Tuesday, 23 July 2024 - Volume 776 Sitting date: Tuesday 23 July 2024 TUESDAY, 23 JULY 2024 The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m. KARAKIA/PRAYERS SPEAKER: Almighty God, we give thanks for the blessings which have been bestowed on us. Laying aside all personal interests, we acknowledge the King and pray for guidance in our deliberations, that we may conduct the affairs of this House with wisdom, justice, mercy, and humility for the welfare and peace of New Zealand. Amen. SPEAKER'S STATEMENTS Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand—Darleen Tana SPEAKER: Members, under Standing Order 36(1)(c), I've been advised by the Green Party musterer that the party's parliamentary membership has changed and that Darleen Tana is no longer a member of the Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand for parliamentary purposes. Accordingly, under Standing Order 35(5), Ms Tana is, from 6 July 2024, regarded as an independent member for parliamentary purposes. URGENT DEBATES DECLINED Minister for Resources' Statement—Meeting with Mining Industry Representatives Ombudsman's Findings—Associate Minister of Health Withholding Official Information SPEAKER: I've received a letter from the Hon Megan Woods seeking to debate under Standing Order 399 the Minister for Resources' statement about a meeting with representatives of the mining industry. This is a particular case of recent occurrence for which there is ministerial responsibility. However, it does not meet the threshold for urgency to warrant the setting aside of the business of the House. It's a matter that could be pursued through oral questions, or, if the member thinks the House is being deliberately mislead, it's a matter of privilege. I also received a letter from the Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall seeking to debate the Ombudsman's finding about the Associate Minister of Health the Hon Casey Costello withholding official information. The urgent debate is a way of holding the Government to account for an action for which it is responsible. It is not a vehicle for addressing matters that are the responsibility of the Speaker, such as a report by an Officer of Parliament. The applications are therefore declined. PETITIONS SPEAKER: Members, we come now to petitions, papers, and select committee reports. There are a total of 82 of them and I ask for your forbearance as the Clerk needs to read them all. CLERK: Petition of Ann Chapman requesting the House amend the Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Act 2004 to abolish the 10-year storage time frame Petition of Wayne Jessop requesting that the House bring about a law change so that any family members or friends can be charged with a crime for refusing to cooperate with police in the investigation of a murdered child Petition of Shubhanyu Chandra requesting that the House cancel regulations that implement a ban on phones in secondary schools Petition of Captain William Stafford requesting that the House declare New Zealand a nation of armed neutrality Petition of Richard Capie requesting that the House ensure that a select committee has an opportunity to consider the final list of projects for addition to Schedule 2 of the Fast-track Approvals Bill Petition of Carl Smith requesting the House require Oranga Tamariki to remove all information it holds about people who have been a child through State care and are now adults Petition of Nick Ruane requesting that the House ensure that disability funding follows the Enabling Good Lives principles Petition of Health Consumer Advocacy Alliance requesting the House establish a patient safety commissioner Petition of Zane Allan requesting the House legislate to prohibit any present and future geoengineering and weather modification in New Zealand Petition of Aaron Hendry requesting that the House shall not pass the Ram Raid Offending and Related Measures Amendment Bill Petition of Paul Barton requesting that the House request the Minister of Health designate motor neurone disease as a notifiable disease Petition of Casey Regtien requesting that the House require pet cats and dogs be desexed Petition of Benjamin Plows-Kolff requesting that the House urge the Government to create a fairer regulation system for smaller food businesses Petition of Leonie Morris requesting that the House urgently add stalking to the 1961 Crimes Act. POINTS OF ORDER Correspondence with Speaker—Conduct of Member Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Deputy Prime Minister): Point of order. Mr Speaker, reluctantly I raise the issue of having written to you 11 days ago about the behaviour of a member of Parliament for the Labour Party. We understand that that was referred to that member, who has yet not replied to you. We'd like to be brought up to date as to what's going on. SPEAKER: Yes, I have had discussions with that member and there will be a reply and I will rule on that very serious allegation. Rt Hon Winston Peters: When? SPEAKER: By the end of the week. Rt Hon Winston Peters: That's a long time. SPEAKER: Yeah, well, it's a long time for some, but for others it's a reasonable time to contemplate a serious matter. Speaker's Ruling—Urgent Debates Declined Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the Opposition): Point of order. Just reflecting on the ruling that you made at the beginning, and I wanted to consider it before raising a point of order immediately, you've indicated that because the Ombudsman is an officer of Parliament that therefore that's a matter of responsibility for the Speaker. But the House has routinely, in the past, on several occasions, debated using the urgent debate procedure reports that have been produced by the Auditor-General, who was also an Officer of Parliament. I just wonder whether you could reflect on that a little more, because I think if you were to rule that because a report has been produced by an Officer of Parliament that it cannot be the subject of an urgent debate, then you're actually shutting down what has in the past been quite an important source of material that has generated urgent debates in the House. Rt Hon Winston Peters: If I could be helpful here—it happens to be a circumstance of 8 September 2023 when the Chief Ombudsman ordered Mr Hipkins to apologise. No urgent debate happened as a consequence of that, so let's just get on with it. SPEAKER: Look, I think if the Leader of the Opposition would like to go back and read the actual document that was sent to me, he'll note that it requested a debate on the Ombudsman's decision. So it's a technical point. You are right that there should be an avenue in Parliament for matters that are raised by the Ombudsman to be debated, but not the report itself, and that is the fine distinction. PAPERS, SELECT COMMITTEE REPORTS, AND INTRODUCTION OF BILLS SPEAKER: Introduction of papers. CLERK: Government Response to: Petition of Focus on Iran Revision Bill Programme 2024 to 2026. 2024 Statements of Corporate Intent for: AgResearch Ltd Airways Corporation of New Zealand AsureQuality Electricity Corporation of New Zealand Institute of Environmental Science and Research KiwiRail Holdings Kordia Group Landcare Research Ltd Landcorp Farming Meteorological Service of New Zealand National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research New Zealand Forest Research Institute New Zealand Railways Corporation New Zealand Institute for Plant and Food Research Quotable Value Transpower New Zealand 2024/25-2027/28 Statements of Intent for: Crown Infrastructure Partners Crown Regional Holdings Education Payroll Financial Markets Authority Outdoor Access Commission Natural Hazards Commission Real Estate Authority Reserve Bank of New Zealand Taumata Arowai WorkSafe New Zealand New Zealand Trade and Enterprise Statement of Intent 2022-26 amendment notification 2023/24 Statement of Performance Expectations for Crown Irrigation Investments 2024/25 Statements of performance expectations for: Callaghan Innovation Crown Infrastructure Partners. Crown Irrigation Investments Crown Regional Holdings Education New Zealand Education Payroll Environmental Protection Authority External Reporting Board Financial Markets Authority Government Superannuation Fund Authority Climate Change Commission Outdoor Access Commission Kiwi Group Capital and subsidiaries Natural Hazards Commission New Zealand Green Investment Finance New Zealand Qualifications Authority New Zealand Trade and Enterprise Public Trust Office Radio New Zealand Real Estate Authority Research and Education Advanced Network New Zealand Reserve Bank of New Zealand Southern Response Earthquake Services Taumata Arowai Retirement Commission Television New Zealand and subsidiaries WorkSafe New Zealand. SPEAKER: Those papers are published under the authority of the House. Look, due to the points of order being taken earlier, I've neglected to say, post the petitions, 14 petitions have been presented to Parliament and that those petitions stand referred to the Petitions Committee. The select committee reports have been delivered for presentation. CLERK: Reports of the Education and Workforce Committee on the review briefings on the 2022/23 Annual Review of: Education New Zealand Education Payroll Ltd Network for Learning Ltd. Reports of the Finance and Expenditure Committee on the: Local Government (Water Services Preliminary Arrangements) Bill Reserve Bank of New Zealand, Monetary Policy Statement, May 2024. Report of the Intelligence and Security Committee on the 2024/25 Estimates for Vote Communication Security and Intelligence, and Vote Security Intelligence. Reports of the Justice Committee on the Gangs Legislation Amendment Bill. Reports of the Petitions Committee on the petitions of: Christopher MacDonald Paul Fisher Ranjith De Silva. Report of the Primary Production Committee on the Resource Management (Extended Duration of Coastal Permits for Marine Farms) Amendment Bill. SPEAKER: The bills are set down for second reading. The reports of the Education and Workforce Committee and the report on the Monetary Policy Statement are set down for consideration. The Clerk has been informed of the introduction of a bill. CLERK: Secondary Legislation Confirmation Bill, introduction. SPEAKER: The bill is set down for first reading. ORAL QUESTIONS QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS Question No. 1—Finance RAWIRI WAITITI (Co-Leader—Te Pāti Māori): Point of order, Mr Speaker. Our primary question relates to the Government's responsibility to upholding Te Tiriti o Waitangi. It was intended for the Prime Minister, as he's responsible for the Government, which is accountable to Te Tiriti o Waitangi. It has been transferred to Tama Potaka, as the Minister for Māori Crown Relations. Our question makes no reference to Māori Crown relations—negotiations nor settlements. Te Tiriti o Waitangi is the constitutional framework in which the Government exists; therefore, we are requesting that our primary question be retransferred to the Prime Minister, as it was originally submitted. SPEAKER: Well, the issue of the transference or otherwise of questions—in fact, the issue of who answers the question in oral question time is entirely a matter for the Government. Standing Orders makes that very clear. In this case, the Government have determined that the best person to answer it is the Hon Tama Potaka. CATHERINE WEDD (National—Tukituki): Thank you, Mr Speaker. My question is to the Minister of Finance. What recent reports has she seen on the economy? Rawiri Waititi: Point of order, Mr Speaker. Just in your ruling—I'm not going to question your ruling— SPEAKER: No, no, can I just be clear with you— Rawiri Waititi: —but I do take it to the fact that Tama Potaka is not here to answer that question. So who best, after Tama Potaka, on Treaty issues, is the best to answer it on behalf of the Government? SPEAKER: Well, two things—two things. First, it was not a ruling; it was an upholding of Standing Orders. The second upholding of Standing Orders was it is not appropriate for members to refer to the absence of other members. They may be detained for some short period of time. This is a question that's later in the day. It still remains the responsibility of the Government to determine who answers any question that is asked on any day—that's Standing Orders. The member is welcome to come to the Standing Orders Committee and begin a change to that if he thinks the Parliament is prepared to go along with it. 1. CATHERINE WEDD (National—Tukituki) to the Minister of Finance: What recent reports has she seen on the state of the economy? Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance): Last Wednesday, Statistics New Zealand released the latest inflation figures. Members will know that New Zealand has been through a cost of living crisis in recent years, with inflation— Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Staying higher for longer. Hon NICOLA WILLIS: —being over 7 percent for most of 2022, when I recall the member was the Prime Minister. The latest figures show annual Consumers Price Index inflation falling from 4 percent in the March quarter to 3.3 percent in the June quarter, and quarterly inflation easing from 0.6 percent to 0.4 percent. At 3.3 percent, annual inflation is the lowest it has been for three years, far lower than under the previous Government. Catherine Wedd: How did inflation compare to the market's expectations? Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, inflation came in lower than most forecasters expected. It is firmly on a downward trajectory, although it is still just outside the target band of 1 to 3 percent. A lot of the unexpected weakness in inflation came from tradeable goods and services, with prices actually falling in the quarter. Non-tradeable inflation is proving stickier, however, with some large increases in items such as insurance and local body rates. Catherine Wedd: Where will inflation and interest rates go from here? Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, the market's expectation and the Reserve Bank's expectation is that inflation will fall within the 1 to 3 percent target range this calendar year. When the Reserve Bank considers inflation pressure has declined sufficiently, it will begin to cut interest rates. The timing of that is a matter for the bank. Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Could have been there already. Hon NICOLA WILLIS: However, market pricing and most analysts expect cuts to start happening in this calendar year. The member opposite is interjecting to say that inflation could have come lower quicker—he's 100 percent correct. If he hadn't done so much more wasteful spending, we wouldn't be here now. Catherine Wedd: And why—[Interruption] SPEAKER: Just wait. OK. Catherine Wedd: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Why is it so important to have lower interest rates? Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Current high interest rates are necessary to get rid of inflation but are a handbrake on the economy. Together with tax relief—which is coming next week—lower inflation and lower interest rates will give New Zealanders the real cost of living relief they deserve. When interest rates fall, the economy will start recovering, which means higher incomes and more jobs. Question No. 2—Prime Minister 2. Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his Government's statements and actions? Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON (Prime Minister): Yes, and especially our actions to fix Health New Zealand after a botched merger from the previous Government. Kiwis deserve better results in health, which is exactly what we're focused on delivering. We're bringing back targets. We're making a significant investment in front-line services with a record $16.7 billion in this year's Budget, but that's not enough. Health New Zealand's overly centralised operating model and poor financial controls have plagued the organisation since its creation by the previous Government. We're taking decisive action to fix those problems by installing commissioners and giving them a mandate to deliver New Zealanders the healthcare that they deserve. Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Why did Cabinet approve halving the excise on heated tobacco products? Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: What we're interested in is making sure we've got practical tools that actually lower smoking rates, and that is one of those things. Heated tobacco products—if we can halve excise tax, we'll do a 12-month trial, see how it goes. Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Why didn't the Government announce its decision to halve excise on heated tobacco products? Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I think it has been announced, and I think you obviously know about it by asking the question. Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Why does the Government continue to act in such a secretive manner regarding cigarettes and tobacco, particularly after the Minister responsible was ordered by the Ombudsman to apologise for keeping tobacco and vaping policies secret? Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I think it's no secret that we are determined to deliver on Smokefree Aotearoa 2025 goals. We want to see lower rates of smoking across New Zealand. That's why we're very proud to see smoking go from 8.6 percent to 6.8 percent in the last 12 months, and we're going to continue that march. Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can I ask the Prime Minister: did the Government increase the excise tax on tobacco in December of last year, and who missed it? Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, we absolutely did, because we want to encourage people to move away from smoking, take up vaping, try heated tobacco products to lower smoking rates. Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Has Cabinet agreed in principle—[Interruption] SPEAKER: Just hang on. Just wait for a minute. OK. Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Has Cabinet agreed in principle to allow the sale of smokeless tobacco products such as snus and nicotine pouches; if so, why, and has that been announced? Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: What we're interested in is trying all practical tools that get people away from smoking. Heated tobacco products—we're open for people trying those products. If that gets them away from smoking, that's a good thing. Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Did the Ministry of Health advise the Government that heated tobacco products would likely compound existing concerns about youth uptake in addition to nicotine products, and that addiction rates for snus can be higher than for smoked tobacco products, and that snus can increase the risk of certain types of cancer? Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: What I'd just say to the member is we are determined to lower smoking rates across this country, and what we have done is made sure that by introducing vaping, as happened under the previous Government, we've seen a lot of people move away from smoking into vaping. We're making practical other alternative tools like heated tobacco products available at a lower excise rate. We're going to try it—do a 12-month trial and see how it goes. SPEAKER: Just before we do, I just want to say to the Government backbench, do not speak or make noises while a question is being asked. Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I didn't ask what the Government was trying to achieve; I asked whether the Ministry of Health had advised the Government that, basically, it could increase the uptake of tobacco, increase addiction to tobacco, and increase cancer. The Prime Minister hasn't addressed that. SPEAKER: Well, I actually didn't hear his answer because of some of the noise coming from the left of the House, but I'll ask the Prime Minister if he wants to add a bit to that answer he did give. Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I'll just say to the member, we receive a lot of advice from a lot of officials, but what we're very determined on is the outcomes and the results, which is lower smoking rates. Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can I ask the Prime Minister: did Action on Smoking and Health, the four-decade-old campaigners against tobacco smoking, support these measures, thereby enabling us to be able to claim, at the end of this year, "Smokefree 2025, but in 2024"? Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I think that would be absolutely fantastic if we achieve that. Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Which is a greater priority for the Government in its decision making around tobacco: advice from the Ministry of Health and health experts that the Government's approach would increase addiction—particularly amongst young New Zealanders—and increase the risk of certain types of cancer; or the lobbying of the tobacco industry? Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: What I'd say to that member, as I've said, is we are determined to deliver on an outcome of less daily smokers in New Zealand. We're doing that by encouraging vaping. We're doing that by introducing and supporting heated tobacco products to make sure that, actually, we can lower smoking rates. We've got a 12-month trial on it. We'll review it and see how it goes, but we're going to do everything to get an outcome. Question No. 3—Children 3. CAMERON LUXTON (ACT) to the Minister for Children: What recent announcements has she made about addressing youth crime? Hon KAREN CHHOUR (Minister for Children): Last Saturday, alongside Acting Prime Minister David Seymour, I launched the military-style academy pilot at Te Au Rere youth justice residence in Palmerston North. Ten young males will begin a pilot next Monday, 29 July. This is just one of a number of initiatives that this Government is undertaking to address the issue of serious youth crime and offending in New Zealand. The academy will involve a three-month residential stage in a youth justice residence, followed by a nine-month stage focused on supporting the young people to transition back into the community. Cameron Luxton: What will the young people do while on the programme? Hon KAREN CHHOUR: This programme is about giving these young people some structure and routine in their lives while also addressing their criminal behaviours. There will be physical activities as well as education and vocational training to prepare them for employment, and, perhaps most importantly, each young person will receive rehabilitation and therapeutic care, as required, based on an in-depth assessment of their needs conducted before starting the programme. Cameron Luxton: How does the military-style academy pilot differ from previous programmes to address youth crime? Hon KAREN CHHOUR: We have looked at the evidence from previous military-style programmes, both in New Zealand and internationally, to understand what will give these young people taking part the best chance for success, to turn their lives around and prevent them from reoffending. For example, lessons have been learnt from the Military-style Activity Camp programme, and the academy will have much more focus on assessing the young people before starting the programme, to ensure that their individual needs are addressed. There will be a focus on an improved transition back into the community, which will involve family being prioritised, where possible, from the very beginning. The research shows that when family are involved and supportive, the chances of success are much greater. Cameron Luxton: Will the military-style academy replace other youth justice interventions? Hon KAREN CHHOUR: No. The military-style academy won't replace other work going on within the youth justice sector. When fully established, the academy will be for a small cohort of young people who have two proven offences punishable by 10 years or more of imprisonment. This means it will be for young people where previous attempts at intervention such as youth aid, diversion, family group conference plans, fast-track, and supervision orders have not worked and these young people have continued to reoffend and create more victims. While these lower-level interventions I mention may work for most young people, this is about adding another tool to the tool kit to reduce crime and victims in our communities, so that New Zealanders can feel safe on the streets. Hon Willow-Jean Prime: What does she say to Cara Mackey, who survived abuse in care, who says, "The policies that are being implemented at the moment, such as the reintroduction of bootcamps, are recreating the context in which abuse in State care was allowed to flourish."? Hon KAREN CHHOUR: I would say to the young lady that I am sorry for what she has been through. I would also say to the young lady that we have taken learnings from what has happened in the past and we have put processes in place to make sure that those horrendous acts that have happened in the past will not continue. What we cannot continue to do is do nothing. These young people deserve better, and their families deserve better. Question No. 4—Health 4. Dr CARLOS CHEUNG (National—Mt Roskill) to the Minister of Health: What steps has the Government taken to improve the performance of Health New Zealand and to deliver better health outcomes for New Zealanders? Hon Dr SHANE RETI (Minister of Health): Yesterday, I announced the appointment of a commissioner to Health New Zealand, due to deteriorating performance issues. The issues at Health New Zealand stem from the botched health reforms undertaken over the last two years. This includes Health New Zealand currently overspending at the rate of approximately $130 million a month. This is unsustainable, despite our Government's record investment in health of $16.68 billion in this year's Budget. This is a significant intervention which we have not taken lightly, but nothing matters more to this Government than ensuring that our health system delivers better outcomes for all New Zealanders. Dr Carlos Cheung: What structural and cultural matters have been raised with the Minister, regarding Health New Zealand, that have led to his decision to appoint a commissioner? Hon Dr SHANE RETI: The issues at Health New Zealand stem from the mismanaged health reforms which resulted in an overly centralised operating model, limited oversight of financial and non-financial performance, and fragmented administrative data systems which were unable to identify risks until it was too late. Deciding to break up the district health boards and to reform the health system in the middle of a pandemic was always destined to be challenging, and the situation we're in right now is proof of that. The move to appoint a commissioner comes following concerns raised by numerous bodies, such as the Office of the Auditor-General, the Ministerial Advisory Committee for Health Reform Implementation, the Crown observer we appointed, and the new commissioner himself. We are not afraid to take this action. Dr Carlos Cheung: What will be the focus of the commissioner? Hon Dr SHANE RETI: I have made it clear in my letter of expectation to the commissioner that he is to work to ensure there's no interruption to delivery of services during this period of recovery and that Government targets and objectives are prioritised. We have appointed the commissioner to reduce the distance between the front line and decision making, streamline unnecessary back-office management and administration, and have a single point of accountability that is laser-focused on patient outcomes for New Zealanders. The commissioner will focus on de-bureaucratisation, putting patient outcomes first, and ensuring that local staff are involved in decision making. This is how we will drive better health outcomes for all New Zealanders. Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Which is correct: the Minister's statement yesterday on Checkpoint that overspend on back-office staff is the cause of Te Whatu Ora's deficits, or Margie Apa's statement today that rapid changes in the nursing workforce caused the deficit? Hon Dr SHANE RETI: What is correct is that an increase in back-office staff from 2018 to the current time, of 2,500, has contributed to the current financial position. Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Is he seriously saying that a six-year period's change in back-office staff suddenly impacted Te Whatu Ora's books in March of this year? Hon Dr SHANE RETI: I'm seriously saying that six years of that Government and two years of a botched reform is seriously affecting where we are now. Dr Carlos Cheung: How will the decision to employ a commissioner affect front-line staff? Hon Dr SHANE RETI: Disconnecting from the front line meant that Health New Zealand was challenged to align its resources with front-line needs. There was inadequate visibility of what was happening at the front line. So a significant part of what we're doing here is reconnecting with the doctors, nurses, allied health, and other parts of the health workforce. They know best what resources they need, what workforce they need, and how to best flex up and flex down to meet acute need. The commissioner has already taken steps to move decision making closer to the front line and local communities. This move will help to guide better outcomes for patients and empower local staff with decision-making authority. Question No. 5—Finance 5. Hon BARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana) to the Minister of Finance: Does she stand by her statement that "The Budget we delivered in May was a careful combination of investment in frontline services whilst also continuing to do our bit to keep inflation down"; if so, did she refuse any requests of funding for additional frontline services? Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance): In answer to the first part of the question: yes. And to the second point: there were some proposals from front-line agencies, mostly for capital expenditure, that were not progressed in Budget 2024. By definition, Budgets are about prioritising; they are not about funding everything an agency or Minister might propose. That would be fiscally irresponsible in the extreme. To put it into context for members: the last Labour Government, and the finance Minister thereof—known, I would say, for its excessive spending—even it refused some requests of funding for additional front-line services. Hon Barbara Edmonds: Did she decline a request for funding from Health New Zealand, Treasury, or the Minister of Health for front-line health services such as nurses? Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I make two points. The first is this: the decision that our Cabinet made was to put $1.4 billion in additional funding into Health New Zealand for this fiscal year, with additional funding every year thereafter totalling more than $16 billion over three Budgets. I would note that in coming to that figure of $1.4 billion, we had reference to the National Party fiscal plan, but, also, we did use as a comparison the Labour Party fiscal plan, which judged that— SPEAKER: No, no—that's enough. Hon NICOLA WILLIS: —$1.4 billion was the right amount. SPEAKER: No, that's enough. That sort of stuff can't keep on happening. The Government talks about its own programme. You can make historical comparisons, but not to that extent. Hon Barbara Edmonds: Does she agree with advice to Cabinet that Health New Zealand are applying "controls to stem the overspending in areas such as recruitment.", and does this hiring freeze cover front-line health workers like nurses? Hon NICOLA WILLIS: We have record numbers of nurses employed in our health system right now. That is the right thing, and that is why we have put more funding in, and that is to support our target to not only just put more money in like the last Government did but to actually drive better health outcomes. If that member wants to get up in this House and defend hiring hundreds and thousands more health bureaucrats while waiting lists got longer, she's welcome to do so. Hon Barbara Edmonds: Does she agree with the Association of Salaried Medical Specialists and the New Zealand Nurses Organisation, who said, "At absolute best, this is a 'treading water' budget - barely keeping the system's head above the surface. And the water level is rising."; or rather that doctors and nurses on the front line are wrong? Hon NICOLA WILLIS: No, I don't agree with that because our Government chose to put a record amount of additional funding into the health system because we value front-line health services. In fact, so determined were we to give Health New Zealand confidence about rising budgets into the future that we made pre-commitments against next year's Budget and the Budget after that as well. Hon Barbara Edmonds: Will she guarantee that the additional $1.4 billion of savings she wants will not come at the cost of front-line services to patients, given, when adjusted for inflation, total operating health expenditure only increased by 0.4 percent in her Budget? Hon NICOLA WILLIS: A few facts. The first is that that is the expectation that has been outlined by the Minister of Health in his letter of expectation to the commissioner in terms of front-line services not being impacted. Second, I would note that the latest OECD data shows New Zealand's health spending as a share of GDP is well above the OECD average; our spending per capita is also above the OECD average. In terms of inflation, I would invite the member to reflect on the fact that inflation forecasts have actually eased since she put together a fiscal plan with Labour, and the Budget funding for Health New Zealand cost pressures is higher than it would be if the numbers were recalculated today. Hon Barbara Edmonds: Why did her Budget barely provide enough to keep the lights on in health, insufficient funding to achieve at least four of the Government's five health targets, but prioritised a $2.9 billion tax break for landlords? Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Our Budget was very deliberate in the funding of core priorities because our priorities are the same priorities as New Zealanders'. They didn't want money going into wasteful projects like they did under the last Government—they wanted it going into front-line health services, education services, law and order, and that is where we directed precious additional dollars. It is fair to ask that member to depart from her high horse when she campaigned on exactly the same amount of funding for Health New Zealand as this Government delivered. Question No. 6—Prime Minister 6. CHLÖE SWARBRICK (Co-Leader—Green) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his Government's statements and actions? Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON (Prime Minister): Yes, and especially the steps that we are taking to get on top of inflation. From the moment we got into Government, we moved fast to get on top of the cost of living, reining in wasteful spending, slashing through the red tape, and taking costs off businesses. That is good news because our plan is starting to work: inflation is down to 3.3 percent, the lowest in three years; and more good news as personal income tax relief is coming next week for the first time in 14 years, as we campaigned on, letting Kiwis—hard-working Kiwis, the people that the Greens and Labour used to care about—get more of their own money. Chlöe Swarbrick: Is the Prime Minister proud— SPEAKER: Yeah, just don't get ahead of the House. Just wait for a minute. Chlöe Swarbrick: Is the Prime Minister proud that under his Government's draft emissions reduction plan, in less than a year in office, he's taken us off track to meet climate targets in 2035 and carbon neutrality by 2050? Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, what I am proud about is our commitment to delivering on net zero 2050. For that to happen, we need to balance the emissions budgets each and every time. Emissions budget 1 has been delivered, emissions budget 2 is being delivered, emissions budget 3 will be delivered, but we have time for that to happen, and the draft for a plan is out there. I encourage people to submit on it. Chlöe Swarbrick: Can the Prime Minister explain what "least cost" means in the context of the emissions reduction plan? Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Oh my goodness! We are wanting to make sure that we lower our emissions across New Zealand, and we are going to do everything we can to do that. What we are doing is doubling the amount of renewable energy to make sure that we can get things built faster. And I just encourage the Greens—I would love it if the Greens came out and actually cared about emissions, and actually support our fast-track legislation so we can double the amount of renewable electricity in this country and lower our emissions in the process. Please, please join us. Hon David Seymour: Is reducing emissions at least cost a great improvement on past policies where Governments sought to reduce carbon emissions at a cost many times greater than the emissions trading scheme (ETS) price, or, in other words, chose to take less carbon dioxide out of the air than they could have if they took a least-cost approach? Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I think reducing a tonne of carbon at the least cost is a good idea. Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: What is the ETS price? SPEAKER: We'll hear from Chlöe Swarbrick. Chlöe Swarbrick: Who exactly is this plan least cost for, given that his own document lays out that his Government's over-reliance on market mechanisms like the emissions trading scheme will cost the lowest-income New Zealanders four times as much money as the wealthiest in this country? Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I'd just say to that member, if you cared about working New Zealanders you would support our tax relief plan because that actually would support low-income working New Zealanders. But we are determined to deliver on our emissions commitments, and we'll continue to do so. Chlöe Swarbrick: Is the Prime Minister aware that the Ministry for the Environment and Treasury have estimated that this country is potentially liable for anywhere near $24 billion if we fail to meet our Paris Agreement obligations to 2030—that is 6 years from now—which his Government's decisions are demonstrably making it harder to do? Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I would just say to you: we're going to work incredibly hard to deliver on the emissions commitments that we have made. Nationally Determined Contribution 2030 is tough, but the previous administration signed us up to it and made it incredibly difficult and didn't deliver against it or make progress against it. We're going to work hard to do so. Chlöe Swarbrick: How exactly does the Government's strategy for credible markets supporting the climate transition align with the Government's Budget decision to shred funding for the emissions trading scheme and the recent failure of the ETS auction? Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I'd just say to the member, the member may not understand but what we are trying to do is to make sure that we deliver on our climate change emissions targets and goals. The way in which we go about it may be different from the previous administration, but we're going to do it our way to deliver those commitments. Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Does the Prime Minister believe the Government has a responsibility to honour Te Tiriti o Waitangi? Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Yes, it's our founding document. Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Will he then commit to voting against the proposed Treaty principles bill at second reading? Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Our position has been very clear on that, as discussed in our coalition agreements. Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Is it appropriate for a Minister who clearly has no understanding of Te Tiriti o Waitangi to be directing Pharmac to ignore the Treaty? Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: What is appropriate is that the Minister responsible for Pharmac is ensuring that every New Zealander can get access to drugs, irrespective of whether they're Māori or non-Māori. It's about making sure we open up and get more drugs. And what I'll just say is, compared to the previous administration, which failed to fund core Pharmac needs to the tune of $1.8 billion, we found 54 new medicines at $600 million to improve the lot of 175,000 Kiwis. I'd stand on our side to focus on improving health outcomes for Māori and non-Māori, and, particularly, the Pharmac Minister's doing a great job. Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Is repealing Māori wards, which the tribunal ruled breaches the principle of partnership and our right to representation, an example of his Government honouring Te Tiriti o Waitangi? Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I disagree with the characterisation of that question. All three parties in the coalition Government oppose the creation of Māori wards. We're making this a decision for local communities. And if they wish to create them, they can; if they don't, they won't. Rawiri Waititi: Are policies such as the Fast-track Approvals Bill, the Treaty principles bill, the removal of section 7AA from the Oranga Tamariki Act, the ministerial alienation of te reo Māori, and the disestablishment of the Māori Health Authority examples of the Government's honouring of Te Tiriti o Waitangi? Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, there was a lot in that question. What I'd say to you is, actually, the fast-track legislation I would encourage Te Pāti Māori to get behind as well, because we want better outcomes, we want to build things and actually grow our economy. Rawiri Waititi: How does he reconcile removing section 7AA from the Oranga Tamariki Act, which will alienate tamariki Māori from their whakapapa and lead to more harm in State care, with the report on historical abuse in State care being introduced this week? Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: We are prioritising the health and wellbeing of the individual child—that is the primary consideration with the change that has been made. Question No. 7—Transport 7. CARL BATES (National—Whanganui) to the Minister of Transport: What recent announcements has he made about fixing potholes? Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Transport): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Last week, I announced that the New Zealand Transport Agency is delivering on our commitment to introduce pothole repair targets that will ensure a greater number of pesky potholes on our State highways are identified and fixed within 24 hours. Our Government's pothole repair targets include 95 percent of potholes on high volume national and arterial State highways to be repaired within 24 hours of identification, and 85 percent of potholes on regional, primary collector, and secondary collector State highways repaired within 24 hours of identification. Under this Government, we're getting transport back to basics, maintaining our roads so Kiwis can get where they need to go quickly and safely. Carl Bates: How is the Government funding pothole repairs and prevention on our State highways? Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, our Government has established pothole prevention activity class for both State highways and local roads to ring-fence critical maintenance spending to resealing, rehabilitation, and drainage maintenance work within the National Land Transport Fund. Already, we have delivered a record $2.07 billion for State highway pothole prevention over the next three years. That's a 91 percent increase in funding compared to the previous three years under Labour. Kiwis want potholes fixed, roads properly maintained; we're getting transport back to basics so Kiwis can get where they need to go quickly and safely. Carl Bates: What investment is the Government making in pothole prevention on local roads? Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, whenever I travel around New Zealand, I'm constantly reminded by New Zealanders about the need to fix our local roads too. And that's why our Government is supporting local councils with a record $1.9 billion for local road pothole prevention over the next three years—a 50 percent increase in funding to prevent potholes from forming in the first place. This includes a 74 percent increase in funding for Auckland Council, a 61 percent increase for the Bay of Plenty, an 83 percent increase for Nelson, and a 38 percent increase for Canterbury. We are getting transport back to basics so Kiwis can get where they need to go quickly and safely. Carl Bates: What does this mean for local roads in Whanganui? Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, good news for the good, hard-working people of Whanganui. As part of the pothole prevention fund, there's $132 million for local road pothole prevention in the Manawatū-Whanganui region, a 38 percent increase compared to the previous three years. This Government is getting on with the task of getting transport back to basics. Rt Hon Christopher Luxon: 0800 what? Hon SIMEON BROWN: And to answer the Prime Minister's question, if you're on our State highway network and you do see a pothole, please call 0800 444 449 to get those potholes fixed. Question No. 8—Health 8. Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Labour) to the Associate Minister of Health: Is it correct that annual returns submitted to the Ministry of Health show $4,044,956.49 worth of heated tobacco products were sold in New Zealand in 2022, and that $3,924,816.06 of those sales were by the tobacco company Philip Morris? Hon CASEY COSTELLO (Associate Minister of Health): No, those numbers are not correct. Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Is it correct that the vast majority of heated tobacco products sold in New Zealand in 2022 were by the tobacco company Philip Morris? Hon CASEY COSTELLO: Yes, it is. Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Is it correct that Philip Morris is the only company whose vaping products did not have child safety mechanisms when Cabinet took the decision to delay requirements for child safety mechanisms to be on vapes from March 2024 to October 2024? Hon CASEY COSTELLO: I don't have the information on which products didn't meet the criteria. Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Is it correct that her decision to halve the excise tax on heated tobacco and delay safety requirements on vapes benefit only the tobacco company Philip Morris? Hon CASEY COSTELLO: I will state clearly, as we seem to be relitigating this issue and we've traversed it thoroughly, that we are committed to achieving Smokefree Aotearoa 2025. I will yet again confirm that we are choosing to do a programme of work that will ensure that there are tools available to achieve the target audience quitting smoking. We will continue to do so. There is no relationship with the tobacco industry. We are committed to a programme of work, and we will achieve Smokefree Aotearoa 2025—highly likely that will be achieved this year. Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Why won't she put as much effort into improving the health of New Zealanders as she will into helping Philip Morris? SPEAKER: Just hang on a minute. You might like to—take a seat—reword that question. It's a pretty big accusation, and I think you need to back it up in some way, more than just a pot-shot supplementary question. There are other ways you could ask that question. Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order. The way that I heard that question, and it was certainly written down, given that I saw it beforehand, was making no accusation whatsoever. Through the previous supplementary questions, it was established that the company Philip Morris benefits quite substantially from policy decisions made by this Government. On that basis, flowing on from those supplementaries, I'd say that that supplementary was entirely appropriate. SPEAKER: Well, that's a position that you could reach; from the answers to those questions, I'm sure some members of the public will do so, but to stand up and make the accusation using the words "why are you" and then relating it to a particular action that may or may not be the case is not reasonable. There are other ways to ask that question. Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Can the Minister name a single thing she has done for the health of New Zealanders that is greater than the benefits she has provided for Philip Morris? Hon CASEY COSTELLO: The Opposition seem to be fixated on tobacco companies. They seem to have lost sight of the people we are trying to help, which is those who are currently smoking. They ignore the fact that the first thing I did as a Minister was raise excise tax, and that we are continuing to meet with quit-smoking groups to ensure they have the best tools. The main audience for this change are the quit-smoking providers, all of whom I will be meeting with over the next month to discuss the best way to continue to reduce smoking rates and achieve our smoke-free 2025 target. Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can I ask the Minister: is it a fact that this question is set in 2022, five years after the Labour Party was in Government, which demonstrates that they did sweet Fanny Adams about this issue when they were in power? Hon CASEY COSTELLO: I will confirm that we are operating on advice to achieve a smoking target. The numbers that the members from across the House were quoting were unrelated to the figures as they currently are. We are at 6.8 percent smokers as at the end of 2023, and we are continuing to track down. Question No. 9—Social Development and Employment 9. RIMA NAKHLE (National—Takanini) to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: What changes has the Government made to support young people into work? Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment): Last week, I announced that 4,000 additional job seekers aged 18 to 24 will receive support from a case manager over the phone. Fifteen hundred young people were receiving this new service at the beginning of July, and the roll-out to 4,000 young job seekers will be complete in two months. This is one of the many actions the Government is taking to make the welfare system more proactive and to support people into work, because we are not prepared to accept the current forecasts that under-25-year-olds on a jobseeker benefit will spend two decades of their life on welfare. Rima Nakhle: Why is the Government providing young job seekers this additional support now? Hon LOUISE UPSTON: The challenging economic situation that we have inherited means that job seeker numbers were always due to increase and to peak at the start of 2025. We know that young job seekers are more vulnerable to tougher labour market conditions, and we want the welfare system to proactively help as many job seekers as possible in the current economic climate. Getting more direct help to young people now will mean they are better prepared to enter the workforce and take up job opportunities as they arise. Rima Nakhle: How will phone-based case management work for young people? Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Ministry of Social Development (MSD) case managers will contact young job seekers at least once every 28 days. There will be a set appointment time for the phone call. Having a case manager means that young people will have tailored advice and support that suits their unique circumstances. This additional support of course comes with obligations. If a young person misses their assigned phone appointment without good reason, an obligation failure will be initiated, which may result in a sanction. Rima Nakhle: Is phone-based case management the only action the Government has taken to make the welfare system more proactive at supporting people into work? Hon LOUISE UPSTON: No. We have set out our expectations that, along with the additional support we are providing, there will be consequences, including sanctions when people fail to fulfil their obligations to become work-ready and to take steps to find work. We are also requiring those with work obligations to have a work-focused appointment in their first two weeks of being on benefit, and if they're still on benefit after six months, they will need to meet MSD again. The Government believes that work is the best pathway to independence and to further opportunities, and we will continue to take more actions over the coming months to support more New Zealanders into work. Question No. 10—Māori Crown Relations: Te Arawhiti 10. DEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER (Co-Leader—Te Pāti Māori) to the Minister for Māori Crown Relations: Te Arawhiti: Does he believe that the Government has a responsibility to uphold Te Tiriti o Waitangi? Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations)on behalf of the Minister for Māori Crown Relations: Te Arawhiti: On behalf of the Minister, yes, recognising that there will always be a wide variety of opinions as to what that means in practice and in every particular situation, and also recognising, in doing so, the need never to lose sight of the basic expectations of people living in a modern democratic society of equality before the law and equal say in matters affecting their lives. Rawiri Waititi: How does the Minister for Māori Crown relations feel being wheeled out by this Government to answer a question that was directed to the Prime Minister, simply because he is Māori, and the Prime Minister wants to distance himself from the responsibilities of Te Tiriti o Waitangi? Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: On behalf of the Minister— SPEAKER: Sorry, hang on. You can answer the question, but I'd just make the point that Standing Orders makes it very clear that the Government collectively decides who is going to answer a question. Now, to describe the Minister as being "wheeled out" kind of implies something that is contrary to Standing Orders. He can answer the question, but I think those questions need to be a little more cleverly put. Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: On behalf of the Minister, I stand with great pride. Rt Hon Winston Peters: Does the Minister think that attending a close relation's tangi is a case of being wheeled out of this Parliament, as has been put by that last idiotic questioner? SPEAKER: No, that's not a question he can answer; it's a point that's made. Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Point of order. We ask that decorum be restored to this House. While it may be one person's opinion—[Interruption] SPEAKER: Just a minute. Sorry, we've got a point of order going on. You can start again, please. Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Thank you. We ask that we have a recall on the word "idiotic", if we can be really direct. SPEAKER: Well, I've ruled the question out. So it's, effectively, gone. Is there another supplementary question? Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Yes. Does the Minister for Crown relationships: Te Arawhiti believe that ongoing colonisation is good for Te Tiriti o Waitangi partners? Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: On behalf of the Minister, I'm not sure what the member means by "ongoing colonisation". We are a country. That is our history. The focus of this Government is to rectify the problems that have come alongside colonisation and to build on the many successes. Rt Hon Winston Peters: Could I ask the Minister: do two of the top three in this Parliament who have got Māori background— Rawiri Waititi: Or blood quantum-ing. Rt Hon Winston Peters: —or the highest percentage of Māori and Pasifika in a Cabinet, or the highest percentage in the country, in terms of Parliament, represent progress or the kind of retard comment we've just heard? Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Point of order. [Interruption] SPEAKER: Just a minute. A point of order is called. Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: It is unparliamentary to— SPEAKER: Sorry, just wait. The House is getting a little unruly. Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: The history of the word "retarded" is bad enough to be hearing in the House. In fact, people have endured years of abuse because of that very name. It is unparliamentary for a Minister of that seniority and age group to be saying that in the House. Please, within your powers, stop that type of language in this House. SPEAKER: Well, I'm sure you wouldn't want me to rule on the basis of an ageist comment. But I would ask the Minister to withdraw the word used. Rt Hon Winston Peters: I withdraw the word used. Hon David Seymour: Point of order, Mr Speaker. Shortly after Debbie Ngarewa-Packer asked to restore decorum to the House, her colleague Rawiri Waititi was heard to shout out "What blood quantum are you?" Now, Mr Speaker, if we're going to restore decorum to the House, I think Te Pāti Māori know everything that they have to do. Could I just point out it's at least four times you've had to reprimand them for not knowing the Standing Orders today; perhaps you could give them some lessons in your office after question time. Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Point of order. SPEAKER: Well, may I just respond to the point of order. I think getting into the House, going into a tit for tat of who said what, when a lot of it is just interjection, would see us here for some hours. If he's interested—presumably all questions are directed at the Chair—98 percent Scots-Irish and 1 percent Middle Eastern: me. Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Point of order. We respect that the Deputy Prime Minister has withdrawn the word but you did ask for an apology. We are waiting for that. SPEAKER: No, no, I did not ask for an apology. Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: You did say "withdraw and apologise", right? SPEAKER: No, I did not. So, was there a question that you're still wanting to answer, Paul Goldsmith? Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Yes, yes—in relation to the question that was asked, I reassert the answer to the original question that, of course, it identifies that there's a wide variety of views amongst Māori on what it exactly means to uphold the Treaty of Waitangi, and this Government is committed to doing just that. Mariameno Kapa-Kingi: Just to the Minister Goldsmith, if I may, are you on the record as having said that, on balance, colonisation was good for us, and, that being the case, might that be the way in which you will approach the role and anything pertaining to colonisation of— Hon Chris Bishop: Point of order. SPEAKER: Questions are not directly asked to Ministers; they're asked through the Chair. Do you have a point of order? Hon Chris Bishop: You've made my point for me. SPEAKER: Thank you. Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, on behalf of the Minister for Māori Crown Relations, I didn't make those comments because I'm answering in relation to another Minister. Question No. 11—Police 11. Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour) to the Minister of Police: Does he stand by his statement relating to his position as Minister of Police, "Absolutely, I stand by my statement that if people haven't seen a change, then I should leave and someone else should come in"? Hon MARK MITCHELL (Minister of Police): Yes. In December, I laid out my expectations to Police. I'm very proud of our police and they have responded strongly. They are focused on the policing of gangs and stopping them from taking over public roads, towns, and intimidating and abusing members of the public. In Ōpōtiki last year, we saw the Mongrel Mob take over the town. Schools were closed, roads were closed, and the town was, effectively, held under siege. This year's anniversary of that event was policed proactively, whereby law-abiding members of the community had their rights protected over and above those of gang members. Under this Government, boy racers and antisocial road users are now facing a strong and coordinated police response, with the necessary resources to deal with unlawful and disruptive behaviour. Hugely successful operations were recently run across the country, including the Hutt and Wellington, where the Eagle helicopter was used to deter around 300 vehicles from gathering to disrupt the public. Police seized dozens of vehicles and hundreds of infringement notices were issued. Under this Government, there has been an increase in police on the beat in Auckland, Wellington, and Christchurch, providing reassurance and visibility. The public response to that has been overwhelmingly positive across the country, and I'm pleased that police are providing reassurance to communities and keeping people safer. Under this Government, the police have established a national gang unit and are setting up gang disruption units in districts, which will target gang members and make life extremely difficult for them. Under this Government, Minister Costello is leading work on delivering 500 more police, and we continue to move at pace to pass legislation banning gang patches and providing police with more tools to disburse and disrupt gang gatherings. SPEAKER: Well, the whole three years will be up if we keep going with that. So—thank you. Hon Ginny Andersen: How, then, does he explain the 18 percent of New Zealanders feeling less safe as a result of the Government's law and order policies and 58 percent saying they make no difference at all, as recorded by a One News poll? Hon MARK MITCHELL: Well, I think it tells me that we've still got a lot more work to do, and, thanks to that member, we inherited a shambles, but we are committed to fixing that. Hon Ginny Andersen: How does he propose to make New Zealanders feel safer when there are 124 fewer police officers in New Zealand than when he took office? Hon MARK MITCHELL: I've already laid out for the member that this incoming Government (1) funded the Police properly, because the previous Government hadn't; and (2) we've funded 500 additional police officers, and we are on track to deliver those 500 additional police officers. Hon Ginny Andersen: How does he propose to make New Zealanders feel safer when the National Gang Unit he announced would be operational by 1 July was not stood up by that date and now has only five staff members in it? Hon MARK MITCHELL: Well, the National Gang Unit is an announcement that the commissioner is responsible for, and they are standing that up. And, just to put the member's mind at rest, the Police in the last six months have already had a very strong response in terms of how they deal with gangs, as I've just outlined for her. Under the previous Government, we saw provincial towns being taken over by gangs. We saw communities fearful. That's not happening now. We saw gang tangis and gang convoys that were taking over public roads and intersections, that were driving into oncoming cars, that were abusing members of the public—that's not happening under this Government, because there has been a very strong response by police. Hon Ginny Andersen: How does he propose to make New Zealanders feel safer when Police have advised him they will be pulling out of family violence now and this will be done "regardless of the readiness of partner agencies" and Police have warned him in briefings that this could result in "threat to life"? Hon MARK MITCHELL: Well, I think it's very irresponsible for the member to come into this House and tell the country that Police have said they are withdrawing from family harm incidents. That is not true. Police will always have a role, and they will always respond to family harm incidents that involve domestic violence or where there is clearly an offence being committed. But I can tell the member that I was on night shift myself in Auckland recently, where police were called to a job where it was a mother and a daughter arguing over an iPhone charger. Now, I'm sorry; having uniformed police officers standing in someone's lounge room trying to settle an argument between a mother and daughter over an iPhone charger is not a good use of police time. There are other agencies that will step up and deal with some of those issues. I want police back on their core business. I want police doing the job so that when members of the public put their hand up and they want help, there are police officers who are able to respond to them instead of having to deal with all the social issues that this country has, and there's a much better response for a lot of those people from other agencies, and not the Police. Hon Ginny Andersen: Point of order, Mr Speaker. SPEAKER: No, you're all done. Hon Ginny Andersen: Point of order. SPEAKER: Oh, point of order, sorry. Hon Ginny Andersen: I seek leave to table the Official Information Act document I've received, that's not publicly available, that stipulates Police advising the Minister of Police that there is risk of loss of life if police pull out of family violence call-outs without partner agencies being in place. SPEAKER: The paper's not proactively released by Police? Hon Ginny Andersen: No, it's not. SPEAKER: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There appears to be none. Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House. Question No. 12—Health 12. HŪHANA LYNDON (Green) to the Minister of Health: In what specific sectors of Te Whatu Ora has overspending occurred, and was this raised with him in the last eight months of the Crown observer appointment? Hon Dr SHANE RETI (Minister of Health): The Government appointed a Crown observer in December, given our longstanding concerns about the implementation of the health reforms that created Health New Zealand. The Crown observer has highlighted numerous issues to me, including a lack of focus on the current financial situation, particularly in the hospital sector. Hospitals are a critical sector in the health system and is one reason why this Government has taken significant action by appointing a commissioner to ensure all New Zealanders get timely access to quality healthcare. Hūhana Lyndon: How will slashing up to 3,000 jobs from the organisation that employs doctors and nurses help to get more doctors and nurses on the front line to serve our people? Hon Dr SHANE RETI: The commissioner has expressed that we will streamline the back-office staff that are not directly patient facing so that we can redistribute funds towards the front line and deliver better outcome for New Zealanders. Hūhana Lyndon: Does he accept that the overall health Budget funding has actually reduced by 4.5 percent per capita, and, if so, will he increase funding to sustainable levels so that our health system isn't on its knees? Hon Dr SHANE RETI: What I accept is the biggest contribution to health of roughly $16.67 billion across three Budgets in our last Budget. Hūhana Lyndon: Does he really think that a relentless focus on cost savings for our new commissioner is what he should be looking for when our health system is chronically underfunded and does not deliver for those who are most in need? Hon Dr SHANE RETI: What I think is that it's important to deliver timely access to quality healthcare for New Zealanders to improve life expectancy and quality of life. Hūhana Lyndon: What will he say to senior doctors this weekend at the GP conference who have told us this morning that they are doing administrative tasks themselves because the back-office staff reductions at Te Whatu Ora are impacting them? Hon Dr SHANE RETI: What I will do is thank them for their work and tell them that this Government backs them and that we're looking at ways to ameliorate some of the issues that they're raising with us. That's what I'll say to them. Hūhana Lyndon: Will the Minister make a promise to New Zealanders right now, in this Whare, that he will never prioritise any part of our public health system? Hon Dr SHANE RETI: The Government policy statement, which I've announced, explores a wide range of actions that this Government will take, including what that member is asking now. SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Leader of the House): I move, That the sitting of the House today be extended into tomorrow morning for the second reading of the Local Government (Electoral Legislation and Māori Wards and Māori Constituencies) Amendment Bill; the first readings of the Customer and Product Data Bill, the Regulatory Systems (Economic Development) Amendment Bill and the Regulatory Systems (Immigration and Workforce) Amendment Bill, and the Regulatory Systems (Social Security) Amendment Bill; and the interrupted debate on the third reading of the Māori Fisheries Amendment Bill. A party vote was called for on the question, That the motion be agreed to. Ayes 68 New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Noes 55 New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 6; Tana. Motion agreed to. BUDGET DEBATE Debate resumed from 25 June on the Appropriation (2024/25 Estimates) Bill. Hon ANDREW BAYLY (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. It's an absolute pleasure to be talking today. Of course, it's a very auspicious day with many announcements being made, but I do want to just talk about the Budget and what it meant for New Zealanders, because it was a good Budget. It particularly has relevance to me in my role as Minister of commerce, small business, manufacturing, and statistics, because there are many good aspects of the Budget that were about supporting small businesses, in particular, and manufacturers that underpin much of our exports in New Zealand. As the Minister of Finance described on Budget day, this Budget was prepared against a backdrop where we had challenging fiscal issues going on. The main focus of what we're trying to do is to make sure that we're getting better value for the investment we're making, on behalf of New Zealanders, to support New Zealanders and businesses so that they can grow, prosper, and enjoy the style of life that they expect and that we should be achieving in New Zealand, and I think the big issue is there's no longer a mythical money tree. That concept, which has been sort of the predominant thinking previously, is no longer the case. We have to have a world-class education, health, and justice system, and it's important that we invest in it. To do so, we need the money to do so, and to do that, we need to have the right settings in place so that we can promote and support innovation and competition, and businesses can flourish. I think that that's our job as a Government and that should be the job of every Government, of whatever hue, over time, to put in place the right framework, and, unfortunately, we haven't had the right framework. The actual thing that we've said about trying to achieve in this is to have a quite significant investment in a number of things. We've heard today in question time about the record investment in health: $16.6 billion over the forecast period. What we're trying to do is make sure that the key driver of this is that if someone needs an operation, needs a hip replacement, needs a knee replacement, or needs whatever it should be, they should be able to get those services on time, and we want to make sure there's an absolute focus on the health providers to make sure that they're delivering against those KPIs that the good Minister of Health, the Hon Dr Shane Reti, has put in place for the health system. The major thing coming out of the Budget is the tax savings for ordinary New Zealanders, everyday New Zealanders—those caught in the tax squeeze, who haven't had a tax change in the last 14 years and have seen their earnings whittle away because of inflation. That is part of what we can do, mostly for individuals but also for businesses, to stop that rampant drive in inflation. The step to address it in the meantime is the tax cuts: $102 per fortnight for most families, and up to an additional $150 per fortnight for families with young children—and I think that's a really important thing. Yesterday, I was having a public meeting in my electorate, and you know just how tough it is for New Zealanders at the moment, and the tax relief that will be coming through starting next week is an exciting part of that mix. Also, we are putting some more money into capital funding. We want to see more money going into infrastructure, and the Hon Chris Bishop is, obviously, overseeing a wide programme that spans a huge amount of different projects: $7 billion to boost capital spending on top of what we currently spend as a Government. These are really, really important things. But in terms of what the Budget held in place for businesses, there was a lot of good stuff in the Budget. The overarching theme for businesses is that we do need to rebalance our Government books. We do need to get the Government back into surplus. This is like running a business or a household budget where you are continuously in deficit and have been for years. This country has been in deficit for years, and we need to get back into a stage where we are running surpluses, because that gives us even more money to invest in building schools, invest in new roads, invest in better health facilities—all the good stuff that every Government wants, even including the members from the Opposition from the other side. So rebalancing the Budget is a key thing. The second thing is getting inflation down, and the best news we've heard is the announcement that inflation is at 3.3 percent. When we see that coming down, that will give the Reserve Bank the reason to drop the official cash rate. Of course, that will have an immediate impact on interest rates, which is what is burning a hole in most households at the moment, where the cost of mortgage servicing is so significant and where they've seen their interest rates going from 2.5 percent to maybe 8.5 percent. That is taking all their spare cash. That is the best thing we can do for individuals, but it's also the best thing to do for businesses, because not only are they paying debt on their businesses but also customer-facing businesses like hospitality, like tourism, like restaurants—all those types of industries that rely on people spending money. Of course, at the moment, people do not have the money. That's why we need to work and make sure that what we're doing is in alignment with the Reserve Bank so we reduce inflation as quickly as possible, and that is a really, really important thing. I think the big thing for small businesses and for improving their situation is really about how we can improve them, and I've set about meeting with a whole lot of businesses. There are five common themes—and it's the same for manufacturing—one of which is that they want access to talent so that they can get more skilled people in their businesses. That's the number one priority. Secondly, they want to be able to attract more capital coming into their businesses. I've got a piece of work I'm doing on how we can improve the New Zealand stock exchange listings and how we can get more equity capital going into businesses—particularly, hopefully, through KiwiSaver providers—but also how we can improve competition in the banking sector. Of course, we've got the Commerce Commission, which has been funded to do these market studies, and we're waiting for the outcome of the report into the banking study, but we do want to make sure we've got more competition. Of course, Minister Bishop has just announced that tomorrow morning, the consumer data rights bill will be formally introduced into the House. That is also about promoting competition in the finance market, and I'm looking forward to the support of the House for that bill because we need more capital—both equity and debt—going into financing small businesses and manufacturing. The third thing they want to do is reduce regulation, and everyone is doing their part on that. Obviously, the Hon David Seymour is doing that, but also at a personal level, I'm working with Stats New Zealand and the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) to try and stop, for instance, silly survey results being asked of people all the time, full of information that the Government already knows about them, and stop repetitive surveying going through. There are a whole lot of other initiatives we're doing on that as we're rolling around the country, but we want to stop unnecessary regulation. Both Stats and MBIE have a huge part to play in that. The fourth one is about increasing digitisation and improving manufacturers, getting to Industry 4.0. The Budget has specific information and the money set aside. What we've done is we've allowed businesses to undertake what's called smart factory assessments, or the Smart Industry Readiness Index. We're tripling the number of those assessments. For manufacturers, they can get a better grip on where they sit on the progression of Industry 4.0. That's an important part, and one of the biggest things they've asked for. It's all related to digitisation, and we also want to support small businesses. The Budget included money for digital initiatives, and we want to make sure that we are doing what we need to do to support businesses over time. The fifth one, of course, is recognising the importance of small businesses and manufacturing. Too little focus is put on these industries. We need to make sure they are much more supported and they have the information flows coming to them. Stats is working on making sure that industries such as small businesses and manufacturers can get access to some of the great stats that Stats New Zealand has. But there is a wide range of other initiatives in there. Our big programme is the regional growth partners. At a time when we've got businesses struggling to survive, we've maintained their budget of just under $16 million to support businesses. This Budget had a lot for small businesses and manufacturers, and I'm glad to be part of a Government bringing this to fruition. Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Deputy Leader—Labour): That member, the Hon Andrew Bayly, started his speech by saying he took great pleasure in speaking to the Budget. No one listening to him found it particularly pleasurable and it wasn't a very pleasure-filled speech, and can I just say that I don't take any pleasure in speaking to that Government's Budget. However, I do so because it's important that we speak to the general public and bring some transparency to the decisions that it made in the 2024 Budget. I want to start with the tax cuts. I want to start with the $14 billion worth of tax cuts that this Government is giving and what that means for the rest of New Zealand. Those members have come to this House on numerous occasions and they have presented in front of the media saying, "We are responsible for the health of the books." They are saying that they have had to make tough decisions because of what they inherited. However, they are the ones that promised $14 billion worth of tax cuts—$14 billion that many economists and many professionals and experts out there have continued to tell them are unaffordable. What did they prioritise next? They prioritised landlords. I'm not sure whether or not that was who the general public were screaming out for to get support, but they decided that $2.9 billion worth of tax breaks to landlords was the priority. What concerns me is that there are a number of New Zealanders who actually did need support who didn't get any support at the Budget because of whom that Government decided to prioritise. Even if we just refer to the tax cuts, the social development Minister herself did not even realise that the 9,000 people who stood to lose from the tax cuts were actually 9,000 of her people. They were 9,000 beneficiaries on whom she said she didn't get any advice with regard to their losing anything with the changes to the tax system, and yet it was in the regulatory impact statement—the regulatory impact statement that went with the bill, that went to Cabinet, and that she should have read, but, clearly, she did not read it. Those beneficiaries—the ones who really are struggling the most at the moment with the cost of living challenges—were the ones that were left off the list when a decision was made to hand out $14 billion, and when asked on that side of the House why it was beneficiaries that were not included in any tax changes, we were told it was because the focus was on working New Zealanders. Well, superannuitants got a cut—a very, very small one, but superannuitants got a cut—so where do that Government's priorities lie? Certainly not with the poorest New Zealanders, and we should be concerned about them because in the last eight, nine months since that Government took office, we've seen 20,000 more New Zealanders on benefit, with the backdrop to that being that, apparently, there is a public sector target in place that we're going to see a 50,000 reduction in beneficiaries in the welfare system. Well, I don't know how that can be when we've seen it go up 20,000 already. Now, I do not begrudge those beneficiaries having to access welfare support, because, ultimately, it's about what is happening with the economy. Are there any jobs available? Are they being supported into employment? Well, under that Government, they're not, but they are certainly being stigmatised. They're certainly being sanctioned more, and we saw that with recent statistics that came out. They're not necessarily getting any additional hardship support, because that's reduced, and that is despite the fact there are 20,000 more New Zealanders on benefit under that Government's watch. That takes us backwards. It takes us backwards because that is more New Zealanders that are in the welfare system, and who are not in employment, getting the money that they need to support their whānau. Not their fault—that is the result of that Government's actions. Now, the Government says that they have had no hand in that and they're not responsible for that at all. When you lay off 6,000 public servants—I think it's 6,000-plus now—then we all need to recognise that there are flow-on effects to that. New Zealanders are interwoven; we are self-reliant. When New Zealanders lose jobs, then everyone suffers—be that local businesses, be that the whole economy—and that's exactly what we're seeing now. Now we're seeing more New Zealanders on benefit as a result of that. I've been out and about in recent weeks, talking to our social services, who also didn't get any reprieve with the 2024 Budget. That is despite them going to the Government, cap in hand, saying, "Demand is high. More New Zealanders than ever need our budgeting support and need food parcels.", and yet nothing was there for them in the Budget and now what are we seeing? Forty-four of our budgeting services across the country are closing down as a direct result of that Government ignoring them and choosing not to invest in their very important service. What else did we see? We saw the Auckland City Mission and a number of other key social service organisations across the country coming out strongly, lobbying the Government, and saying that they simply would not have enough money to be able to provide the level of food that they needed to the poorest New Zealanders in the lead-up to Christmas. Now, to their credit, very quietly, that Government has injected, or found, an additional $6 million to support those social services up until Christmas, but that's not a plan. That's not certainty for those social services. They know and the families that are going to them for support know that there's no bright light of hope on the horizon post - December 2024. They are still going to have families in high demand, seeking support from them, and yet this Government has provided no certainty to them whatsoever. One of the key areas—changing the subject a little bit here—that I had a high level of concern for when we were undertaking the scrutiny week reviews was actually the Government's public sector target to reduce emergency housing grants by 75 percent. No plan for where you might put these New Zealanders who front up to the Ministry of Social Development; just a plan to deny them emergency accommodation if they showed up homeless to the Ministry of Social Development. When I asked the Associate Minister of Housing what risks had been brought to his attention by the public servants who gave him the advice, he refused to answer that question, and yet we know what the risks are. A 75 percent reduction in those getting special needs grants for emergency housing will lead to a significant increase in New Zealanders rough sleeping, sleeping in their cars, and sleeping in overcrowded, potentially unsafe environments, and yet to make the books look good, they would reduce access by 75 percent to emergency housing, all for the purpose of being able to say, "Look, we have less money going to emergency housing accommodation and fewer New Zealanders in emergency housing motels." But where will they be? On our streets and in their cars. I was saying to one of our social service providers how would those guys on that side of the House like it if every single one of the people who was denied emergency housing in a motel showed up on their street, sleeping outside their houses, with their children, and with the sicknesses that they have, their disabilities, and their mental health issues? How would that side of the House feel? Well, that is what that type of policy decision leads to, and the sad reality is that we have not had the answers from that Minister or from many of the other Ministers with regard to the implications of some of their policy decisions. I am worried about the welfare system and some of the rhetoric that we've heard. We heard the Minister in the House, talking about the move towards phone-based case management. I haven't even seen any evidence to support that that works, but, again, all it is is rhetoric and trying to make the numbers look good for the sake of saying, perhaps, that they've got more New Zealanders in case management, and yet all they're doing is giving them a phone call. We are not seeing the significant investment that we need into those that are unemployed with respect to upskilling and training and employment. We're not seeing the investment that we need with regard to income adequacy and support for those that are struggling with the cost of living. We're not seeing the investment that we need in terms of their overall expenses; in fact, we've seen that taken away with the end to free prescriptions and free and half-price public transport. We have seen so much taken away from the poorest New Zealanders in the most recent Budget that that side of the House should, quite frankly, just be ashamed of themselves. I take no pleasure in speaking to this Budget. SPEAKER: This is a split call. I call on Cameron—sorry, Mark Cameron. MARK CAMERON (ACT): Not at all, Mr Speaker. Thank you very much for your time today to speak to the Estimates bill—the Budget debate. A rural-friendly Budget debate, I reconcile. I believe that it's got a rural lens in it, a damnably good lens—an ACT Party rural lens. We brought significant change to the narrative to this rural budget, and I want to highlight a couple of very salient figures: $65 million accelerating development of greenhouse gas mitigation research and development—something very salient to rural New Zealand—increased funding to the Rotorua Te Arawa Lakes Programme of $13 million, and an overall $67 million in the budgetary allowance for fresh water. We actually listened to rural New Zealand, if I may say—we go back to first principles. What are the costs? What are the benefits? Do the benefits outweigh the costs, and if they don't, perhaps we shouldn't be doing this stuff. The previous lot, I would argue, weren't so good at listening to those kinds of realities. The vast initiatives I have spoken to are many. We put property rights at the centre of our campaign. We heard of the very salient issues to do with significant natural areas—a fraught issue. We're willing to go into battle for private property rights and ownership to acknowledge the importance of local investments in things like the Queen Elizabeth II National Trust—gracious me!—affording property rights and outcomes for better biodiversity. We were instrumental in keeping farming out of the emissions trading scheme. We actually care about rural people and their mental wellbeing. Rural emissions are vastly different from other industries. I know this intimately well; I am a farmer—as you will reconcile, with significant consideration needed, discussion had, and outcomes understood. That is still in development, we would argue. I would suggest perhaps that Parliament previously, I would certainly believe, was quite happy to see productivity fall on the back of not having had those discussions. ACT led the way in opposition to He Waka Eke Noa. It was fraught with difficulties. What were the numbers? How did we reconcile the outcomes? Were they accurately understood? This Budget certainly speaks to those. We've got to stop the hyperbole and ask the questions, and I maintain that this Budget puts farmers back in the centre of that discussion. It puts them—gracious me!—in the room—there's a novel idea—and no longer languishing in silence. It is actually making these people—and this Budget speaks to them—part of that process. ACT put forward a member's bill, as members would perhaps remember, in the previous Parliament that was speaking to localism—outcomes, farm management, fresh water, their assets—and understanding the nuances of on-farm practices and fresh water. Sadly, our friends on the left all voted it down. The Labour and the Green team thought that it was better run by Wellington. The farmers that we listened to in this Budget certainly reconciled otherwise. We worked across party lines in the language of collaboration—National, ACT, and New Zealand First. We said, "Let's follow the science." We collectively initiated an independent inquiry into the science of biogenic methane, a short-lived gas out of the ruminant animal sector that I have spoken of before. We preserved private property rights by challenging the significant natural areas and rolling back the erosion of what it looked like to everyday Kiwis. Andrew Hoggard here, as we well know, has worked tirelessly to promote localism, and this Budget certainly highlights that. Farm plans and better freshwater management outcomes are certainly being felt and improved in rural New Zealand, and I'm happy to share that. One final thing I would add: this has been ACT's core business in rural New Zealand. We listened, and this Budget certainly speaks to that. It's not about officials in Wellington; it's about real people in rural New Zealand. Dr PARMJEET PARMAR (ACT): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I must say that I'm really proud of the work that my colleagues Mark Cameron and Minister Hoggard are doing in the rural sector. I'm really proud of Budget 2024, and I would say that this is the first of many Budgets to come with ACT in a coalition Government. We delivered in this Budget what we promised to deliver before the last election. We said that we would squeeze our spending—we would squeeze Government spending. We don't want to squeeze hard-working New Zealanders, like the previous Labour Government did, and we have demonstrated that in this Budget. As we can see, the financial allowance in this year is $3.2 billion, which is less than the previous Labour Government's, which was $3.5 billion, and I must also say that this is the lowest in real terms since the 2017 Budget. So we have demonstrated that we can deliver what we said, and we have also demonstrated that it is not about how much money we spend; it's about how we spend. It's also about valuing each and every dollar that taxpayers pay to the Government to spend on their behalf, and we are very conscious of that. I am also conscious that the cost of living crisis, because of that irresponsible spending of the previous Labour Government, caused a lot of suffering to New Zealanders, and this wasn't just on their back pockets. I have heard so many stories from people where the financial strain actually caused relationship strains as well in families. That is why I think it's really important to give that kind of financial relief to New Zealanders, and I'm really proud to stand here and say that this coalition Government, with ACT in Government, is delivering tax cuts. Today is 23 July, and in eight days' time, most New Zealanders will see that they will have more money in their wallets because of the prudent financial management of this Government. We are also supportive of FamilyBoost because we know that for young families with young children, it's really hard for them, and we want to see that they get that support for childcare. I personally believe education is very important, because we want to see that education is able to do what it should be able to do—that is, to provide opportunities to our children, because our children are our future. That's where we think that there should be diverse opportunities available for students to take up education and reach their potential, and I'm really proud of Minister Seymour for the $153 million that is allocated in this Budget for charter schools. This time, what is different is that charter schools are going to come back in a bigger way. Previously, we know that the Labour Government got rid of charter schools. We are bringing them back because we really believe in giving opportunity to all children. We want to see that students are at the centre of education, not unions. Not unions, but students, children—New Zealand children—are at the centre of our education system, and that is why we are bringing back charter schools. Finally, I want to touch on a topic that is of huge concern to me. In the recent adjournment, I went to two protests. One protest was organised in South Auckland because of that attack that happened at a jewellery store in South Auckland, and then there was another protest organised in the Auckland CBD, and this was because of that attack that happened on a bus. But there were other reasons, as well—overall crime—that the protest was organised for, and I went there to assure them that we are hearing them, that their voices matter, and that we are doing everything possible to ensure that we are restoring law and order. Under the previous Government, what we saw was that the situation was such that that Government was taking the side of criminals. But this side—this Government—is on the side of victims, and that's why $2.9 billion extra in operating and capital funding is in this Budget to restore law and order. I'm really proud of my colleagues doing great work in the law and order space. I must say this: this money is going to go to increase the number of corrections officers that we have and to increase the number of police officers we have, and I'm really proud to see that Minister Chhour and Minister Seymour launched military-style academies just recently. This is to give opportunity to those young offenders, those who get into offending, but they have the opportunity to come back to normal life. So we want to see that these people—those who are derailed—can be brought back on track and given this opportunity to succeed in life and do better in life. This Government is definitely on the side of victims. We don't want to reduce the prison population just for the sake of reducing the prison population, like the previous Government did. We will continue to make sure that our communities are safer. Thank you, Mr Speaker. STUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. It's a pleasure to speak in this Estimates debate. The Budget is a major milestone in the parliamentary calendar, as it is indeed in businesses' and families' budgets. It's a big moment where we assess what we have in the kitty and what we're going to allocate our funding to. Unfortunately, this Budget came with a backdrop of very high inflation and a cost of living crisis. We've had good news just recently with the inflation rate coming in under expectation, at 3.3 percent, and while our tradable inflation is down significantly, non-tradable inflation is pretty sticky. That's been a problem internationally, actually, but we are a long way behind the countries we tend to measure ourselves against, who are doing far better than we are. I would like to note and remember that what drove this, I suppose, is really important, and that is, I think, well highlighted in the Auditor-General's report on making infrastructure investment decisions quickly, which highlighted how money was shovelled out the door during the response to COVID. Now, COVID absolutely needed a response, and I don't think anyone disagrees with that, but having that money go out the door in the way it did and not looking for value for money actually drove inflation much higher than it needed to be. On that, it was ironic and very disappointing that the Funding for Lending Programme, which was a programme put in place by the Reserve Bank to allow trading banks access to funding to lend to the market and homes and businesses at a lower rate than they would otherwise have done—good programme. It was a great idea in that time to sort of kick things along. However, the Reserve Bank chose to keep that programme running while they lifted the official cash rate (OCR) to curb inflation, so we had two policies running completely counter to one another. So the inflation and the rate that we suffered and why we are behind those countries that we measure ourselves against is due to two causes. One is that there was too much wasteful spending, and money thrown out the door that didn't need to be—the large-scale asset purchase programme, which was the printing of money by the Reserve Bank—and this Funding for Lending Programme continuing while the OCR was going up. Those two things cancelled one another out, if the OCR rise did, in fact, cancel it out at all, but it may not have, and when we've asked the Reserve Bank Governor why he continued to do that, rather than to shut it off—as most logical people would do—he said that he had a moral obligation to the banks. Well, what about his moral obligation to the taxpayer, because when you're paying your mortgage rate every month, just spare a moment to take a thought about the Reserve Bank Governor actually having a moral obligation to the banks, which, in his view, was higher than the moral obligation to the taxpayer. I think that's wrong, and we're all paying the price for that. However, the good news is we've got tax relief coming out next week, and so people are getting much-needed tax relief. Fiscal drag has been a huge drag on the average worker, where the increase in inflation has driven their effective tax rate rates up higher as they go into higher tax brackets. In fact, a full-time worker now pays 5 percent more than they did 10 years ago, which is a huge amount of extra tax, and that wasteful spending is a really good place where the Minister of Finance and Cabinet members went through an exercise of finding savings. They've found 240 savings initiatives and have driven down the expenditure in Government departments. Now, we have been criticised for that, but I've been out and about amongst my constituents—as I'm sure other members have during the recess—and I can tell you that businesses are driving costs down themselves and having to let staff go, because they are under pressure. That's what you do when you take undertake responsible budgeting, and that is what our Government has done. But I want to go on to a bit more about wasteful spending, particularly those in some of the Government departments. I'm sure members will be aware of the debacle that has been the Cook Strait ferries, and I should actually qualify that because that's not fair. That's not fair because there is a private operator in Bluebridge, which runs a very efficient shipping service across Cook Strait, and it doesn't rely on any funding from the taxpayer. But we have just seen debacle after debacle from KiwiRail, and I'll take you back to the Kaitaki incident, when it broke down in Cook Strait with 900 passengers on board. We very nearly had a major maritime disaster, and why? Because there was not enough investment in maintenance on that vehicle. The part that failed was overdue for replacement by months. That's not acceptable. While we had the Aratere run aground recently—and we'll find out in due course what happened to that after that investigation is completed—there has been the claim that the ships are too old and that that's what the problem is, and the funding for the iReX project being refused by the Government has caused that. That's not true. That is absolutely not true, because even if it had gone ahead, those ships—the new ones—wouldn't have been delivered until 2026, and they wouldn't have been able to berth and operate, because that landside work wouldn't have been completed. So that had no bearing on that whatsoever. That is just poor management—out-and-out poor management—and I would point out that the average age of those KiwiRail ships is between 26 and 29 years old, and we've just retired the Hercules, which were 60 years old. So it's completely untrue that those ships are too old and not fit for purpose. Yes, they need replacing, but that is not the issue. If maintained well, they should be operational and safe. Then, added to that, we found now that the harbour master is now reviewing whether Tory Channel is actually safe for those ships to use. All the ferries may well be forced to go in and out through Queen Charlotte Sound, or perhaps go one way through Tory Channel and the other leg of the journey go out through Queen Charlotte Sound. That's to be determined, but we know that the large ships that were proposed certainly would not have qualified to go through that channel very easily. They would have had to prove that they could do it, and there was quite a lot of doubt about that. Back to the cost of living: I was in the southern part of my electorate in North Canterbury last week, and there's a significant drought continuing there. I was speaking to one of the high country farmers this morning there and they still haven't had rain. There's a significant lack of snow in the back country, which is something we all should be concerned about because that feeds into the hydro lakes, and we already know that just recently, Meridian Energy has asked Tīwai Point to reduce their electricity take because of the lower lake levels. So that drought is ongoing and is really imposing a lot of cost and worry on the farmers in that part of my electorate. I want to finish by saying that as the chair of the Finance and Expenditure Committee, I'm really looking forward to the banking inquiry, which we will embark on shortly. I think that's going to be really welcomed by New Zealanders. We will be looking into the primary production side of it as well—rural lending—and it will be something that will tie in nicely with the final draft of the Commerce Commission's market study which will be released soon. I'm looking forward to that because it's something we need to get on top of. I think the initiatives with the Customer and Product Data Bill, which is going to come to the House very shortly, will also tie in nicely to make that a more competitive sector. Thank you. Hon BARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It's actually a real honour to be able to stand up in the House to talk about Budget 2024, and I have spent a lot of time across the country and in my electorate of Mana gauging the sentiment and the response to Budget 2024. But before I go into the particular Budget debate, I do want to respond to a couple of the comments made by the chair of the Finance and Expenditure Committee, Stuart Smith, the MP for Kaikōura. We have a great working relationship, so great that last year, he, as the member for Kaikōura, and I opened the Kaikōura Fire Station. It was a $7 million investment that the previous Labour Government had put into Fire and Emergency New Zealand, and we funded $51.3 million for the replacement, refurbishment, and upgrade of fire stations across the country. That was done as part of the New Zealand Upgrade Programme and part of the COVID recovery funding, which the member for Kaikōura, Stuart Smith, has just said before was wasteful spending. Was it wasteful spending to spend $7 million on his local Kaikōura Fire Station? That was not what he was saying when he was helping me cut the ribbon at the Kaikōura Fire Station, and there are 26 fire stations across the country that were upgraded because of the Labour Government's spending on infrastructure. Another particular area that was also funded through what's apparently called "wasteful spending" was a runway at Kaitorete Spit in Canterbury. We'd put aside, I think it was, between $5 million and $7 million—my memory fails me at the moment—and that was for a runway which locals had asked the Government, basically, to fund before this summer so that they could get that runway finished. Well, apparently, according to that side of the House, and there was a number of members from that side of the House—they went to the opening of that runway, now that they're in Government. There was no word about that being wasteful spending, and, time and time again, we are now seeing ribbon cuttings across the country of infrastructure projects which the previous Labour Government funded and which this Government is now saying is wasteful spending. The second point which I want to address that the member Stuart Smith also referred to was around inflation. He did talk about the large-scale asset purchase programme, but one of the biggest reasons why New Zealand's inflation went