing to draw down on these funds. They also recognised that some of the economic shocks of COVID-19 had a significant impact on the ageing population and, again, ensuring secure retirement income in uncertain times after COVID, like we find ourselves in now, is very, very important. The last thing I want to reflect on, and the member Ingrid Leary did mention Michael Cullen—I did also enjoy, in the second reading, people might remember the former finance Minister Grant Robertson also said he had spoken to Michael Cullen about these changes and got his endorsement. Again, ACT might have some different philosophical views about how superannuation should actually be done. But I think it is important to recognise that this was a major piece of public policy that Michael Cullen ushered through, and I think it was nice to know that he was comforted that the changes we were making lived up to his ideal. I would say he's possibly the second-best finance Minister the Labour Party have had. I mean, Sir Roger Douglas, of course, is probably up there as the best finance Minister. But I do want to acknowledge Michael Cullen's amazing contribution in setting up this fund and putting it in place today. Again, we've touched on, in previous contributions, that this will give the fund the scope to obviously look at more projects within New Zealand. And, again, one of the concerns was a lot more of this money going for overseas investments, which, again, I think the fund will, I'm sure, have a balanced portfolio, which is important, but allowing opportunities to really ensure that, where an appropriate opportunity opens up in New Zealand, where a controlling interest is going to be required, the fund is in a position to do that. So, with all that said, there's probably not a lot more to say on this particular bill. I'm pleased that we've had a good discussion about the issues. It seems like it was very sensibly worked through by the former Finance and Expenditure Committee, who, I think, did some diligent work. I'm pleased to have been able to make a couple of small contributions speaking on this bill, on behalf of ACT, and I do commend it to the House. DEPUTY SPEAKER: I just want to make the House aware that, in less than two minutes, we will be interrupting this debate for the fisheries report debate that's coming up shortly. I think, in fairness to Mr Foster, it's not really fair to ask somebody to start a speech for one minute. You'd just about get through the title of the bill. So I think what we will do, under these circumstances, unless Mr Foster really wants to say a minute's speech, we might just have the— Hon Scott Simpson: Point of order, Madam Speaker. I seek leave of the House to move to next business. DEPUTY SPEAKER: OK. That leave has been sought. Is everyone in agreement? Hon Kieran McAnulty: Does that mean we knock off early? DEPUTY SPEAKER: Well, Mr Speaker is going to be here for the next debate shortly, so I guess it depends how long the rest of the speeches go. But I would suggest, if the whips talk to each other and come back and make a suggestion to the Speaker, it will be looked at. OK, so in light of that, we will make a move on the next speech. This debate is interrupted and is set down for resumption next sitting day. Debate interrupted. SPECIAL DEBATES Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee, Report—Inquiry into Illegal, Unregulated, and Unreported Fishing DEPUTY SPEAKER: Members, we now come to the debate on the inquiry into illegal, unregulated, and unreported fishing. I call on the Chairperson of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee to move that the House take note of this report. TIM van de MOLEN (Chairperson of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee): I so move. The scourge of illegal, unregulated, and unreported (IUU) fishing is a priority issue for Pacific States, and New Zealand has a strong leadership role to play in this area. I'm very pleased that the House has set aside time today for a special debate on the report from the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee into its inquiry on this issue of IUU. I'd particularly like to thank the former chair of this committee under the last Parliament, the Hon Jenny Salesa, for her guidance of this report through a sustained period of time, as that committee considered a range of issues that were relevant to the scale of its inquiry and indeed sought feedback from a broad number of partners and indeed travelled actually into the Pacific to better understand some of those challenges. So I do want to acknowledge her work in that as well. Now, the report highlighted 11 different recommendations, and I won't delve into all of those. I'm sure they'll be traversed more broadly from subsequent speakers. But, ultimately, the first recommendations were about obtaining a better understanding of how this issue of illegal, unregulated, and unreported fishing is permeating through our Pacific context. And, unfortunately, like a lot of illegal activity, we simply don't know how bad it is, because, of course, the action of those undertaking that activity is typically designed to avoid detection and, therefore, makes it very hard to report or to know the scale of that. There are mechanisms we can utilise to try and improve that, of course. A lot of that revolves around increasing the level of communication and coordination, and that was one of the recommendations that also came out of this report, highlighting the need to have a more cohesive and coordinated response across the Pacific to information sharing, to the use of technology, to the training of personnel in terms of understanding, identifying, reporting, and monitoring of these sorts of issues. And so, on that focus, it made sense to identify the key issue of actually trying to obtain that better understanding, first and foremost. That coordination, then the opportunity to work together more broadly, will of course play a critical role in underpinning how we can improve our response across the Pacific region for this. And some of the recommendations talk to those aspects. There are others that also talk to the need or the opportunity to explore further use of technologies that are evolving, that can add some value in this space, alongside upskilling local Pacific communities or their officers working in the fisheries monitoring and reporting space to help ensure that they are best able to contribute to the broader effort as well. And then, indeed, looking at hardware in terms of actual capabilities assets that can be deployed. For example, New Zealand Defence vessels that can do direct monitoring in exclusive economic zones around the Pacific to help deter or, indeed, to confront any vessels that are carrying out illegal, unregulated, or unreported fishing in any of those exclusive economic zones that they may choose to operate in. And then the final recommendations were effectively around the need to continually evolve our response over time. This