Wednesday, 29 May 2024 - Volume 776 Sitting date: 29 May 2024 WEDNESDAY, 29 MAY 2024 The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m. KARAKIA/PRAYERS Hon JENNY SALESA (Labour—Panmure-Ōtāhuhu): Tatou ifo ma tatalo. Le Atua Silisili ese e, matou te sulaina lau Afio mo fa'amanuiaga ma tofi ua e fa'au'uina ai i matou. E lafoa'i ni o matou lagona ma manatua ta'ito'atasi i le amana'iaina o le Masiofo o Peretania. Matou te tatalo ina ia tonu ma fa'amaoni fuafuaga ma fa'ai'uga uma i totonu o lenei Maota Fono. Ia talosia ta'ita'i o lenei Mālō ina ia maua le tōfā mamao, le fa'apalepale ma le agamalū, auā le manuia ma le filemū o Niu Sila. O le matou tatalo lea, e ala atu i le suafa pele o Iesu Keriso, Amene. SPEAKER'S RULINGS Contributions from Gallery—Rules and Practice SPEAKER: Members, I wish to address a situation that arose in the House last night on the occasion of the third reading of the Whakatōhea Claims Settlement Bill. The Assistant Speaker interrupted a kaumātua in the gallery who was speaking prior to the performance of a waiata to celebrate the third reading. According to the Standing Orders, the Assistant Speaker was correct in doing so—the practice of the House since the 1990s has accommodated celebratory contributions such as karanga and waiata, but not contributions in the nature of a speech, such as a whaikōrero. See Speaker's ruling 11/2. An important principle underlies that practice, which is that the House is the forum for elected members to speak and represent the diverse views of the people. The incident affected a momentous occasion on the passing of the bill, which was unfortunate. It was also unfortunate that the Assistant Speaker was placed in that situation. The ruling I just mentioned notes that the Speaker presides on such occasions in light of the mood among members present. It also provides flexibility for the Speaker to agree beforehand to celebratory contributions. I ask that Ministers and members, when facilitating arrangements for people to attend an event in the House, such as a settlement bill, discuss with attendees what celebrations are intended, so that the tikanga of the House and of the parties to the settlement can be aligned. This was not fully disclosed on this occasion. In the future, greater clarity about what is agreed would allow the presiding officer to know what to expect, and to ensure things run smoothly. It also will enable those attending to understand what to do and when. Ultimately, it is for the Speaker to maintain order and preside in a way that facilitates the House's business, guided by the Standing Orders. Members should support presiding officers in doing so. It is highly disorderly for members to demand apologies from presiding officers when they are applying the rules and practice of the House. I strongly advise, where members consider the House's rules and practice need to evolve, those members should address a proposal to that effect to the Standing Orders Committee. Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the Opposition): Point of order, Mr Speaker. With regard to the ruling that you have just made, I have been both a whip, a Leader of the House, and an Opposition member of Parliament, and in the entire time I have been here very supportive of the Treaty settlement process and have worked—including with you in your previous roles—to ensure that those occasions were celebratory in nature, that the mana of the House was upheld and the mana of the people who came here for the third readings was upheld. On many occasions, those who have sung waiata from the gallery have also engaged in karakia as part of that waiata—it is not a new practice. What happened yesterday was not new; it has happened many, many times before. I have never seen—I wasn't in the House when it happened, but I have never seen a Speaker interrupt that in the way that we saw yesterday. Whilst I accept the ruling that you have made, and I don't wish to challenge you or your ruling, I do want to make sure that in the future we don't undermine what is an occasion where the Parliament comes together in the spirit of unanimity to support the Treaty settlements process with something like that happening again. I don't think the mana of the House was upheld, but I don't think the mana of the people in the gallery were being upheld either. And I think the spirit of the third reading was somewhat undermined by what then unfolded. SPEAKER: Well, I thank the member for his contribution. It largely is in line with the ruling that I've just made. Hon MARAMA DAVIDSON (Co-Leader—Green): Point of order. I do thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I, too, don't disagree with the technicalities of the ruling that you have made and don't wish to challenge you on the ruling at all. I have seen successive Speakers—I believe including yourself—have the respect and the wisdom and the discretion of understanding that the stand that was made yesterday by a rangatira of Whakatōhea was a mana-uplifting stand for this House and was a respect for this House and all of its representatives in it on the passing of a very significant bill that, after 100-plus years of raupatu and Crown breaching of their lands, asking for some minutes or seconds of a whakamana mihi to this House. I would have expected that there is a basic minimum cultural understanding that the discretion allows and understands the vein and the wairua of what was being offered. While I also take on board you have offered a pathway for us to have our visitors and manuhiri far more prepared, there may be a longer conversation about how the rules of this House can also work. We've seen spontaneous karanga happen in this House, haka and waiata, but in the spirit of what was being passed at that time, we have allowed that to go through. My last point—thank you, Mr Speaker—is that we have seen the rules be fiddled in here on the floor of this House, including every day in question time, with some quite weird points of order. I know we want to uphold the mana of the House, but I ask us: are we always consistent in that? Thank you. SPEAKER: Well, thank you. I think the member makes the point that there is a pathway. I make the point again that there was communications that were not full, and that the disclosure of all that was to be stated was not known to the presiding officer at the time. RAWIRI WAITITI (Co-Leader—Te Pāti Māori): Speaking to the point of order. Thank you, Mr Speaker. I'm not going to challenge you on the Standing Orders and I understand that your ruling mentions karanga, but I will challenge you on tikanga. Karanga is not only reserved for women—and those who are representative of iwi who use karanga and waerea to be able to do that would attest to that and affirm that that is actually a common practice where karanga and waerea are used in the same vein. This is the challenge to you, it's about tikanga and whether the Assistant Speaker at the time would have ended up in that predicament if she had used the tools that are available to her to ensure that she was getting the cultural advice that the Speaker deserves to have. This is the issue we have. It's still a breach of tikanga. It may not be a breach of Standing Orders, but it's absolutely a breach of tikanga to ask somebody to sit down whilst doing a waerea or a karanga. That's the point I'd like to make today. SPEAKER: Well, thank you for that, and I'm sure that you will want to discuss that with the Standing Orders Committee when the opportunity arises. Hon SHANE JONES (NZ First): Point of order. Your ruling has been made. When the inevitable discussions take place, either this is a House of Representatives serving the primary purpose of us who are democratically elected, or circuitously it's going to change. It cannot change and should not change unless we abide by what you have to say. I want to share, sir, with you one thing. I personally sent a message to Whakatōhea, as a long-serving member of this House: "By all means, sing your waiata. If you depart from the waiata template, you will strike problems." I think the situation reflects both poor communication but also a creeping level of change in the House that has not been mandated within the rules of the House. Hon WILLIE JACKSON (Labour): Mr Speaker— SPEAKER: Well, hang on. We could go on for a while here. Remember that I have made a ruling and your contribution will need to be in the context of that. I call on the Hon Willie Jackson, with a point of order. Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Mr Speaker, I heard your ruling. This is a very important kaupapa for our people. I was listening to Minister Jones. The tikanga of this House has changed considerably through the years. We never had babies being nursed in the Speaker's Chair before—never. SPEAKER: We may not for some time in the future! Hon WILLIE JACKSON: We never had. We now no longer wear ties in this House. SPEAKER: Well, that's something which you changed too. Hon WILLIE JACKSON: We now have waiata being sung from the gallery, Mr Speaker. My question to you—and, again, I respect what you're saying—is: what place does our tikanga play in this House? That's the question, Mr Speaker, and I apologise that we haven't been able to have a private audience with you to have a good kōrero about this. But this is an overriding question for us, as Māori. When we have a rangatira insulted like that, as he was yesterday— Hon Shane Jones: Come on, Willie, you're not at Oxford now! Hon WILLIE JACKSON: —we don't want to be listening to Shane Jones' bloody nonsense. SPEAKER: That sort of comment kind of starts to disrupt the order of the House and also the intent of what's said here. I make it very clear in what I said today that there is a place for this discussion, and that's where this discussion should take place. Hon MARAMA DAVIDSON (Co-Leader—Green): Point of order. SPEAKER: A final point of order from the Hon Marama Davidson. Hon MARAMA DAVIDSON: Thank you. It is a final point, it's both in response to Mr Jones, but you made a very valid point, Mr Speaker, about the order of the House. My final plea is that the disorder was actually created when the Assistant Speaker failed to use her discretion to allow for the mihi to go through. The disorder and the escalation actually began as a result of many other MPs recognising the harm of her call. SPEAKER: Yeah, with respect, this is not a place to determine that. I've made a ruling, and, as far as the House is concerned, that is the end of the matter. There is an open door for all of these discussions to take place at the Standing Orders Committee, which will be convened in the next short while. OBITUARIES Rodger Fox CNZM ANDY FOSTER (NZ First): Completely unrelated to the previous conversation, Mr Speaker, I seek leave to move a notice of motion without debate to express the House's sadness at the passing this week of jazz legend Rodger Fox. SPEAKER: Leave is sought. Is there any objection to that course of action? There appears to be none. ANDY FOSTER: I move, That this House acknowledge the death this week of jazz legend Rodger Fox CNZM and express our condolences to his family, friends, loved ones, and the many people that Rodger touched and mentored over the years. SPEAKER: Thank you for that. I don't think we take a vote on that; we just accept that as a motion before the House— Hon Chris Bishop: I think you have to put a motion. SPEAKER: Oh, do I? OK. Well, before I do, I'm going to say that I think the man was an absolute icon. I followed him for a long time. His final concert was actually here in Parliament two weeks ago, and he brought along 24 young musicians who he was tutoring—a fantastic legacy that he leaves, with so many that he has tutored over the years. Motion agreed to. Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Tikanga is changing again, Gerry. SPEAKER: Yeah, that's right. It's me that's doing it, so it's OK. PETITIONS, PAPERS, SELECT COMMITTEE REPORTS, AND INTRODUCTION OF BILLS SPEAKER: A petition has been delivered to the Clerk for presentation. CLERK: Petition of Joseph Griffen requesting that the House urge the Government to stop construction of 20 Kāinga Ora homes in Port Street East, Feilding. SPEAKER: The petition stands referred to the Petitions Committee. Ministers have delivered papers. CLERK: Government response to the report of the Environment Committee on the report of the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment Space invaders: A review of how New Zealand manages weeds that threaten native ecosystems ministerial response to the referral of the petition of Alisha Riley. SPEAKER: Those papers are published under the authority of the House. Select committee reports have been delivered for presentation. CLERK: Reports of the Privileges Committee on the: question of privilege arising from use of official television coverage of the House question of privilege concerning the defamation action Staples v Freeman, and report of the Regulations Review Committee on the activities of the Regulations Review Committee in 2023. SPEAKER: The report of the Regulations Review Committee is set down for consideration. No bills have been introduced. ORAL QUESTIONS QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS Question No. 1—Prime Minister 1. Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all of his Government's statements and actions? Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON (Prime Minister): Yes, and especially this Government's efforts to rebuild the economy after years of economic mismanagement. The huge increase in spending in recent years has pushed inflation higher, interest rates higher, it's kneecapped economic growth, and it's sent unemployment higher as well. It's obvious that we need a new approach, which is why we're taking action to make doing business in New Zealand easier, whether it's building, construction, farming, or financial services. So whether you're a farmer or a tradie, an entrepreneur or an innovator, my message is simple: we're a Government for you. Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Have representatives of the four peak bodies representing building and construction firms written to his Government expressing concern that his Government's decision to cancel or defer projects is leading to a significant slow-down in work, a collapse in business confidence, and the risk of an exodus of skilled workers? Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I'm aware that they have, but we have a big pipeline coming of infrastructure, which we've started to talk about. Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Did those same infrastructure providers express concern that his Government's rhetoric isn't matched by action, in particular, stating, "many hundreds of businesses [are] caught in this gap between intention and getting work to the starting line"? Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, what I can reassure them and what I have reassured them is to say that this is a Government that's going to get things built in this country. We don't believe in phantom projects. We don't believe in taking six years to do Auckland light rail—to think about it, to talk about it, to do some Post-it note sessions, to have a lovely strategy. We don't believe in Let's Get Wellington Moving, that didn't get Wellington moving. We don't believe in Lake Onslow, which was a phantom Post-it note idea as well. We believe in getting things done in this country. We're going to build a 30-year pipeline of proper projects, not just ideas, and we're going to get things done. Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Has he asked for an estimate of the economic impact on the building and construction sector of the Government's decision to stop, pause, or defer projects like school rebuilds and upgrades, hospital rebuilds and expansions, road works, water infrastructure improvements, and public transport investments; if not, why not? Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, what I'd just say to that member is that the school infrastructure and buildings programme was a very interesting one to be inheriting coming into Government, because it's lovely, again, to go off and say the words, but you actually have to follow up with a plan, and, ideally, you've got to have the money there to do it, and that didn't happen for 350 school buildings, sadly. Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. My question was whether the Prime Minister has asked for an analysis of the economic impact on the businesses affected by those decisions. I don't think the Prime Minister came even close to addressing that. SPEAKER: Well, the only problem is that the primary question asks if he stands by all of his Government's statements and actions. And while that might be an action that you're questioning, as soon as he said that he didn't have any money, that was probably the end of the position. But I tell you what, I'll give you an extra question to be able to tease things out a bit further, if you can. Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Does he plan to provide local authorities with the resources they need to bridge the infrastructure gap they currently have, or will he continue to leave them, as the industry told his Government, in "challenging financial predicaments", with "a lack of funds or a need to await direction or decisions from central government before proceeding with planned works."? Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Look, I think the member is really—it's an outrageous set of questions from this member, who has talked a big game and delivered so little, right? Let's take an example of local government funding and financing, if you want to do that. How much do you reckon the previous Government spent on three waters? $1.2 billion. Do you think there was any improvement in the three waters assets? Nope. What did we do? We partnered with local government, we found a solution for Auckland Watercare, and we've got a great outcome. Now Auckland Watercare has certainty and a pipeline of future projects; Auckland Council has $800 million to spend on other infrastructure. We have plans. We don't just do bumper stickers and slogans; we get things done. Rt Hon Winston Peters: Could I ask the Prime Minister as to whether or not his Government's plan is to build on the plan that was made yesterday by Mr Hipkins that the last Labour Government had built more houses since the 1960s, or was a totally baseless plan from them and as shallow as most of his statements? Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: What I can say in answer to that member's question is that Kāinga Ora debt went up $10 billion, the social housing wait-list went up four times, house prices went up, I think, over 50 percent, and average rents went up $180 a week. So either way you look at it, the previous Labour Government failed on housing. Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: If his plan is so successful, why are 70 percent of building and construction firms expecting to see increased attrition over the next 12 months because of his Government's inability to provide certainty to the sector? Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I would just say—I mean, it's quite outrageous. You had six years in Government, and you did nothing. You drove inflation up, you drove interest rates up, you put the economy into recession for four of the last five quarters, and you have the audacity to ask me economic questions. Give me a break. Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Will he adopt the infrastructure sector's suggestion that the Government pursue an accelerated and immediate package of renewals work, particularly in the water and transport sector, to bridge the gap, retain essential skills and knowledge within the New Zealand border, and attract top-tier infrastructure construction talent to New Zealand? Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Look, I'd just say to you—to the member—that there are 62,000 potholes that we inherited from the previous administration. We're working very hard on renewals and maintenance. And, importantly, we're working on a 30-year pipeline of proper infrastructure projects, not Post-it note ideas. We're working on 10-year city and regional deals, which we'll be talking about shortly, and we want to form a national infrastructure agency that gets the right funding and financing tools so that, actually, local government and central government can work together instead of the Punch and Judy show that happened under your watch. Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Is there more economic activity in the building and construction sector today than there was six months ago? Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Yeah, well, I'll just say to that member, thank you very much for overspending by 84 percent Government spending, thank you for driving up inflation to record highs, thank you for driving up interest rates to record highs, thank you for putting the economy into recession for four of the last five quarters, and thank you for raising unemployment—no wonder construction firms are doing it tough, as are many, many New Zealanders. And wait for the Budget, tomorrow, delivered by an excellent finance Minister, to find out how you run an economy. [Interruption] SPEAKER: It's done. Calm those outbursts down quite considerably. Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. Mr Speaker, I'd like you to review this question exchange, because every— [Interruption] SPEAKER: I tell you what: points of order are heard in silence, and everyone in the House will observe that. Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: —Mr Speaker, because every question that I asked the Prime Minister was about his Government and the actions taken by his Government, and every answer didn't address the question by talking about his Government; they talked about the previous Government. Now, while I accept that question time is a robust exchange, the Prime Minister should at least make some effort. This is a big issue. The building and construction sector have written to the Government with a list of concerns that I think are legitimate concerns that they deserve to have answers on, and I have raised some of those in the House today. I don't think it's unreasonable that the Prime Minister should address the actions of his Government, rather than the previous Government. He has been the Prime Minister for over six months now. SPEAKER: I will review it, but in the light of the primary question itself. Question No. 2—Prime Minister 2. CHLÖE SWARBRICK (Co-Leader—Green) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his Government's statements and actions? Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON (Prime Minister): Yes, in the context they were given. Chlöe Swarbrick: Does he stand by his statement, "I want all New Zealanders to be able to flourish in this country. I want everybody to be able to realise their potential", and, if so, does he think that it is fair that the average New Zealander pays double the effective tax rate of the wealthiest 311 families in this country? Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, what I'd say to that member is that's why we come to politics. We want every New Zealand child to have a great future; we want them to be able to realise their potential and realise their version of the Kiwi Dream, whatever that may be. Chlöe Swarbrick: Does he agree with the statement of Christopher Luxon, "How much the wealthy own or don't own is irrelevant to actually middle New Zealand", and, if so, what level of inequality is he comfortable with? Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, that's why we've got to make sure we rebuild the economy: so that we can actually afford the public services so that we can deal with issues of inequality across New Zealand. Chlöe Swarbrick: How tough was the choice to make changes to benefit indexation that his official advice says will put 13,000 more New Zealand children in poverty? Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I disagree. What we've done is made sure that beneficiaries— Hon Carmel Sepuloni: No, you can't disagree; the advice says it will. Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: —are no worse—well, we've made sure that beneficiaries are no worse off by the effects of inflation and the cost of living. Their benefits will be adjusted by inflation. Chlöe Swarbrick: How tough was the choice to roll back smoke-free protections, which will result, ultimately, in more New Zealanders dying from smoking than otherwise would have, in order to generate half a billion dollars more in Government revenue? Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: We are determined to deliver on the Smokefree 2025 goals. What's been impressive is, under the legislation that we've put back in place, daily smoking rates have fallen from 8.6 percent to 6.8 percent. We're well on our way to 5 percent—that's our goal. Chlöe Swarbrick: How tough was the choice to hand $2.9 billion in tax cuts to landlords? Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: It's important that we increase the supply of rental property and that renters don't end up being slugged with more costs. That's why we're actually delivering interest deductibility, revisiting the brightline test, and balancing the laws between landlords and tenants: because we care about renters. And I'd hope that member would do the same. Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can I ask the Prime Minister as to whether he cares or not what his primary answer might be when someone comes to the House with a written primary question and five written supplementaries so that nothing that the Prime Minister might say would have any bearing on what she thought of what the first answer was? SPEAKER: Yeah, no. It's not a place for the Prime Minister to reflect on— Rt Hon Winston Peters: Yeah, but she's reading out her questions. SPEAKER: Well, you've got the point out, but the answer's not required. Question No. 3—Finance 3. NANCY LU (National) to the Minister of Finance: What impending announcements is she planning on the Budget? Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance): Tomorrow at 2 p.m., I will be announcing the Budget itself. Alongside my Budget speech, there are a number of documents that provide information on the Budget, ranging from high-level summaries to very detailed line-by-line descriptions of changes to appropriations. These include the Estimates documents, the summary of initiatives, Treasury's Budget Economic and Fiscal Update, the Fiscal Strategy Report, the child poverty report, and the Budget At a Glance pamphlet. Compared to recent years, there will be less verbiage, fewer pretty pictures, and a lot more substance. Nancy Lu: What new spending initiatives will be in the Budget? Hon NICOLA WILLIS: That will be revealed tomorrow, but I should point out to members that this year's Budget will look quite different from those in the recent past. Recent Budgets—[Interruption] They're all very excited today; they're looking forward to tomorrow as much as we are. Recent Budgets have tended to be long lists of spending increases. Tomorrow's Budget will include new targeted discretionary spending, but it will also contain lots of savings, lots of reprioritisation, and—spoiler alert—it will contain tax relief. Nancy Lu: How will the Government pay for these measures? Hon NICOLA WILLIS: All the elements I just mentioned—[Interruption] SPEAKER: Can we just calm it slightly. At least let a start be made before there's the usual objection to the content of the answer. Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Mr Speaker, this all bodes very well for tomorrow. All of the elements I just mentioned—new discretionary spending, savings, reprioritisation, and tax relief—are contained within the Budget operating allowance. Members may recall that the previous Government set an operating allowance of $3.5 billion for Budget 2024. Hon Dr Megan Woods: What's your operating allowance? Hon NICOLA WILLIS: We will do a lot better than that, member Woods. I said in the Budget Policy Statement in March that the operating allowance for Budget 2024 will be less than $3.5 billion, and it will be. Nancy Lu: What commentary has she seen on tomorrow's Budget? Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance): I've seen so much commentary on the Budget. But I did have my attention particularly drawn to one commentor's explanation of why tax relief will take demand out of the economy and reduce inflationary pressure. That commentator said, "One thing [that] we know is that with tax cuts, and the slowing economy, there will be less money circulating". The commentator went on to say, "As it will be the better-off who will get more money from tax cuts,"—apparently—"the likelihood is much of that money will be spent on overseas trips, so won't be spent in our economy." This commentator went on to say, "There is always a contingency built in, called an operating allowance, which is for emergencies." And to justify New Zealand's ballooning public debt, this commentator said, "Sometimes it's necessary to borrow money; it took the United Kingdom sixty years to pay for World War Two, and imagine how long Ukraine will be paying off the cost of defending themselves against Russia." Members opposite should probably know, all of this came from the commentator, the writer of the Ōhāriu newsletter, Greg O'Connor. SPEAKER: Just before we go any further, right at the start of this parliamentary year, I made it very clear that it was inappropriate for Government to use question time to attack either the Opposition or other MPs. That was a very serious transgression—don't do it again. Hon Members: Aww! SPEAKER: That's a severe telling off at this stage. The Hon Marama Davidson. Hon Dr Megan Woods: We beat you fair and square, Nicola. SPEAKER: And we're silent; we're all quiet. Rt Hon Winston Peters: Who made that rule? SPEAKER: I just did. Rt Hon Winston Peters: No, you can't. SPEAKER: I just can. Rt Hon Winston Peters: You're Parliament's man. SPEAKER: That's right. Rt Hon Winston Peters: No, not your own man— SPEAKER: No, no— Rt Hon Winston Peters: —you're Parliament's man. SPEAKER: —that's right, and I'm thinking about the whole of Parliament. Hon Nicola Willis: Point of order, Mr Speaker. Look, I think members may have misjudged that I was making it up; I seek leave to table the document. SPEAKER: No, no. The Hon Marama Davidson. Hon Marama Davidson: Will the pending announcements she is planning on the Budget ensure the June 2024 child poverty target is met? Hon NICOLA WILLIS: There will be a child poverty report that will report against those targets, and the member will be able to read it tomorrow. Hon Marama Davidson: Does she accept advice from the Ministry of Social Development that "Increases in public housing supply need to be at a very large scale to result in significant movement of child poverty rates.", and, if so, can we expect to see a large increase in the Kāinga Ora build programme? Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, I'd make two comments. The first is, I think it would be a bit rich for the member to expect that in six months of Government, we would then take responsibility for six years of actions which have contributed to the levels of child poverty today. The second comment I would make is this: when it comes to housing, she was a member of a Government that oversaw a quadrupling in the State house waiting list, she was the Minister of homelessness while thousands of children went to bed each night in a motel room, and it all got worse on their watch. So this side of the House will not be lectured by that member and her colleagues about how to deliver housing for children. Question No. 4—Finance 4. Hon BARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana) to the Minister of Finance: Fa'afetai tele lava, Mr Speaker. Will her Budget be a success if families do not get the $250 per fortnight as outlined in the fiscal plan and if it causes inflation to stay higher for longer? Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance): From my experience, Ministers of Finance always describe their Budgets as a success, and while there are some traditions I intend not to follow tomorrow, this tradition of delivering a Budget that is, and is described as, successful is a tradition I intend to stick to. Hon Barbara Edmonds: Will the official Government tax calculator produce the same figures for the same individual circumstances as the tax calculator provided by their fiscal plan? Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, naturally, the member will have to wait to see until tomorrow, but I have been advised of this: the tax calculator will deliver far, far bigger numbers of relief than would have been delivered by that group of people. Hon Barbara Edmonds: Will low-income earners get more than what was promised in their fiscal plan, like landlords have through their $2.9 billion tax break? Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Low-income workers will be far, far better off with this Government's economic management than they were under six years of Labour's big-spending, big-inflation ways. Hon Barbara Edmonds: Does she understand the economic principle that even if fiscally neutral, a timing mismatch between savings and spending will cause inflation? Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I do understand economic principles, and one of those economic principles is that when inflation is roaring at a massive high—as it was in 2022, at 7.3 percent—that would not be the time to pump in the biggest amount of new operating spending in Budget history, as that party chose to do in Government. For that member to stand there and pretend that she has now found fiscal rectitude when she is sitting alongside colleagues— SPEAKER: That's enough. [Interruption] The Hon Barbara Edmonds—and everyone else will listen. Hon Barbara Edmonds: Mr Speaker, it doesn't faze me. Is she confident that her Budget will not exacerbate inflation or unemployment? Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Yes. Question No. 5—Education 5. GREG FLEMING (National—Maungakiekie) to the Minister of Education: What recent announcements has she made on improving education outcomes for New Zealand children? Hon ERICA STANFORD (Minister of Education): I recently announced $67 million of investment from Budget '24 for structured literacy, which will transform the way New Zealand children learn to read—improving student achievement, closing the equity gap, and setting up Kiwi kids for success. This money will also ensure that schools and teachers have the resources and support they need to teach Kiwi kids to read, whether it be in English or in te reo Māori. Reading is fundamental to help children to succeed in education and in life. If we improve our education outcomes, then we build a brighter future for our kids, for our society as a whole, and a stronger economy. Greg Fleming: What will her recent announcements mean for students? Hon ERICA STANFORD: We are unashamedly investing in the front line of education to improve outcomes for students. Along with that $67 million to improve student achievement, we also have invested $53 million to increase the supply of our teachers. The teachers are our greatest asset in education, and we need to invest in recruitment, training, and retraining. We have introduced an hour a day of reading, writing, and maths; we are implementing a knowledge-rich curriculum; we've removed the distraction of cell phones for the whole of school day; we've set an ambitious target around attendance and achievement. Every single one of these announcements is focused on raising achievement and closing the equity gap so that our tamariki can live the lives that they want. Greg Fleming: What reports has she seen that are supporting her work programme announcements? Hon ERICA STANFORD: Last week the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research published a report which showed that graduate primary school teachers have been let down by the system and lack basic qualifications in science and mathematics. It found a quarter of teachers failed to meet the required benchmark to pass NCEA level 1 maths and more than half failed to pass level 1 science—under the previous Government's watch. Many chose not to pursue maths and science beyond level 1, but those who do are more likely to fail than pass. The correlation between these statistics and outcomes for our students are deeply concerning, because only 42 percent of year 8 students are at curriculum for maths and only 20 percent are at curriculum for science. There is a moral imperative to break this cycle. This is why I have announced that we are strengthening the curriculum, investing in teacher professional development, and taking the first steps to improve teacher training. Greg Fleming: How will savings be reinvested in education? Hon ERICA STANFORD: Around $429 million in savings will be realised in education over the next four years, and every single dollar of these savings will be reinvested into the front line. Some of these reinvestments have already been announced, such as the increased funding for period products so students don't miss out at school. We've also ensured that school lunches will continue while delivering a more efficient programme and extending it to 10,000 Kiwi kids in early childhood. The savings we have made will be dwarfed by the significant investments that we will deliver in Budget '24 tomorrow. We are a Government that is focused on delivering for Kiwi kids, and I look forward to the announcements from the Minister of Finance tomorrow. Question No. 6—Housing 6. Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Labour) to the Minister of Housing: On what date, if any, did he seek Cabinet committee approval for the structure and makeup of the review into Kāinga Ora? Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister of Housing): On Wednesday 13 December 2023, the Cabinet 100-Day Plan Committee considered the paper establishing the Kāinga Ora (KO) review. The committee agreed to establish an independent review of Kāinga Ora, under section 132 of the Crown Entities Act 2004, conducted by three independent members appointed by the responsible Ministers—the Minister of Finance and me, the Minister of Housing. The committee also noted the proposed terms of reference of that review and authorised responsible Ministers to consult with Kāinga Ora on them. This decision was confirmed by Cabinet on Monday, 18 December 2023 and announced the same day. Hon Kieran McAnulty: When he sought Cabinet committee approval to have the power to appoint the reviewers of Kāinga Ora, did he inform the committee that he had already agreed to appoint Sir Bill English on 29 November 2023? Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Yes, it was discussed that Sir Bill English would be involved in the review. Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order. I seek leave to table a response to an Official Information Act request received on 23 May 2023, which is not publicly available, containing text messages exchanged between the housing Minister and Sir Bill English between 29 November 2023 and 22 April 2024. SPEAKER: Leave is sought. Is there any objection to that course of action? There appears to be none. Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House. Hon Kieran McAnulty: Why, then, was this information not included in the Cabinet paper, knowing it would eventually be proactively released, given that the text message exchange where he agreed to appoint Sir Bill English would not be proactively released? Hon CHRIS BISHOP: I think the member is dreaming up a conspiracy here that doesn't exist. It is a matter of public record. I released this Official Information Act request with texts between myself and Sir Bill because, well, there's no conspiracy here. As I've said publicly, Ministers engage in discussions around people who might do reviews or expert advisory groups, with people who might do those, all the time. It's not like Cabinet makes a decision to appoint people to do reviews and then they find out that they've been appointed after the appointment happens, without any discussion around it. That's not how it works. There is a range of discussions and involvement and engagement around that. I talked to Sir Bill English about being involved in the Kāinga Ora review. Ministers then took a paper to Cabinet seeking authority to conduct a review—again, no surprise there, because the National Party campaigned on that in the 2023 election. The Cabinet committee authorised that. It was confirmed by Cabinet, and then, pursuant to the Crown Entities Act, Ministers then appointed the reviewers. That's literally all there is to it. The member is dreaming up a conspiracy that doesn't exist. Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order. Mr Speaker, instead of accusing members of dreaming up conspiracies, it would be best for the order of the House if Ministers actually addressed the question. The question itself was actually pretty straightforward—a simple question as to why a piece of information that the Minister has said to the House that they discussed was not included in the Cabinet paper that was proposing the thing they were discussing. That's straightforward. Hon Chris Bishop: I'm happy to answer the question. SPEAKER: Except that he did answer that discussions had been taking place among Ministers. You want to make a point of order? Hon Chris Bishop: Well, I'm happy to answer the question. Not every Cabinet paper includes every piece of information. The relevant decision that the Cabinet committee sought—subsequently confirmed by Cabinet—was for responsible Ministers to make appointments. That authority was granted. Responsible Ministers then went on to make the appointments, and that is literally all there is to it. Hon Kieran McAnulty: Did he inform Cabinet that he had advised Sir Bill English the review should have "no involvement from KO"? Hon CHRIS BISHOP: We don't talk about what happens in Cabinet, but in relation to that specific issue that the member raises, my comment to Sir Bill was about the fact that the review was intended to be independent of Kāinga Ora—as in it wouldn't be Kāinga Ora reviewing itself; it would be a genuinely independent review done by independent reviewers. Clearly, I expected the review to engage with Kāinga Ora, which they did, as I've said on multiple occasions. Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order! Thank you, Mr Speaker. I've got a bit of an issue here, where, yesterday, I asked the Minister quite clearly if at any point he advised Sir Bill English that there'd be no involvement of Kāinga Ora. The Minister answered no. Now, in response to the question I've just asked, he's gone on to explain, yes, he did say that but this is what he meant. If a Minister has answered a question incorrectly, they are required to correct that at the first possible opportunity, and that would have been before question time, not as part of an answer to a supplementary question. SPEAKER: Yeah, look, there are around about 50-odd questions a day. I can't remember the answers to all of them, but I will make some effort to find out what the difference between the two positions is. But can I also say that if the member feels there is an issue, then he has another course of action that he can take in that regard? Hon Kieran McAnulty: Why did he inform Cabinet that the board of Kāinga Ora was "broadly comfortable with the review recommendations" when the board sent the review panel a 14-page letter outlining the factual inaccuracies they identified in the report? Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Because that was based on the advice that I received from officials. It is perhaps unsurprising that a board that has been the subject of a damning independent review does not agree with those findings. Hon Nicola Willis: Did he consider whether there was any precedent for the Government appointing former senior Ministers to important public sector roles? SPEAKER: Yeah, I think we'll just let that one go through the keeper. Thanks very much. Hon CHRIS BISHOP: No, Mr Speaker, that's an important question. SPEAKER: No. Well, it might well be for you to answer, but it's not an important question for the House, because it doesn't deal with the actions of the current Government. So have you got another supplementary? Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Point of order! Mr Speaker, the line of questioning yesterday and today and other public commentary, including by the Leader of the Opposition, is around the appointment of a former Prime Minister to an independent review into a Government agency. Clearly it is relevant, therefore, to consider past actions of other Governments as a precedent basis regarding senior Ministers. Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: No, he's got no responsibility for them. Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, it is a matter of responsibility, because I follow past precedent and practice by past Governments. It's well within order, Mr Speaker, to be asked about those precedents. SPEAKER: Well, it would be asking you for an opinion, and that would be kind of interesting but not within the ambit of your ministerial responsibility. Hon Nicola Willis: Can the Minister confirm that the former chair of Kāinga Ora was a former Labour Party senior Minister? Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Yes, indeed, I can. Vui Mark Gosche was a Cabinet Minister under the Helen Clark Government, and I also have a range of other senior Ministers who've been appointed to public roles: Steve Maharey; Michael Cullen; Ruth Dyson; I'm not sure we'd call Louisa Wall particularly senior, but she was appointed the Pacific gender equality ambassador by Nanaia Mahuta; Annette King; Trevor Mallard; Phil Goff. The list goes on. SPEAKER: Good. I think everyone got the message there. Question No. 7—Justice 7. JAMES MEAGER (National—Rangitata) to the Minister of Justice: What recent statistics has he seen on victims of crime? Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister of Justice): Based on the latest Police data, over the past five years, violent crime has increased by 33 percent, ram raids by 290 percent, robberies by 62 percent, and the number of victims of retail crime has increased 110 percent. New Zealanders deserve better. That's why the Government is committed to restoring real consequences for crime. We've replaced the previous Government's goal to reduce the prison population by 30 percent, irrespective of what the level of crime is in the community, with clear and measurable targets to reduce— Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. The statement that the Minister has just made in his answer is factually incorrect. He has no ministerial responsibility for the previous Government's targets. But if he is going to refer to them, then he needs to refer to them accurately. Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Speaking to the point of order, Mr Speaker. SPEAKER: Speaking to the point of order, the Hon Paul Goldsmith. Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: It was very clear that it was a— SPEAKER: Just wait—just calm. The Hon Paul Goldsmith. Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, I reject his assertion and his point of order. It was clearly stated as a goal of the previous Government to reduce— SPEAKER: That's good. Well, I'm not adjudicating an argument between the two of you. If there's factually incorrect material being presented to the House, there will be a remedy for those to take it up. So we'll take— Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Can I finish my answer. SPEAKER: Maybe you should start again and make it brief, because I was sort of losing it a bit. Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, I'd hate for the—the only point I wanted to add is it's also why we're progressing legislation to give the police additional tools to tackle gangs. James Meager: What other statistics on victims of crime has he seen? Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: On Monday, the Ministry of Justice released their latest five-year analysis of the New Zealand Crime and Victims Survey. This analysis identified victims of crime who are deemed to be highly victimised, experiencing four or more cases of crime in the past 12 months. It identified that of the 4 percent of New Zealanders who are highly victimised, Māori are disproportionately represented, comprising 30 percent of that group. This is twice the rate of the rest of the population. That's why Māori are more likely to benefit from the measures of our Government to reduce crime. James Meager: What are the key insights from that five-year analysis of the New Zealand Crime and Victims Survey? Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: The analysis shows that a small group of New Zealanders are experiencing the most crime: 137,000 people are considered to be highly victimised every year. You're even more likely to be highly victimised if somebody is young, a woman, and Māori. That is why we're focusing on reducing the number of victims of crime to improve the safety of all New Zealanders. The restoration of the three strikes regime will keep our worst repeat offenders off the streets for longer. Our decision to offer rehabilitation services to many prisoners on remand will help reduce reoffending. James Meager: And what other actions is the Government taking to reduce the number of victims of crime? Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, first, we're restoring real consequences for crime. We've already introduced legislation to give police extra tools to deal with gangs, we've taken the first steps to ensure that prisoners on remand can get rehabilitation programmes, and we're progressing well with strengthening the sentencing regime in New Zealand. Serious repeat youth offenders will face tougher consequences through the young serious offender category and military academies. Ministers Mitchell, McKee, Chhour, and others are working hard in their respective portfolios, and there is plenty more yet to come. Question No. 8—Māori Development 8. Hon WILLIE JACKSON (Labour) to the Minister for Māori Development: Does he stand by his statement that the Treaty "is fundamental to our nation"? Hon TAMA POTAKA (Minister for Māori Development): Talofa lava. Yes, the Treaty is fundamental to our nation. It is embedded in our constitutional fabric, past, present, and future. Before I resume my seat, my acknowledgement to our Matua Willie Jackson for returning from the Oxford debate successfully. I understand your colleagues have been very happy in your absence. Hon Willie Jackson: Thank you very much for that! Kia ora. How can the Minister stand by his statement; sorry, sorry—sorry, Mr Speaker. He rattled me a little bit with that compliment—threw me a little bit. I'll just come to that question again. What priority, if any, will the Minister's statement reflect the aspirations of Māori in Budget 2024? Hon TAMA POTAKA: Talofa lava. We are prioritising the 35,000 extra Māori who ended up on a benefit over the last six years, and the 60 percent of Māori tamariki who didn't make it to school as a result of the Labour education approach, and also the 1,700 Māori households who are currently living in emergency housing up and down the country in places like Fenton Steet, Rotorua, and Ulster Steet, Hamilton West, and making sure that we address the needs of Māori and all New Zealanders. Hon Willie Jackson: How can he stand by his statement when all that Māori see are cuts to Māori initiatives and the continued undermining of the Treaty of Waitangi? Hon TAMA POTAKA: Talofa lava. One more sleep to go, heigh-ho-hippy-ho, and we hope to see tax relief for many Māori and all New Zealanders. Hon Willie Jackson: What best reflects the Government's position in relation to the Treaty and Māori: Winston Peters, who has compared Māori policy akin to Nazi Germany, David Seymour, who believes the Treaty partnership is a misinterpretation— Rt Hon Winston Peters: Point of order. If you're going to make statements in the question, then you have to ensure you can validate them with proof. No such comment was ever made in the way Mr Jackson just outlined. SPEAKER: I made strong recommendations to the Business Committee on Tuesday that questions in the House that raise—basically that contain—allegations against others should be avoided for the order in the House. Do you want to speak to the point of order? Hon Willie Jackson: Yes, I'll speak to the point of order, Mr Speaker. So, Mr Peters—I was talking about a reference he made to Nazi Germany at his own conference. I just want to apologise to the Minister, I want to clarify to the House that I don't want to misrepresent him, but it was both Nazi Germany and the Ku Klux Klan that the Minister compared the policy with—this is from his own conference. SPEAKER: That's good; well, you can table it if you want to. I'm sure it's widely read and expected. The other point I'd make is that Minister Potaka has no responsibility for anything that was said by the leader of the New Zealand First party. So, think about that. Rt Hon Winston Peters. Rt Hon Winston Peters: Not only did Willie Jackson say something that wasn't true in his first question, he's now compounded it when he knows full well that that speech says it is Labour Party policy that resembles the Ku Klux Klan. Hon Willie Jackson: Well, Mr Speaker, I can only— SPEAKER: What are you doing here? Are you speaking to that, or are you going to— Hon Willie Jackson: I'm speaking to that, Mr Speaker, because I stand by— SPEAKER: Hang on, there's no way I'm going to give a ruling here that says that you can go ahead with those sorts of accusations. Think about your words. You're obviously very good at this debating stuff, so think about the way you put your question together. Hon Willie Jackson: Well, Mr Speaker, I wanted to—with respect—get a position from the Minister in terms of what basically sums up the Government's Māori and Treaty policy, and that's why I'm giving the examples of David Seymour, the Hon Winston Peters, and the last person I want to give as an example was the Prime Minister, whose view on Māori policy and Treaty policy is that Māori can only protest on the weekend, when it is convenient to him. So I would like to know from the Minister: what basically sums up the Government's Māori and Treaty policy? SPEAKER: Well, the problem is I'm sure he can't answer that in a concise fashion that question time would allow, but I will ask him to perhaps make a brief statement. Hon TAMA POTAKA: Talofa lava. I'm very proud to be part of a party that started the historic Treaty settlements process over 30 years ago. I stand with my esteemed colleague the Hon Paul Goldsmith, who has continued in the vein of Christopher Finlayson and Doug Graham. E mihi ana ki a tātou. Hon Willie Jackson: Mr Speaker, point of order. The question's very clear. I can't help it, Mr Speaker. I'm asking for the Government policy, and the Government and his view in terms of Winston Peters, David Seymour, and the Prime Minister, and he's waffling on about Doug Graham. SPEAKER: Well, I guess he's just throwing out a bunch of names like you have. So I just think the question, with all due respect, is not that clear. I'll give the member one more shot at the question. Hon Member: Someone send aid to Oxford! SPEAKER: Let him go. Hon Willie Jackson: In terms of the Minister, I'll ask the next question: is the Minister planning to attend the Hui Taumata this Friday in Hastings, and, if so, what will he be saying to all those concerned about his Government's Māori policies? Hon TAMA POTAKA: Talofa lava, Mr Speaker. As we all know, tomorrow is the Budget, and there are various responsibilities that go with being a Minister of this Government attending to Budget matters. I look forward to hearing and potentially seeing the outcomes of the hui that will be convened at Ōmahu, the home of various hapū of mine—Ngāti Mahuika, Ngāti Honomōkai, and Ngāti Pakau. Kia ora tātou. Hon Nicola Willis: Do Māori stand to gain from a Budget that delivers responsible economic management? Hon TAMA POTAKA: I look forward to hearing the Budget tomorrow. I wanted to acknowledge our manu pūtea, Minister Nicola Willis, for her absolutely professional and diligent approach to ensuring that Māori and all New Zealanders benefit from this Budget. SPEAKER: Supplementary question—[Interruption] We'll just wait for a bit of quiet. Rawiri Waititi: Does the Minister believe that Te Tiriti is fundamental to our nation? Hon TAMA POTAKA: Talofa lava, Mr Speaker. Yes, and I believe that Te Tiriti o Waitangi—the Treaty of Waitangi—is the basis for the kotahitanga that I have subscribed to for the course of my life. Rawiri Waititi: Does he believe, and will he confidently put on record, that all the rangatira on behalf of their respective hapū, who signed Te Tiriti o Waitangi, the Māori text ceded sovereignty to the British Crown, or did Māori maintain rangatiratanga? Hon TAMA POTAKA: Talofa lava, Mr Speaker. As we know, the Treaty of Waitangi—Te Tiriti o Waitangi—is a sacred covenant, a kawenata tapu, that was signed between various rangatira, iwi, and hapū, and representatives of the Crown. Rawiri Waititi: Point of order. Now, that question was really clear. I was asking whether he believed that all rangatira, on behalf of their respective hapū, who signed Te Tiriti o Waitangi, ceded sovereignty to the British Crown or maintained rangatiratanga. SPEAKER: Well, I'll give him a chance to say something again, but I would point out that he made it clear what he believes, which was the first part of the question. Hon TAMA POTAKA: Talofa lava, Mr Speaker. It is absolutely clear that Te Tiriti o Waitangi—the Treaty of Waitangi—provided that the Crown would actively protect the rangatiratanga of our people. Rawiri Waititi: Point of order. I'm perplexed by that answer, Mr Speaker, because— Hon Member: It's not an answer. Rawiri Waititi: —it's not an answer. [Interruption] SPEAKER: Wait a minute. Hold on. Rawiri Waititi: It's not an answer— SPEAKER: Start again. Rawiri Waititi: He's made up— SPEAKER: Start again. Points of order are heard in silence. Rawiri Waititi: Sorry. Point of order, Mr Speaker. I'm perplexed by that answer because it's actually not an answer. He's made up text that doesn't even exist in Te Tiriti o Waitangi or even its principles or articles. So I wanted to just clarify that for the record. SPEAKER: Well, thank you for doing that in your opinion. But he did answer the question, with the opening words, "I believe", and that is what the intention of your question was and the words for your question were right at the start. And shake your head, but, in the end, words matter. Rawiri Waititi: Does he believe that rangatiratanga can be achieved whilst being subjugated and simulated in this Westminster system? Hon TAMA POTAKA: Talofa lava, Mr Speaker. We live in an ever-evolving country, Aotearoa New Zealand. I believe that Te Tiriti o Waitangi—the Treaty of Waitangi—is a sacred covenant that's been signed by representatives of iwi and hapū and the Crown. Hon Shane Jones: Can the Minister confirm that this debate was settled by Sir Āpirana Ngata in a seminal document reflecting his understanding a lot closer to the signatories of the Treaty of Waitangi, and the Treaty of Waitangi is an indivisible, bilingual, bicultural document incapable of being dismembered to suit the fads of the minor party of Parliament? [Interruption] SPEAKER: That's enough. [Interruption] That is an absolute 'nuff. Hon TAMA POTAKA: Talofa lava, Mr Speaker. As you're aware, I am a student of the same college that Tā Āpirana Ngata attended, Te Aute College, and I subscribe to the learnings and the teachings of Tā Āpirana through great subject matter writings, such as The Treaty of Waitangi and The Price of Citizenship. Question No. 9—Resources 9. TANYA UNKOVICH (NZ First) to the Minister for Resources: What announcements has he made on doubling the value of New Zealand's mineral exports by 2035? Hon SHANE JONES (Minister for Resources): As the Minister for Resources—not of resources—I visited Blackball last week, the home of the Labour Party, to launch the Government's growth strategy for the minerals sector, where I was not only greeted by a small but motley bunch of protesters but overwhelmed by the size of the crowd in the Blackball Hall, where there was standing room only. I shared that our strategy will actually double the mineral exports value and, with the right direction and settings, jobs will grow regional resilience and we'll no longer rely on the Congo for our minerals. Tanya Unkovich: What will the Government's minerals strategy achieve? Hon SHANE JONES: Firstly, we won't continue the falsehood of importing minerals from countries that have abysmal environmental standards, abysmal child work safety practices—but no, sir, this vision, which I've articulated on behalf of the Government, will boost not only regional productivity, resilience, and although it may be modest in size, in order to save the climate, we must mine our way to the future. Tanya Unkovich: Why is the minerals sector critically important for responding to climate change? Hon SHANE JONES: This strategy focused on climate minerals, otherwise known as green minerals, and as the International Energy Agency has articulated, the world, in order to reach net zero by 2050, will need six times more minerals for low emissions technology. And I can assure you we will not hurt any endangered birds, in particular those called Darleen. Tanya Unkovich: What feedback has he— SPEAKER: Please just wait till I call you. Tanya Unkovich: What feedback has he— SPEAKER: Yeah, wait till I call you. OK, now you're up. Tanya Unkovich: What feedback has he received on the launch of the minerals strategy? Hon SHANE JONES: Overwhelmingly positive. Indeed, that organ of the fourth estate, otherwise known as ZB radio, has raised the importance of the trade-off presented in this document: that in order to have more solar panels, to have the other accoutrements necessary for the climate change journey, we need minerals; we need mining. And perhaps it could not be better said than by the 80-year-old former miner Les Neilson: "I started my life in Blackball 80 years ago. To be at the meeting to hear Shane Jones, Parliament's greatest orator, I don't believe I'll live to hear another speech like that again." SPEAKER: It would be nice to think that this House might not hear another speech like that again! Hon Marama Davidson: Will he commit to no new coal mines on public conservation land; if not, why not? Hon SHANE JONES: Of course, that depends on how that member defines "conservation land", because stewardship land most certainly is not conservation land. That's the first thing. The second thing is that we need to respect the property rights of investors who already have enterprises on conservation land, including the Conservation department's allocation to Rua Minerals for a new permit in the Coromandel bush last week. Hon Marama Davidson: Does the Minister accept that the International Energy Agency's World Energy Outlook from 2021 states that the pathway for less than 1.5 degrees of warming needs "no new oil and gas fields approved for development" and "no new coal mines or mines extensions", and, if not, why not? Hon SHANE JONES: I am aware of those aspirations. They will be taken into account and given appropriate importance as we secure energy resilience in New Zealand, and as the member and the person sitting next to her ride their bikes, know that coal is keeping the lights on. Question No. 10—Police 10. MIKE BUTTERICK (National—Wairarapa) to the Minister of Police: What commentary has he seen on Police's announcement of the National Gang Unit? Hon MARK MITCHELL (Minister of Police): Overwhelmingly positive commentary. Some have said that it has the potential to make a significant impact. Stuff reported that with 42 percent of gang members linked to reported crimes as a suspect or offender and 18 of percent of serious crimes committed by gang members, it's clear New Zealand has a gang problem. This Government is delivering new tools for police, like banning gang patches and insignia in public, which the unit will be able to use to disrupt and suppress gang activity. The feedback has been so positive that the Labour Party attempted to take credit for the announcement. Mike Butterick: Does he agree with commentary that gangs will ignore police? Hon MARK MITCHELL: Absolutely not. New Zealand has a world-class police force, and I have full confidence that the men and women that go to work every day to keep Kiwis safe without fear or favour have the skills, training, capability, and, very soon, the tools to target, disrupt, and suppress the gangs and the misery that they cause in our communities. Mike Butterick: Why does he have confidence that police can enforce the new tools the Government is giving them? Hon MARK MITCHELL: Over the last six months, police have already shown that they're highly effective in prioritising public safety over gangs. The response to gang convoys has been outstanding. Law-abiding members of the public are having their rights protected over and above those of gang members. Police have also conducted 1,668 search warrants; 926 warrantless searches; entered 80,102 charges, warnings, and infringement notices; and seized 661 firearms. Mike Butterick: Would he say that police in jurisdictions where gang patches are banned are just "wardrobe police"? Hon MARK MITCHELL: That is a ridiculous statement. This is a piece of wardrobe that creates drive-by shootings and gang conflicts, and markets to and targets young men for gang recruitment, and to earn the right to wear one, you have show that you have the propensity to commit violent crime. There is a trail of tears and victims sitting behind every one of those gang patches. This Government is banning that part of the wardrobe that is clearly designed to intimidate and inflicts misery and violence on communities. Hon Ginny Andersen: How many individuals are recorded as gang members on the National Gang List as of February 2024, and does this represent an increase of 176 individuals since he took office? Hon MARK MITCHELL: I don't have that exact number, but I can assure the member of this—that under the previous Government we saw an over 50 percent increase in gang members in this country. We saw a 33 percent increase in violent crime in this country, and this Government has come in, and we've been very clear about the fact that we are not going to tolerate that. And that is why you're seeing the police being so effective over the last six months in starting to suppress gang members in this country. Question No. 11—Economic Development 11. GLEN BENNETT (Labour) to the Minister for Economic Development: Talofa, Fofoga Fetalai, fa'afetai tele. Does she agree with the Auditor-General that public sector organisations must have "clear policy, guidance, and procedures to manage the risks to procurement processes that can arise from actual, potential, and perceived conflicts of interest"? Hon MELISSA LEE (Minister for Economic Development): Yes. Glen Bennett: Does she have confidence that the Minister of Health appropriately managed the risks to perceived conflicts of interest in the awarding of recent mental health contracts? Hon MELISSA LEE: I have no responsibility for the Minister of Health awarding the mental health contract. If the member is interested, he can write to the Minister or actually put the oral question to the correct Minister. Glen Bennett: What steps will she take to ensure that her responsibility in procurement, when it comes to mental health contracts, follows the best practices of procurement processes? Hon MELISSA LEE: What I can tell the member is that I, as Minister, am responsible for the procurement framework—which the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) is actually responsible for. But in terms of the procurement for the mental health issue that he is actually talking about, it is part of our Budget '24, where we commit to the mental health services for our young people. That is not a lesson or a lecture that I am prepared to take from that member or that party, who actually wasted $1.9 billion of taxpayer money for mental health and actually did not deliver very much. Glen Bennett: What does she say in response to the submission on the Fast-track Approvals Bill by the Auditor-General that "Ministers of course have a broad discretion to make decisions, however that power comes, in my view, with an obligation to be transparent to the public about how and why they made those decisions, particularly where those decisions differ from official advice."? Hon MELISSA LEE: As I said earlier to that member, as Minister, I am responsible for the procurement framework; however, responsibility for each procurement sits with the portfolio Minister responsible. Having said that, the Fast-track Approvals Bill has joint Ministers responsible: the Minister for Infrastructure, the Minister of Transport, and the Minister for Regional Development. If that member is really interested, he will put that question to those Ministers. Glen Bennett: Does the fact that there is a commitment in the coalition agreement on the management of conflicts of interest mean that normal procurement processes don't apply? Hon MELISSA LEE: The procurement framework is something that I am responsible for as Minister, and MBIE, as an entity, provides advice to Government agencies so that they can actually exercise their responsibility to make procurement responsible—so that they are putting in good practices. But individual Ministers—if there are conflicts of interest in terms of procurement, it will be managed through the normal Cabinet process and ministerial responsibilities. SPEAKER: Right, that's very good. That concludes oral questions. GENERAL DEBATE Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the Opposition): I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business. Tomorrow, when the Government's Budget is read, there will of course be lots of numbers, as the Government has already indicated, but there are two numbers that New Zealanders should keep in mind in tomorrow's Budget. The first of those is $250—$250 a fortnight is what Nicola Willis and Christopher Luxon promised the average New Zealand family in tax cuts. Up and down the country, they said that the average New Zealand family would be $250 a fortnight better off as a result of their tax cuts. So that's the first number. The second number they should keep in mind is $2.9 billion—$2.9 billion is the cost of the tax breaks that the Government has chosen to prioritise for landlords. Keep in mind that it is probably going to be one of the single biggest line items in tomorrow's Budget in terms of changes. So every time Nicola Willis says, "We've had to make tough choices.", "We can't fund this.", or "We've cut that.", keep in mind that that is because they prioritised $2.9 billion in tax cuts for landlords. The things that New Zealanders will be looking for from the Budget tomorrow include answers to the real financial pressures they face right now, and that was set out in pretty stark terms by the Reserve Bank this week. What are the things that are really hurting Kiwi household budgets right now? What are the reasons that inflation is staying higher for longer? One, increased rents; two, increased insurance; three, increased rates. What are the Government's answers to those three things? New Zealanders will want to see that in the Budget tomorrow, because until the Government addresses those three issues—increased rents, increased insurance, and increased rates—interest rates are going to stay higher for longer. The Reserve Bank has been very clear about that. So what is the Government doing to address the cost of living pressures New Zealand faces? Well, we know that they're going to be hiking up public transport costs, we know that they're going to be taking away free prescriptions, we know that they're going to be making cuts to the disability sector, we know that they are going to be halving the value of the school lunches programme—it's kind of gone from a free and healthy school lunch programme to a slightly less healthy snack programme in schools as a result of the Government's changes—and, of course, we know that they are going to rob a whole generation of New Zealanders of the dream of homeownership by doing something that none of them said they were going to do before the election, in cutting the first-home buyer grant scheme. I want to pay tribute to the hard-working New Zealanders who are being thrown on the economic scrap heap by this Government, and here's a surprising thing: it is not just public sector workers who are finding themselves in that situation. Up and down the country, we're hearing reports from those working in infrastructure and in the building and construction sector where those sectors have had the bottom fall out since this Government was elected because the Government had decided on coming into office that they'd stop all the school rebuild projects and the school upgrade projects, they'd slow down or stop the hospital rebuild projects, they'd grind the transport infrastructure projects to a halt, and they'd stop investment in water infrastructure, among other things, and the thousands of people working in those sectors have suddenly found that their work has dried up. Those are private sector jobs, but it is the Government's decision making that has actually taken those jobs away from those workers. The cuts that the Government is making to supposedly back-office services highlight just what a farce the notion of the back-office / front-line distinction is. Cutting people who work on child exploitation is a cut to a front-line service. Cutting people who prevent online scams is a cut to a front-line service. Cutting the people who work at our border to stop drugs coming into the country and to stop biosecurity incursions—that is a cut to a front-line service. We've seen the results of that before in the form of Mycoplasma bovis, among other things—a disease that cost hundreds of millions of dollars for New Zealand to eradicate. I think that the Government have a lot of choices in this year's Budget. The evidence so far suggests that the choices they have made have been the wrong choices. The $250 a fortnight that they've promised to families—will they get it? Probably not, because $2.9 billion in tax breaks for landlords is a higher priority for them. HŪHANA LYNDON (Green): E tukituki ana te Iwi Māori i ēnei