up, similar to other countries in the world, was because of tradeable supply shocks across the world. Members will recall that during COVID, borders were closed across the world, supply chains were restricted, and New Zealand, being at the bottom of the world, found itself in a position where our tradeable inflation was high. So it's really nice to hear that Christopher Luxon is also now using that excuse as to why inflation is high, and yet, when those members were in Opposition, on every single sitting day we heard from the Opposition—the now National Government—that that was not an excuse: "Supply shocks are not an excuse for inflation." However, the facts are the facts, and those supply shocks reverberated across the world and that was a huge cause of why we had high inflation. But I do want to come back to this Budget 2024. Budgets are about choices. We have seen the impact of those choices that have been made, time and time again. I noticed that almost every single day last week, there was a negative health story in the media around cuts that were being done and hiring freezes that were being done, and so it's no surprise there was a whole lot of political spin and performance that happened in the post-Cabinet yesterday. But, as I showed the House today, when adjusted for inflation, there is an increase in operating expenses in Vote Health of only 0.4 percent—0.4 percent—and how do I know this? Because it's in this document, the Budget Economic and Fiscal Update. Now, I know that some members on the other side of the House don't like to read, so, please, indulge me so that I can help summarise some of the numbers that are in this Budget Economic and Fiscal Update. The operating balance before gains and losses (OBEGAL) returns to surplus in 2027-28. That is a year later than forecast at the Half Year Economic and Fiscal Update. OBEGAL in the near-term is considerably worse, with the 2024-25 deficit increasing from 1.4 percent of GDP to 3.1 percent of GDP. Now, outside of the worst years of the COVID crisis—about which, again, members on the Government side of the House say that it was wasteful spending to have spent $30 billion on business support payments, resurgence payments, small-business cash-flow loan schemes. I don't hear them saying, basically, that businesses shouldn't have got money. Actually, during COVID, they were saying, "You should give them more money." But outside of the worst year of COVID—2020—a deficit from this Government in this year's Budget of 3.1 percent of GDP is higher than any other that the Labour Government ran. Right throughout the election campaign, members on this side of the House would have heard "wasteful spending", "borrowing too much money", and "They're going to leave the debt for our children." Well, again, let's go back to the Budget Economic and Fiscal Update. Net core Crown debt is higher by $17.1 billion by the 2027-28 fiscal year relative to the Half Year Economic and Fiscal Update. There is also an increase of $12 billion in the bond programme over that forecast period. What is the driver of these larger amounts of debt—again, more than Labour borrowed? More debt. What is the cause of it? It's because this Government doesn't have enough money to keep the lights on. That is why this Government has had to borrow for tax cuts as well, because if you look at the income tax component—tax cuts—it is just under $10 billion. But, as I have shown in the Budget Economic and Fiscal Update—which, again, I know some members may not have read; I will help summarise it for you—there is a $12 billion increase in the bond programme over the forecast period. It also shows in the Budget Economic and Fiscal Update that the fiscal impulse is going to be positive in the first two years. That's page 58, by the way, everyone—page 58. The fiscal impulse measures the change in the Government's contribution to aggregate demand compared to the previous year. So, despite the Government's claims that Labour's operating allowances were reckless, the total impact of additional spending—additional spending—in this year's Budget, including spending outside the allowances in the phases of spending, has increased between Budget 2023 from members on this side of the House and Budget 2024 by members on that side of the House. But, again, numbers are numbers. What does it practically mean to Kiwis? What does it practically mean to our communities, whom members of this House have been talking to over the last few weeks? What it has meant is that we don't have enough funding in health to keep the lights on. There is a hiring freeze at Health New Zealand. It doesn't matter, the big number, and the smoke and mirrors, which I warned members of the public, in this House, that that Government would use during the Budget—those big, billion-dollar numbers. It means nothing if there is not sufficient funding in the operating expenses, because if you break it down, most of those billions of dollars are in capital funding, yet the Budget Economic and Fiscal Update sends out a warning. It sends out a warning to New Zealanders that in the allowances for health capital spending, there's a risk to Nelson Hospital, there's a risk to Dunedin Hospital, there's a risk to Whangārei Hospital, and guess how much this Government has put aside as a contingency just in case those hospital builds are too expensive! Again, it's Nelson Hospital, Dunedin, Whangārei: only $100 million—only $100 million. That is irresponsible planning by this Government. Again, our communities are suffering because even though those members promised $250 in tax cuts, what do our poorest New Zealanders get? Those on the minimum wage, basically, get $12.50. What do our pensioners get? A lot of pensioners still own their homes and their rates have gone up by 19 percent in the last quarter, and they also have to insure those homes. Well, guess how much they get from these tax cuts: $2.50. Then, what point is there in having a tax cut if you have no job? The Budget Economic and Fiscal Update shows unemployment is increasing. Poverty will increase. Child poverty will increase. This Budget is a shame. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The next call is a split call. TAMATHA PAUL (Green—Wellington Central): Kia ora, Madam Speaker. Today, I am taking a call on behalf of Te Pāti Kākāriki to speak about one of the, I guess, keynote aspects of this Budget. Amongst a slash-and-burn Budget, where almost every other facet of our public services has been cut, there's one area that has gotten a massive amount of investment, and that's the Budget line that has $1.9 billion going into increasing Vote Corrections, with a large chunk of money going towards a mega-prison at Waikeria. There's something deeply disturbing about a Government that would rather invest billions of dollars into locking people up after the harm has already been created, as opposed to preventing harm from happening in the first place. But this Government and its Budget isn't motivated by reducing harm in communities; they're motivated by looking like they're doing something. We have a Government that says that they care about victims, but if they did, they would not have cut $25 million tagged for improving outcomes for the victims of crime. We know that one of the biggest drivers of crime is poverty, and not just material poverty but also a poverty of opportunity. Last week, I went to the youth prison in Christchurch, and I heard about how some young people preferred to be in prison as opposed to being in their communities, because at least if they were in prison, they had guaranteed meals every day and a bed to sleep in. How sad is it that in order for some young people to have their basic survival needs met, they would much rather steal a car or hurt somebody in order to get their basic needs met? If we look at the areas that the Government has made cuts to within this Budget, we can see that there's $1.81 billion worth of cuts within the housing space, including scrapping the Homelessness Action Plan, making it easier to evict people from emergency housing and from public housing, and reducing the funding for rangatahi transitional housing. This is where we need to realise that having a safe and affordable roof over your head, where you don't have to be in constant fear, is an important part of crime prevention. Angela Davis, who is an African-American researcher looking into prisons and the role that they play in our societies, said that "prison construction and the attendant drive to fill these new structures with human bodies have been driven by ideologies of racism and the pursuit of profit". Her writings on the American prison system may feel far away, but they are becoming more and more relevant to us when we look at another item that has been funded within the Budget, which is the reinstatement of the three-strikes law, the fact is that that has been imported from America, the country with the highest incarceration rate in the world. We're building jails and building prisons at a rate that matches the United States; in fact, Aotearoa now has one of the highest rates of imprisonment in the world. If prisons worked, this Government wouldn't be increasing the budget for prisons by $2 billion, and if prisons worked, their populations wouldn't keep rising year on year. If you take it in conjunction with some of the other decisions that have been made in the Budget like the removal of prison population reduction targets, millions of dollars being put into three strikes, reduction of funding for courts like Te Ao Mārama, the removal of funding for section 27 reports, and the establishment of military boot camps and the new "young serious offender" category, it's clear that the Government is happy to continue funnelling people into prisons instead of investing in our communities. Prisons cannot be the only answer, and yet, sadly, they have become that. Prison shouldn't be the place that you finally get support for mental health and addiction issues because the public health service is under-resourced. Prison shouldn't be the first place you get the opportunity to connect with your whakapapa and your identity. Prison shouldn't be the place you finally get a diagnosis for the health issues that you've struggled your entire life with, and yet they have become the only issue. I ask that we be a bit more creative in our response to the harm that is created in our communities and that we invest in those things that we know are the drivers of crime, instead of continually focusing on bottom-of-the-cliff approaches. LAN PHAM (Green): Tēnā koe, Madam Speaker. It's a real privilege to be able to rise tonight to speak to the very real implications of this Budget, because here's the thing: the Government members purport to be so laser-focused on their outdated, very narrow view of the economy that they fail to see te ngahere for te rākau, or the wood for the trees. This Budget neglects the one thing that holds it all up and the one thing, alongside the health of our people and our communities, which is the only thing that has any true value, and that is te taiao—our environment. I knew that the environment wasn't really a priority for this Government when they left all the environment Ministers out of Cabinet and scrapped really early on the Natural and Built Environment Act and the Spatial Planning Act. But what I didn't expect with this Budget was to have so starkly laid out in these Budget decisions such a deliberate and comprehensive dismantling of our environmental reform and environmental management space here in Aotearoa, especially at this time in human history, when we need these environmental protections and legislation the most, and that's what all the weight of evidence and science and research is telling us. We need to protect and restore the environment, or it's going to be to our own detriment, and it doesn't seem like that is reflected in any way in these Budget decisions. I did just want to step through a number of the most glaring and troubling Budget decisions. Cuts to Vote Environment have totalled $617 million over the next four years, and these are across significant programmes of work like cutting $20 million from the indigenous biodiversity fund or cutting $47 million from the Freshwater Improvement Fund. Then we've got the gutting of both of our key environmental agencies. First of all, the Ministry for the Environment has suffered a funding cut of $65 million, and that's a crippling 39 percent. Now, I want to spell out as well what this means in terms of the staffing implications. We heard really clearly that 200 staffing roles that were vacant will no longer be filled, and then we have 303 roles that have been actively disestablished from these Budget decisions, and I do want to point out that these roles are across the Public Service in the fundamental domain of things like areas where we are protecting or researching or restoring or monitoring fundamental things like the air we breathe, the water we drink from or gather kai or swim in, and the biodiversity that we love and enjoy. So we are all worse off when we do not have these public servants doing the mahi and actually having benefits for te taiao and, therefore, ourselves. The Department of Conservation (DOC) is another environmental casualty that we've seen as part of this Budget. DOC is tasked with the very difficult job of protecting over 4,000 threatened or at-risk or taonga species. They manage a third of the country on a meagre, shoestring budget and they've been awarded in this Budget a $48 million cut, which will have very real implications for their ability to carry out their role. This includes the incredibly successful Jobs 4 Nature programme, which goes up in smoke come the end of this month, with a $55 million reduction over four years. Now, what possibly could be the rationale for this level of under-investment? Well, we got to ask the Minister that during scrutiny, and she believes that the balance had swung too far towards the environment, and what was really concerning about that was that she couldn't point to any evidence within her own ministry that actually informed her of that view. But we heard, very vaguely, something about hearing from constituents and the need for housing and infrastructure. Now, those are valid needs, but you don't need to scrap our entire environmental framework in order to achieve them. The Green Party is really concerned that our window for protecting te taiao is quickly closing and this Government does not understand that. Thank you. RIMA NAKHLE (National—Takanini): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It is my absolute pleasure, actually, to rise and speak in support of the Appropriation (2023/24 Supplementary Estimates) Bill. It's my pleasure for a number of reasons, mostly because I'd like to start and preface my kōrero today with this analogy, if I may. Imagine that you've left your house for a few years, and you come back and you've—sorry, not "you"—one walks back into their home and finds it ransacked. Everything is broken, tables turned, windows smashed, and it's going to take time to fix up one's home. It's going to take time and it's going to take careful measurement of how much one can spend in fixing up one's home, and this is what we've been tasked to do. As of last year, we have to fix up our ransacked and damaged home, and I'm proud of the fact that there's a massive focus in our first Budget as a Government—and an awesome one, if I may add—and I'd like to highlight a few focuses that really resonate with my neighbours in Takanini South and East Auckland: tax relief, education, health, infrastructure, and law and order. I'm happy to say that our Budget provides for a number of other areas as well, despite the fact that we're fixing up this ransacked home, but these areas are areas that we felt were an extreme priority and I believe this will positively impact my neighbours in Takanini. Let's focus on tax relief. In eight days—yes, that's right; eight days—on 31 July, 3.5 million New Zealanders are set to receive tax relief for the first time in years. They've been struggling. My neighbours in Takanini and all across New Zealand have been struggling and still are struggling, but some relief is coming. It's not going to solve all of the struggles but it will help, and some of that relief will be that we are adjusting, finally, the bottom three tax thresholds so that my neighbours can keep more of what they earn. We're extending the eligibility for the independent earner tax credit, we're increasing the in-work tax credit, we're lifting the minimum family tax credit, and we're introducing the FamilyBoost payment. When I was door-knocking during the campaign, I let families that had their little bubs on their shoulders, on their arms, while they were talking to me know that FamilyBoost is coming. That's just a few of the things we're doing to provide tax relief to our whānau in Takanini and beyond. Madam Speaker, please let me move on to the education sector. We're committing, despite the ransacked home that we have to fix up, $2.9 billion to the education sector over the next four years. This will improve student outcomes. We're going to hire more teachers and provide them with better support. Minister Stanford knows exactly what she's doing, and underpinning all her decisions is that care. We're going to be hiring, as I said, more teachers. We're going to be building new classrooms and funding structured literacy with that $2.9 billion, as well, and investing in early childhood education amongst the many other measures. Part of this investment plan includes Budget 2024's $456 million injection into school property growth, and here I am absolutely thrilled to repeat what I announced a couple of weeks ago, which is that a brand-new primary school is coming to Flatbush, with Flatbush being one of the suburbs in my electorate of Takanini. This is part of our coalition Government's plan in investment in school property growth from the Budget that we're considering today. This new school is the first to have been announced by Minister Stanford and myself, and I know the benefits that this will bring to the schools in the area and to the parents in the area—there's going to be more choice. As I've mentioned before in the House, Takanini is one of the fastest-growing electorates in the country, and our Minister of Education has seen this need and has announced—as I said, I was absolutely, absolutely thrilled by the news—that a new primary school is coming to Takanini. It's going to cater for 600 students from years 1 to 6, and construction starts later this year. So anyone that has social media, please follow my page and I'll keep you up to date with the progress. Our Government is supporting our children for a brighter future with this Budget. In health: record investment. Those two words we've spoken about, and they've been said in this House a number of times, and I'll repeat them—record investment in health. Despite the ransacked home, our health sector will also get a significant boost of more than $16 billion allocated to health across the next three Budgets. That's priorities. This is knowing what our priorities are. This includes money for hospitals and specialist services, and primary, community, and public health services. There is $1.7 billion for Pharmac to ensure our fellow Kiwis can get access to the medicines they need. Roads and infrastructure is another major focus of this very well-thought-out Budget. Despite the broken, ransacked home, $2.68 billion will be invested into our roads, rail, and public transport. We're going to unlock economic growth and we're going to get Kiwis and freight where they need to go, quickly and safely. This includes $1 billion to accelerate the delivery of roads of national significance, and I'm sure many in the House know by now one of those roads of national significance is in the Takanini electorate: Mill Road. Finally, after being promised twice by the former Government that Mill Road will be built and its reneging on that promise, we are getting back to work on Mill Road. Don't worry, neighbours in Takanini, Mill Road will get done. Finally, Madam Speaker, if I can please dedicate the rest of my time—I wish I had triple the time—to talk about law and order and the investment our Government is making in law and order. But I don't want to categorise it as law and order, actually; I'd like to categorise this as making Kiwis feel safe, because that's exactly what our investment in law and order is doing. It's making our neighbours, our families, our businesses, our children be able to feel safe in their homes, in our communities, on the streets. As part of our commitment to restoring safety, we're going to be investing $651 million over the next four years in critical support for our amazing, exceptional police force. As we know—but I'm going to repeat it for the benefit of my cousins listening in from Australia—we're going to be employing 500 extra police officers. We're going to be boosting pay and supporting our police to help us all feel safe in our homes, in our streets, and in our schools. Mr Speaker, welcome to the Chair. What I'd like to highlight, if I may— ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): You may. RIMA NAKHLE: —is I'd like to recognise, as a former speaker spoke about earlier, Mr Gurdeep Singh. His jewellery store is in Papatoetoe. As we know, there was a violent, horrendous attack against him and his family while he was just trying to make a living, and not only make a living but this guy is a very generous man who gives to different organisations, as well. At Stonz Jewellers in Takanini, there was a smash-and-grab in broad daylight on a Sunday at around 4 a.m. last year. Other business owners that I've spoken to in my electorate are dreading to go to sleep because of that fateful phone call that they might get at 2.30 in the morning saying, "Your business has been attacked again." That's the reality that we face in South Auckland, and it angers me, actually, when other people make out as if our Government is just trying to please some type of vague group. No, we're addressing issues that are the reality in South Auckland. Our military-style academy: finally—finally—it's going to be addressing youth offending. We've campaigned on this heavily, and guess when these pilots will begin, because we're not wasting time. We're not sitting and waiting for more ideas to come across. We know what we need to do—six days is when this pilot will start. I'm absolutely proud of what we've measured to scrape together, after we've entered this ransacked home. Budget 2024 is going to deliver for many, including my neighbours in Takanini. I commend this bill to the House. SAM UFFINDELL (National—Tauranga): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. It's good to be able to rise and speak in favour of the Appropriation (2024/25 Estimates) Bill at the second reading. I'd just like to congratulate my colleague Rima Nakhle on her excellent speech there, and I know her electorate will be very proud of that hard-working member. Up in my part of the world, in Tauranga, we have very good news: we now have a democratically elected council—hooray! That is great news, and I just want to give a little shout-out to Mahé Drysdale and all the other elected councillors—well done on your election. It's been a long time coming. Democracy has been restored, and it's very, very good to see. There were people there, coming in and saying, "We need a hybrid model. We don't want to restore democracy." We said, "No, that is completely unacceptable.", and I'd like to thank the Minister of Local Government, Simeon Brown, for making sure that we stuck to our values and we valued democracy. I mean, to put it the other way around, it might be like me going to the Governor-General in a couple of years' time and saying, "The previous lot was so bad, let's not give democracy to the Kiwis. Let's make sure we keep National in power." That would be completely unacceptable and that was unacceptable, and Tauranga has democracy, so that is fantastic. All the best to the new council, and I look forward to working closely with them. Now, this Budget is a good Budget for Tauranga—it's a good Budget. We have some significant needs in Tauranga. We have very constrained housing supply. If anyone was watching TV last week, they might have seen on one of the breakfast shows—I think it was Friday morning, if I remember correctly, on TVNZ 1—there was a story on Tauranga. We have the highest rental prices in New Zealand, and that is crazy for a city of 160,000 people that we have the highest rental prices. Tauranga isn't alone in that. It's not unique. It is happening across New Zealand, where we have constrained supply and we have had councils and Governments that haven't been willing to deal with the fundamental aspect of market prices, and that is the supply of housing on to the rental market. So we need to get housing right, and we look at where the previous Government was, where we saw homelessness up by 400 percent. That is unbelievable from a Government that talked about how much they care for the poor and vulnerable. Homelessness increased four-fold—shameful, very shameful. We saw rents increase by $170 a week. That was very challenging—very challenging—for people. We saw a Government that ignored the advice of Treasury around what to do with interest rate deductions. Where did that go? They said it would increase rental prices; that's exactly what it did. In fact, under the previous Government, we saw one of the all-time great reverse Robin Hood moments in New Zealand's history, where we saw money pouring into the market. It all went into assets which were held by wealthy people, and we saw an enormous transfer of wealth, the biggest in New Zealand's history, from the poor and middle classes to wealthy New Zealanders—that is your record. Good news: we are here to fix it, and you would have seen the Minister of Housing, Chris Bishop say that we are looking to deliver new houses. We are going to go for growth, and this is a great thing. We're going to ask councils, such as the newly elected council in Tauranga, to deliver 30 years' worth of houses. They can go out, they can go up; they need to make it happen. Then we look at where we've got this big bit of land. You can go along Pāpāmoa into Tom Rutherford's electorate, Pāpāmoa East—it's almost its own city now. It's significantly big. You can drive for a long time waiting to hit the end, but then you do, and there's another big stretch of land called Te