is an issue, again, like a lot of illegal activity that is never solved outright. There are always ongoing challenges and ongoing need to remain nimble to the potential nefarious evolution of that activity as it may be carried out by those perpetrators as, again, new technologies come on board that can potentially make it easier to flout the rules put in place. So it should be that we must continually review how we can adapt and try and close those loopholes or reduce the likelihood of this activity continuing in our Pacific region. And then, finally, it was about looking at, actually in the New Zealand context, what we can be doing better here to ensure that we are delivering the right outcomes. And so the Government response that was tabled just in March highlighted their approach. Seven recommendations were agreed with. For another four, the intent was agreed with, and then we saw the fisheries amendment bill that has flowed through and had its first reading right at the end of March as well. So I think there's been a really good response from the Government to the work of the committee, and I'm sure members will traverse that more broadly. But I appreciate the opportunity to highlight this very important issue in the House today. Thank you. Hon JENNY SALESA (Labour—Panmure-Ōtāhuhu): Mālō 'aupito Mr Speaker, pea tuku mu'a keu hūfanga atu 'i he ngaahi tala fakatapu. As the former chair of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee, it is such an honour for me to rise and to give a speech on the inquiry we did on unregulated, unreported, and illegal fishing in the Pacific. I'd also like to acknowledge you, Mr Speaker, because you were the deputy chair of the select committee. The issue of illegal, unregulated, and unreported fishing in the Pacific—or IUU, as it is commonly called—is a longstanding one, and it is one where we've received many requests from many different Pacific countries asking New Zealand for assistance on IUU because we know that the Pacific is a really vast ocean, and Pacific countries are not able to monitor the vast Pacific Ocean on their own. Now, according to the Foreign Fisheries Agencies—or FFA—which has 17 member countries of the Pacific, including New Zealand and Australia, tuna fisheries contributed more than US$2.25 billion annually to Pacific Island economies in 2019. So we are talking about a lot of money. We also know from FFA that the annual amount of IUU fishing—and this is just an estimate—in the Pacific, and this is in 2016, was around about US$616 million. Fisheries generates thousands and thousands of jobs in the Pacific, and it is the primary and, in some instances, secondary source of income for up to 50 percent of households in the Pacific. So way back in 2021, our select committee—the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee—agreed that IUU is an issue and area which we should launch an inquiry about. We finalised terms of reference and we sought advice from five ministries. I'd like to acknowledge them not only for their hard work but, actually, many of them are here in the House today—the ministries of primary industries, foreign affairs and trade, defence, the New Zealand Defence Force, as well as the Department of Conservation. We called for public submissions and we received 34 written submissions and we heard oral submissions from 13 individuals and organisations and we also made 11 recommendation to address the environmental, economic, and social impacts of IUU fishing. We were also fortunate that, as a select committee, one of our members at the time—Ingrid Leary, who is here in the House—wrote a very persuasive letter to the Speaker at the time, and he allowed us as a select committee to travel to the Pacific. We went to Fiji in 2022, and the Solomon Islands and Tonga in 2023 as part of our inquiry. During these visits to Fiji, Solomons, and Tonga, we found out first-hand some of the issues that folks are dealing with on the ground. For instance, we were told that, in terms of observers on the ground in Tonga, some of the effects of Recognised Seasonal Employer (RSE) scheme was to an extent that it is really rare for them to be able to find and employ someone to go and be an observer to monitor fishing boats. There were many other issues that they told us about RSE. But I'd like to move to the recommendations that the committee made. First, we recommended that we need to address the information gaps, because the committee believes that the true size and scale of IUU fishing in the region is still unknown. Second, capacity building in the Pacific, in cooperation with Pacific countries, to ensure that they can recruit and retain professional staff for fisheries monitoring, surveillance and enforcement. Third, that we need, in New Zealand, to review our own plan of action to prevent, deter, and eliminate IUU fishing, and, also, that the Fisheries (International Fishing and Other Matters) Amendment Bill needs to contain stronger IUU fishing prevention measures and ensure that our vessels and equipment are fit for purpose for maritime surveillance. Fourth, that we need to implement stronger measures to hold IUU fishing offenders to account. And fifth, that we also need to initiate further regional cooperation around joint exercises and international development cooperation. Before I take my seat, I also want to acknowledge and thank the Minister of Foreign Affairs, the Rt Hon Winston Peters, because he is committed to the Pacific. I'd also like to acknowledge and thank the Minister for Oceans and Fisheries, the Hon Shane Jones, because he is the one that's actually taking through the Fisheries Amendment Bill which does implement stronger IUU— Hon Member: Ah, but who introduced it? Hon JENNY SALESA: —measures in the Pacific, and we, of course, introduced it in Labour. But I do want to thank the current Government for continuing on to ensure that IUU fishing is addressed. Thank you. Mālō 'aupito, Mr Speaker. DANA KIRKPATRICK (National—East Coast): Thank you, Mr Speaker—thank you for the opportunity to stand and speak on this important inquiry that was investigated by the previous foreign affairs, defence and— SPEAKER: Oh, look, sorry, can I just reset there? My apologies, I've been given a list; we'd better keep the order of it. If the member wouldn't mind resuming her seat and tolerating the small mistake on my part—no, I'm sorry, I'm right! Sorry, apologies. Please continue, and if we could— DANA KIRKPATRICK: It's late on Thursday, Mr Speaker. SPEAKER: Yeah, it is. It's been a long week—you've got no idea. So if you wouldn't mind starting again, that would be the way to do it. DANA KIRKPATRICK: Certainly. Hon Members: It was great stuff last time. I want to hear it again. DANA KIRKPATRICK: OK, let's start again. Certainly. Thank you, Mr Speaker. Thank you, again, for the opportunity to take a call on this very important inquiry, instigated by the previous Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee. I would like to acknowledge