mahi raweke o te Kāwanatanga ki runga i te Iwi Māori. Ināianei, e kite ana te Iwi Māori i ēnei mahi, e rongo ana te Iwi Māori i ēnei mahi, e kōkiri ana te Iwi Māori i tēnei rangi tonu. [The Māori people are offended due to the meddlesome actions of the Government on the Māori people. The Māori people can see what is being done, they hear what is happening, consequently the Māori people are marching on this very day.] He Whakaputanga 1835 was a declaration to the world of our independence. And Te Tiriti o Waitangi, some five years later, provided the pathway for our mahi tahi. Te Tiriti o Waitangi established this Kāwanatanga that we stand in today. And yet when will we see an honourable Kāwanatanga that will genuinely uphold its obligations to Te Tiriti o Waitangi? We have a Crown who has prioritised its coalition agreement above its obligations to te Iwi Māori e tātou mā—no consultation with te Iwi Māori for these widespread changes to legislation that hit us under urgency. There is a duty to act in good faith, and yet the Government fails its obligations to te Iwi Māori. Let me tell you about te mere whakakopa. In 1845, Hone Heke took a mere pounamu, to Kawiti, smeared in human tūtae, in human excrement. That pounamu represents te rangatiratanga o te iwi Māori. The tūtae, the human excrement, is a representation of the obliteration and the undermining of rangatiratanga of Pākehā on our people in 1845. And, I say to you, this has not changed. We are watching the recolonisation of Aotearoa New Zealand. As this Government seeks to erase its obligations to Te Tiriti o Waitangi, undermining the sacred covenant that our tūpuna signed. Kāwanatanga was enabled through Te Tiriti o Waitangi. Let's look at the laws: Te Aka Whai Ora, smoke-free legislation, te reo Māori, threats on the Māori and Pacific admission scheme and also on the Waitangi Tribunal, 7AA, gang laws, the laws around tenancy and also for our whānau in rental accommodation, fast-track legislation, the removal of accountability for Te Mana o te Wai yesterday in this House, the removal of clauses relating to Te Tiriti in corrections, the funding freeze on marine and coastal area takutai moana claims, the full-scale review of Te Tiriti clauses within our legislation, and, of course, the Treaty principles bill. Te Iwi Māori feel embattled by these continued attacks by te Kāwanatanga in our communities. And, as I refer to Nicki Wakefield, who was a kaikōrero on behalf of Ngāti Kahu o Torongare in the fast-track hearing, she shared, "We participate in this process under duress, in opposition to these processes which impact on our tino rangatiratanga." Te Iwi Māori have continued our affirmations of mana motuhake through the generations. Our people mobilise tomorrow. Te Iwi Māori meets at Ōmahu Marae for the hui taumata. Undermining tangata whenua rights is a rupture to the social fabric of Aotearoa New Zealand. Social cohesion is at risk— Rt Hon Winston Peters: Who wrote this rubbish? HŪHANA LYNDON: —as this Government moves to erase its accountability to Te Tiriti o Waitangi and te Iwi Māori. Let's talk about Māori wards, Matua Winston. Let's talk about it. The Waitangi Tribunal has called out this Government. It is a breach of Te Tiriti o Waitangi that you will take out Māori wards. Last week, Far North District Council stood, and they provided a motion of tautoko to Local Government New Zealand. Councillor Tāmati Rākena stood, and he said, "When Māori councillors fight for better roads, better housing, better water infrastructure, we aren't voting for Māori alone. We fight for clean drinking water and for better roads for the entire Far North community. I oppose any attempts to undermine or dilute our voices". E mihi ana ki a koe Tāmati. Tonight at 11.59, submissions close on Māori wards, and I invite the people of New Zealand to unite with us in upholding Te Tiriti o Waitangi and providing the important voice of Māori at the decision-making table in local government. The Green Party will stand in solidarity with te Iwi Māori as we look to protect the papa pounamu of He Whakaputanga me Te Tiriti o Waitangi and seek to uphold those things that are important to us, Matua Winston. Kia ora. Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister of Justice): Fourteen years—14 years since the tax thresholds have been changed in this country. We've had 40 percent inflation since 2010 and that has forced people into higher tax brackets, with a result that for people on the median income their average tax rate has gone from 15 percent to 21 percent, and that takes a lot of money out of the pockets of average-income earning New Zealanders because of inflation. And so it's 2010—and tomorrow in the Budget we're going to be changing that and restoring some realism to the tax brackets that we've had no changes to for 14 years. You've got to go back to 2010 since they were last dealt with. Look, 2010 is a different era entirely, think about it: Lorde was still at school on the tennis courts—she hadn't written "Royals" in 2010; Netflix hadn't been streamed in New Zealand for another five years—it would be five years; Phil Goff—Phil Goff was the future of the Labour Party in 2010, and Shane Jones was a member of the Labour Party in 2010. It was a different world. Since that time, since 2010, we still haven't had any changes to the tax thresholds. That's going to change in the Budget because the help is on its way. And why? Because Christopher Luxon and Nicola Willis have that fundamental core principle of the National Party and all the parties across our coalition, which is reward for effort. The New Zealanders who are working hard day in, day out to look after themselves and their family—opening their businesses, running their retail shops, trying to find a living—deserve some relief from the ever-increased tax take that has flowed from inflation, and that's why we're going to change it. That's why there's a sharp division across this House, because on one side of the House, we want to reward hard-working New Zealanders by letting them keep more of their own money so that they can afford to deal with the increasing, rising costs of living, to be able to buy the groceries that they need for their consumption, be able to fill their car with petrol to get around and do their stuff. This side of the House are about putting extra money in the hands of New Zealanders that they have earned. On that side of the House, they will fight tooth and nail never—never—to yield a cent of tax revenue, and that's what we saw from Chris Hipkins; it's what we're seeing. It's an interesting period, of course—everybody out there is like peacocks trying to stand up for the next contest for the leadership of the Labour Party. We've got Willie Jackson even going to Oxford in order to strut around in order to increase his credentials as potential Leader of the Labour Party. We've got Megan Woods, I think she'd be good; her only response to any issue is to tax more—it's a wealth tax, it's a capital gains tax. Even the doyen of tax policy over on the Labour side, David Parker, who always looks a little bit dishevelled, but David "Piketty" Parker is the guy that sends all the thinking over at the Labour Party about yet more taxes to the solution. Now the problem is—the problem is—that ultimately it's all about spending, because tax policy follows spending policy. And what we saw over the last six years was an 80 percent increase in spending. I defy anybody in this country anywhere to be able to point towards an 80 percent improvement in the delivery from the Government over the six years under Labour. That is why this side of the House spent six months going through every department trying to get some discipline back into spending. In my areas, in justice, and all areas that we've been looking at, we're trying to restore some discipline to spending because, ultimately, it's New Zealanders that have to pay. And it's been made much worse by the fact that the previous guy, Grant Robertson, concealed a lot of the size of the deficit because they refused to actually fund a whole lot of things past one or two years, and so we're having to deal with that in the Budget. So it looked like we're in deficit, but actually we're in a much worse deficit because things like basic pharmaceutical funding hadn't been funded into the future, and we had to find that extra money. So, in this Government, it's about rebuilding the economy, restoring some discipline to spending, as well as the key areas that we're also focused on for New Zealand, which is restoring law and order, and actually delivering top-quality healthcare and education—those are the core things that will make a difference to New Zealanders' lives. Tomorrow, New Zealanders will have some hope again. They'll have some hope that the Government is not all about taking more and more from their pockets and using the sneaky little tax of inflation to take more money out of their pockets, but actually to give some money back to New Zealanders so that they can spend it on the things that they want to spend it on for themselves and their family. That will make a real difference to New Zealanders tomorrow. It's about helping the squeezed middle get back on track. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Hon MATT DOOCEY (Minister for Mental Health): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. Look, it's a real privilege to rise as the proud member of Parliament for Waimakariri. I've been in this role 10 years now and I don't take that responsibility lightly. So that's why it's so good to be part of a coalition Government that will deliver the Woodend Bypass. We'll start construction at our first term. That Labour Government came in in 2017 and cancelled the former National Government's commitment to the Woodend Bypass, and it's brilliant to be part of a coalition Government that will reinstate that commitment and start construction in its first term. It's also a privilege to be New Zealand's first mental health Minister. In my first announcement, we talked about rolling out peer-support, lived-experience workers in emergency departments. That was a service we can roll out by delivering uncommitted funds in the Vote Health budget. Then with Gumboot Friday we announced through a coalition agreement in Budget 2024, we're going to fund I Am Hope Foundation $24 million—$6 million a year over four years—that will deliver much-needed mental health counselling services to young people aged five to 25. That service will connect mental health professionals to young people in less than one week. What we know is we're facing increased demand for our mental health services, specifically with our young people, and this investment announcement will go a long way to ensure our young people get the timely mental health and addiction support they need. So when the Labour Opposition wants to attack that announcement—focus on the contracting, even though we've said it's compliant with Government procurement rules—what they're trying to deflect from is the Auditor-General report that came out last month that said even despite the $1.9 billion, wait times for specialist mental health services for young people had grown in the last six years. Only that Government could spend that amount of money for waiting times to go up. The Auditor-General also said he could not identify any value for money for taxpayers out of that funding announcement by that last Labour Government. Then we had the Mental Health and Wellbeing Commission that said despite the announcement of $1.9 billion—that, to be frank, most New Zealanders are still looking for—it made no material improvement. What we've got is a Government now that's been very clear that we will save money in the back office of the public services and focus that on the front line. We'll get money out of the Beehive to grassroots organisations who are already delivering so they can scale up and respond to the need. That's why it was brilliant to stand with the coalition Government, the Deputy Prime Minister, to announce $24 million that will provide support to an extra 15,000 young people a year who need that valuable support. It was also a privilege to stand with the Prime Minister and the transport Minister Simeon Brown to announce $63 million towards Coastguard and Surf Life Saving—$19 million for Coastguard, $44 million for Surf Life Saving. Our New Zealand search and rescue delivers thousands of life-saving rescues every year, directly attributable last year to saving 161 lives. We got that money from the back office and we've put it into the front line so many New Zealanders, when they go to the beach, when they go on the water, they can feel safer. That's what you've got in this coalition Government, Mr Speaker: a Government that is very prepared to get into the back office to save some money; get it to the front line. That's what we'll find with Budget 2024. We've got one more sleep to go. What you're going to see is a Budget 2024 that will prioritise investment into public services. It will deliver personal tax reduction and deliver savings to get this country's books back on track; a Government that I'm proud to be part of, that will invest more into front-line services. Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. We're on the eve of the Budget, and for the last couple of weeks I have been asking questions of the Minister for Children about the cuts to, as we have just heard, the back office, to redirect to the front line. But I will just say that when it comes to Oranga Tamariki, the Minister of Finance promised, before the election, that Oranga Tamariki, along with a few other agencies, would be specifically excluded from this fiscal savings initiative. That was the promise before the election. But then, after the election, she broke her promise and she asked the Minister for Children to go and find 6.5 percent savings within Oranga Tamariki, the organisation that is tasked with looking after our most vulnerable and at-risk children—"Go and find 6.5 percent from your back office and redirect that to the front line." What we have seen in the Minister of Finance's requirement of the Minister for Children, because of the Minister of Finance's incompetence to make her plan stack up, is that they have gone through a restructuring proposal, and in that proposal they are proposing to cut 447 jobs from Oranga Tamariki—jobs they believe are back-office jobs. That is 9 percent of the organisation. This is all because the Minister of Finance could not make her plan add up. She's now including an organisation she said would specifically be excluded and requiring it to find this money—this 6.5 percent; these 447 jobs. Questions I have asked in the House have demonstrated—and I agree with Chris Hipkins—that this definition of back office and front line is farcical. We are talking about the International Child Protection Unit, responsible for child trafficking, sexual exploitation, worker exploitation, and so on. It includes the records team who hold the records on behalf of those who are in State care. It includes the child safety and harm team for those who have been harmed in State care. It also includes the lawyers, who the Minister recently said are not considered front-line workers, despite the work they do in the courts on behalf of Oranga Tamariki. And it gets even more absurd than that. The Minister, in answer to written question No. 11262, in 2024, said that the chief executive of Oranga Tamariki is not a front-line role. Anyone who thinks that a Government agency can run without a chief executive needs a 101 on how our Government works. But worse than that, the chief executive of Oranga Tamariki is responsible for the 7,000 children who are in care and protection under the chief executive. The chief executive is their legal guardian—essentially, their parent—and to say that he is not front line is just absurd. I am worried about the impact that these cuts of 447 back-office—which I dispute—jobs are going to have on our most at-risk and vulnerable children. That number actually makes up 25 to 30 percent of the back office. It is going to bring the front-line services to their knees, and what impact will that have on our most vulnerable children? In the minute that I have remaining, I want to talk about what I am worried about for our children in terms of tomorrow's Budget. We have seen the cuts to the organisation and those that provide the services to them, but we are going to see tomorrow the cuts to the services and the contracts that are provided to them and those services in the community. Those service providers are going to hear at the eleventh hour whether they are going to have funding beyond the end of June. They are the ones who are delivering front-line services to our tamariki in the community. How many of their contracts are going to be cut? How many of those services are going to be impacted because this Government is finding those tax savings and cost cutting here to give $2.9 billion to landlords? They are prioritising landlords over our most vulnerable children. This is about choices and this Government has got its priorities wrong. SUZE REDMAYNE (National—Rangitīkei): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Agriculture has been the backbone of New Zealand for the last hundred-plus years. Our Minister of Agriculture, Todd McClay, often reminds us that when farming does well, New Zealand does well. And to use a word much loved by my friend and colleague Mark Cameron, the counterfactual is also true. The previous Government spent six years undermining the future of farming with a raft of unnecessary, often conflicting, rules and regulations that were bad for farmers and rural communities. So many businesses, large and small, so many livelihoods across the mighty Rangitīkei and indeed across New Zealand are dependant on a buoyant agriculture sector. The mighty Rangitīkei represents heartland rural and provincial New Zealand at its best. Despite recent challenges, excellence shines through. I want to take this opportunity to talk about Jack Jordan from Taumarunui, New Zealand's top axeman, who just last week competed in Italy against 15 of the best from around the world and won the Stihl Timbersports World Trophy for the third year in a row, breaking his own world record in the process. And senior constable Conrad Smith from National Park, who was awarded a gold medal at the New Zealand Search and Rescue Awards held at Parliament last week for his outstanding service and commitment to search and rescue. And James and Debbie Stewart, farming at Dairylands near Fielding, who won the 2024 Fonterra Responsible Dairying Award at the New Zealand Dairy Industry Awards and are also the Ballance Farm Environment Award supreme winners for the Horizons region. Our farmers are indeed guardians of the land. We walk the talk. Kaitiakitanga is what we do; it's how we farm. A recent report from the University of Canterbury revealed 24 percent of New Zealand's native vegetation—approximately 2.4 million hectares—is on sheep and beef farms. This represents the largest amount of native vegetation outside of public conservation land, and it plays a vital, unheralded role in supporting biodiversity. National in this Government backs our farmers. Sixteen National MPs turned up to Gisborne in force last weekend for a fund-raising sports fixture. It was Federated Farmers versus the politicians to support the cyclone recovery and raise money for much-needed fencing. Minister of Agriculture Todd McClay proved fast on his feet down the wing. Local MP Dana Kirkpatrick did a magnificent job of organising. We won the rugby, lost the netball, happy to call it a draw. But the winners on the day were the farmers and rural communities on the East Coast, with over $300,000 raised. Farming is the engine room of this great country. I am a proud farmer, and I'm proud to be part of a Government that gets it; a Government that's committed to letting our farmers get back to doing what they do best: farm; to reducing red tape, cutting unnecessary compliance costs; a Government that's determined to get New Zealand back on track. We have a plan to grow the economy and backing our farmers to succeed is a huge part of that. Parts of Rangitīkei and indeed New Zealand are suffering the effects of a significant drought. We can't fix the weather, but changes to the Resource Management Act mean we don't have to worry about more red tape slowing us down, about ridiculous rules and compliance costs getting in the way. Market access—let's talk about that. We can't get rich as a nation selling stuff to ourselves. We need to sell to the world, and we need to go to the world, and that's what this Government has focused on. In six months, the Prime Minister and Minister for Trade Todd McClay have focused on opening up new markets and solidifying our place in new ones. This Government is ambitious for New Zealand, with a plan to double agricultural exports over the next 10 years. A Federated Farmers survey last year found over 70 percent of farmers' mental health and wellbeing was being adversely affected just by doing their job. This Government is doing something about it. We have Matt Doocey, New Zealand's first ever Minister for Mental Health, and we're funding the Gumboot Friday initiative $24 million over four years as part of tomorrow's Budget. Across there the message hasn't changed. Even in Opposition they're attacking farmers. They don't get farmers, they don't get rural New Zealand; we do and we're proving it. I'm proud to be part of the solution. This Government's relentless focus on reducing red tape and allowing our farmers to get back to what they do best: farm. DEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER (Co-Leader—Te Pāti Māori): Tēnā koe e te Pīka. As the party with the largest Māori mandate and Māori electorates, I feel extremely confident in being able to stand and say that we have heard our people's call that they have reached the absolute point of intolerance. They are extremely intolerant of everything that they have had to endure with the dismantling of policies, of kaupapa, of passion, that have been put here to advance our people. In the words of some of our constituents, this is a Government that has unleashed an unholy or ruthless assault on Māori. I am extremely grateful because you have woken us up, and while it is not my intent to be in this House to teach how to be honourable or to practice tikanga, what I will do is use this Kāwanatanga space to wānanga rangatiratanga and speak to our own people. I will use this time and debate to speak to the 80 percent of our whānau who were not raised in kōhanga reo, who were not encouraged to think about rangatiratanga, who, in fact, believed there was only one source of truth when it came to the empowerment of whānau, who were raised not knowing how it is to be generation Te Tiriti, but instead fought for them. That includes people like myself, who were raised in the rangatiratanga and actually battled for these kaupapa. I want to talk about our whānau and our whenua and how important it is and remind that nothing that has been achieved today to bring generation Te Tiriti was won through not having to fight—nothing. Despite many parties saying they were responsible for the kōhanga movement, the kura kaupapa movement, in fact, it was our own people who did that battle. We must remember that in this place all the time. Pari'aka, Kīngitanga, Rātana—they were all enactments of rangatiratanga. Pūmau te reo, the kura kaupapa, the kōhanga movement—all enactments of Māori rangatiratanga. Neither needed the Kāwanatanga's budget or permission. We have let the Kāwanatanga think that it has more power than it deserves, whānau mā. Kāwanatanga sees us transactionally and we often fall into that plight. They see us more transactionally than they do us being part of anything that is about growing us, about our transformation, and they use this control in the Kāwanatanga space to domesticate us. This place thinks that it understands and practices and upholds our tikanga without respect to w'akapapa and without respect to kawa that comes from w'akapapa. I want us to remind ourselves, that 80 percent who sit on the fence, who sometimes are really troubled, while the 20 percent of those were growing the tangata Tiriti, the tangata whenua, the kura kaupapa, the kōhanga movement, our generation Tiriti who have grown up, who understand their rights to be sovereign—I want to remind us that when the strongest power within Aotearoa stands up and says that you are not able to strike, that puts the fear and uses the forked tongue to frighten you, to say that you do not understand what that means. I want to remind you of your own rights and your own sovereign enshrined in Te Tiriti. I want to remind you of your own tino rangatiratanga which means we must always stand up and protect our mokopuna. I want to remind you of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, the Human Rights Act, and all the aspects that mean that we cannot be sacked because of our race or our politics. I want to remind you of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which protects our right for self-determination. A singular absence is not fair ground to be dismissed, and, in fact, would raise issues of discrimination. Bad be it on a leader who would use the media to set and sic themselves on people who would be scared and not as unapologetic as the 80 percent of those of us who have been raised in believing that the Kāwanatanga is necessary to give us permission to practice and, indeed, assert our rangatiratanga. We have been and always have asserted our rangatiratanga. It existed for thousands of years before the unnatural interruption. I want to remind you: do not be imprisoned by those uncles that don't believe in rangatiratanga. Tomorrow, turn up. Tomorrow, we will greet you, we will meet you, we will welcome you, and you will be heard and seen. To those who don't believe in your rangatiratanga, kei te pai. We will cover you. We will always look after you. But those of our mokopuna and our younger generation who do believe in rangatiratanga, who have been raised to fight for rangatiratanga, follow us tomorrow and listen for the kōrero on Friday, because you will welcome it. Kia ora rā. Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Deputy Prime Minister): What we've heard is the chorus of victimhood. We've not heard from the Māori party; we've heard from a party of radical extremists—so motivated in their commitment that they couldn't even file their own question today. That's how diligent they are. That's why there's 11 questions and not 12 there—because they're so motivated protesting they can't even do their job. They don't want democracy; they want anarchy. They purport to represent Māori even though the vast majority of Māori don't vote for them. They deliberately attack individual Ministers with childish schoolboy slurs— Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Who voted for you? Kore—kore. Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: —that are only designed to stoke racial division. You see? She hasn't finished her speech, has she. Here she is in a most un-Māori way— Hon Nicole McKee: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I can't hear a thing. There's just constant yelling from my right side here. I would really like to hear the Hon Winston Peters' speech. SPEAKER: I think it's noticeable that the speech delivered by the previous speaker, Debbie Ngarewa-Packer, was heard respectfully in silence and this one will be too. Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: They actively call the Government a Pākehā Government with Pākehā laws when two of the three leaders of the coalition are Māori and there are a record number of Māori in Cabinet—far more than they'll ever have or they've ever had. Now, they personally attack Māori Ministers for not growing up Māori enough, for being sell-outs, for wanting to exterminate Māori, for being white supremacists, for being racist, for wanting everybody to be white. These are quotes from the Māori Party recently. And this kind of garbage in the New Zealand Herald on the 24th of this month? [Holds up newspaper clipping] Absolute drivel. Who trains these people? Who educated them? And where were they when the crisis of Māoridom was happening so many times in the last century? Never saw any of them. The only Māori they acknowledge and want to represent are the minority who think like them. If you are Māori and don't think like them, then you're not a real Māori. See how convenient it is? The sooner the media realises that, then the sooner will we see the blatant racist rhetoric they use as their weapon of choice—blatant racist rhetoric. Their rhetoric belongs in the gutter and should be called out by the media for what it is and would be in a nanosecond if the racial roles were reversed—would be in a nanosecond if the racial roles were reversed. We know some of your backgrounds. Don't come walking in here and tell me, from Ngāti Wai, "I don't know your background." or where you weren't when we were fighting for Māori. They're now calling for a revolution, promoting images of guns on social media. They are calling for protests. They're calling for protests to disrupt and block our streets by stoking racial division. Make no mistake. Racial division is exactly what they want, not unity. They actively promote wanting a separate Parliament. They want separate laws. They want separate land. They want separate constitutions. We should never accept this ignorant extremist rhetoric as a new kind of political discourse in our country. It'll damage our country beyond repair. The Māori Party pales in comparison to the great past Māori leaders such as Carroll, Ngata, Pomare, and Buck. They wouldn't be even qualified as to policy issues—so much so that they never ever mention those four men—never! Never mention Whina Cooper, because she said we signed the Treaty to become one people, and that's the last thing they want. They're racist and they're separatists. Now, these great Māori leaders all wanted unity for everyone in New Zealand, not separatism, as did Dame Whina Cooper. Our Government can fix the economy, infrastructure, law and order, and the education and health systems. But if we don't fix this separatist agenda from the extreme corners of our political system, all of that will be for nought. We will be on a pathway to becoming the next Venezuela or like the former apartheid South Africa. And let me tell you, some of you: we're not listening to you. You show me one thing you've ever done for your people. Show me one thing you've ever done for your people. Over here, we've got people with a magnificent record, decades and decades of work, great court cases, won all on a risk, using our own money. What's their sacrifice? On the taxpayer's teat all their life and they're come in here and they're going to lecture to us. You've come to the wrong marae here—make no mistake. Our Government intends to fix all of these things for New Zealand, to lift every New Zealander, Māori and non-Māori, together as one. That is the only way our country will succeed. And by the way, when you spend $350,000 of taxpayers' charity money illegally on an election campaign, they should be called out. Why isn't the media screaming from the rafters now? They did it all the time about the Serious Fraud Office and we smashed the Serious Fraud Office three times. But these people are guilty. Hon PEENI HENARE (Labour): The Māori people are a smart people, and they can see right through politics. When it comes to a Budget, the saying and the expression is true: money talks, and Warriors bandwagon fans walk. Māori are up front about it: on Budget day, money talks. From the other side of the House, we hear these grand gestures of equity. One need only look at the data to show where funding needs to go in order to make sure that equity is achieved. So, in order to help some of the members who weren't here at least year's Budget, on the other side of the House, I'm going to paint a wee picture for them. The total Māori package at last year's Budget was just over $825 million. Hon Member: Well, why are you in Opposition, then? Hon PEENI HENARE: I want to run through a few of those initiatives that got outcomes to close the equity gap that that member lambasts so much about. In Budget 2023, $200 million was invested through the Whai Kāinga Whai Oranga programme. I hear members on the other side of the House say, "Well, what did it achieve?" Let me tell that member what it achieved: it approved and contracted well over a thousand homes, enabled 1,700 infrastructure sites to see more green sites to allow building, it also supported 415 repairs to existing homes, and, just as importantly, it also offered first-home buyer grants to Māori, to Pākehā, to Pacific peoples, to people right across this country to allow them to get into their first home; first-home loan grants. Guess who's getting rid of that in this upcoming Budget! Let me take members on the other side of the House through another little journey. "This Government"—and this was myself last year—"backs Whānau Ora and has committed a further $168.1 million over four years". Whānau Ora has already been applauded by this current Government for doing good work into our communities. We will be watching with a very keen eye on whether or not this Government will continue to support Whānau Ora. One of those kaupapa is a kaupapa dear to my heart and the heart of my colleague here, the Hon Willow-Jean Prime, that's Ngā Tini Whetū—that's to stop our tamariki from entering into the Oranga Tamariki system, supporting families to make sure that they can achieve their aspirations and now, more importantly, our tamariki can be well supported. The increase I just mentioned in the Whānau Ora budget under the Labour Government was an increase of 145 percent in funding. What that did was achieve more outcomes for Māori and non-Māori right across this country. In health—we hear about equitable funding in health. Well, that side of the House, like everyone in this House knows, that health outcomes for Māori are the poorest in the country. So, in order to get equity, you've got to be able to fund it to make sure that equitable outcomes are borne out. I can tell that side of the House that, in last year's Budget, $132 million was put forward for Māori health. That was to support providers for cheaper access to primary care for Māori and for rural communities. That side of the House talked about "We're here to support the farmers, rural communities.", this funding right here supported Māori and rural communities, and this Government is getting rid of it. I heard Dr Shane Reti in this House say, "The way forward for Māori health is the Iwi-Māori Partnership Boards." Well, money talks, and that's what the Labour Government did last year. They put money towards the Iwi-Māori Partnership Boards. So we'll be making sure to keep an eye on this current health Minister to see whether or not he backs up his talk with a bit of money. Into education—education, that investment of $225 million directly into Māori education. Paying kōhanga reo teachers what they are worth, making sure that they were paid to give the services of language to our young people for the future. It helped a further 25,000 students, and a further 325 schools and kura across this country. There was so much good news in last year's Budget. Te Matatini is a fantastic kaupapa that's seen the investment of significant dollars to make sure that we can continue to support Te Matatini—$34 million over two years, and we've seen that particular funding do well. Sam Uffindell: Come on, Peeni, say something inspiring. Hon PEENI HENARE: Those members went to Te Matatini and saw how big it was. That is because money talks. This National-led Government, when it comes to money, they're not very good at it. This Budget is going to come down to two things for this Government: broken promises, and choices—choices to support landlords instead of the people who need it the most. Dr CARLOS CHEUNG (National—Mt Roskill): Talofa lava. Happy Samoan Language Week. This is my first contribution to the general debate in this House, and I would like to use this opportunity to thank the people of Mt Roskill for their trust and support in electing me as the first National MP for Mt Roskill. People in Mt Roskill are the reason why I'm here today. Because I care about them, I want the best of them, and I want to create opportunities for them for a brighter future. As their local MP, it is my job to bring their voices to the Parliament. Since being elected, I've been actively engaging with my constituents from all corners of the Mt Roskill electorate, across different industries, professions, religions, ethnicities, and needs. I'm committed to listen to their voices and be a strong advocate. I hear their voices. People in Mt Roskill tell me that every day they struggle with the cost of living. Families are having to work extra hours and pick up a second job just to meet their needs. But no matter how hard they work, there is nothing left in their bank account at the end of the week. Families with young children are struggling to afford the rising cost of childcare fees. I hear you and we respond. This is why this Government is going to give you a tax relief in this year's Budget. The tax thresholds haven't been adjusted for 14 years—14 years. Increases to the current income tax threshold will allow hard-working New Zealanders to keep what they earn. Our tax relief packages will increase the take-home income of 83 percent of New Zealanders over the age of 15 and 94 percent of households. We'll also deliver FamilyBoost policy to support our hard-working families. From 1 July, parents and health givers of young children will be supported with a tax rebate of up to $75 per week. People in Mt Roskill are also concerned about crime. Under the previous Government—their soft-on-crime approach—crime is out of control and people in Mt Roskill don't feel safe anymore. I hear them and we respond. That's why, earlier this month, I organised a public meeting with police to give Mt Roskill residents the opportunity to share their concerns and feedback with the police. We are committed to making Mt Roskill a safer community for all. This is why this Government will deliver 500 more front-line police on the beat. This Government will also invest $1.9 million in more front-line Corrections officers, more support for offenders to turn away from crime, and more prison capacity. We have a target to reduce youth crime by 15 percent to make our streets safer. People in Mt Roskill also value education. I'm proud to report to the House that I have visited every single school in my electorate, including primary, intermediate, and secondary schools and specialty schools. Principals are telling me that they struggle with teacher recruitment. We hear them and we respond. We will invest $52.6 million to attract, train, and retain our teachers workforce as part of getting our education system back on track. This Government is also delivering a more efficient healthy school lunches programme, extending it to 10,000 early childhood kids and saving taxpayer money and $107 million. People in Mt Roskill are also concerned about the broken mental health system. We hear them. This is why we have the first ever Minister for Mental Health, the Hon Matt Doocey, and we are investing $24 million into Gumboot Friday to include their counselling pool and provide 160,000 free counselling sessions for New Zealanders aged between five to 25. Tomorrow will be a great day for Mt Roskill and a great day for New Zealand because we will deliver a Budget which will help our working class. Our Budget will rebuild the economy, restore law and order, and deliver on public services like health and education. Budget— ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): The member's time has expired. Dr PARMJEET PARMAR (ACT): Thank you, Mr Speaker. In the last few weeks I have been quite concerned. I have been concerned because of the comments that I hear from that side of the House. I have been concerned because of the phrases that I hear in the speeches that are being made from that side of the House. This is because in those phrases, in those comments, what I see is prominence given to a particular race: the Māori race. And not just that, it is about putting Māori against Pākehā. It's about Māori versus Pākehā. And in all this, I want to ask a question. It's a daunting question but I want to ask this question: where do I sit? Where is my place in all this? When I say this "my place", I don't mean me per se here, I mean migrant communities. Where do migrant communities sit? If you look at our statistics, by the end of this year—that is 2024—we will have around 880,000 Asian people in New Zealand. If you look at migrants—those who have come from different countries around the world to New Zealand to make New Zealand their home—that population is quite significant. People have been here from Europe for a number of years, we have people from the Middle East, we have people from Africa, and so many countries that there's a significant population. And if we look at the numbers in the census that are released today, 29 percent of New Zealanders identify as ethnicities that are not Pākehā or Māori, and this number is only going to grow. So my question is where do these migrant communities sit? As an immigrant, I'm really proud of the migrant communities for the contribution they make. I'm really proud of the migrant communities for the wealth of experience they bring to New Zealand to enrich our country. In all this, what I also notice is that that side—this is Labour, Greens, and Te Pāti Māori—when they go out to public functions, they look really passionate towards those communities. But as soon as they come in the House, it becomes only about Māori and Pākehā. This is New Zealand's Parliament, this is the 21st century. And I have gone around and spoken to many, many families and they have told me that based on what they have been seeing in this House, they are reminded of what their forefathers went through when they came to New Zealand in late 1800s and early 1900s. They went through discrimination, prejudice, struggle, hardship. They said to me that they don't want to be reminded of all that. They have said that the road to be where we are today hasn't been easy. It's because of their courage, it's because of their struggles we have been able to come to this stage where New Zealand has become such a welcoming country to all migrants, and that's how we want to keep it. I would say that, yes, I don't look like all those migrants, I don't sound like all those migrants, but I do understand their frustration. And I want to say to migrant communities: "Don't let anyone else choose your place in your home country." I said to migrant communities that you have the right to thrive here just like anyone else. And I said to migrant communities: "Don't let the voice of division and hate let you doubt your place in your own home country, New Zealand." In New Zealand, our communities have come from all parts of the world, and that is what makes New Zealand. I want to also say this to migrant communities: "Stand tall, stand proud, this is your home country. You have sacrificed to be here and you are making the contribution to make this country a great country that New Zealand is." I want to say to migrant communities: "Be where diversity is valued. Be where unity is celebrated. Be where equality is recognised." And that is the ACT Party. I also want to say this to migrant communities that the ACT Party really recognises the new face of New Zealand, the new New Zealand, the multicultural New Zealand. That side wants to take New Zealand back to the 1800s, but the ACT Party will not let that happen. Thank you, Mr Speaker. GLEN BENNETT (Labour): Te Tiriti o Waitangi was signed in 1840, and that is why I am able to stand in this House, because I am welcome in this place. That is the reason that Dr Parmjeet Parmar, the previous speaker, is able to stand in this House and is welcome in this place and in this land. It is because of that agreement and because of the welcome of the indigenous people of this land. I just want to talk briefly about nature, and nature is our national asset here. Nature, though, has the potential to be a train wreck. If we look at this Government's so-called Fast-track Approvals Bill, it has the potential to take New Zealand backwards. We listen and look at the submissions coming through, and there are the challenges that people are showing in terms of this attack on nature and on our natural environment. We on this side of the House are doing what we can and we did what we could in the previous Government to ensure that, yes, we can farm; yes, we can look after; yes, we can develop; and, yes, we can ensure that we have good quality infrastructure. But not at the cost of nature, because when it's gone, when we kill even one of those 4,000 species of endangered flora and fauna, it is gone for ever—for ever—and I'm not going to stand here and let that happen. This is about the choices that this Government is making to run roughshod over so many pieces of legislation that have been put in place over the years, even taking it back to 1953 in terms of the Wildlife Act. It's just throwing caution into the wind for the sake of development. As we've heard today in this House—and we've looked at the report from the Auditor-General on the concerns around procurement and the concerns around some of the weaknesses and some of vital parts of transparency—we need to ensure that this House and this Government are squeaky clean. Currently, there are challenges and there are cracks. We've heard that in question time today, and we've seen that over recent weeks. Whether it's the procurement of mental health or whether it's text messages being sent to organise people to head up boards and infrastructure, we need to make sure that we hold this Government to account in order to ensure that the voting public get what was on the box, because, at the moment, I think what's in the tin isn't on the cover of the box. In our select committee process, we have heard from less than 40 percent of individual submissions on the Fast-track Approvals Bill, and I just say that that is a crass override of democracy. When we had more than 27,000 submissions come in, with thousands upon thousands of individuals wanting to have their voices heard in this democratic system, less than 40 percent will have the opportunity to make an oral submission, and that is outrageous and that is wrong. This Government is taking New Zealand backwards. This Government is making choices that are not around the protection of nature or our native species, but they're making choices to disregard our endangered ecosystem. Whether it's Archey's frogs; whether it's our native kiwi, which we're so proud of; or whether it's the "hysteria" around climate change—a comment that a Minister in this Government threw out in this House—these comments are unhelpful and wrong. These comments are running roughshod over 2.7 million hectares of stewardship land that we want to protect because it is managed for its natural and historical purposes—and the Government members can laugh at that. They can laugh at the protection of native species. They can laugh at the historical importance of pā sites. They can laugh at the fact that they are running roughshod over things like wetlands. But we on this side of the House are fighting for nature. We are standing up for nature. We are making sure that our environment is protected and that the procurement systems and how that Government goes about doing its business—they're held accountable for that, because we need to know that they are doing right by the voters. In closing, we want to make a stand, and we want to stand with the people of Aotearoa to make sure that we march for nature. On Saturday, 8 June, I'll be in Auckland supporting tens of thousands of New Zealanders, many of whom weren't able to speak in the select committee process. I'll be protesting—yes, on a Saturday—because we need to make sure that we march for nature. We need to ensure that we protect nature. The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed. SPEAKER: I declare the House in committee for consideration of the McLean Institute (Trust Variation) Bill. MCLEAN INSTITUTE (TRUST VARIATION) BILL In Committee Preamble, clauses 1 to 7, and Schedule CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Members, the House is in committee on the McLean Institute (Trust Variation) Bill. We come first to the preamble. The question is that the preamble stand part. CAMILLA BELICH (Junior Whip—Labour): I move that all parts be heard as one question. CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that all parts be heard as one question. Is there any objection? There is no objection. The question is that the preamble, clauses 1 to 7, and the Schedule stand part. Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): I will just, if I may, make a few introductory remarks for members' benefit. This bill is really a bill which tidies up the purposes of the McLean Institute trust deed. It's a deed that's over a century old. It made reference to "destitute women of good character" and really was not fit for purpose in a modern sense. The main objective of this bill is to provide an updated trust deed but, at the same time, it does a couple of other things. The main other thing it does is make it clear that should the trust deed need amendment in the future, it need not come back to this House, but, by an amendment in clause 6, it's made clear that it's the same as any other charitable trust, and that the objects and purposes of the deed and so on could be amended by application to the High Court rather than this rather cumbersome and pretty resource-intensive process. I'm hopeful I won't be challenged too much and that it won't be a contentious bill, but— Hon Member: You never know. Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: —I never know—I'm happy to answer any members' questions that there may be. JOSEPH MOONEY (National—Southland): Thank you, Mr Chair. I don't rise to say too much, to be frank, because I think this is a matter that we're in agreement with. It is updating a will that was settled nearly 120 years ago. Maybe I'll just give the member an opportunity to elucidate for any of those watching in the Chamber just what the intention is in terms of expanding it from its original purposes, to who it can support—those changes that this bill will allow. Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Thank you, Mr Chair. I'm very happy to just respond to these questions as they arise. The original trust deed had two classes of women who were able to be supported: one, in respect of the majority of the assets, was women of good character and high social standing who had fallen on hard times, and the other was destitute women—basically, the lower classes. Clearly, in the modern world, that's not appropriate. The new deed, in modern language, simply says any woman who's in need of financial support can be supported by the trust fund. JOSEPH MOONEY (National—Southland): Thank you, Mr Chair. I'm just confirming that the charitable purpose has been expanded to assist any women in the Canterbury area who are in need of support, regardless of social status, formal education, or other characteristics. Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Yeah, that's exactly right. The deed itself refers to the region, and you're right: the region is the Canterbury region. The trustees are various dignitaries, including, I think, the Bishop of the Anglican Cathedral. TANYA UNKOVICH (NZ First): Thank you. Now, there's just one small amendment that we would like to make, and currently, it is the definition of "children". Now, the definition as it states at the moment says "A reference"—it's clause 1.1.17—"a reference to "children" is a reference to children and young persons of any gender under the age of 18 years old, and is otherwise to be interpreted in its broadest possible sense". We would like to make an amendment for the clause to be replaced and made simpler by saying "a reference to children is a reference to children and young persons under the age of 18 years old". Now, we just felt that the phrase "and is otherwise to be interpreted in its broadest possible sense" could have possibly been a bit of a concern due to its vagueness; could lead to misinterpretation and some potential bias. Now, New Zealand First, as a party—we have always campaigned on and we continue to address and meet with groups who are concerned about gender ideology, and how it is now affecting language, and the gradual creep that now seems to be appearing in legislation. So that is why we are recommending this change. We will continue to be a voice for those who feel unheard, particularly women who feel that their identity is being abandoned. Hence, we are tabling this amendment. Thank you. Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Thank you, Mr Chair. I thank the member for her contribution. The trust deed has been carefully reviewed, and I don't think there is any lack of clarity in the proposed deed in clause 1.1.17. It is really just making sure—just making sure that although you've got a Trust which is predominantly for the protection of women in need, that any child can fall within that, regardless of whatever gender they are. So, I really don't think it is an issue, and I would suggest to the Chamber that that amendment is not needed, and I won't be supporting it. CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that Tanya Unkovich's amendment to the Schedule set out on Amendment Paper 40 be agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to. Ayes 8 New Zealand First 8. Noes 115 New Zealand National 49; New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; ACT New Zealand 11; Te Pāti Māori 6. Amendment not agreed to. Preamble, clauses 1 to 7, and the Schedule agreed to. House resumed. CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Madam Speaker, the committee has considered the McLean Institute (Trust Variation) Bill and reports it without amendment. I move, That the report be adopted. Motion agreed to. Report adopted. CHILD PROTECTION (CHILD SEX OFFENDER GOVERNMENT AGENCY REGISTRATION) (OVERSEAS TRAVEL REPORTING) AMENDMENT BILL Third Reading GREG O'CONNOR (Labour—Ōhāriu): I move, That the Child Protection (Child Sex Offender Government Agency Registration) (Overseas Travel Reporting) Amendment Bill be now read a third time. If you just indulge me, Madam Speaker— DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes, the member's been rather busy. GREG O'CONNOR: This requires the same versatility and dexterity that my appearance on the rugby field in Gisborne did this last weekend—and hopefully more successful. DEPUTY SPEAKER: I'll just ask the Clerk to make sure that the clock is set for 10 minutes when the speaker starts. Thank you. GREG O'CONNOR: That will be to the relief of my colleagues on this side, Madam Speaker. The Child Protection (Child Sex Offender Government Agency Registration) (Overseas Travel Reporting) Amendment Bill is now entering its third reading, and if it actually does pass today, it will be the first member's bill to have passed in the current Parliament. I think that's significant, because it's a bill that has had quite a considerable journey through the last Parliament and this Parliament. It has been considered by two Justice Committees led by Vanushi Walters and James Meager. So, because the subject of the bill, child sex offenders and protecting our children against them, is a topic that is near and dear to the hearts of not only all members but all New Zealanders, I think it's highly appropriate that it has had the agreement of virtually the whole House through all its readings. So it gives me great pleasure to be standing here today to be reading on what I hope is the passing of this bill. Now, when we speak of child sex offenders, I was a detective for many years in the New Zealand Police and dealt with a large number of offenders. But there was a class of offender that I dealt with—particularly in my latter years when I actually established child abuse teams in Masterton and in Porirua, where I really had my eyes open to a whole different world of offending. Now, it's been apparent to me that, as this bill has made its way through the House, sometimes you don't realise how much you know, because of your previous experience. But what became apparent to me is that when I was dealing with members on all sides of the House and, in fact, any conversations I had, people, when they speak about child sex offenders, are often thinking of the man in the park, the horn-rimmed glasses guy who hovers or the man in the blue van who is the stranger that we warn our children against. But that's not where the danger is, because of most of the cases—and I reflect on the cases I dealt with, and most police officers do—almost invariably the offender and the victim are known to each other, or certainly, the offender is known to the victim's family. So when we look at the protections required for our children in particular, it's important to note that. So this bill sits on top of a bill which was passed in 2015, which ensures that those who are placed on the register—and shortly I'll go through the qualifying criteria—have a special form of protection for potential victims but also for themselves, because of the unique nature of their offending. I just wanted to speak about dealing with these offenders also. They are often seen and even portrayed sometimes in the media as predatory, well-planned people with a vast network that they're dealing with. Again, that's not the case. These people are often solitary. While we often see cases where they will join together through electronic and through making sure they access the type of material that we don't want them to, actually, when it comes to the offending, often it is very much lone offending. Interviewing these people, they're pretty pathetic sort of individuals themselves. And so when I say they need the protection, when they do go to prison, they have a very hard time in prison. Some would say rightfully so, but certainly it's not somewhere where they want to go back to. And these offenders actually have a relatively low recidivism rate compared to other offenders, again for two reasons: one, often they're older when they're found and the offending will be historical; secondly, they will actually have had programmes when they went through prison and are relatively well monitored. And so it means we've been relatively successful in ensuring that these people don't continue their predatory activities and we are able to protect our children in that regard. So when this bill was brought in originally, what it ensures is that when these offenders do go to visit family, if they're going to leave, once they're on this child register, if they do go to visit elsewhere—they want to go to Napier for the weekend; they want to go to Dunedin for the weekend—they are obliged to tell the police to tell their case officer where they're going to be going, where they're going to be staying, and, importantly, any children that are going to be at that address. This is not only giving that protection to the children that will be at the address but also ensuring that they know that we know, which is again is one of those big protections. However, what becomes apparent is that those same protections are not made available to those who are living overseas. Earlier this year, I was in the Cook Islands, and I outlined to the Cook Islands Parliament this piece of legislation as an example of a member's bill. And there was considerable interest because they know, there, that many of these offenders do go back to visit family in places like the Cook Islands, places like the Islands—whether it be Queensland, Victoria. So while we're well aware of the offending that goes on in places like in the "golden triangle" up in Asia—and that is another class of offending—this really is designed to protect our children or grandchildren or children in general who are likely to be visited by these people. I'm informed by police that there's about 20-odd individuals who do travel to Australia, who travel internationally, who are on this register each year. Now, these are not the very serious offenders, because the very serious offenders are actually usually still under probation. They're still under other orders, and they're very unlikely to ever get permission to travel overseas. These are the people who have served their time, who are on this register. And the research shows that they are likely to continue to offend throughout their lives. And so ensuring that we have the protections that they know that we know—that's the best thing we'll consider that will keep our children safe. So the bill, if these individuals have been placed on the register—and, again, the registrable offender is a person who has been convicted of a qualifying offence, has been sentenced to imprisonment or has been sentenced to a non-custodial sentence, and has been made subject to a registration order. That order doesn't count if they were under 18 at the time of the offending. And those qualifying offences are class 1, class 2, and class 3 offences, as defined in the Crimes Act, and cover a full range of offending where the victim is under 16. And also pertinent to this bill, a corresponding registrable offender is a person who, as a consequence of a conviction in a foreign jurisdiction for a corresponding offence, has been sentenced to imprisonment or, essentially, would still be eligible for an equivalent child sex offender register in that jurisdiction. In other words, we could actually get offenders coming back to New Zealand who've offended overseas and would actually be on our register. Once again, these are the very people who we are likely to see who will be actually travelling. So, look, just in the time that's left to me, I just want to, again, thank the House, thank the committees that have considered this bill and that have improved this bill. One improvement, or certainly change, that was made by the select committee is that it will be 3 months after the date of Royal assent before the bill comes into play. And the reason for that is that it will take time. These offenders need to be notified, those who are on the register notified, but also the police have to have time to get this up and running. Another aspect that is covered is: will this be enforceable overseas? Technically and legally, no. However, New Zealand Police have liaison officers. We have good interactions, or Police have good interactions, with our agencies overseas, and they can, through these relationships, ensure that these people will be checked, because I know from dealing with my Australian colleagues—bearing in mind each state in Australia is a different jurisdiction and actually have the same problem—that those same relationships become important in ensuring that they are actually able to track these offenders. So, again, I congratulate this House in anticipation of this bill going through today and also the committees that considered it, because I think, once again, this shows that this is a class of offending for which we all understand the need to put in place all the protections we can so that those who will predate our children, those who will basically rob them of their adulthoods, which essentially sex offending does, we can deal with them appropriately. So I take great pleasure in commending this bill to the House. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is that the motion be agreed to. CAMERON BREWER (National—Upper Harbour): Oh thank you, Madam Speaker. Just wanted to pay tribute to the sponsor, the previous speaker, Greg O'Connor, for helping shepherd and lead this bill through the Justice Committee. Given all his years on the front line of police and representing the Police Association, he brought a depth of understanding to this piece of legislation as to why it was required and how it could best perform. I also want to pay tribute to his predecessor with this, with the original bill being introduced by Erica Stanford. As Mr O'Connor said, this bill—now on its third reading—traverses two Parliaments: the 53rd and the current Parliament, the 54th. I also want to pay tribute to our chair, James Meager, who also led us through this process over the last six months. So it's a very good day that this bill, after a couple of years, going through two Parliaments, two Justice Committees, two readings, a committee of the whole House stage, public submissions, some revisions, and a few improvements that we arrive at this place where it is going to be put on the statute books—hopefully after this third reading this afternoon. As has been highlighted by the sponsor, Mr O'Connor, the bill—full title Child Protection (Child Sex Offender Government Agency Registration) (Overseas Travel Reporting) Amendment Bill; we'll just call it "the bill", I think, going forward—enhances New Zealand's capacity to protect children globally by ensuring that our police and our customs service and other authorities have detailed information on the international movements of our registered child sex offenders. It brings the overseas travel reporting requirements in line with those for domestic travel. That actually surprises a number of us in the House that arrived only in October—and it will surprise some in the public as well—that domestic travel had reporting requirements that international travel didn't for registered child sex offenders. So this is good news. The bill highlights, as has been said, New Zealand's commitment to safeguarding our children from sexual exploitation, both domestically and internationally, and addressing the risks associated with child sex offending more comprehensively. As Mr O'Connor said, often the offenders here do not look like, or are not, the people that we think they are, but they are registered and we need to monitor their travel because they are going into homes, potentially—whether it's visiting family, friends in Australia; whether it's going for a short stay longer than 48 hours, but that needs to be known. So this, again, adds an extra layer of protection. Looking at the actual requirements and the legislative remits of this bill, it would amend the Act to require registered child sex offenders to provide additional information to the police before travelling overseas for more than 48 hours. We did look at that 48-hour time frame—that threshold—and that is where we landed. A registered offender who intends to return to New Zealand would also need to report each address where they intend to stay while overseas, the dates on which they intend to travel to and out of the country. "This information"—looking at the explanatory note in the bill itself—"would be required for each country that the offender intends to travel to and remain in for more than 48 hours." So the National Party is united in our determination to give this extra tool to the New Zealand Police, to Customs, and to any authority that may be involved. We hope—I think we said not so long ago; maybe it was the second reading—that Kumbaya had broken out and that it looked like we were almost unanimous in this House with providing that extra tool for police. And why wouldn't we give all the tools that we could to the authorities to protect children as best as we can? As we often say in this House, even if it saves one child, it's all been worth it. So I hope—I hope—that the Green Party has caucused this since. And I hope that the Green Party—whose co-leader was the Minister for the Prevention of Family and Sexual Violence—come around and support this on the third reading. Because why wouldn't you? If they aren't, I think we all in the House, and the New Zealand public, deserve to hear their articulation as to why not. So we come to the third reading having exercised a lot of consideration and caution with this bill. We know that it's not the answer to everything, but it is a suite of tools that we now have that line up with our domestic reporting requirements for our registered child sex offenders that now go internationally. So that is the prudent thing to do, and frankly it's well overdue. So to the two Justice Committees; to the members of the public that submitted; to the various members on those two Justice Committees—the first one chaired by Vanushi Walters; want to acknowledge her today: someone I shared the campaign trail with and her integrity on the Justice Committee was well known. Also James Meager, who is often dubbed our in-house solicitor—from Otago University, no less; no less. So I want to acknowledge those. I want to also make the point for the Greens, again, that we really hope that they can come on board, and that the National Party are happy to support this child protection bill. But that is only a suite of pro-child, pro-family appropriations, policies, and plans that we have. Some of them you'll see tomorrow—one more sleep, I think the finance Minister says. One more sleep where we, as a party and a coalition Government, are singularly focused on the family unit, on protecting children, and improving their opportunities. We have walked into a situation where child poverty stats—according to Stats NZ, released in January this year for the year June to 30 June 2023 had deteriorated—had deteriorated: material hardship was up; key indicators were up. Again, the protection of children—we inherited a Government where 6½ thousand people were living in emergency housing, nearly half of them were children. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Can we come back to the bill? CAMERON BREWER: So this is part of a suite—this member's bill—of a National Party programme where we are putting the family, the children at the centre of it. So we are very happy to support this, and we urge—we urge—the Green Party to consider joining the rest of the House and coming in behind, so we can say hand on heart in 2024 that we unanimously supported this and we unanimously did the best we can for our children in the future. Thank you very much. TAMATHA PAUL (Green—Wellington Central): Tēnā koe. Kia ora koutou katoa. I rise today to speak as the Green Party's justice spokesperson and to outline our position, which has changed since the first and second readings of this bill. I will begin by talking about what we believe in, in regards to keeping our children safe, and then I'll talk a little bit about how we came to change our position on this bill. We have always been extremely clear that we want to live in a world, and contribute to the leadership of this country, in a way that makes sure that children and everybody—but particularly children, some of the most vulnerable people in our society—can live free from sexual violence and harm. We know that we have to strengthen the work to prevent sexual violence from ever happening in the first place. That is why we are so proud to stand here as the party with the first ever Minister for the Prevention of Family and Sexual Violence. People who have sexually violated children must be accountable for the heartbreaking and enduring harm that they inflict on people, on children, knowing the devastating trauma and harm that that causes for those children's entire lives. Offenders must be accountable and supported to stop their violent behaviour, and there must be restoration and reparation directly to victims and survivors and their needs. We wish to state our position unequivocally, because the research and evidence spells out very clearly where the real levers for protecting our children are. And I would like to think that in the work that the previous Government did together on Te Aorerekura, the first ever cross-Government strategy to eliminate family and sexual violence from our communities—this work to prevent violence against children is in the heart of Te Aorerekura. The way that we came to change our position on this bill is because when the first and second readings of this bill happened and myself and my colleague Kahurangi Carter—who is the spokesperson for children—realised that we were the only party that was not supporting this bill, we had some serious questions and it didn't make sense to us. We felt that as new MPs without the guidance of our previous MP Golriz Ghahraman, who was very staunch on her opposition against this bill, we had to revisit those reasons and ask ourselves whether that was the right decision to be made or not. We had lengthy decisions amongst our caucus around why we have the stance that we have and why we might want to change it. We felt strongly that supporting this bill is an important measure towards protecting the rights of children and the safety of children. So I want to mihi to you, Greg, for your work on this bill and the work that you have done throughout your career to protect children and families—to live free from violence. And I want to thank Erica Stanford as well for her work on improving aspects of this bill. We said in the first reading of this bill, I believe, that if Minister Stanford's amendments could be incorporated into the bill, we would consider supporting the bill. We've done that; we are supporting the bill now. It's great that we've got unanimity across the House in taking this important step. So the issue of ending violence against children has been a longstanding priority for us. As I said before, we are very, very proud of the work that we have achieved together on Te Aorerekura. Even during the election last year—I mean, across parties, whether it was Labour, National, or the Greens—everybody agreed that Te Aorerekura is a blueprint for how we might deal with these really difficult issues like preventing violence in our communities. Te Aorerekura identifies and responds to the drivers of violence, requiring accountability from people using violence and supporting them to change, because that is a really important piece of the puzzle. It's not just identifying who has created harm and following their movements and actions to make sure that they don't cause further harm; it's actually getting at the root cause of that behaviour and trying to reduce that. Because that is a service to the future, in that we're preventing future harm from occurring. So this bill amends the Child Protection (Child Sex Offender Government Agency Registration) Act 2016 to require registered child sex offenders to provide additional information to police before travelling overseas. This information includes addresses of all places they will be staying—all of these things have already been stated in this debate. I think the key thing that we really want