Tumu. Now, the landowners there have been wanting to develop that—there's room for 6,100 houses— Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Oh, fast track. SAM UFFINDELL: —for almost 20 years. Someone said "fast track"—did I hear some common sense coming out from the other side of the House? I think I did. This is a momentous day. Well, I don't know how that process is going to run, but I would love to see Te Tumu come on board. Houses for 15,000 people—wouldn't that be a good thing? That might help make Tauranga not the most expensive place to rent a house in New Zealand. Glen Bennett: Kāinga Ora—stop there. SAM UFFINDELL: People are going to keep coming to Tauranga. You might come there too one day, Mr Bennett, because it's such a good— Glen Bennett: I was there last week. SAM UFFINDELL: You were there last week. It's such a good place, isn't it? When you're there, you can understand why people want to move there—and I can see the Speaker nodding. Thank you, Mr Speaker, it is a fantastic place. We have been growing for a long time and we have been growing above the national average for a long time, and it is a good thing. We have a unique value proposition. We are part of the "golden triangle". We have the port of Tauranga, which—well, what do we do? We export, and it was 44 percent of New Zealand's goods that were leaving out of the Port of Tauranga, if I'm correct on that. It is significant, and let's hope that port can keep growing as well, because we need it to grow because we need to be able to drive value for all of the local businesses—the iwi and whānau businesses there—that are wanting to export their wonderful goods, especially kiwifruit. What a good season for our kiwifruit growers—how good has that been? It is so good. But we are going for housing growth. We are going to improve the rental market. There were good announcements recently from Minister Chris Penk around building and construction, allowing competition in building materials, and looking at things that are adding $20,000 to $50,000 worth of cost and asking questions as to whether that is necessary. Do you know what it's actually doing? It's putting costs back on to consumers and it's pushing up house prices. It's very hard to buy a house at the moment. We're looking at better social housing, as well, and I think I heard one of the Green members talking earlier about the repealing of the Natural and Built Environment Act. What a good thing that was, and we will be continuing to reform the Resource Management Act. There are some changes in process at the moment. We need to get this right, and that will help deliver new houses for Tauranga. I gave the Minister of Local Government a mention before for restoring democracy—thank you, Minister. He's also the Minister of Transport, and, boy, do we have some transport challenges, but we do have a few roads of national significance in Tauranga. The Takitimu North Link stages one and two—a very busy, very dangerous stretch of road. It would be fantastic to have a four-lane— Tom Rutherford: That's right. SAM UFFINDELL: —grade-separated highway to move people—Tom Rutherford in the House as well; welcome to the Bay of Plenty—delivering people and goods around the area and to the port. State Highway 29—I went over there, I got a trip the other day from Tranzliquid Logistics in one of their tankers. They said, "Come on in, and make sure you bring the Minister next time.", but we went over the Kaimais to Matamata. As we were driving, the driver started loosening up and telling me how wonderful this new Government was, and he'd noticed there weren't as many potholes any more. We drove over the Kaimais and I was looking for potholes and I couldn't spot one, and maybe that's because our Government is taking roads seriously because we believe they are the best way to deliver people and goods efficiently and safely around the country and around the Bay of Plenty and around Tauranga. It's been very, very good to see, and we've got some other significant roading projects under way there, too. I drove past one this morning, the Pāpāmoa East interchange—we've already given "Pap East" a shout-out. Tom Rutherford: As a resident, it's good for my property value. SAM UFFINDELL: How good is that interchange going to be for you, Mr Rutherford? Very, very good indeed. There are some significant challenges the new council's going to have to grapple with around Fifteenth Avenue and Turret Road. We've got an old, rusty bridge there that needs to be replaced, but I know this Government actually has the wherewithal to make sure we recognise that and prioritise that. Instead of prioritising raised speed bumps and cycle lanes, we will be prioritising getting people from A to B as efficiently and as safely as possible. I was walking down the road yesterday and a guy came up to me and he said, "Are you Sam Uffindell?", and I said, "I am." He was quite up front with me and I thought "Where's this going to go? Where's this going to go?", and then he said, "I just want to thank you, Mr Uffindell, for all the great work your Government is doing." When we got into caucus before the House started today, I told the Minister of Finance because it was directed at her and directed at her wonderful Budget. This is a Budget that is delivering for the people of New Zealand. It's delivering for the people of Tauranga. Good news too, because in a few days' time, they are going to find out that the average household in New Zealand and in Tauranga is $102 a fortnight better off—how good? Then they could be $75 a week better off as part of our FamilyBoost policy. This is good news for the people and the families of Tauranga. This is a happy Budget, this is a good Budget, and when they get their tax cut and they go and spend it on their food, they will see that food prices have only gone up—wait for it—0.2 percent in the last year. Inflation is down to 3.3 percent. The Reserve Bank of New Zealand predicted 3.6 percent, and we've got it at 3.3 percent. It's almost back within band. This is an excellent Budget. I commend this bill to the House. Hon WILLIE JACKSON (Labour): What a sad, sad speech—what a sad, sad speech. The Opposition—well, I was going to say that; they certainly deserve to be the Opposition—but this Government, I should say, is a little bit delusional. Tom Rutherford: Welcome back. Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Thanks very much. It's a little bit delusional, this Government because they waffle on about how much they have done for Māori. We saw Minister Goldsmith today filling in for the Māori development Minister, and, as we know, he's a little bit confused too about whether he's a Māori or a Pākehā—and we've seen that released by the National Party in the past. But it's always good to hear from Minister Goldsmith. I need to say to him and to that previous speaker, Sam Uffindell, that, sadly, that Budget was all about landlords. That's what it was all about. We know that and the country knows that. Landlords have been prioritised in this case, I want to say, over Māori, and it's a shame the Minister for Māori Development, Tama Potaka, isn't here, but I wish him all the best. I know he's off at a tangi and wish him, obviously, the best today. But, sadly, I have criticised him and I will continue to criticise him for the shocking Budget that has been delivered to Māori. It's a shocking Budget because we're talking about a $96.7 million cut in terms of Māori development. It's a huge cut. Where are those cuts? In Te Tumu Paeroa, $4.9 million; hāpai whenua, $22.4 million; we've got discontinued funding in data capability and access, $22.8 million—right across the spectrum. That's a huge cut, but then we go across to areas like Māori housing, and I'm very proud of the work that myself and Peeni Henare put into those partnerships with regard to Māori housing. We have had the best by Māori, for Māori solutions in this country, and we've got a loss of $40 million in the Māori housing area. I mean, when you talk about by Māori, for Māori, how on earth can you even talk about there when you've got a huge cut in that area? In Te Kawa Matakura, focusing on our knowledge, in terms of iwi: $21.9 million. It's right across the spectrum. Then we've had the Minister patting himself on the back over his funding in terms of kapa haka— Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Yeah, Te Matatini. Hon WILLIE JACKSON: —Te Matatini—Te Matatini. But, in fact, there's a loss of money there. It just carries on and on and on, and I have to say today that he has failed us. He has failed us and this Government has failed us, because there's two types of strategies necessary for Māori. You, obviously, have to have a universal one, but you must also have a by Māori, for Māori one, and now we've got a Minister who has actually delivered us a Māori budget that is in absolute deficit. It is a shocking Budget for Māori, so much so now that in Māori broadcasting, we've got Māori Television, or Whakaata Māori, announcing that they are going to be in deficit for the next two years. I was saddened when Minister Tama Potaka blamed me for not funding the channel for the next two years. Apparently, Labour gets the blame for a funding deficit over the next two years. We put $130 million into Māori broadcasting in the previous three years—$130 million. What is this Government going to deliver? Nothing—absolutely zero. So we have Shane Taurima, the chief executive of Māori Television, or Whakaata Māori, standing up and saying, "Sorry, we're going to be in deficit. There's going to be redundancies." Then we have Tama Potaka standing up and saying, "Well, blame Willie Jackson and blame the Labour Party." Don't blame us—we're not the Government. Put the blame where the blame should be. Yes, we've struggled in the past in terms of funding, but we got more Māori funding across the line than any other Government in history. In the last four years, we delivered a billion dollars a year back in terms of Māori—a billion dollars right across the spectrum—in terms of employment and in terms of Māori health. We didn't deliver zero, like what's being delivered now. Hon Simeon Brown: You delivered a big red zero. Hon WILLIE JACKSON: We've got a Minister over there who knows nothing about things Māori and, sadly, we've got a Minister for Māori Development having to listen to people like him. We're proud of what we have done, and we'll oppose this Budget for the next two years. Kia ora, Mr Speaker. Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker, for this opportunity to take a short call on the Budget debate. I want to agree with the previous contribution from our finance spokesperson, the Hon Barbara Edmonds, who said that Budgets are about choices, and I have to seriously question this Government's choices. This Government has chosen to prioritise tax breaks for landlords over our most vulnerable children and their families. In the five minutes available to me, I want to focus on the budget for Oranga Tamariki. I think this is a shameful Budget. The Minister for Children should be ashamed. Instead, she said she was proud of finding over $320 million cost savings from the back office within Oranga Tamariki. Well, let me tell you what those cost savings actually mean to the care and protection of our most vulnerable children and their families. The Minister of Finance required the Minister for Children to find 6.5 percent cost savings. So, in order to achieve that, they first and foremost looked at restructuring the organisation of Oranga Tamariki. That has resulted in 419 jobs being cut from Oranga Tamariki. That is about 9 percent of the organisation, but that is 25 to 30 percent of the back office. We are going to see the impacts of those back-office cuts—I dispute they are all back-office jobs—on the front line. You are asking less people to do more work and those who are going to suffer as a result of this will be the children and families who need our support and protection most. It has been described as back office, low-value spending, or wasteful spending. The next one I want to move on to is $30 million a year being cut from contracts for services for services in the community. Community providers are providing services to our most vulnerable children and families. Now, in the hearing that we had during scrutiny week, we heard from the CEO of Oranga Tamariki who said he wanted to make it very clear that there is just not enough money to meet the needs that they see every day—there is just not. So why did the Minister for Children not go back to the Minister of Finance and say it would be irresponsible to find 6.5 percent savings when this is what her CEO is saying? She nodded and agreed with it in the hearings, and here we are, $320 million being saved within Oranga Tamariki. Now, that $30 million a year that they are cutting from community providers are services on the front line. A reporter has rung over 150 community organisations. They had their contracts expire on 30 June. They are still waiting—still waiting—for Oranga Tamariki to confirm whether they will have contracts to continue the services that they provide, whether they will be buried, or whether they will be terminated. Now, in scrutiny week, it was very clear: they said that this would be sorted by 1 July. Well, it is 23 July and this has still not been sorted. It has been described by the media as a shambolic process, and I would have to agree with them. I want to move on to the $29 million that they boast about for their investment into youth justice. It's an investment into boot camps. That's their solution, rangatahi and others that might be listening today, to youth justice. They are investing over $5 million into a pilot programme for 10 young people to send them to a boot camp experiment which evidence shows has failed in the past. It is an expensive experiment, and that money could be better spent in providers that I visited during the recess like Kirikiriroa Family Services Trust or Ko Wai Au in Te Awamutu, who said that they could do better work with our rangatahi and get better outcomes than a boot camp experiment that this Government is hell-bent on starting on Monday. This is a shameful Budget, and the Minister for Children should have gone back to the Minister of Finance and said it would be irresponsible to cut 6.5 percent. ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): Before I take the next call, could I ask members that are having fulsome chats to keep it down. If you want to keep engaging in different chats, there are other spaces that you can do that in so that we can focus on the engagement in the House. Dr VANESSA WEENINK (National—Banks Peninsula): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I'm proud to discuss and share my insights into the Estimates and appropriations for 2024-25. In particular, I want to talk about how everything is related to health. In my background as a doctor, it's hard for me to not look at the world through this lens. Approximately 80 percent of health outcomes are determined by factors outside of the health system. So while people might not make this direct connection, for me our Government's commitment to things like radically improving the availability of housing is going to have a massive impact on health outcomes. So housing is about shelter—it's a basic physiological need, and one where if it's not appropriate, if it's damp, or if it's in a mouldy environment, if it's overcrowded, that can actually lead to more avoidable hospital admissions and upper respiratory infections and the like and all sorts of ongoing health problems. So, in our Budget, we've committed $140 million for 1,500 new community housing places. So that's going to be provided by community housing providers who will be able to improve access to housing, but that's not the only thing we're doing in housing. We're also bringing in a range of changes that will reduce the cost of development. We're going to be going for growth in housing, which means that we're going to fundamentally make changes to the way that councils approve and go through their consenting processes and all of the costs that are associated with red tape will be reduced. We need to massively expand all of the options for people, including some of the options like build to rent developments, mixed model uses, and others to expand the choices available. The other things that we're doing that actually are about health in my eyes: education spending. So education is fundamentally linked to health outcomes. Educational achievement is correlated with lower infant mortality, also higher rates of immunisation and fewer hospital admissions. So we're going to be investing $1.48 billion in education where we can make sure that the buildings and classrooms that are available for our kids are appropriate. At the moment, some of our school stock is actually mouldy and it's probably contributing to the reasons why some of our kids don't want to come to school. Although this is a large investment into making sure that our school stock is appropriate, from my perspective we will reap the benefits in the health system as well. So, overall, if we are looking at the health budget directly, we've talked about some of the numbers that others have mentioned already. The $16 billion over the next few years is a way of giving certainty to the sector about what the budget levels are going to be, so that they're not waiting each cycle to find out is there going to be an increase or a decrease or where it is—there's certainty within the sector. That's something that's been asked for for a long time. But I think it's really important to note that it's not the size of the budget that matters; it's actually what you do with it, and it's actually how you take care of things that matter. Tom Rutherford: It's not all about size. Dr VANESSA WEENINK: Ha, ha! That's right. Tom Rutherford: It's about the delivery. Hon Ginny Andersen: Are you heckling your own member? Dr VANESSA WEENINK: The Minister of Health has—yeah, I'm being interjected by my own side, yes. So the Minister of Health has appointed this week a commissioner for the health sector. This is one of the best pieces of news for people within the sector. We're finally seeing some real action—we will see some real hope within the system. The message that I've received from people on the front line and health leaders has been "Thank goodness, it's about time, and finally we can see some hope." Because, really, what has been called for and what has been needed in the health system has been leadership: clear leadership. That was actually one of the key themes that came through the report into the health system that the health reforms were sort of quasi based upon—a report that most of the recommendations in some ways were torn up and thrown away by a Minister of Health who'd been in place for less than five months when he decided that he knew better and it would be better to have, instead of a slow transition and a process that should take between five and 10 years to implement, they would do it in the space of one year. It was a risky and, now we can see, pretty terrible implementation. It has resulted in the worst level of low morale that I have ever seen in my 20 years of being a doctor for my health colleagues. They were tired, they were burnt out from dealing with a 100-year pandemic, and the previous Government did not listen when the New Zealand Medical Association, that I was part of at the time, said that we need reform in the system but now is not the time—now is not the time. Because in order to implement proper, decent change in our health system, you need to have an engaged health workforce. You need to have a workforce who is ready to participate, who's ready to step up to the mark and do what is required. But what's happened is that instead of engaging the workforce, those on the front line, there has been a massive increase in the managerial overlays. So instead of having 20 district health boards, we had one Te Whatu Ora (TWO), plus we had the regions, but then we had, on top of that, districts underneath them. So, in real terms, you had more than 20 entities—probably about 25. You ended up with thousands of extra people, and many of them, when I've spoken to them within the system, because they cycled through so rapidly, most of them didn't know what they were actually there to do. I'd say that over the last few years we would have seen thousands of people go through that change management process. By the end of it, we will have seen one of the worst examples of an implementation process that has ever happened in a health system anywhere. I would say that even 30 years ago when we had the previous health system reforms with the Crown health enterprises—CHEs—that three-letter acronym is probably going to go down in history as being not so bad as the three-letter acronym of TWO. So as a health leader in the sector at the time—a front-line GP going through that—it was appalling and it was something that we could see the potential outcomes, and we know what is happening now. So, from my perspective, everything that we are doing within our Budget for 2024 is helping to redress some of the health outcome problems that we have in New Zealand. And, like I say, 80 percent of what happens in the health system is actually—you can find the cause of that outside of the health system. So some of the things that people also wouldn't think of as being a health improvement function would be tax cuts, but actually improving peoples' incomes and the money that they have in their hands is directly related to their health outcomes. So the more money they have, the better they will do. Prosperity in a country is directly related to mortality outcomes. So by increasing prosperity in our country by improving growth, by working on infrastructure, by improving our roads that will lead to better outcomes across the economy, we are actually improving the health of our people. So everything that we are doing within Budget 2024 is aimed at improving health outcomes for New Zealanders. It's about caring, it's about the way that we do things, not about the size of the money that we're putting in. So I'm very proud to be a part of a Government that is actually getting things done, that is getting things back on track in this country, and I commend this bill to the House. Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Labour): There were days when people would trust what a doctor told you. Well, you certainly can't trust what that doctor, Dr Vanessa Weenink, tells us. She should be ashamed, because, as a doctor, she knows that the imposition once again of prescription fees and the removal of the obligation to make homes drier and warmer will be an impost on many of the people that come to doctors up and down this country to look after their children. It is a disgrace. This Budget is about choices, and the Government chose to give tax cuts, big tax breaks to landlords and to those with high incomes, and to throw a few pennies—$2.50 a week—to people on superannuation; about $12 to people on low incomes. Their choices were to look after their mates. On top of that, how they did that was to borrow money to pay for their tax cuts—the so-called magical fiscal managers. Well, let's have a look: $12 billion is being borrowed and $10 billion is going out in tax cuts. Where does that money come from? Irresponsible fiscal management by a National coalition Government, to ensure that child poverty will go up, unemployment will go up. The misery for too many people who don't have choices will go up while their mates, their landlord mates, walk away with bigger, fatter wallets. This is immoral. This is an immoral Budget from a coalition Government that just cares about the people at the top and still believes in the trickle-down theory. I'm ashamed to be here. Poorer people living in lower areas will not be protected, because there's no consideration about climate change mitigation, about doing anything as a country, because this Government has changed the focus of what Government should do. Instead of caring for those who need care, they're simply walking away on the basis of the trickle-down theory. I could go on—my colleagues will talk on many other issues—but I've got a brief time to talk about trade, because the Government has aspirational targets of doubling trade, doubling export income for this country. Well, we support that in Opposition; in fact, we had strong growth, even through COVID, of our export earnings in this country, through a really tricky time. And I want to thank all those people involved in exporting—thank the A-listers and the C-listers, the people who were insulted by a Prime Minister who once again put his foot in his mouth. We in Government took trade missions when we could. Obviously, COVID interrupted that. We put people in planes and they paid their own way to come and meet up with the Prime Minister and myself and others—Mr Parker—to advocate for greater trade from this country. Big firms, small firms—in fact, if you go back, there were a couple of small firms. One was Animation Research; another one was called Rocket Lab, actually. They were small firms, probably C-listers, but they became big firms contributing significantly to the export earnings in this country. And for the Prime Minister to insult the people who were on trade missions with the Labour Government and the Labour-led Government was outrageous. He's not apologised, and he should in my view. His Budget—the Government's Budget—does nothing to support the growing number of small exporting companies in this country to want to get out around the world. No more money for Trade and Enterprise—in fact, cuts to the budget for New Zealand Trade and Enterprise. No more money for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade (MFAT). And I'd have to acknowledge that the Deputy Prime Minister has probably kept the money for MFAT, and good on him. I just want to say that the first Budget of this coalition Government is an insult. It has simply transferred wealth from poorer people to more wealthy people, and the disparities in this country are growing, the division in this country is growing, and that is because of choices that have been made by the coalition Government, not because of inflation, not because of anything else, but because this Government has chosen to look after its wealthy mates instead of looking after the people in this country who need assistance. Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour): Police got $107.7 million less than they did in the previous Budget. When we go line by line and see what they did get, they got a couple of Ladas and a boat. What they did get was less money in crime prevention; less money in youth services; job cuts to all those who support police—200 job cuts; critical IT projects to enable the front line have been put on ice; and all of that, on top of that, police are so stretched in their resources they are stepping away from attending family violence call-outs. This is because this Government has made the wrong choices for New Zealanders. While New Zealanders may have voted for change, they did not vote for this change. What this Government has done for police is they've made the shop front look good, but it's a shambles behind the scenes. Crime prevention—for all of the talk for crime prevention, this Budget delivered less money for police to prevent crime. Included in that is youth services—for all of the talk about preventing youth offending, our front-line youth aid officers are funded less in this Budget than they were in previous Budgets. For all of those support staff that enable police to get back out on the front line faster, 200 job cuts for non-sworn staff who support the front line to get out there and do their job. So more police are going to be doing paperwork under this Budget. Critical IT projects like ReFrame—which, ironically, were cut as back-office waste—would have enabled our front line to be more effective, and to use technology to respond quicker and smarter in the future of New Zealand policing. When the Minister of Police was asked about ReFrame at the scrutiny week, his response was that it's "airy-fairy". Well, I doubt that he even actually comprehends the benefits that a project like ReFrame could actually deliver for front-line effectiveness and good services for Kiwis. But most scary to me is the fact that police have now advised the Minister of Police that they are so stretched on resources that they will no longer be attending family violence call-outs, even though partner agencies are not prepared to take up that slack and that there is a risk associated with this change in direction that may result in loss of life if risk isn't adequately calculated. Now, that is because police have not been resourced to be able to do all of the things that this Government has expected of them. More foot patrols are great and it encourages safety in our CBDs—that's excellent—but is that the price we should be paying for someone who requires a family violence call-out to no longer receive that service? The additional police officers put into the Auckland CBD came from Counties Manukau and they came from North Shore—they were taken off other duties to go on foot patrols. In the Wellington CBD, the additional 17 beat patrol officers, half of those were destined for the Hutt Valley—my area. They were taken out of where they should have been going in order to make the shop front look good and make it look like they're tough on crime. My concern is that with 124 fewer police since this Government came into power, all that is happening is taking police from one area to another to make the shop front look good, but the reality is that behind the scenes it's an utter shambles. In the long term, those who are going to pay for this are the victims of crime in New Zealand—and having communities that are less safe. We know that because the latest poll from TV ONE shows that there are a whole lot of New Zealanders feeling less safe than they used do under this Government. Let's finish up with police pay, because that was in the Budget. Not enough to keep police here in New Zealand: 322 police officers have left to go to Australia. Do you expect that would happen when the Prime Minister himself doesn't even know what a front-line new police officer earns? I'll give you a hint: it's not $90,000 a year. We have 124 fewer police officers doing this work. So when you set up a gang unit and it's meant to be operating by 1 July and it's not, and it's only got five staff in it—not even necessarily police officers—that's because the 500 promised to New Zealanders will not be delivered in two years. There is no way that that is going to happen. I'd just like to just wrap up by saying that this is a Government that has let Kiwis down—they've talked a big game on crime but they've cut funding for police and made our communities less safe. SCOTT WILLIS (Green): Mr Speaker, thank you. Ned Stark warned us several years ago that "Winter is coming", but with this coalition Government, we know it's well and truly here, and it's not good. Budget 2024 showed us this Government's heart is made of ice. We know that every dollar spent on insulation brings at least $6 in benefits, according to a review of 45,000 Warmer Kiwi Homes whare. That's through analysis done by the Motu economics institute. So that's benefits—benefits in terms of health, wellbeing, and emissions: benefits gained through fewer visits to the doctor or days stuck in the hospital, and fewer days away from work; less firewood, less electricity being wasted; and benefits in fewer winter deaths. A warm, cosy home safe from the elements is a basic human right, and as a country, we can ensure everyone has access to healthy, sustainable homes in caring communities, but this Government has cut $178.5 million of funding to the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority, and that will ensure that more children, more elderly, more whānau will suffer energy poverty. And we know that material interventions aren't enough. Social support is also needed, like budgeting services, and they've also been cut by this Government. The blitzkrieg of destruction has continued, with cuts to front-line services. The financial mentors in budgeting services have called for an urgent review of Government cutbacks because this Budget, as it stands, will drive more communities into poverty and debt and put added strain on an already under-resourced sector. So, clearly, this Government has not finished its massacre of all that is good. Disestablishing the Consumer Advocacy Council means that there is no advocate for residential and small-business customers. The Consumer Advocacy Council was an independent advocate. So here we are, with winter upon us, and the cold icy stare of the ice army in front of us. I've had the privilege of working with those at the flax-roots, working on energy action. Members of the Community Energy Network like the Sustainability Trust here in Wellington, like Aukaha in Ōtepoti Dunedin—people who really care about their community, people who work with whānau in difficulty. I've had the privilege of working with many whānau in those challenging places, with poor-quality housing, needing support, not knowing where to turn, really stressed by this Budget. When the Prime Minister can spend $95,000 renovating Government House, a house that the Prime Minister prefers not to live in but only to hold family Christmas gatherings in, we can recognise the signs of privilege rather than care for those most vulnerable in our communities. I've visited whānau and whare with holes in the roof, holes in the floor, rotten windows and weatherboards that were like a filigree—you could poke your finger into them—leaking bathrooms that cause the joists and bearers underneath to rot, holes in walls, homes where black mould looks like something from Stranger Things, and homes with weeping windows. Some of these homes were considered complete, having met the very poor insulation standards that we've already got, and having received ceiling and underfloor insulation in the basic Warmer Kiwi Homes scheme. So that's what makes this so outrageous: to not only cut the Warmer Kiwi Homes funding but also to cut the new programmes which were going to deal with those complex issues—the programmes that were going to ensure that people could afford to heat their homes, programmes that would ensure that people could afford to have hot water, programmes that would reach those who distrust the State, who have been subject to abuse in State care and need special social support. The experience of those who work at the flax-roots is really what matters, and when we look at this Budget, we see a disregard for evidence, a disregard for experience. The practitioners have been calling for a caring Budget, a Budget that recognises the cost of living pressures and the poor quality of housing, a Budget that will allow more flexible funding arrangements for those providers that sometimes have to bunch together different funds, report on different funding streams, simply to do the one thing that is necessary to improve those homes, to increase—not decrease—the available funding for repairing and restoring homes to a livable quality that are not safe to live in. To work with those practitioners who are now confronting whānau in homes that have been flooded, whānau in homes that will be flooded again, whānau in homes that are not safe to live in because they are at risk from the climate impacts that this Government's policies are now going to lead to when they expand coal mines and open up oil and gas exploration in our rohe—they have also called for coordinated approaches across Government; they've called for breaking down silos. I don't see anything in this Budget that shows how we're going to build a more collective effort across Government. They've also called for an investment in energy efficiency, which is interesting given that the Government's already signalled an interest in reducing insulation standards, reducing our poor-quality Building Code to ensure that people can build worse homes than already exist in our poor-quality environment. Another recommendation is multi-disciplinarity to address what are complex social situations, but instead we see $2.9 billion going to give landlords a tax break. And that's not all: this Government has also gutted the Community Energy Fund, taking $30 million for tax cuts. This is really, really critical. This is important. This is important because many communities, those who work on energy efficiency, were also looking for localised distributed energy resources, distributed energy systems, peer to peer retail, community windfarms, community solar, to bring the energy dollar back into communities—to help prepare those communities for climate impacts which will increase, which will increase under this Government's policies. Those communities have a headway, they are working anyway, but what we could have seen in this Budget was ensuring that we built the community energy sector to take charge. And that is the big disappointment, because the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment are now telling the sector that the remaining crumbs in the Community Energy Fund won't be decided upon until December this year at the earliest. So what we have are people who are working at the flax-roots, holding on with their fingertips to provide for their communities. The one thing that reassures me is that recommendation—let's see—in the Energy Hardship Expert Panel Report, which the Government seems to want to bury as well. The Energy Hardship Expert Panel Report to the Minister, released in July last year, is that there's recommendation AF1 to improve competition and remove barriers to entry and operation for independent social retailers. The good news for the Government is there is a bill sitting in the biscuit tin waiting to be pulled out, but it could come out a lot earlier. It's called the Electricity Industry (Separation of Generation and Retail Businesses) Amendment Bill. So my gift to you is to adopt this bill and let us get working. Kia ora. Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Budgets are absolutely about choices, about values, and about priorities. We can see very clearly through Budget 2024 that this Government made the choice not to listen to disabled people, families, whānau, carers, and the disability communities across Aotearoa New Zealand, because they have been marching in the streets, gathering at rallies, writing to Ministers, and speaking to the media and to many of us on this side of the House about the fact that their primary call was for flexibility of funding to be reinstated when it comes to disability support services. That is not in Budget 2024. What we see instead is $1.1 billion over 5 years, which will just about keep the lights on, as it stands. There is deep disappointment within disability communities to not see flexibility of funding reinstated. I just want to quote from Chris Ford from the Disabled Persons Assembly, in an article published by RNZ, who says—and I quote—"Our primary call was for the return of flexibility, because having it gives disabled people and whānau the control to determine what supports work for us as individuals. We know from many years of trials that flexibility leads to improved safety and wellbeing outcomes for disabled people." And yet it is that very flexibility that was removed, with no heads-up, on 18 March and not returned through Budget 2024. The other point that I want to make is the uncertainty that many are feeling within disability communities up and down New Zealand because of the disability services review that is under way as well, funded through baselines and, therefore, relevant to the Budget as well. This flies in the face of the catch cry "Nothing about us without us". There are no strong links that are seen by disability communities between the three people on the review panel who they were hoping would actually bring into the mix the need for flexibility of funding when sustainability of funding streams are considered by them. So I do want to point out that, of course, there's nothing in the Budget for that, but it comes from baselines and it's creating a huge amount of uncertainty, or as Chris says, that the sector is waiting "with trepidation" at the outcome of that disability support review. The other point is the scrapping of the minimum wage exemption. That was something that our Government had budgeted for in Budget 2024. Policy work was under way. This Government has scrapped that, and as Chris says, "We are very disappointed to see that the new coalition government will not carry through the previous government's commitment to getting rid of this unfair, discriminatory policy by 2025. Its continuation will mean that disabled people can be paid as little as $2 per hour (before tax) while working mostly in segregated, sheltered workshop environments." It's about 900 disabled people who will be paid about $2 as a result of this. Scrapping it would have sent a strong message, and this Government is undoing that. Finally, with the time that I have left, I wanted to touch on the environment and conservation because we all know that the Department of Conservation (DOC) is already stretched, whether it comes to managing threatened species, dealing with animal and plant pests, and repairing damage from climate change - fuelled storms. We know that through the briefing to the incoming Minister, through the annual review, and, in fact, in a letter that the Hon Tama Potaka sent to the finance Minister that says—and I quote—"As you'll be aware, the mahi that DOC teams undertake and facilitate is at the thin edge of environmental support for the highest conservation value areas of New Zealand.", and then he goes on to outline all the ways that Budget 2024 could cut funding to DOC. Why didn't this Minister push back on the 6.5 percent cuts to DOC funding, for a department that is already so stretched? Instead—and I quote from Forest & Bird—"Now DOC and other Government agencies, the kaitiaki guardians of our land, soil, water, threatened species, climate, fresh water, and oceans face devastating cuts too." They've listed all of the cuts and have, basically, said—and I agree—that it makes no sense to do this, environmentally or economically, during a climate and biodiversity crisis. The Jobs for Nature programme, alone, in 2023, provided jobs for 11,000 people while protecting the environment. That's gone. So much under the knife by a Minister who has no ambition for the environment and has clearly said that he's fine with species extinction and that 30 percent marine conservation protection by 2030 is just "an aspiration". Thank you, Mr Speaker. Hon JO LUXTON (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Well, this is a shameful Budget—a shameful Budget full of broken promises and bad choices. Many of my colleagues on this side of the House have talked about the fact that Budgets are made up of choices, and this Government has chosen some very bad choices. They talk a big game about the fact that at the election, New Zealand voters voted for change. I don't think they realised what they voted for is quite what they were going to get, but, thankfully, I think Kiwis out there are beginning to see exactly what this Government stands for, which is not much. I would not be surprised if this ends up being a one-term Government. Prior to the election, we heard from the Prime Minister that they were going to have a laser-sharp focus on the cost of living. Well, I'm sorry, but all we seem to hear about is a laser-sharp focus on roads, road cones, and potholes—not particularly aspirational, in my view. If this was a Government that had a laser-sharp focus on the cost of living, they would not have brought back 90-day trials, they would not have got rid of fair pay agreements, and they would not force thousands of people to lose their jobs—absolutely irresponsible and heartless from this Government. We had a member earlier from the Government talking about radically improving access to housing. Well, how can that possibly be the case when we are seeing Kāinga Ora housing projects right across the country being paused and put on hold? One in particular that I would like to highlight is the one in Timaru where it was announced under the previous Government and it was going to be the largest public housing build in South Canterbury for many years. It would have provided 40 social houses, and these houses would have been made available to people in the community to move into in 2025. There are 141 people on the social housing wait-list, up from 105 in 2021. Those people, sadly, will not have access to housing, and I do not understand how members opposite can stand there and say that they are focusing on radically improving access to housing. I want to talk about the broken promise, the broken promise on the campaign trail from that side of the House that families were going to be getting an extra $250 a week. Great news—families thought this was great news. But, actually, in reality, this is only going to a very few households. They talked a big game about this $75 a week rebate in the early childhood education (ECE) space for parents. What they didn't campaign on was that parents were going to have to collect receipts for it, then they were going to have to lodge it with IRD—it was going to be a big process. I'm sorry, but we all know sometimes Government agencies aren't the best to deal with and aren't always the most efficient. I don't even think that they actually spoke to ECE centres and how they were going to make this work, so it's a big, long admin process for families, and I think many families will just give up and not bother. I think that's a real shame that they didn't continue on with the 20 free hours' care for two-year-olds as the previous Labour Government had committed to. I also want to touch on the fact that they have removed the free prescriptions. The removal of free prescriptions means that anyone would be able to get their prescription at no cost, thereby keeping people out of hospital. They also talk a big game about wanting to support small businesses. Well, I can tell you, the local chemist that I've spoken to in Ashburton has expressed real concerns about the removal of the free prescriptions, because that has been something that ensured that people would come and pick up their prescriptions. What this will do is simply benefit the likes of Chemist Warehouse. This is a shameful Budget with no focus on the— ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): The member's time has expired. NANCY LU (National): I'm actually really pleased and excited to speak on this bill because it is my first bill as a member of Parliament. I am so proud of this moment because I joined and I wanted to be a member of Parliament working for New Zealand and for our future generation for one reason, and that is because I have now two very beautiful children—they are the future for New Zealand. I remember when I first stood in the 2020 election—and the reason why I did that was because I had enough of the Labour Government already then—and I thought, "If I am to be a responsible parent, then I'm going to do everything that I can to deliver something for my children so they can have a better future in Aotearoa New Zealand. I need to do something about it." So I ran in 2020; didn't make it. I ran again in 2023, and here I am talking about the very first Budget, which I think came just in time for our current generation and also for the many future generations of New Zealand. Why? Because the country was in the wrong direction. Why? Because New Zealanders had voted on 14 October 2023 to make sure that we are turning the country and bringing it back on track. So I am actually really excited to hear, as you can see and as you can feel, to talk about the Budget, because—guess what! In the last three weeks of the recess, I was up and down the country. I didn't take one single day off, including the weekends, because I wanted to be out there with the community, talking to people across different cities in New Zealand, talk to them about the Budget. Because, you know what? Most New Zealanders are struggling. Every single family that I've talked to has told me they are struggling so, so bad. "When can you guys fix this? We are struggling on this front. We have now decided to cancel our kid's education programme on this front. We are no longer going on holidays. We are cutting down on the heat that we can put on because we are struggling." And so when I talk to them—and guess what! Most of them are so busy with getting their own lives back on track that most of them have not realised about the changes coming ahead. So for every single family that I've talked to, I was telling them about, "Hey, have you tried the tax calculator? Let me try it out in front of you and do it for you." And then I talked to them about the FamilyBoost. Well, coming on to the FamilyBoost—actually, the former member who spoke before me talked about the challenges for families with young children when they need to now collect invoices and then put it on to the IRD system to get support. Guess what! When you need support, you will do the extra mile to get the support that you really need. And guess what! I have actually talked to the early childhood educators for my daughters. I have two daughters who are 2½ and four. They're currently going through the ECE programme, and I've asked their teachers and their ECEs—based in Pakuranga, Auckland—about the responses from the parents coming into ECE. Now, Pakuranga is one of my favourite electorates, and I think it's the best electorate in New Zealand. The best—where I grew up, and I've spent almost all my life in Pakuranga with all my extended family. I love it so, so much. Not the most affluent, but there are a lot of hard-working families in Pakuranga. So I talked to the educators and I said, "How are these families coming in?" Not a single negative response. Everybody asked "Why is it not sooner? Because we need the help. We really, really do need the help." But guess what! Things take time. We need to set up the system. And why do we need time to set up the system? Because we want to make it easier for families. The other reason why we are doing it online for every quarter is when you have a blanket policy—like the 20 hours or the 30 hours that the Labour Party campaigned on during the last election—when you have, basically, a blanket policy out there for anyone to just get it for free, you have also provided financial assistance to families who don't necessarily need it, but it is their right to have it. What we are doing with the FamilyBoost is actually targeting the support that we can give to families who really, really do need it. And now—this is the perfect time where I raise it again—from this family, parents called Yali and Isaac, who also have two children who are kids in the same ECE that my daughters go to. I remember them texting me on that very night, the Budget night, 30 May, with the screenshot and said, "Oh my God, we're getting over $3,000 a year." And that is enough that they can now put their two children back into an after-school, after-daycare, after-kindergarten care where they originally had the children but could no longer afford to pay for. But now they're planning to take the children and enrol them again. Also, on top of that, they are going to take the kids to the zoo as a family treat, to go out as a break from all of the challenges that they are facing in trying to get their family back on track. So, you know, in the last three weeks of recess, I've been up and down the country and talking to different families who have struggles and continue struggling. Last night, when I arrived in Wellington, I actually popped around to the local restaurant, just about 50 metres away from Parliament. I was talking to the family owner who employs 12 full-time employees and she said she is struggling so, so bad—so, so bad. She's waiting for the OCR to start to move down. She's waiting for inflation to start to move down. She's waiting for the National Government to start boosting the economy. I said to her, I said, "But don't just tell me about the good things that you're waiting for, tell me your real thoughts. Because I'm a National MP, tell me something that you can—what is the best advice for the Government?" She goes, "I know it is so tough out there. I know the last Government have wasted so much money because I've seen people, I've heard stories in my restaurant from people who talk about the little things that they get from the last Government." And she was not happy to hear them, because she is a taxpayer herself. So I actually told her, I said, "Hang in there. There is so much that we are doing as a Government. We are doing the extra sitting hours. We are doing urgency. We are doing law and order because law and order also matters for New Zealand as a whole." I said to her, "Just hang in there a little bit longer." Then she said, "But it