the work done by that committee in what has definitely produced this enlightening and educational report and process for us. I'm pleased to speak about this issue and highlight the responsibility we feel as a part of the bountiful Pacific community, because we can bring this issue to the fore and ensure that we are keeping a spotlight on illegal and unreported and unregulated fishing in our neighbouring fisheries. I think it's pretty easy to sit here in New Zealand, a land of many opportunities, and think that fishing is something we do when one of us or many of us here and in the Pacific Islands consciously decide to go fishing once in a while. But in the Pacific Ocean, fisheries are everything. They are the food source, the recreation, the intergenerational employment, the business, the opportunities, and the way of life. And so I just thought perhaps we'd share some facts with you about some of that. The value of the tuna fishery catch in the western and central Pacific Ocean is estimated at $5.3 billion, and for many countries across the Pacific it is their only commercial resource. The fishing industry in the Pacific provides more than 23,000 jobs in fishing, processing, and training officials and observers who monitor the sustainability of the fish stocks. The Pacific has significant marine biodiversity, with many rare and endangered species, and a large number of migratory species as well that pass through. Fish make up around 70 percent of the diets in the area, four times the global average of protein per person. Just to highlight the importance of the fisheries in the Pacific, take for instance Tuvalu, often characterised as one of a handful of fishery-dependent small island States whose economy, livelihoods, food security, and general health and diet depend largely on marine resources. In fact, fishing is one of their biggest and only sources of income. But what do they see happening in their backyard? Well, they see an ongoing and seriously damaging threat to fish stocks, to the economies of small Pacific islands, including the illegal, unregulated, and unreported (IUU) fishing of up to 300,000 tonnes of tuna per annum, at a 2016 value of $616 million, as a colleague said previously. Pacific nations are oceanic countries with large exclusive economic zones, and Fiji, for example, estimates that IUU fishing has potentially reduced the country's economy by millions of dollars. The committee was told that if Fiji was able to bring that resource into its own economy, it would provide a more sustainable future for the country and for its people. In Fiji, Tonga, and the Solomon Islands, the committee heard that for many people the first impact is on their livelihoods. People feed themselves and their families from the sea. The committee was told that action is needed to ensure food security in that part of the world. In Tonga, the reduction in tuna catch—and that licensed fishing vessels are unable to meet their allocations, so we're told there is uncertainty about fish stock data and that consideration is being given to the number of licence holders as a result. Beyond that, there are other concerns too. But how can we help to better manage the issues with illegal, unreported, and unregulated fishing? It's important to note that some of the recommendations from the report, and the Government response to the inquiry, included collecting more reliable and consistent data to understand the full picture of what's happening in the Pacific Fisheries; reviewing, as our colleague mentioned earlier, to understand better how New Zealand can assist specific countries to recruit and retain professional staff; that New Zealand opens a dialogue with Pacific fisheries partners about how we can assist with technology to address and combat IUU fishing; and this will be best done through a regional approach, and a joined-up approach to it. In New Zealand's own framework, the coalition Government has taken this seriously and has already introduced legislation—the Fisheries (International Fishing and Other Matters) Amendment Bill—which sets out stronger powers for the investigation and action against suspected illegal or unregulated fishing. So there's some work already being done there. I think it behoves us as a country and as a good neighbour in the Pacific Island community to play our part as good citizens of the Pacific and ensure that the work we do together will support our island neighbours and the fishing stocks and the marine environment that surrounds us. So I'm pleased we're discussing this issue today, and I'd like to once again thank the select committee for the report and the work done on it. TEANAU TUIONO (Green): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Let me begin by thanking the previous Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee. I note that none of those members are on this select committee, so we live vicariously through this report, the experiences that they had in putting this very important report together. Let me start by using a whakataukī to actually frame out how the Greens feel about the ocean in general and our reflections on this important report: "Toitū te marae a Tāne Mahuta, toitū te marae a Tangaroa, toitū te tangata."—"If the land is well and the sea is well, the people will thrive." The ocean shapes all of our lives, and a healthy ocean is critical for feeding us, supporting our wellbeing and mental health, and one of the greatest tools we have for addressing the climate crisis. The ocean is a part of our shared cultural identity. Illegal, unregulated, and unreported (IUU) fishing pushes back against all of that. This practice not only poses threats to our ocean's ecosystems but also affects the livelihoods of coastal communities across the Pacific. The inquiry, when you read it, had a narrative that flowed through it around environmental degradation, economic destabilisation, and social justice that demands not only our immediate attention but our sustained attention. Launched in 2021, it aimed to comprehensively examine the general practice and implications of IUU fishing in the Southern Ocean and the Pacific, particularly around our Pacific Islands. They had terms of reference, which were to evaluate the environmental and societal implications, assess governmental arrangements, and recommend future efforts to combat IUU fishing. The implications of IUU fishing are staggering. It not only threatens marine biodiversity but also undermines the livelihoods of coastal communities for the Pacific. For example, Fiji estimates losses of millions of dollars due to IUU fishing impacting its economy and food security. Similarly, Tonga has witnessed a reduction in tuna catch, leading to uncertainty and economic strain for local fishers. The true scale is unknown, underscoring the need for more data and real-time monitoring, and I note the reflections of other members around the House. It points to the need to support Pacific communities to address development gaps while