to emphasise is that registers by themselves do little in and of themselves to reduce offending. We understand that there are steps that can be taken through this bill to, hopefully, add some more protection, especially now with the improvements that I mentioned before, thanks to Minister Stanford. We also stand by the very important submission made by the Attorney-General on the impact that this bill has on human rights, and the Ministry of Justice, who were at pains to highlight that this legislation is inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act (NZBORA) and therefore risks a dangerous precedent. But that wouldn't be the first that we had supported a bill that had some warnings against NZBORA. We do so because we believe in the rights of children to live free from violence. The Justice Committee's own report noted the statement of the Attorney-General that evidence is limited as to the effectiveness of sex offender registers in improving public safety. The report quotes that "he"—the Attorney-General—"considered that the intrusion on that right"—to benefit from lesser penalty where penalties change—"was not in due proportion to the importance of the objective of the bill and could not be demonstrably justified." Now, we do, in this House, weigh up public interest and public benefits whenever we have to consider breaching the New Zealand Bill of Rights. So, in this case, we should all be clear that we are voting in public interest and—for the Greens, with the improvements made to the bill since the first reading—that we consider those reasons in the interests of the public. So, in closing, I repeat: the Greens want a world where all children, here and across the world, live safe lives free from sexual violence and abuse. We know we must strengthen the work to prevent sexual violence from ever happening in the first place. We want to see justice for all victim/survivors of sexual violence and abuse, especially for children. People who have sexually violated children must be accountable for the heartbreaking and enduring harm that they have inflicted. Offenders must be accountable and supported to stop their violent behaviour, and their must be restoration and reparation directly to victim survivors and their needs. Thank you, Madam Speaker. TODD STEPHENSON (ACT): Well, I do feel a "Kumbaya" moment coming on, as Cameron Brewer would say. I want to thank the Greens and Tamatha Paul for her eloquent discussion about how the Greens have changed their position and will be supporting this bill. I think she touched on a lot of very important issues as we debate the child protection amendment bill, I'm just going to call it, because there are a lot of words in the brackets, aren't there? But I think that was a really great demonstration of how this parliamentary process and going through the readings can actually allow considered debate, discussion, and actually allow parties to consider their position and change it. So, no surprise: ACT will be continuing to support Mr O'Connor's excellent member's bill. Again, I think a lot of credit should go to him for diligently bringing this through two parliaments, two select committees, and working away to make necessary changes and updates and improvements. I've got to say, I was lucky enough to be on the Justice Committee in this Parliament and Mr O'Connor would come along and make very constructive contributions. When he saw that there were some things that needed to be adjusted on the advice of officials or other submitters, he was very pragmatic and I think we worked through those issues in a very constructive way. I'm going to talk a bit about why I think this bill is important, because really it is extending New Zealand's duty of care to our children—and we take that very seriously—and actually extending that duty of care to other countries' children. I think that's a really important element. Again, Ms Paul actually talked about the kind of horrendous acts of sexual violence against children in New Zealand, and they are some appalling statistics—one in four girls and one in six boys are sexually abused before the age of 18. That is appalling and we must do more to address that. Again, I want to thank Ms Paul for saying that actually our criminal justice system isn't up to scratch. These are some of the issues that I know we're looking at in the Justice Committee. These assaults are really unacceptable, and what the register that we're now really extending overseas does is actually try to protect children by, obviously, registering offenders so we know where they are in our community in New Zealand. What we're doing with Mr O'Connor's bill is now extending that duty to other countries and really trying to provide useful information that may prevent sexual crimes against children in other countries. Also, other countries have already got legislation such as this, so I think it's important that New Zealand does its piece to actually update our international obligations. So, again, in Australia they have a similar law where each state and territory must report these details of offenders—where they are, and if they travel outside of Australia, permission is needed, and, of course, those people are tracked, similar to our bill. And then, obviously, in the United States, there are different laws, but again, one of them is the international Megan's Law, which is to prevent child exploitation by, again, requiring notification as people who are sex offenders travel outside the US. I also want to acknowledge Ms Paul's discussion around the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. I think that it is actually very important that we do acknowledge that the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act report does say that we are actually impinging on people's rights, but I think it's a really important process that we have in New Zealand where when a piece of legislation comes before our Parliament we get these New Zealand Bill of Rights Act reports, because it does allow us to see how a piece of legislation measures up against the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act but also allows this Parliament to balance the competing interests. That's what we're talking about here. There are the competing interests of ensuring that our children are safe and are protected from these paedophile offenders versus their rights. I think that's a really important discussion that we should have in the open. I think having a New Zealand Bill of Rights Act report like this available for each piece of legislation allows both this House and, obviously, the select committee which considered this bill to have that information. I think that's a really robust piece of our process that we can actually say, "Well, where does it make sense to impinge on people's rights in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act because it's actually for the greater good and it's going to protect people?" Again, just briefly turning to the bill. Again, it has been mentioned—this was obviously Mr O'Connor's bill. We obviously had an Amendment Paper from Erica Stanford which has been incorporated, making some useful changes around the inter-agency sharing of data and making sure that that was all linked up. I talked about some pragmatic changes in the select committee, one of those being around the commencement and just giving time for the police to make sure. Hopefully, when we pass this bill today in this House—yet to be seen, but if that does transpire, it certainly will with the support of ACT. I'm hopeful all the other parties are still on board—just allowing the police that time to make sure they have the processes in place. That was a request that they made and that we heard at the select committee and helpfully incorporated, I hope. There were, obviously, some other issues around retrospectivity, which, again, are covered both in the commentary and in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act report. But, again, that had to be designed this way because we wanted to make sure we obviously captured all of the people on the current register in New Zealand and made sure that they were the ones that we were wanting to continue to track, regardless of when they were added in time, and that these obligations that we're looking to place on them would be placed on them, rather than some loophole because of the time in which they were placed on the register. I want to finally just finish by making a few remarks about—and, again, I know, Mr O'Connor; I think this bill can do a few things. It can, obviously, protect children where the offender may be known to them, but we also have some appalling cases of child sex tourism where people are actually travelling outside of New Zealand's jurisdiction where they're closely monitored to maybe do illegal activities in other countries. Some statistics suggest that around 2 million children around the world are victims of sex tourism every year. That's pretty appalling. In Asia alone, we have some really appalling statistics, including children as young as six and younger being subject to this predator behaviour. In fact, if you're wanting to watch a bit of interesting documentary, the former host of To Catch a Predator, Chris Hansen, actually travelled to Cambodia and uncovered some of these horrific things that are happening in child sex tourism. His report is just really one of many that outlines this really hideous, disgusting, and vile trade that is taking place. Again, these acts against children are really appalling and we should do everything we can to stop them. This bill is a response to one MP seeing an issue, diligently fighting for it, being pragmatic, and actually extending New Zealand's care and protection for our own children to other countries' children. I really think that this is a great piece of legislation which does its small but important part to add to our laws that do protect our children. So, again, I want to thank Mr O'Connor for bringing this to the last Parliament and to this Parliament, sticking with it, sticking with these speeches and with the process, and, I think, delivering something very useful. Again, ACT will be voting in favour of this. I commend it to the House. Thank you. TANYA UNKOVICH (NZ First): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise today to take a call on this third reading of the Child Protection (Child Sex Offender Government Agency Registration) (Overseas Travel Reporting) Amendment Bill. Alongside my colleagues, from now on I will also refer to it only as the bill. This bill seeks to address an area of public safety that is incredibly important—of those of our most vulnerable in our society: our children—and is but one of the many reasons that New Zealand First will continue to support this bill. Now, the register that is being spoken of is a record of a range of up to date personal information about registered child sex offenders who are living in our community. This is a tool which helps police and corrections staff to monitor these people who have already offended in the past, and it does so with the aim of preventing reoffending, and also again keeping our children and our most vulnerable safe. Now, one of the purposes of this bill is to enhance these monitoring measures and also to regulate the overseas travel of anyone who is on the register. This bill proposes amendments to existing legislation which requires registerable offenders to provide additional information to the authorities before they travel overseas for more than 48 hours. Now, one of the benefits of the bill as it is written is that it aligns with reporting requirements for domestic and overseas travel. This will ensure consistency and coherence in monitoring the movements of these offenders. It also enhances collaboration between the New Zealand Police and the Customs Service. This will enable them to leverage their networks and their resources to protect our children even more from any potential risk posed by the offenders who are travelling abroad, and this will strengthen international efforts in this area. Now, New Zealand First, we support this bill for many, many reasons. One of them is because it upholds the principle of protecting the vulnerable in our society—vulnerable individuals. It ensures public safety and it also ensures effective enforcement of the current law. Now, we believe that supporting this bill will also acknowledge the importance of addressing a very difficult issue that exists, and that is of child sexual exploitation. Now this, sadly, does occur. By enabling the sharing and the coordination of the information between the relevant agencies, this will strengthen international efforts to combat child sex tourism. Now, as I've mentioned before while speaking on this bill, however, I feel it's important to comment again on it. Whilst it's important to note that a significant proportion of child sex offenders do not reoffend, it is very important to note that many still do when they have been released from prison. Now, due to the nature of this type of offence, if by chance during a temporary lapse of reason an offender reoffends and they commit yet another sexual offence, the consequences for the victim are by no means temporary. It causes emotional harm and physical harm. The suffering on the victim and on their families will continue for a lifetime. That's why it's so important that we continue to create awareness around this area to ensure we can do whatever we can to prevent it in the first place. If it was to happen, one offence could just be the beginning of another systemic family pattern of abuse. So anything that we can do to prevent that pattern from reoccurring is important. So this bill, as I've already mentioned, is going to be another measure to protect the most vulnerable who are in our society. Now, some may argue—and I've already mentioned this before, but what about the rights of the offender. They deserve a chance to rehabilitate and not live under a cloud of judgment. But what if by having these additional requirements is, in fact, a deterrent for them that makes them think twice during a temporary lapse of reason. It may just be the one thing that makes them go, "No." So as I've mentioned, due to the nature of the offence, any decision that is made in a split second can lead to irreversible consequences for both the victim and the offender. So it is possible, I believe, that these extra measures provided for in this bill could be the deterrent that they need to finally take responsibility for their actions and take ownership of their life which they have a second chance at. So in summary—I won't speak for too much longer—New Zealand First, we so boldly believe in public safety. It's a very important part of our principles, and especially the safety of our children, the most vulnerable in our society, the defenceless, and we do believe that it does outweigh the privacy or the equal protection of the sex offender. So that's why it is very important for us to continue to support this bill and we believe that it will be received very well and we commend it to the House. Thank you, Madam Speaker. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The next call is a split call. I call Mariameno Kapa-Kingi. MARIAMENO KAPA-KINGI (Te Pāti Māori —Te Tai Tokerau): Tēnā koe, Madam Speaker. I just want to share a little bit here around my own experience in this space. For a number of years, I was part of a specialist team that would interview children who were survivors of sexual assault and abuse. I was a counsellor in this work, as well, and a care and protection social worker, so I know stuff about this which I wish I never knew. Then I set about to teach children how to protect themselves in schools across the Eastern Bay of Plenty. We did a lot of work to educate—which is always a tricky matter, actually, for many, but mostly for our children, because they are the most vulnerable, but, in fact, if we give them the right tools in the right way, they get to understand how to protect themselves, actually. So I just want to make those comments—including a care and protection coordinator in a family group conference setting. Sadly, many more victims and survivors will never tell. They will not tell, terribly, because the trauma that is again rolled out over and upon them is, sadly, even worse than their—I mean, this might be a funny thing to say or a terrible thing to say, but many of them live and die with that trauma. So, yeah, I think we do have to get better at how we help and support our whānau to tell their story. The amendments to this bill will never undo the harm that has already transpired, and it will not heal our already effected tamariki, but it will work to protect. So mihi atu ki a koe, e Greg, nā tō kaha ki te mahi i ngā mahi ki tēnei wāhi nei. [So I salute you, Greg, your indefatigable efforts to do the necessary work here at this place.] The protection through the prevention of further harm to tamariki that may occur at the expense of already registered offenders who travel outside of Aotearoa—this I absolutely support, and so do we as the party: the protection of tamariki and their oranga. Prevention and protection are our key drivers, especially in the context of our mokopuna. Tamariki have in these last weeks sent a discourse in Parliament, as they do today, often illuminating colonial regimes and colour-blind theories masked under the term "democracy". This very discourse brought forth in the third reading of the Child Protection (Child Sex Offender Government Agency Registration) (Overseas Travel Reporting) Amendment Bill requires the recognition of our tamariki, in partnership with those outside of our shores. When we are willing to protect others, we must also be willing to protect ourselves and our own mokopuna. It is disappointing that the Government protection is only offered when so-called colour-blind theories are permitted under ill-advised definitions of "democracy". I intend to call out this Government on their inconsistencies when it comes to the care of tamariki. I do this as it is tamariki Māori who disproportionately suffer from this Government's failings. The current attempt to remove section 7AA from the Oranga Tamariki Act is yet another example of this. So how can we provide better care and protection of tamariki overseas and not do the same of our own? Perhaps it is the term "Māori" that Government are desensitised too. Should I say the "indigenous children of this country"? Would it resonate better with this House? Tamariki Māori who make up near 70 percent of those in State care are also victim to sexual crime and to abuse in care. What protection do they now have without the likes of section 7AA, without a Government who are willing to put protective legislation in place for others but not our own? Inconsistent care and protection of tamariki in and beyond this country are highlighted in this discussion today. [Bell rung] And there we go. I have mentioned prevention in this kōrero, but it feels almost reckless to use such a term in this space. This bill should inspire how prevention may present itself in other pieces of legislation and law that directly impact our tamariki. Better care and protection of our tamariki may then be realistic when given attention to prevent the real suffering endured here in Aotearoa. I want to make this discussion with my opening comments to say: I get this take [topic], I understand it deeply—and more than most, probably; probably similar to Greg—and I'm talking to this and supporting it but saying: what about our mokopuna Māori and what about 7AA? In that context, it's screwing it up majorly, right? I commend your mahi and this take to the House. Tēnā koe, Madam Speaker. KAHURANGI CARTER (Green): Madam Speaker, thank you. Today we are all here because we stand united in our pursuit of protection of children in Aotearoa and across the world, and we have to hold on to that unity and everything that unites us. The Greens know that our tamariki are our taonga. They are the future of our Aotearoa, and we must use all the knowledge and tools we have to protect our tamariki. We know that there is so much more that our Government can do, and must do, to protect children than just this bill. And, of course, all my learned colleagues here are invested and committed to Te Aorerekura—the all-Government, prevention-focused, Tiriti-centred, strength-based, community-led, and whole-whānau embedded strategy to eliminate violence over the next couple of generations. Again, we can hold on to the unity that everybody across Government believes in, Te Aorerekura, and all of the communities, all of the agencies, all of the experts who came together and collaborated to make this incredible document that will guide us. The Green Party remains strongly invested in that enduring work to ensure that children are safe. Now, before the committee of the whole House, we were informed member Erica Stanford's amendment to strengthen the bill and provide clear improvements to the bill were accepted. We were really happy to hear about this because at the Greens, we welcome robust and considered debate when we're making decisions, and our caucus was able to take those amendments and consider the arguments to change our position, which does leave our House united today. Everybody in this Chamber wants to protect children from any kind of harm. With these amendments, which clearly lay out how this bill will operate and be effective—basically allowing for more information sharing between Customs and Police—adds the substance needed for us to support the bill. The Police will now tell Customs when a child sex offender is travelling and Customs can use the resources and tools at their disposal to alert the other country or monitor the offender closely. This makes the bill more effective at achieving its intent to reduce harm and prevent the horror of child sex tourism. My colleague and I listened closely to the member's answers in committee of the whole House and heard arguments from across the House. Our caucus agreed to change our position to support, and we are satisfied with these amendments and we will be supporting this bill. In committee of the whole House, the member provided more information, particularly around rehabilitation. We know rehabilitation is a vital part of protecting children and ensuring members of society are functioning, and we have to believe that people can improve. We have to believe that people can get better, that they can become better versions of themselves and then make the world a better place. The Greens will always advocate to prevent violence and keep children safe. Kia ora. RIMA NAKHLE (National—Takanini): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I'd like to thank the House for the opportunity to say a few words in support of this bill, the Child Protection (Child Sex Offender Government Agency Registration) (Overseas Travel Reporting) Amendment Bill, in its third reading. This amendment bill is a member's bill, and just for the benefit of friends listening in and my darling husband in the gallery, a member's bill is a bill that is introduced by a non-Minister and, essentially, deals with a matter of public policy. In this instance, this bill is in the name of Mr Greg O'Connor, the member of Parliament for Ōhāriu, and this member's bill, I believe, is a really good example of what often is the case with member's bills where they identify an aspect of an established law that is in need of amending for reasons that can cover a large range of scenarios. In this instance, the ultimate goal of this amendment bill is to protect children globally from sex offenders by making our own local laws more stringent. What a noble goal this is, where we acknowledge, as lawmakers, that the responsibility to protect children—pure, beautiful, innocent children—is one that is not confined to the parameters of our country, but, rather, transcends borders and jurisdictions. I thank the member in charge of this bill—Mr O'Connor—and I also thank the Hon Erica Stanford, if I may, in her absence— DEPUTY SPEAKER: You don't refer to her absence, but you can thank her. RIMA NAKHLE: Oh, is that how I should—I had been meaning to look that up. Thank you, Madam Speaker. I thank the Hon Erica Stanford for having the courage and the insights and the foresight but also the passion to initiate the changes needed to achieve this goal. I'm sure many of us in the House are blessed with nieces and nephews, and I remember when my first niece was born, in 2008. I was allowed to go into the nursery where she was lying there, and I get a little bit moved when I think of that memory because I looked at her and I marvelled at her beauty. Then, not long after I had acknowledged that this is my niece and that I actually had a niece, I just thought that if anyone ever tries to do anything like this sort of sexual violation against her—yeah, I don't know what person I'd become. That moment really solidified for me