would be nice if you can work even harder because we need to get New Zealand back on track and we need to bring our country back on track." So then I went to talk to her further, and I said, "Can you tell me a little bit more about doing business in general in New Zealand right now?" She told me a couple of things that she's really struggling with. One, it's the red tape. She said, "When are you going to make it easier for New Zealanders for small and medium businesses"—like herself—"in terms of banking, in terms of interest rates. When are you going to make it easier?" So I actually told her what we're doing in the Finance and Expenditure Committee and I told her the things that we're bringing into the Budget. Then she said, "What about law and order? I'm so frustrated with law and order. I have 12 employees and the last thing that I want is for someone to call me at about 10 p.m. when the restaurant is shut and say, 'Someone has broken in' or 'Something has happened to one of my staff'." She is so concerned about law and order. And then I reiterated it to her: "Law and order is one of the most—it is this Government's plan this quarter, quarter three." And then we went on to talk about the Budget and the plan. And guess what! She is a huge fan of the quarter-three plan and of all the plans that the Government has announced, because when we have a plan, we actually deliver it. So a couple of the things, when I went up and down the country talking about the Budget, is when constituents have told me they are actually feeling a lot more relieved—when they looked into the Budget and saw the commentaries around it—that there is a clear choice. They voted for this Government. This Government has put forward what we promised and we have given people the choice. But also, we are clear on the consequences of people not meeting their delivery. But we've also made it really clear with New Zealand that we are here looking for value for money. Because New Zealand is struggling at the moment, we are in this economic crunch that everybody, including the Government and families and businesses, we just need to tighten our belts so that we can deliver better for New Zealand, deliver better for our businesses, and also deliver more value for the hard-earned taxpayer money. This is why I am so proud to seek and give support for this bill, as this is my first Budget as a new MP and I'm so proud that we can deliver this for everyone in New Zealand as the National-led Government. So I commend this bill to the House. RAWIRI WAITITI (Co-Leader—Te Pāti Māori): Smoke and mirrors; that's all this is. Once again I will reiterate that what we have is a Government—a Pākehā Government—that has released a Pākehā Budget for a Pākehā economy; always has been for the last 100 years. It's not a 100-day plan; this is a 100-year plan to continue to entrench a Pākehā economy, lock out any type of Māori economy and to address the real issues here that continue to keep Māori in second place. That's what Te Tiriti o Waitangi was about: the protection of the pre-existing rights of tangata whenua. This is the most anti-Māori Budget in a generation: attacks on Māori ward representation; demolishing the Māori Health Authority; removing section 7AA provisions at Oranga Tamariki; rushing through the fast-track approvals bill; a 45 percent cut from Matariki funding; erasing te reo Māori from the Public Service; $40 million cut for supply and capability of Māori housing; $2 million cut for Aotearoa Reorua Bilingual Towns and Cities; a $6 million cut for the Mana Ōrite agreement between the Justice Sector Leadership Board and Ināia Tonu Nei to help transform the justice sector; a $96.7 million cut to Māori Development, including Te Tumu Paeroa; trying to remove the Treaty from legislation; $21.9 million cut for mātauranga and iwi-focused qualifications; a $4 million cut pertaining to strengthening Māori education; $37 million cut from backing mātauranga Māori to reduce emissions; $35.5 million cut, disestablishing the Māori Health Authority; a $9.5 million cut to claimant funding for historical Treaty claimants; and a $25 million on-hold for iwi and community-led rangatahi district courts. This is a shameful Budget. This is a shameful Budget. It is the most anti-Māori Budget in a generation. The evidence does not lie. If Māori make up 20 percent of this country's population, a "by Māori, for Māori, to Māori" approach means that Māori should get 20 percent of the total Budget. Absolutely. But we are sick and tired of Pākehā Governments continuing to fund themselves on the dysfunction it has created amongst Māori: 50 percent of the male prison population is Māori; 64 percent of the female prison population is Māori; 80 percent of Oranga Tamariki is Māori. We need to look at other solutions and Māori solutions "by Māori, for Māori, to Māori", not "by Pāhekā to Māori". That does not work, and it hasn't worked. We don't need reform. Reform is just a sugar-coated mechanism to make us better servants to the system. We need constitutional transformation. We need constitutional transformation. This is why 20 percent will give us $36 billion for a "by Māori, to Māori" approach to all of those particular kaupapa, and that's being generous. It would be about $40 billion if it was based on need. Instead, over $3 million of targeted Māori funding has been cut, while some initiatives have been completely scrapped. Māori are not mentioned once in the priority areas of this Budget. The Māori development section of the Budget summary only talks about savings; it makes no mention of new Government commitments. They have no ideas—they have no ideas. There is no new legislation to come out to look at, based on need, the data and the statistics that continuously put Māori at the bottom of the heap. Let's look at health for an example. You've got an Associate Minister for Health advising Pharmac to ignore any of its obligations to Te Tiriti o Waitangi, when there are huge health inequities that Māori have when it comes to accessing medication. We're dying seven to 10 years earlier than anybody else. This is the statistic that doesn't lie. I have a solution. Let's just take this for instance: if your NHI is worth $400 each, somebody is collecting $400—and don't break my flow, please, Mr Speaker; I'm on a roll. ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): I know you're on a roll, but, Mr Waititi, just to recount that you have already spoken in this debate. Just speaking to Standing Order 110, "Member may speak only once to a question"—"Except as otherwise provided, a member may speak only once to a question before the House"—it has been brought to my attention that you have already done that in this debate. RAWIRI WAITITI: So what does that mean? Can we carry on with the time? The time is Te Pāti Māori time, so can we carry on with— ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): With another speaker. Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Point of order. I was enjoying that. I seek leave of the House that Mr Waititi continue his speech. ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): Can you ask that again, Mr Webb? Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: I seek leave that this House permit Mr Waititi to continue with his speech. ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): Leave has been sought for that purpose. Are there any objections? There is an objection. Debbie Ngarewa-Packer can continue. DEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER (Co-Leader—Te Pāti Māori): It is not surprising that this request to continue wasn't supported, because—the truth be known—my esteemed co-leader Rawiri Waititi was giving facts, and the ecosystems of colonisation are really hard to swallow from those who are the absolute emboldeners; the absolute empowerers of that type of situation. So tonight, we look at housing: 100,000 people in Aotearoa will be sleeping rough on the streets, in tents, in cars, in garages, and unlivable houses—things that the super-wealthy could never truly ever understand. We have, instead, the Government congratulates itself on a Budget where 30,000 of those who will be homeless will be Māori, a large proportion who are made up of rangatahi. Māori currently make up 50 percent of the social housing wait-list, and by no doubt they will be some of this one over here's whanaunga. Therefore, they should be given 50 percent of the social housing Budget, but no—no. What we have is a Government ruling by denial. Our people should not be forced to pay over half of their income to feed the super-wealthy Government and their coalition's landlords. But that is where we're going to land. We have, instead, a Government that's cut first-home grants, locked another generation of Māori and Pasifika out of homeownership. They've continued to make sure the buffering of the feathers of the landlords are looked after, sitting there comfortably pushing themselves as they've saved $245 million over four years—which is about 8 percent of the $3 billion handout they're giving to—guess who! That's right, the landlords. They've also cut Māori housing by $40 million and action to address rangatahi homelessness by $20 million. In the meantime, they're giving $3 billion to who? The landlords. That's it. More than the sum total of Tiriti settlements combined. Oh my gosh, the parity around here just continues to stun us. Education. How extraordinary it is that kura and kōhanga reo have been funded less than 1 percent over the last decade and yet kura kaupapa continue to be the highest-performing educational systems in this country. Our tamariki and mokopuna to us are worth more than 1 percent. But again, that's because we're a future-focused party, unlike this coalition Government. Te reo. Te Matatini is receiving $1 million less per year—that's a 5 percent cut. Matariki funding has been cut by 45 percent overall. Funding grants for the Aotearoa Reorua and bilingual road signs has been cut. In fact, you could arrive to this country and not know there was even an indigenous language. Climate change. Funding for mātauranga Māori approaches to reducing agricultural emissions has been scrapped. Justice in Aotearoa can only work when tangata whenua assert our tino rangatiratanga to use our own tikanga-based models of restorative justice. But, no: despite the fact that we make up all the worst numbers and all the worst stats, we are locked out of being involved in anything. This week, this nation—in front of the world—is being brought to sit and see the perils of those who have had to suffer and the community of survivors who have had to suffer abuse in State care. My aroha to those whānau. Instead, what we have is a Government intent on repeating the cycles and nothing has been learnt from history. We have people here for the first time discovering that they may have a new idea—and, in fact, teaching rangatahi how to iron may be a way to actually sit themselves and navigate through justice. We have 70 percent of our Budget that needs to be allocated to 70 percent of the tamariki in Oranga Tamariki. But, no, we're not going to see that; instead, we're going to get mega-prisons, cuts to section 27 reports in sentencing, and cuts to programmes designed to address the over-incarceration of tangata whenua. The measly tax cuts they've given us are a disguise. They're an all-out war—they're an all-out war that you have waged on tangata whenua and the poor and the struggling. In 1889, King Tāwhiao funded Te Peeke o Aotearoa, the first Māori bank with our Māori currency. This was after decades of Pākehā financial institutions using debt as a tool to de-possess our people of their lands and their autonomy. Imagine if we were to create a Māori bank today while the Māori economy sits at $70 billion and is projected to reach $100 billion in the next five years. Just imagine if we would disconnect from $100 billion from the New Zealand economy, from the Government's Budget and redistribute wealth to our own people and our own future. We are already a significant portion of this country's primary sector: fishing quota, forestry, lamb, sheep, beef production, 10 percent of dairy, and 10 percent of kiwifruit. We have over 60,000 small to medium sized businesses, 20 percent of this population—almost a million and growing—and it's you who will be in debt to us. Kia ora koutou. ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): Just for a bit of clarity for the House: the member can have an additional five minutes because this was a new call. The original call that was given to Rawiri Waititi was an invalid call. So if the member wishes, she can take an additional five as a part of that new call. DEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER: Thank you, e te Pīka, mō tō mātauranga i tēnei kaupapa. [Thank you, Mr Speaker, for your knowledge on this topic.] While we have the onus to sit here and reflect about the measly tax cuts that you are giving to disguise the all-out war that you're waging on tangata whenua and, indeed, the poor, this Budget removes half-price transport and $5 prescription fees. They have cut minimum wage, benefit increases, support for disabled communities, while putting $1.9 million into what? Prisons. Because the only solution this Government has in its Budget is to prison its way through justice. You're going to have rangatahi iron their clothes through justice in boot camps and then prison the rest of yourselves through a lack of innovation. The sad thing that we can see for Aotearoa: well, the 20 percent—a million—of Māori, the median age of 28 are going and growing and, thank goodness, participating, because if Te Pāti Māori has proven anything, it's in our period when we have had to sit there and initiate our people to come out and show you what it is that they think on Budget day. The only thing that can be remembered is the tens of thousands of Māori, tangata Tiriti, tangata Pasifika who got up and showed you exactly what they thought of your Budget. If you were to sit there and reflect on what the articles and what the headlines and what the media were looking at, it was the activation of our people throughout the motu who showed you exactly what they thought of this out-of-touch, absolutely out-of-reach focus on only one group of people in Aotearoa—and that is the super-wealthy who, thankfully, do not make up the median age of those who are 28 years old. I put to you from Te Pāti Māori that this Budget is short-sighted in the fact that you have incurred and are continuing to put pain on ordinary people: on ordinary people who work hard; on tangata whenua, on your tangata whenua who don't belong anywhere else but here. And they will continue to grow and remember who was with them in their time of need. The activations that we saw at the railway station walk on to Pāremata; the activations that we saw stop traffic in the way that they did in Tāmaki Makaurau, in Waiariki, in Te Tai Hauāuru, in Te Tai Tokerau. The activations that rose in a minute's notice to show this Government how out of touch you are with the fact that you continue to think the arrogance of serving one group of people with one source of truth and one source of income is the only thing that will ever matter in Aotearoa. You instead will be remembered for your legacy. Tom Rutherford: They. DEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER: Your legacy—they—will be remembered for—thank you. They will be remembered for their legacy; they will be reminded and thanked for their legacy that they have left to remind a nation what we will never, ever do again. This was the signing of a licence—the signing of a licence that proves that this will only ever be a one-term—thankfully—coalition Government. There is no way that people are going to forget the pain that those who are disabled, that those who are takatāpui, that those who are workers, that those who are in hospitals, that those who are public servants, that those who are teachers, that those who are nurses, that those who are police, that those who are unable to work, that those who are students, that those who are unable to afford homes. This Government and its coalition will be remembered for being the meanest-spirited Government ever. I te āhuatanga o tērā legacy, [In the nature of that legacy,] there is no way that a single person affected by this Government is ever going to forgive it in 2026. So let's look at the House. Today we have seen—and yesterday we have seen—the behaviour of political leaders who lack the decorum and indeed the relevance and relatability to our people, who, instead of using their sphere of influence to make life easier and better and relatable for those struggling, in fact get to resort to name-calling; get to use words that we have absolutely fought our lives against hearing our disabled communities have to hear in this place. What we have, sadly, is a Government that is so privileged that even its ability to use the House right is lacking. So I want to remind and conclude that Te Pāti Māori will continue to breathe life to what could be—if we work together and dared to believe in what the economy that had the Tiriti been respected; that had the behaviours of white supremacism, the repealing and dismantling of kaupapa that advance our people being revolted, we would have had a much better Aotearoa. Kia ora rā koutou. TOM RUTHERFORD (National—Bay of Plenty): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. It's really fantastic to be back in Parliament after our three-week recess. It would be remiss of me not to mention that, unlike many others, I made the most of my three-week recess period. Last week, I asked my beautiful partner, Hannah, to spend the rest of her life with me, to marry me, and—[Applause] Oh, clapping for the Budget from the other side—I love it. James Meager: What did she say? TOM RUTHERFORD: Well, she said yes. I just thought I'd put that on the record. I'd been thinking about it for a little while. We got a taste of what parliamentary life was like, and she was still committed to me after that. [Laughter] So I am really grateful—ha, ha! We're not talking about the budget on the ring! But I am really appreciative to her. It's highly unlikely that she's watching, but, if she is: I'm looking forward to spending the rest of my life with you, Hannah, and thank you very much for saying yes. What also happened in that three-week recess period was the election at our Tauranga City Council. Fantastic for our local community and the wider Bay of Plenty area to have local democracy restored last weekend, with Mahé Drysdale selected and elected as our new mayor, along with nine other councillors— Rawiri Waititi: He doesn't even live there. TOM RUTHERFORD: —to make up our Tauranga City Council—oh, yeah. Anyway we had a great election. It was great to see the community turned out. I enjoyed being at the meet the candidates debates and actually just sitting in the audience, for a change, as an undecided voter and deciding on who I wanted as my local ward councillor and then also as my mayor. So it was great to see local democracy restored in Tauranga. Budget 2024 is great news for the Bay of Plenty. The coalition's first Budget stops wasteful Government spending; invests in front-line services like healthcare, schools, and the police; and it delivers tax relief to help hard-working Kiwis in the Bay of Plenty with the cost of living. On 31 July this year, next week, New Zealanders will experience tax relief for the first time in 14 years. This relief— James Meager: Oh, you were at school. TOM RUTHERFORD: I was at school. This relief is well overdue and will help hard-working Kiwis who have endured a prolonged cost of living crisis. Our tax relief package targets relief to low and middle income households. Families with young children are set to benefit the most. It gives average-income households up to $102 a fortnight, plus FamilyBoost childcare payments of up to $150 per fortnight for eligible families. A single person earning $55,000 a year will be better off by $51 a fortnight; a working couple both earning $150,000 a year will be better off by around $80 a fortnight; a single adult working 40 hours on the minimum wage will be better off by about $25 per fortnight; and so on. Our tax package is funded through savings and new revenue measures, meaning it will not add to Government debt. On the matter of health in the Budget, one of the parts of the Budget— Helen White: They're going to have to pay for their prescriptions, now; cuts into their tax cut, doesn't it? TOM RUTHERFORD: —that I'm most excited about is the extension of breast screening. I'm getting heckled from the other side of the House around the additional funding we're putting towards breast screening. Budget 2024 provides over $24 million in operating funding, and $7.19 million in capital funding over 10 years to extend the BreastScreen Aotearoa programme to include free mammograms for women up to the age of 74, which is fantastic news. The current screening age for the programme is women aged between 45 to 69. Breast cancer is the most common cancer among New Zealand women. Detecting more cancers early can result in better treatment outcomes and save lives. Expanding free screening to women aged up to 74 will mean about 120,000 additional women will be eligible for screening every two years. On average, women will be eligible for an additional two to three mammograms over their lifetimes, as part of the free national breast-screening programme. This means the average number of free mammograms that New Zealand women will receive over their lifetimes will increase from about 13 to 16. The chief executive of the Breast Cancer Foundation said the extension to free breast screening is "excellent news." Furthermore, one of the other parts of the health budget was the announcement that we'll provide $24 million over four years to Gumboot Friday. This is welcome news for my constituency of the Bay of Plenty. Gumboot Friday provides young Kiwis who are aged between five and 25 with free mental health counselling services. As the youngest MP in the National Party, I'm well aware of the issues that youth are most passionate about. One of the biggest issues facing young people is mental health concerns. Gumboot Friday provides an opportunity for support and early intervention while someone waits for a referral to other services. It provides young Kiwis who experience mild to moderate mental health issues access to free counselling services earlier. This funding will mean at least 15,000 young people across New Zealand will have access to free mental health counselling services every year. When you visit the Gumboot Friday website, you're able to put in your location and find a counsellor who can support you. I'm proud to be part of a Government who's committing to getting money out of Wellington and into grassroots organisations like Gumboot Friday. Another part of the Budget that I was really proud of was our announcement around fees-free. Our Government backs a sustainable tertiary education sector that supports and incentivises hard-working learners, businesses, and tertiary education providers. The first year fees-free policy was an expensive failure and it did not deliver its aim of more students going to tertiary education, nor did it increase participation; in fact, there were fewer fulltime-equivalents in tertiary education in 2023 than there were in 2017. We're changing the fees-free scheme from the first year to the last year of study, which is a much better way to incentivise students to complete their studies. Eligibility for the scheme will start in January 2025 and will be based on similar settings to the previous scheme. It will include provider-based and work-based learners studying at level 3 and above on the New Zealand Qualifications Authority framework. Every education dollar must be applied to its maximum value. Our fees-free change will create a more effective policy which will produce savings of $877 million, which will help deliver better education outcomes. Furthermore, let's discuss law and order. The Budget also delivers on National's priorities of restoring law and order and delivering better public services. We are investing $651 million over four years to deliver an extra 500 police officers and provide them with the tools they need to do their jobs. Our coalition Government is serious about restoring law and order. That starts with having more police officers on the beat. The $191 million over four years to recruit 500 extra officers by 2025 is a priority in the National - New Zealand First coalition agreement, and this funding boost will help us deliver on our commitment to restore law and order. In transport and infrastructure, Budget 2024 includes an additional $1 billion for the New Zealand Transport Agency to accelerate the delivery of the roads of national significance and other transport projects. This includes State Highway 29 over the Kaimai Ranges, and the Takitimu North Link stage one and two, both of which the Minister of Transport has announced as roads of national significance in the beautiful Bay of Plenty. We will deliver roads of national significance, roads of regional significance, and reliable and effective public transport in our main cities to get New Zealand back on track. One of the other things I'm really proud of is that we're spending over $1 billion to ensure that people with disabilities can access the essential services, equipment, and support they need. We're putting more money into Pharmac. We will deliver more teachers, more support for teachers, more classrooms, funding for structured literacy, the healthy schools lunch programme, and charter schools through our $2.9 billion investment in education. I wanted to finish with a couple of quotes from some members of the public. Let's look at Business New Zealand. Business New Zealand said, "Budget 2024 shows a responsible approach to spending in areas that have the potential to significantly improve New Zealand's economic growth." Hospitality New Zealand said, "The Government has been clear in the lead up to Budget 2024 that it would focus on being fiscally responsible. We were not expecting a package specifically for hospitality, but we welcome the moves to reduce tax, keep communities safe and improve resilience and connectivity." I commend the bill to the House. ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): Members, it's time for me to leave the Chair for the dinner break. The House will be resumed at 7.30. Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. …