supporting investment in local capabilities, ongoing training, and technological tools, noting that there is inconsistent funding from development partners, which can hamper local monitoring and enforcement progress. The ecological consequences are alarming. Overfishing disrupts marine ecosystems, threatens endangered species, and damages vital habitats. For instance, bottom trawling has been described as turning once-diverse areas into " 'rock and rubble' ". There are also broader security threats. Vessels engaged in IUU fishing often partake in other illegal activities, which can involve human rights abuses and worker exploitation, along with drug smuggling and human trafficking, further destabilising the region. But it's also important to walk the talk, or rather swim the talk, because right now New Zealand's high seas permits in the South Pacific are up for renewal, and I note that there are fishing companies that are seeking permits for two bottom-trawl vessels with recent convictions for illegal fishing, one of them for trawling in a marine reserve and another damaging a deep-sea coral ecosystem and failing to properly report it. How can we be an ally to the Pacific in combating IUU fishing if we permit these vessels to trawl in South Pacific high seas? We should not. As a reminder, New Zealand has reneged on commitments through the South Pacific Regional Fisheries Management Organisation about bottom trawling. If this Government wants to be serious about clamping down on unregulated fishing, then it needs to do something to make sure that we maintain regulations to a minimum and make sure that we look after the health of our ecosystems and the abundance of fish stocks for future generations. New Zealand must urgently review and update its national plan, and I want to acknowledge those efforts, but we need to do more around regional cooperation and funding in a way that addresses all of these concerns. It is about people. It is about ensuring that coastal communities have the resources and support they need to thrive sustainably. We should be empowering local fishers to be kaitiaki of their own waters in ensuring that they benefit from the resources that rightfully belong to them. The loss of traditional sources of food and income, coupled with the depletion of fish stocks, exacerbates poverty and threatens environmental sustainability. Pacific Island nations, with their vast exclusive economic zones, are particularly vulnerable to these impacts. We must prioritise sustainability and support local communities and ensure the long-term health of our oceans. Let us not only talk about change but act decisively to protect our oceans and the livelihoods of those who depend on them. Toitū te marae a Tāne Mahuta, toitū te marae a Tangaroa, toitū te tangata. LAURA TRASK (ACT): Thank you. So, firstly, I am very honoured to be speaking on this. I think, in the 53rd Parliament, ACT did actually not have a member of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee, so we were not part of this process. I want to thank the former members of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee for the work that they have done, and also the continued work of this Government in this area. Illegal fishing causes major disruption to the food chain and the ocean, leading to a lack of food for dolphins, whales, seals, and our other marine species. Legal and responsible fishing practices are conducted for a reason: to ensure plentiful and reliable food supply for both us and for ocean species. Fisheries contribute approximately $1 billion annually to the economies of Pacific countries, and generate about 25,000 jobs. Fisheries' revenue is particularly important to the economies of many Pacific countries. There have been calls from these countries to investigate the illegal, unreported, and unregulated fishing (IUU) from the Pacific Islands. So, within the report, I note there were three select committee recommendations that I'd like to touch base on today. Those were: "We recommend that New Zealand have vessels and equipment that are fit for purpose for maritime surveillance"; "We recommend that funding be found to ensure the continuation of the New Zealand Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) and other relevant agencies involvement in regional monitoring, control, and surveillance operations and to assist the Pacific nations to expand their capabilities". As a Pacific nation and one of the very few nations geographically close to the Southern Ocean specifically, we have a responsibility to ensure that we have technology and appropriate vessels and equipment to be fit for purpose to conduct maritime surveillance, in order to act as a deterrent to these illegal fishing vessels. It is also important for regional security that we have a presence in the Pacific and the Southern Oceans. The New Zealand Defence Force conducts patrols in cooperation with the Pacific Nations' National Maritime Co-ordination Centre, MPI, Pacific Nations' Island Forum for Fisheries Agency, and other agencies as part of New Zealand's efforts to detect and deter illegal fishing, and sustain fisheries for our future generations. New Zealand has not been able to carry out naval patrols near the ice in the Southern Ocean since 2017. The New Zealand Defence Force does not currently have a vessel which is suitable to operate in or near ice. We believe ensuring New Zealand has appropriate vessels and equipment that are fit for maritime surveillance is essential in New Zealand's response to illegal fishing. Monitoring must be sustained to deter not just the one-offs. Data collection must be improved because it is true that we don't actually know the scale of this issue. We must also assist other Pacific nations to expand their capability, so that they themselves can help with monitoring of the legal fishing, as it is not a job that can be done alone. We can do this by conducting joint exercises and training with the agencies of our Pacific island neighbours. We have the opportunity to embrace new and effective technology in order to regularly and reliably monitor illegal fishing acts such as drones, which can be used to survey far larger areas with significantly more speed in order to detect illegal fishing vessels that may be missed by boat or sea patrolling. As a cooperative and active member of the Pacific community, New Zealand must stand up for our respect for the rule of law and that our vessels must be fit for purpose in order to ensure that the crime of illegal fishing is less easily committed on our doorstep. Thank you. JENNY MARCROFT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister for Oceans and Fisheries): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. It is a pleasure to rise on behalf of New Zealand First and take a call on the special debate on the report of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee on its inquiry into illegal, unregulated, and unreported (IUU) fishing. I firstly begin by noting