how important it is to protect children from sexual violation, and this is why I feel extremely strongly about this amendment bill that's before the House today. Indeed, I reflect on times when I'm with my nieces and nephews, and it's not uncommon that we'll be in a very happy situation, laughing—with me being one of their favourite aunties—but then, my mind drifts again to ask how do I protect them from sexual offenders. So thank you, Mr O'Connor and Erica Stanford, for bringing this amendment to the House. A recap: this bill seeks to amend the principal Act, the Child Protection (Child Sex Offender Government Agency Registration) Act—which is the long name that I just mentioned earlier—and the proposed amendment is, essentially, centred around requirements to make child sex offenders provide additional and specific information to the police 48 hours before travelling for overseas travel that is for more than 48 hours. The current situation we are focusing on is in a few sections of the Act here. Section 21 requires, currently—without the amendments—that registered sex offenders advise the registrar of their travel plans if they are travelling overseas for more than 48 hours, with the dates that they are leaving and returning, but not the name of the country of destination, and section 22 requires that registered sex offenders advise the registrar if the date of their return to New Zealand changes while they're overseas. The status quo covers the basics in overseas travel reporting, but it does not go anywhere near as far enough in ensuring that police have extensive details of the travel plans of the registered sex offender. So this amendment bill, when passed—and I really would love to acknowledge our Green colleagues in the House for the change of heart that they've had, and I thank them for sharing the process of that thought. This amendment bill will mandate a number of specific requirements. One is that for each address at which the offender intends to stay while overseas, they must provide those details. They must also provide the date on which the offender intends to travel to the country and the date on which the offender intends to travel out of that aforementioned country, and where the offender doesn't intend to return to New Zealand, the name of the country where the offender intends to reside must also be disclosed. The passport number, the place of issue, the date of expiry of each valid passport held by the offender—specific and extensive details. This bill will also amend section 43 of the principal Act to allow for information sharing, as we heard earlier, between Government agencies in the interests of public safety so that the whereabouts of the offender can be monitored and the personal information given by the offender can be verified. The risk that the offender may commit further sexual offences against children can in this way be better managed, and the risks to public safety are also better managed. Again, I would like to stress that these changes are deliberate and specific. Now, in the few minutes that I have left, I would also like to touch upon a point of contention with regard to this amendment bill, and throughout the course of the various stages of this amendment bill, the debates and the consideration—and I've been privileged to be part of these stages as one of the members of the Justice Committee. Here, I'd like to acknowledge our chair, my colleague and my friend James Meager, who is, I believe, doing an exceptional job as chair. So, in these various stages, we've heard the cry of some that oppose this bill because it, apparently, infringes on the human rights of registered sex offenders, of sex predators. These arguments have been based around the section 7 report of the Attorney-General to the Justice Committee commenting that this bill appears to be inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act on several fronts—namely, these fronts: the right of an offender to benefit from the lesser penalty where penalties change, and the right to freedom from double jeopardy and retrospectivity. Now, these considerations were discussed at length and they have been discussed at length, we learnt, by successive Justice Committees, and, indeed, I have thought about them at length because human rights is very important and I think they should be important to every single person that is part of this great House. But, time and time again, I came to the same conclusion that our Justice Committee also reached in the select committee report on the amendment bill, and that is—and I quote—"additional reporting requirements that the bill proposes do not significantly increase the limitations placed on individuals who are subject to registration." I tautoko this and I agree with this wholeheartedly, and, as I said, that's the conclusion I came to, time and time again, because, as mentioned by many a great speaker before me, we need to do everything we can to protect children. I wish we could do more—absolutely. But this is one step in protecting our children from the abhorrent nature of sexual violation. Ninety percent of the sexual abuse that takes place in New Zealand is perpetrated by people that are known to the victim. This amendment bill is needed, especially where registered sex offenders are travelling under the ostensible guise of—a big example—visiting family. Sexual abuse, as I mentioned in my former speech, is a different level of abhorrence, and I'm so quietly pleased that we've come together as a House to commend this bill. Thank you. Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Kia ora, Madam Speaker. It's a pleasure to speak on this bill. and my congratulations to the member for both getting this bill drawn and to this late stage in the House. I know that he would want me to thank everyone who's worked on this bill, but especially the officials. I think he might have been a bit flustered because he was so busy discharging other duties and rushing to his seat, that it might have slipped his mind, so I'm passing on that message from Greg O'Connor that he's very grateful, as am I and all of the committee members, for the diligence and assistance of officials advising us on this bill. I do, really, only want to touch on one aspect, because other speakers have very articulately gone over the nature of the bill and exactly what it does, and its objectives of extending the register to the movements of child sex offenders to overseas travel and the details of that. But I do want to just touch on the human rights aspects, because I do think this House should absolutely pause when the Attorney-General says, "The proposed measure, in my independent and considered opinion, is not a justified limitation on human rights.", and it should be only with the utmost gravity that this House puts that to one side and adopts that measure anyway. As the member who just spoke, Rima Nakhle, noted, the key consideration there was the suggestion that for a person who has been convicted and sentenced, a harsher sentence is now being imposed, but because there is now this additional measure that didn't exist when the crime was committed. I think that there is something we need ,examine there. One of the observations or one of the statements or reasons of the Attorney-General in the report was that there is actually modest evidence of a strong link between prevention of child sex offending and this register, and I think that's a gap that we need to fill. We should only infringe on liberties where there's evidence that we're doing the right thing. I understand that Waikato University is doing work on that; I look forward to seeing that. But, I guess, the reason I am happy to see this bill progress is because I do believe it will prevent harm. But I think we need to carefully examine—and I know I'm disagreeing with the Supreme Court on this, and I don't do that lightly. The Supreme Court did find in, I think it's, "D" v Attorney-General, that the child sex offender is part of a punishment or a penal regime. I think we need to kind of reframe what goes on in the Corrections framework, because some of what Corrections do is punishment. It's that kind of marking out conduct as entirely unacceptable and imposing things like imprisonment or home detention or whatever to say, "That's so bad, we're going to make your life more uncomfortable." Certainly the purpose of this register is not punitive; whatever the court sentenced, that has happened. This is to protect children from people, and that's the primary objective, but also to put a framework around offenders and their behaviour—in a sense, protect them from themselves. I think we need to recognise that as abhorrent as the historic offending is, what we're really doing here is saying, "We want to not have future victims." It's not about saying, "Because you were a bad person, we're going to make your life more uncomfortable." In fact, I hope the police make this as easy and seamless as possible, so that it is complied with absolutely by child sex offenders who then recognise that their movements are monitored in some degree and don't put themselves in situations where other people are at risk. The outcome of that is that there will be fewer victims of child sex offending—fewer children who are victims of sexual offending. That's a good thing. That's not part of a punitive regime; that's part of a careful community that protects its children, and also, at the same time, assists people with problems to not offend. I think that's how we need to reframe some of what we're doing in Corrections, is to say that there's always going to be a punishment aspect, but let's not conflate punishment with protection and improvement of everyone's lives. That is why I am very happy to support this bill. I did want to talk about the rights issue because I certainly didn't want it to be glossed over, and I wanted to make it absolutely clear that the Attorney-General's view is not lightly disregarded but it was very carefully thought about at committee and, of course, I'm sure it will be considered by other members in this House as well. Kia ora, Madam Speaker. PAULO GARCIA (National—New Lynn): Thank you, Madam Speaker. We are in a situation where sex offending against children is rampant, it is global, and it takes very many forms, from organised and sophisticated large-scale planned offending, which surely feeds into individual offending, to offenders who are opportunistic because they find themselves in close proximity to their victims for some reason, maybe by authority or by relationship, being a family member or being in a relationship with a family member in charge of children. It is fitting that the member across the House Greg O'Connor, having been in law enforcement himself and having had a lot of experience dealing with situations like this, is the member who brings this amendment bill into the House. Surely, he would have seen the very situations where offenders would have disappeared into the darkness when they moved to travel overseas. This gap is what has been identified—surely through experience and the knowledge of what happens in this space of child sex offending. This is the very gap that this bill seeks to close down—that when offenders travel overseas, they walk into the darkness and become invisible. So the specific requirements of the amendment bill aim to keep registered offenders in the light and visible. There are three main steps. Additional information—when offenders intending to return to New Zealand leave the country, they must report where they're going, where they will be living, and when they will be coming back or departing from the country that they are headed to. Offenders must also provide information if they do not intend to return to New Zealand—where they will be staying. The information that offenders carry that help identify them will need to be provided—the passport, the addresses, the full names, place of issue, expiry—so their identities are able to be kept in the light. It is a great advantage to offenders that after they leave, they are not able to be followed or sought, and that brings opportunities for them to reoffend. Child sex offending is known to be very difficult to reform, and with the opportunity of being in proximity to someone else, particularly in cases—which the member across the House Greg O'Connor has identified—where family travel to be with family overseas, then the opportunity for offending continues. In New Zealand, we want to be able to show our determined effort to prevent child sex offending and to put in place protection measures in this country that will help other countries prevent harm as well. So the bill seeks to ensure that we in New Zealand demonstrate our determination to protect children from sexual exploitation—by highlighting this move to reach out and be ready to provide information that is critical to protecting other children overseas. It establishes our clear intent to collaborate and cooperate with overseas jurisdictions to prevent offenders from walking into the darkness and disappearing. With this bill, we also demonstrate our dedication to democracy and providing that extra protection that our day and time allows us to provide—so innovation and smart use of information and technology, which may not have been available in former times. The bill tracks offenders movements in ways that we could not have done before. Armed with this new technology and data sharing, we want to show the world that we are determined to stop or make it more difficult for offenders to keep on offending in other jurisdictions. We also show the world that we are very concerned about our children and the safety of other children in the world. The strict reporting requirement of the bill shows that we hold zero tolerance on child exploitation, and that we are prepared to assist other law enforcement in other countries where we know our registered child offenders may be travelling to. So it is essential and natural for us to be concerned about others. Again, the hideousness of the possibility of a child sex offender who has offended against children in his proximity, possibly within his family, travelling overseas to be with other family members is a frightful concept that we must exert every effort to ensure that we do not allow this to progress as easily as it could have in the past, without the smart data and technology that we can use in terms of information sharing. With the awareness that this law change could impinge on human rights of registered sex offenders in terms of exposing them to more punishment, there have been steps proposed and accepted by the Justice Committee to ensure that all registered offenders are aware that this bill is going to happen. So there will be a delayed commencement time to allow police to fully inform everyone affected by this change. By allowing the bill to explicitly retroactively affect all registered offenders, there can be no one staying in the darkness. We commend this bill to the House. DEPUTY SPEAKER: This call is a split call—Dr Tracey McLellan. Dr TRACEY McLELLAN (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker, I think the House is relatively in tune tonight, and all of the previous contributions have clearly outlined what this bill does. So I'm not going to take my full allocation—I think it would be quite fitting and a nice gesture for this bill to pass its third reading before we hit the dinner break. So in acknowledgement of that, can I just say a couple of quick remarks. I too, like many other people, would like to acknowledge Greg O'Connor, affectionately known as "Greg O", who has done a lot of work to ensure that this bill has been shepherded with very much care through this process. As has been said, it's only a small change, but it is definitely impactful and that is not to be overlooked. I think that's testament to the breadth of knowledge that the member who has shepherded this bill through has via his professional life, and the acumen to recognise when something small can be changed that makes an impactful difference and can actually therefore prevent harm. So I heard Mr O'Connor mention earlier on that this is the first member's bill to pass through the 54th Parliament, so I'd like to acknowledge again the work that he's done to ensure that that has happened. Also the submitters, the officials, the two Justice Committees who have done the work. I think one of the enduring pieces of contributions that were made tonight was a reminder to us that sex offenders almost exclusively, but certainly to a high proportion, are known. That's not the "stranger danger" that we may have grown up with a couple of decades ago. It's something that, when we acknowledge that, we can make those small changes and we can do something that is meaningful and prevents harm. So I have no hesitation in commending this book to the House. GRANT McCALLUM (National—Northland): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It's a privilege to rise to speak on this bill, and I'd like to commend Greg O'Connor and the Hon Erica Stanford for the work they've done in getting this bill to the House to date and to the stage that we have. I listened with a great interest to Greg O'Connor's contribution to this bill. Given his background in law enforcement, he obviously brought a lot of knowledge and experience to the table. To me, it's also great to see the level of unity across the House on this occasion. It's relatively rare that we get everybody agreeing, and it's just great to see that the Greens have reconsidered their position and have rejoined and made it unanimous. This helps send a strong message that New Zealand takes its responsibilities in terms of child sex offenders very seriously. One of the things that I don't think has been touched on quite as much tonight has been the whole aspect of the victims in these horrible crimes. Because this is one of the things we're trying to prevent—more victims. I know somebody who in their younger years was affected by an offender. To this date it still effects them; it impacts them regularly. You see it when they bring it up and you see it in things and the way they deal with issues and the way they deal with life. So anything we can do—which is what this bill helps to do—to help prevent any further sex offending is, I think, to be taken; it would be really well accepted and I think it's a really good thing. So I think, having made that point and saying what a great thing it is that we do this—[refers to notes] getting lots of instruction here—and the importance of getting this right so that we have people when they travel, we know where they are and where they're going is really important. With that, then, I'd like to commend this bill to the House. HELEN WHITE (Labour—Mt Albert): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I will also take a short call because I would like my friend Greg O'Connor's bill to go through tonight. What I would like to do is acknowledge that those stories that have come up from people in the House who've had a direct and personal connection with this issue will be the tip of the iceberg. This is a significant issue that basically takes away many children's childhoods. It is really nice in this bill to see and acknowledge that that is not something that we can "other" when it comes to places like Thailand and all the places that people go to use children in this way. So I am extremely pleased to see this. I've recently spent a journey with Greg—a bus journey—and it's always interesting, but it's also rather traumatic because you hear many, many a story of the real life of somebody who has earned the right to be here through doing very hard work and actually having to face the reality of evil. It is something that we can never forget about. We might want to, but we cannot forget about it. So I thank him for putting such a pragmatic bill to this House that will hopefully help some of the children that are in the world. It will not be the only step that we have to take. I would love to see, in the Budget tomorrow, some money go into making our net safer for our children and stopping a lot of the stuff that comes into New Zealand by putting money into the safety of our net—and let's see whether it happens; it's the kind of thing that should be cross-party. I thank the Greens for coming around on this bill and supporting it. I think it's very significant that we are doing this in a way that is united across this House. It shows that we take the impact on children of this kind of behaviour extremely seriously, and it's been a sober and interesting debate. I thank you all. JAMES MEAGER (National—Rangitata): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Well, it appears that the only thing standing between this bill passing before the dinner break and putting Mr O'Connor through an hour-and-a-half of the most heightened tension we've seen all day will be how long I take in my speech. So in the interests of collegiality and Kumbaya and the avoidance of future terrifying bus trips with Greg O'Connor—through Mākara or Ōhāriu, wherever we're going—I will keep my contribution relatively targeted and timely so that Greg O'Connor can celebrate what is a very, very good bill and an excellent effort by the member to progress it through the House. I had a whole list of acknowledgements here for you, Mr O'Connor, but I wanted to say that I think the way you turned up to our select committee and the way you contributed, and your knowledge in this area is just exceptional. I'm not sure if you can refer to the absence of yourself, but I was at one of my select committees noting the start of the debate in the third reading, and I noted that Mr O'Connor outlaid his history and his experience in this area and the fact that he had established child sex abuse teams in Masterton as part of his career and that he has one of the most lengthy and storied histories in this area. So it's only appropriate that it falls to a member like him to not only bring this bill before the House and see it pass through, but also to do it in a way where he has articulated a purpose of the bill—which is to protect children—and advocate for that purpose so strongly that he has convinced other members across the House to change their position. I want to acknowledge the members of the Green Party, Tamatha Paul and Kahurangi Carter, for their decision to listen to the submissions, to hear the arguments, to review the evidence, and to balance that against the strongly held views of their party and their principles, and to, I guess, come to the conclusion that, on balance, it is a bill worth supporting. So that's a testament to the member and a testament to how the select committee process and how Parliament can work and how we can tease it out in the committee stage. Can I also just acknowledge the work of the Justice Committee? We are, of course, known as the "busy and effective Justice Committee", and it's nice to see one of our bills out of the room onto the floor of the House and hopefully passed into law. One down, only about 11 to go. So Greg O'Connor, if you're ever looking for some spare time to fill on a Thursday, you're more than welcome to join us again for one of the many pieces of legislation we'll be debating over the next 2½ years. Look, I just wanted to touch on a couple of other contributions by members in the time we've got remaining—mainly the contribution by Mariameno Kapa-Kingi, who talked about her own history in this area. I want to reflect on some of the work that I've done as counsel in the royal commission into abuse and some of the horrific stories that I've been privy to and I've heard about child abuse—and the realisation that it is not, as we've been taught growing up, "stranger danger". It is often those that we know and we love who are the ones who are committing abuse. That is what this bill is designed to do: it is designed to make sure that those travelling overseas—we are aware of where they're going and we are aware of the situation they're putting themselves into and that we are putting the interests of the children in those potential locations first. So it's a very good day for Mr O'Connor; it's a very good day for the people of Ōhāriu, who get to see the member pass a bill into law. But it's also a very good day for the children of New Zealand, who can add one small but significant protection to the list of protections that we provide in our statute books. So saying that, I will very happily, on behalf of the National Party, and, if I can say, on behalf of the Justice Committee, commend the bill to the House. Motion agreed to. Bill read a third time. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The House is now suspended for the dinner break. The committee will resume after the dinner break. Sorry, I forgot to call on members' order of the day No. 2. That will be the committee stage after the dinner break. Thank you. Sitting suspended from 5.59 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.