the great work of the previous committee, of which you were a member, Mr Speaker, in getting this report, and then this committee for bringing it to the House. So well done to you all—great engagement to address the threats of IUU fishing to New Zealand, and, of course, to our neighbours in the Pacific. The threats that are posed by IUU fishing should not be underestimated. IUU fishing is a fisheries issue, it's a food security issue, it's a livelihoods issue, an environmental issue, a security issue, a trade and market access issue, and the list could go on. The report is a very good piece of work. Recently I was up in the Pacific and had the privilege of representing New Zealand up in New Caledonia for Anzac services. But while I was in Nouméa, I was also able to open the New Zealand - funded fisheries genetics, fish ageing, and fish taxonomy laboratories at Pacific Community (SPC). And this is where a great piece of science work is going on relating to climate change and how it's affecting the tuna fisheries. But I also had the ability, while I was there, to coincide with the SPC's annual meeting of the Pacific Heads of Fisheries, and we had great discussions about the tuna fishery as well as the impact of IUU. I'd like to also acknowledge those members from the Ministry for Primary Industries and Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade which supported me on that trip—thank you very much. The Pacific IUU fishing is mostly attributed to licensed vessels who under-report or misreport their catches so they can increase their profits. This undermines responsible operators and distorts market competition. As a seafood exporter to international markets, it is in our interests that our operators compete on a level playing field and that their economic opportunities are not undercut. It's also in our interest that fisheries in the Pacific are sustainably managed and that Pacific Island nations have skilled professionals to manage and protect their resources. These fisheries are shared and New Zealand has a stake in them too. IUU fishing of tuna species costs the Pacific—as we've heard by a member just previously that half a billion dollars between 2017 and 2019 got taken out by illegal fishing. This revenue should be going back to the responsible operators and the Pacific Island economies. Now, the same goes for our highly valuable fisheries in the Southern Ocean. We have successfully protected these valuable fishing grounds in the past, but we cannot take this for granted. We need to ensure that this ecosystem is protected and that operators accessing these fisheries reap the benefits from legal, sustainable fishing, and that they get the best returns for their investments. The Government's been proactive in implementing some of the actions contained in the report, and one of these is the Fisheries (International Fishing and Other Matters) Amendment Bill, which passed its first reading a month ago and is now before select committee. This bill will update our legislative framework against IUU fishing to keep pace with and be at the forefront of international best practice. This will reaffirm our reputation and protect our continuing access to valuable and discerning global markets. Our $2 billion seafood export industry is projected to continue growing and the Hon Shane Jones is determined to do that, and this bill will support its growth. The Government is also reviewing our international development cooperation to enhance its support of regional capabilities and capacities. Capable, active, and self-reliant Pacific fishery agencies and regional organisations are needed to manage the environmental, social, and economic benefits derived from fishery resources. Assisting our Pacific Island partners with managing their fisheries is part of the work to promote a resilient and prosperous Pacific nation, and New Zealand is committed to doing just that. In conclusion, underlying New Zealand's continuing action, leadership, and cooperation in the fight against IUU fishing, this protects our reputation as a responsible seafood exporter and the prospects of our economy in a changing world. We are a primary producer, we are an exporting economy, and a Pacific nation, and we need these resources to be maintained, international markets to remain open, and illicit economic activity to be stamped out. I commend the committee—well done all of you for this report and the Government for its response. TIM COSTLEY (National—Ōtaki): Thank you, Mr Speaker. A lot has been said about the details of the report and the importance of fisheries to the region more broadly. I'd like to focus a little more on how we respond to this and where we go from here. I'd like to start with one quote from our response to that report: "Tackling illegal, unregulated, unreported fishing in the Southern and Pacific Oceans relies on regional compliance and enforcement capability and capacity, and on skilled staff working in a safe environment." I want to just unpack that a little bit, thinking about regional capability and capacity—skilled staff working in that environment. We need a broad approach. New Zealand cannot act in isolation, but we do have a key role to play. It's important that we acknowledge that we cannot do this alone. We're going to have to be effective, acting bilaterally, acting regionally and globally with other actors to ensure that we have effective fisheries management standards and that they are both developed and effectively implemented. New Zealand has a role to play in this. I want to draw out two reasons. Firstly, we live in an interconnected world—not just down to the simplicities of fish not knowing where borders are, whether it's between the Solomon Islands and Micronesia. We live in an interconnected world, and what happens in New Zealand impacts what happens in the Pacific. What happens in the Pacific certainly impacts New Zealand. Leading on to the second reason that it's important we take a role: if we're not taking a leading role, particularly in the Pacific, other actors will. We need to be careful about who we're leaving room to manoeuvre. New Zealand has always been a leading Pacific nation and always should be. That's why it's really important that we play our part in the fisheries space. How are we going to do that? Well, technology, clearly, is one aspect that comes out of this. We do need to leverage every technical advantage that we can find. We need to use the emerging tools. We need to fill those information gaps, and we need to support our Pacific partners and neighbours to be able to do the same. One example is supporting—and this is certainly something New Zealand will advocate for—mandatory electronic monitoring. There is room to do that, but we think about things like space technology—we think about the work that even New Zealand companies like Dawn Aerospace and Rocket Lab are doing to enhance that. As a small country, we will never have the platforms and the people to cover such a vast exclusive economic zone—it's a vast fisheries area—not just for New Zealand but for our Pacific neighbours. So it's going to be important that we leverage tools like space, like the satellites, to ensure that we can cover that and monitor fishing on such a large scale. But I note in recommendation three, talking about how emerging technology can improve the collection and verification of data, that it also will always require human interface at some point. As the response says, "Technological tools still require human processes." We can never get away from people being involved in that. That's why I'm so grateful to those that work in Fisheries, that work in Customs, that work in our Defence Force, that are actually out there. I think of someone like Jaymie from Levin, who I met a few years ago when she was finishing high school, who wanted to know a little bit about the Air Force. She's now working as qualified crew in the back of our P-8 aircraft, having qualified originally on the P-3 Orion. She's one of the ones out there that are giving some of the best years of her life and her service to be out there amongst those colloquially known as the other fish heads that are patrolling our territorial waters and those of our Pacific neighbours, and a great job they do, too. And I should just acknowledge the team from No. 5 Squadron at Ōhākea. The extent of our participation in these operations, however, is below historical norms and desirable levels at the moment, and one of the biggest challenges has been capacity, and, certainly, the attrition within our Defence Force has been a challenge. It'll be great to see the Aotearoa sailing down to Antarctica this summer and able to head into the Southern Ocean, but we have struggled to put ships near or in sea ice over recent years. So the Defence capability plan that's going to be released in the coming months is going to be a critical part. I look forward to seeing what is in that. But I just want to finish, in these last dying seconds, by mentioning Operation Kurukuru, which took place in November last year with the P-8 Poseidon—a great example of countries working together. All our Pacific Island neighbours were involved in that—25 staff from those countries working together, upskilling our Pacific brothers and sisters, and at the same time doing a great job to protect our fisheries. Thank you. INGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri): Illegal, unregulated, and unreported (IUU) fishing is a security issue, and that is one of the findings that came out of the report and also what we saw on the ground when we travelled up to the Pacific Islands. I would like to particularly point out the recommendation of a significant investigation to re-evaluate the scale of IUU fishing in the Pacific. It needs to be Pacific-led and we do need to invest. I think it's really important to acknowledge the security element of this both for the size of the Pacific Ocean, the strategic importance, the vulnerability of the islands, the submissions that we heard, and also—as others have talked about—the technology that's available. Because if we look at the Pacific Ocean, 800 square kilometres with 15 or 17 or other Pacific Island nations, depending on how you measure them—but thousands and tens of thousands of little bits of land in there. So there's a lot of activity that happens on that Pacific Ocean that we say joins us all. It's really important that there is regional coordination around that. You've got about 10,000 people living in Nauru; up to about 9 million people living in Papua New Guinea; we've got the South China Sea with the Pacific Ocean coming up there, the Taiwan Strait, the supply chain issues that impact all of that region; and then, down below, the Antarctic Ocean, which others have referred to. So it's a strategically really important piece of the puzzle that joins us all. Then we take into account vulnerabilities. New Zealand is actually the only country in the Pacific considered to be developed. I know that's a controversial name, but if we look at least developed countries, that's Vanuatu, Samoa, the Solomon Islands, Tuvalu, and Kiribati. They are dealing with climate change, limited natural resources, imports that are greater than exports, the climate change issues coming from other nations—not of their own doing. They are vulnerable to external shocks and, as we've heard, they are losing about $606 million out of a $2.25 billion fishing industry. We also heard in the submissions that there's not certainty that the Pacific has control of the fishing. When I lived in Fiji, I worked on a story for 20/20 Australia that highlighted young men up in the northern villages who were using antiquated diving gear—hookah gear—to go down and collect sea cucumbers for nefarious traders and ending up with the bends and ending up quadriplegic, and then they would gift the gear to their siblings. Because there was pressure from the village and the family to continue the high-paid money they got to build houses, the siblings would be put in the same situation. That was highly visible. So there isn't a lot of control over this, and that is also because there is inadequate reporting and collection of data. It is not consistent across the Pacific, and it hasn't been well coordinated. So that was confirmed when we went up on our trip to Fiji. I do want to shout out to our defence forces: I think they are the best cultural relations asset we have in this country in terms of developing people-to-people relationships—and there was a lot of talk about that when we were there. There was a lot of talk about the need for regional coordination in this area to strengthen the people-to-people links and also so that we can transport and transfer the trust that is built through this type of activity into our security environment. That's why I think this is so important. We also heard from submitters about technology such as unmanned or unstaffed drones that the Australians are using. That's really expensive, but New Zealand can have those conversations. Perhaps we can contribute in other ways—through interoperable systems, computer systems, IT, and so on—but at the behest of the Pacific. This does need to be Pacific-led, and I do hope from the contributions of other members that this is not about New Zealand coming in with a solution. We need to support the ambitions of our Pacific neighbours. I'd finally just refer to the comments that have been talked about—human trafficking, drug trafficking, the vulnerability to corruption that is in the Pacific—and the need for us to see this as a broader question, which is captured in the final recommendation: that we need regional cooperation around joint exercises, connected international development cooperation, formal recognition of IUU fishing as a threat to economic and social stability and development, and regional planning and provision of technological tools. This has to be a coordinated approach. We need to invest and we need to respond to the request from our Pacific neighbours. CATHERINE WEDD (National—Tukituki): Well, it's a great pleasure to rise in this debate. I would like to also acknowledge the former committee for this inquiry and, obviously, for hearing from a lot of submitters around this very important issue of illegal, unregulated, unrecorded (IUU) fishing, which is an ongoing issue and a huge responsibility for New Zealand with its responsibility that it also has in the Pacific to ensure that we uphold integrity and confidence in our fishing industries, which, of course, is a very important export industry not only to New Zealand but across the Pacific. And we certainly need to protect this huge seafood export industry and work together with our Pacific neighbours. And in Hawke's Bay, we have a significant seafood-export industry. So I know personally how valuable that is and how important it is that we protect this food production as well. But the report with its 12 recommendations is greatly welcomed. It highlighted some serious concerns around illegal, unregulated fishing. And, of course, our Government is committed to a strong framework against illegal fishing. So this report is certainly welcomed, to ensuring that we improve our response across the Pacific and continue this work to combat illegal, unregulated fishing, because illegal fishing threatens New Zealand's interests in the Southern and Pacific oceans and disadvantages our $2 billion seafood-export industry. And it's important that we are world leaders in the sustainable management of fisheries, including our neighbouring international waters, as the members around the House have already alluded to. And this reputation is of course very beneficial and essential for our export industry and a big part of New Zealand Inc. as well in ensuring that we add as much value to our products, because illegal fishing undercuts our operators, reduces their profitability, distorts market competition, and challenges the future availability of fishery resources. And on this side of the House, we're really driven to double the value of our exports in 10 years, and the seafood exports will certainly play a large role in this. In reading this report, it was positive to see the collaboration with our Pacific nations on this very important issue. The inquiry confirmed that IUU fishing is a shared global concern, and international responsibility was acknowledged within this report. It was mentioned that goal 14 of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals aims to conserve and sustainably use the oceans, seas, and marine resources for sustainable development. And within this goal, it aims to end IUU fishing. The report confirmed concerns that IUU fishing operations have connections with other forms of illegal maritime activities, including people and drug smuggling and poor labour conditions. Of course, these are all concerns as well. The committee, I understand, was told there is a lack of traceability of IUU fish in the supply chain, which distorts markets, of course, which the member earlier alluded to as well. I was particularly interested in reading what other countries are doing in relation to IUU fishing. In this report, it was heard that the European Union aims to have no fish from IUU fishing on the EU market whether caught within its own waters or imported from other parts of the world. And the committee was also told that one of Japan's five priorities for regional cooperation is sustainable oceans based on the rule of law. The Australian High Commissioner noted the commitment of New Zealand and Australia to active partnership in support of Pacific priorities, including fisheries management. And the committee was also told that taking action on IUU fishing is a goal of the UK's Maritime Security Strategy, and it was agreed that effective regional cooperation is vital to combating IUU fishing. I just thought it was interesting, here, because I just wanted to give a shout out to the New Zealand Defence Force, because they've been particularly active in patrolling many of the waters. I've got a stat here of 21.3 million square kilometres that have been patrolled, and these pockets include the oceans around the Cook Islands, Fiji, Kiribati, Niue—there's many, many—so there's a lot of work going on in this space, which is very good. Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin): Thank you, Madam Speaker, for the opportunity to speak, on a Thursday evening, on this topic. Firstly, congratulations to my colleagues Ingrid Leary and Jenny Salesa for getting this off the ground and doing all the work. I have to say, I'm a little bit jealous that this is not a committee that I've ever sat on, because it looks like you—the members of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee—did some very interesting travel— Dr Hamish Campbell: Environment's better. Hon RACHEL BROOKING: —and had some very good conversations in the Pacific that have come through in this report. Yes, I have colleagues on the Environment Committee over there, and I don't think we'll get such travel. Anyway, I was wanting to talk about the problem definition. We heard a little bit about it from both Ingrid Leary and also from Jenny Marcroft. That is that this illegal, unregulated, and unreported fishing, particularly in the high seas and the international waters, causes all sorts of problems. If we don't know how much fish is being taken, and if there's a whole lot more fish being taken than what is expected, then how do you do good fish stock calculations to work out how much legal fish should be taken? There are environmental effects. If you've got an area where you don't want bottom trawling to happen because of high biodiversity—say, a whole lot of corals—and someone goes through and takes it out, that's a problem. There's problems with bycatch. If you don't know that sea birds are being caught, if they're just being dumped at sea—we don't know about that. We've also heard from Jenny Marcroft the point about food security, and from Ingrid Leary and the Hon Jenny Salesa about the role of those Pacific Islands, the people there, the skills that they want to have in the islands—to be able to go and do the fishing themselves and to process that fishing themselves for their economy and food security. So it's a really important issue. Congratulations to the select committee for doing this report. Now, of course, this report dropped in August 2023 and I want to talk about a few things that happened in August 2023. One of them was—and we've had this mentioned before—that the bill on illegal and unregulated and unreported fishing was introduced to the House. I was very lucky to have that bill introduced in my name. I want to note that that bill had its first reading just recently, so submissions are still open there until 15 May. It's the Primary Production Committee that will be looking at that bill. As the Hon Jenny Salesa said, I really encourage the Hon Shane Jones and also the Rt Hon Winston Peters to keep up that good work, and in focusing on the Pacific and focusing on this illegal fishing. I also want to talk about two other things that happened in August 2023. One of them was an enormous operation. I do not have my glasses on—and I think this is something that happens with ageing—so I cannot see everybody who is in the gallery, but I suspect that some of them are wonderful public servants who I had the privilege of working with and who've been involved in the work on international agreements and with the regional fishing organisations, but also on the surveillance. There was a big exercise that took place in August 2023 and that was Operation Island Chief. It was a 12-day operation covering—I think this is important to get the scale of the areas that we're talking about—18.2 million square kilometres. The operation involved nearly 350 personnel. The Poseidons—I appreciate that there are members in the House who know a lot more about these aircraft than I do, but they had just over 44 hours of flying, covering around 1.8 million square kilometres of ocean. Also, that crew reported the activities and positions of 68 vessels. So the point here is that it's a big operation. They detected nearly 40 alleged breaches of high-seas rules. There's a quote here from Steve Ham, who is Fisheries New Zealand Director of Fisheries Compliance. He noted that "Our international team boarded and inspected more than 20 vessels at sea, along with monitoring the movements of 120 other vessels during our air surveillance work. We found 38 alleged breaches—many of these were about non-compliant seabird mitigation gear being deployed." So that goes on. So some very impressive work there. In August 2023, there was a case as well from 2018 that was successfully prosecuted. SUZE REDMAYNE (National—Rangitīkei): It is a privilege to speak in this special debate on the report of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade on its inquiry into a legal, unregulated, and unreported fishing. I'm not a member of the committee, but I thank both prior and current members—and add that I did enjoy the opportunity to speak at the first reading of the Fisheries (International Fishing and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. Illegal fishing practices seriously undermine sustainable fisheries management and are estimated to cost the Pacific region millions of dollars in lost revenue every year. They threaten food security and create an unfair playing field for legitimate commercial fishers. It's an uncomfortable truth: illegal, unreported, and unregulated fishing destroys livelihoods and it decimates the sustainability of our fishing resources. More broadly, it undermines regional security. It's critical we continue to protect marine resources for those who believe the rules don't apply to them. Many of these rules are designed to protect not just fish stocks from exploitation, but also seabirds and important marine mammals. Pacific Island nations and their communities stand to lose economically because of illegal fishing on the high seas, and we're behind them all the way. As the final speaker in this most interesting and important kōrero, I would like to take the opportunity to summarise the recommendations made by the committee following their extensive review—which, I might add, included a pretty awesome class trip. The inquiry's terms of reference aim was to examine the general practices and implications of illegal, unregulated, and unreported fishing in the Southern Ocean and the Pacific Ocean surrounding Polynesia, Melanesia, and Micronesia, along with the general nature of illegal fishing activities. Indeed, one of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee's recommendations following its inquiry and under the heading "Regional cooperation", was to propose this very debate to specifically highlight and bring to members' attention the matters raised in their report. Other recommendations relate to capacity-building in the Pacific, including an urgent review in cooperation with Pacific countries to help identify how Pacific countries can recruit and retain professional staff for fisheries monitoring, surveillance, and enforcement; a recommendation that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade and Ministry for Primary Industries open dialogue with Pacific fisheries partners about their technological needs to address and combat illegal, unregulated, and unreported fishing; and a regional approach to the consideration, purchase, and adoption of new technological tools to address and combat these illegal practices. Recommendations also highlight New Zealand's own framework, including an urgent review and update to the national Plan of Action to Prevent, Deter and Eliminate Illegal, Unregulated & Unreported Fishing; and New Zealand have vessels and equipment that are fit for purpose for maritime surveillance; and also funding be found to ensure the continuation of the New Zealand Ministry for Primary Industries' and other relevant agencies' involvement in regional monitoring, control, and surveillance operations. One more recommendation signals the need to hold illegal, unregulated, and unreported fishing offenders to account; that stronger measures be implemented immediately to protect fisheries observers; monitor deaths and injuries, investigate and prosecute those responsible, and provide strong and effective sanctions and penalties for offenders. Perhaps most significantly, the report recommends a significant investigation to re-evaluate the scale of illegal, unregulated, and unreported fishing in the Pacific. We need to protect and future-proof our fishing industry and the livelihoods of those who rely on it. Illegal, unregulated, and unreported fishing threatens livelihoods and environments in the Pacific. It puts ecosystems at risk. It endangers economies in the Pacific region because people lose traditional sources of food. It endangers economies across the region and deprives the Governments of income from taxes and payments. The review; this debate—they reiterate and reaffirm that New Zealand is 100 percent committed and actively engaged in combating illegal, unregulated, and unreported fishing through global, regional, and national efforts. Thank you. Madam Speaker, I seek leave for the House to adjourn early. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? Oh, sorry. First of all—sorry, just a moment, Ms Redmayne. The question is that the motion be agreed to. Those of that opinion will say—this is the motion on the fisheries report. That those—sorry, no, my bad as well. Thank you to the Clerk for picking me up on that. So the question is that the motion be agreed to. Motion agreed to. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Now to Ms Redmayne's seeking leave for the House to adjourn early. Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is none. The House stands adjourn until 2 p.m. on Tuesday, 21 May 2024. Thank you. The House adjourned at 5.46 p.m.