Wednesday, 24 July 2024 - Volume 776 Sitting date: Wednesday 24 July 2024 WEDNESDAY, 24 JULY 2024 The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m. KARAKIA/PRAYERS TEANAU TUIONO (Assistant Speaker): E te Atua kaha rawa, ka tuku whakamoemiti atu mātou, mō ngā karakia kua waihotia mai ki runga i a mātou. Ka waiho i ō mātou pānga whaiaro katoa ki te taha. Ka mihi mātou ki te Kīngi, me te inoi atu mō te ārahitanga i roto i ō mātou whakaaroarohanga, kia mōhio ai, kia whakaiti ai tā mātou whakahaere i ngā take o te Whare nei, mō te oranga, te maungārongo, me te aroha o Aotearoa. Āmene. [Almighty God, we give thanks for the blessings which have been bestowed on us. Laying aside all personal interests, we acknowledge the King, and pray for guidance in our deliberations, that we may conduct the affairs of this House with wisdom and humility, for the welfare, peace, and compassion of New Zealand. Amen.] PETITIONS, PAPERS, SELECT COMMITTEE REPORTS, AND INTRODUCTION OF BILLS SPEAKER: A petition has been delivered to the Clerk for presentation. CLERK: Petition of Peter Knighton requesting that the House urge the Government to ensure that people with disabilities are always involved in Government decision-making that affects their lives; and note that 520 people have signed a similar petition. SPEAKER: That petition stands referred to the Petitions Committee. No papers have been delivered. A select committee report has been delivered for presentation. CLERK: Report of the Finance and Expenditure Committee on the 2024-25 Estimates for Vote Audit. SPEAKER: No bills have been introduced. ORAL QUESTIONS QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS Question No. 1—Police 1. TANYA UNKOVICH (NZ First) to the Associate Minister of Police: What action is being taken to boost Police recruitment? Hon CASEY COSTELLO (Associate Minister of Police): Last week, Police announced changes to their eligibility criteria, with individuals on their restricted driver's licence and those holding a residence visa now allowed to start the recruitment process. These are examples of common-sense changes that will open the door for thousands more New Zealanders who want to serve their communities. Tanya Unkovich: Is the Minister aware of a noticeable response to these changes? Hon CASEY COSTELLO: Although it's too early to claim victory, I can advise that over the last week, Police received 630 applications. Tanya Unkovich: Has the Minister received any other updates on recruitment and retention? Hon CASEY COSTELLO: I have been advised that Police are continuing their efforts to work closely alongside recruitment applicants to ensure that those who meet the required standards have the best possible chance of making it to the Royal New Zealand Police College (RNZPC). In terms of applicant numbers, I'm advised that in the first six months of 2024, Police have received an average of 526 applications per month. This is 53 percent higher than the monthly average over 2023. Additional recruitment staff are currently in place and being hired to ensure that applicants can be processed, cared for, and supported as quickly as possible. Retention of staff also remains promising, with the average attrition rate— Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: They're all going to Australia. Hon CASEY COSTELLO: Well, not according to the statistics over the last 12 months, at less than 5 percent. This rate is amongst the lowest of all employers in New Zealand. This Government believes the recent initiative announced by the commissioner to support front-line policing, including setting up community beat teams and the focus on core policing that enables police officers to better focus on tasks that require their skills and experience, makes policing more attractive to current and prospective officers. Tanya Unkovich: Is the Minister aware of further plans to boost recruitment? Hon CASEY COSTELLO: Police continues to attract potential candidates through its online digital platforms, including the New Cops website and district recruitment activities and marketing activity. I'm advised that 10 of the 12 police districts currently have district recruitment leads in place who are working alongside the operational recruitment teams to deliver fitness, academic, and candidate support to both applicants and potential applicants. They also run localised events, including information evenings and community recruitment activities. I'm also aware that the community patrols have increased efforts to engage with ethnic communities on the opportunities available through a career in policing. Finally, to support further recruitment, I'm advised that a new highly visible recruitment campaign will be live within the next couple of weeks. Hon Ginny Andersen: How many additional police officers are there now in the police service since her Government took office? Hon CASEY COSTELLO: Police numbers have dropped since November 2023, but this was expected, with no recruit wings commencing at RNZPC between October 2023 and January 2024 due to the Christmas closedown period and the transition. Wing 376 will graduate next week on 1 August and a further wing will graduate every five weeks from then on. With 630 applications last week alone, Police are confident we can recruit sufficient numbers. Hon Ginny Andersen: Why isn't the Government doing more to retain the police officers we currently have, given there are 124 fewer police officers since her Government took office? Hon CASEY COSTELLO: I'm glad the member asked that question. We are doing a lot. Firstly, we are investing in police being able to do what they do best, which is catch bad guys, and they are loving it. Question No. 2—Finance 2. NANCY LU (National) to the Minister of Finance: How many people have used the Budget 2024 tax calculator? Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance): Since Budget day, when the Government announced its programme of tax relief, the Budget website has hosted a tax calculator. This calculator shows how much tax relief people will get based on their personal and family circumstances. It has been very popular. I am happy to tell members that the number of people using the tax calculator has recently reached half a million—to be precise, 513,000 people have used the calculator to see what they will be getting in long overdue tax relief that the other side of the House voted against. [Interruption] Nancy Lu: Supplementary. SPEAKER: Wait. Nancy Lu: When will tax relief be delivered? Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Income tax relief will be delivered in one week's time. Changes to personal income tax thresholds, the in-work tax credit, and the independent earner tax credit will apply from next Wednesday, 31 July. On top of those changes, the new FamilyBoost payment, which reimburses families for a portion of their early childhood education fees, was launched on 1 July. Nancy Lu: What are the different elements of tax relief? Hon NICOLA WILLIS: From next Wednesday, personal income tax thresholds will rise from $14,000 to $15,600, from $48,000 to $53,500, and from $70,000 to $78,100. The effect of these increases—these long-overdue increases in thresholds—is to reduce a person's income tax by up to $40 a fortnight. In addition, the in-work tax credit, which helps support low to middle income working families with children will increase by $50 a fortnight; and eligibility for the independent earner tax credit, which is for people who don't receive a benefit or Working for Families, has been extended from $48,000 a year to $70,000 a year of income. Parties on this side of the House are backing the workers. Nancy Lu: How much will people get in tax relief? Hon NICOLA WILLIS: That depends on a person's individual and family circumstances. These circumstances differ widely, which is the whole reason for the Budget tax calculator. I would encourage New Zealanders who haven't already done so—and half a million people already have—to go to budget.govt.nz and check out their own situation in the tax calculator. Question No. 3—Prime Minister 3. Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his Government's statements and actions? Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON (Prime Minister): Yes, and especially our commitment to deliver tax relief to low and middle income working New Zealanders, which takes effect next week. It is not radical to believe that tax brackets should be adjusted periodically to reflect inflation, and, after 14 years, it's great that we're finally doing it. It's practical, it's fair, it's affordable, and it's common sense. And I'm proud that this Government will do exactly that on Wednesday next week, when tax brackets are adjusted for the first time in 14 years. For an average income household, that means up to $102 a fortnight and an additional up to $150 a fortnight if they have young kids in childcare. And my message to the squeezed middle is this; it's pretty simple: after years of struggling through more taxes, more spending, more inflation, this Government has your back. We're lowering the cost of living. [Interruption] Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Why should New Zealanders have confidence— SPEAKER: Just hang on. Just give yourself the space to ask it with the House respecting your question. Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Why should New Zealanders have confidence in his Government's commitment to increase the number of police by 500 sworn officers, when nearly a quarter of the way through the parliamentary term, police numbers have actually dropped by 124 during his tenure as Prime Minister? Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: We have ambitious and aspirational goals. We are determined to lower crime in this country. You cannot have a huge increase in retail crime, a huge increase in ram raids, a huge increase in violent crime and gang membership, without more police. That's what we're doing. We're going to get more police. Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Has the number of people unemployed and on a jobseeker benefit increased or decreased since he became Prime Minister? Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: It has increased, and it's happened because the previous Government increased Government spending by 84 percent. It drove up domestic inflation. When that happens, it raises interest rates. That slowed the economy, and it's risen to high levels of unemployment. This Government's determined to kill inflation to get it under control. It's great to see last week it's at 3.3 percent. We expect interest rates to come down when we get it back in the band. That will grow the economy, and that will keep people in work. Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Well, can he confirm that his Government's decision to increase the cost of car registration, reintroduce prescription fees, scrap public transport subsidies for young people, scrap affordable water reforms and other changes that increase costs for Kiwis has actually added half a percent to inflation in the last quarter, meaning we would already be within the 1 to 3 percent target inflation range now if they hadn't done those things? Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Oh my goodness! These are crocodile tears, aren't they? Aren't they? I mean, I've described that member as the arsonist who lit the fire, shows back up at the scene of the crime, and then blames us and the fire brigade for putting it out. That's exactly what's happening here, sunshine. That's a bit rich coming from you. Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: They don't like the facts. Has New Zealand's as yet unfunded emissions reduction liability under the Paris Agreement increased or decreased since he became Prime Minister, and is it his Government's intention to purchase international carbon credits to offset any outstanding liabilities that aren't met through domestic emissions reductions? Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I can tell you the best way to deal with that problem is actually to lower emissions, and that's what we're planning to do. Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. There were two parts to the question. The Prime Minister didn't address either of them. One was whether the emissions liability has increased or decreased, and the second was whether they're going to offset that by buying international carbon credits. He didn't answer either of those things. SPEAKER: Well, that might be how you've heard it. I heard that he said that the intention is to reduce carbon emissions. That would surely deal with both those parts, but, however, I'm sure the Prime Minister would be quite happy to say something more. Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, as I've said before, we've got a great plan to be able to lower climate emissions. It's different from the previous administration's plan, but that's OK. We're focused on delivering the ends; we'll just do it a different way, a better way. Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I don't think anybody watching that would be any the wiser as to whether or not emissions are going up or down under his Government, and whether or not they're intending to purchase carbon credits internationally to offset those emissions. SPEAKER: Well, possibly because they would have struggled to hear what was said because of the amount of noise that was coming from the—[Interruption] Sorry, is the member wanting to argue with me? Hon Dr Megan Woods: No. SPEAKER: I'll have to go back over the audio tape. I'm sure that the dulcet tones of the member will be very audible in that case. Ask the question again at no penalty and we'll see what comes of that. Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Has New Zealand's as yet unfunded emissions reduction liability under the Paris Agreement increased or decreased since he became Prime Minister, and is it his Government's intention to purchase international carbon credits to offset any outstanding liabilities that aren't met through domestic emissions reductions? Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Our Government's intention is to reduce emissions, and what we're going to do is pass fast-track legislation. I think that was a genius idea by the gentleman at the back—David Parker—who actually should be the leader of the Labour Party because he actually is principled and he actually cares about something. Fast-track legislation is the way in which we lower our emissions. I'd encourage that member to support us. Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. Perhaps I could help the Prime Minister by seeking— SPEAKER: No—not by point of order. Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: —leave for David Parker to provide an answer to the questions as he seems to know more about it than the Prime Minister does. SPEAKER: Well, you could, but you're not going to. So another supplementary. Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Does he stand by his statement that "what we're doing on interest deductibility is making sure we lower you know, we … actually put downward pressure on rents for renters."; if so, by how much have rents dropped across New Zealand since he became Prime Minister? Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, what I can tell that member is, in the previous administration, rents went up $175 a week. What we are doing is making sure that we increase the supply of houses being built, the supply of rental properties being available, and the supply of social housing being available. If we can do that, we can put downward pressure on rents. We can make sure that people get affordable housing. Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Which of the following best demonstrates his so-called laser-like focus on outcomes: fewer police on the beat, more people unemployed, inflation staying higher for longer, increasing greenhouse gas emissions, or higher rents? Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Again, it is rich taking a lecture from that member on outcomes—this was a Government that spent more money, hired more people, delivered worse outcomes completely. You can't hide from that record. We're determined; we publish it every quarter. We're very transparent with the New Zealand people. We have a quarterly plan. We actually announce our scorecards. We announce our progress against our targets. We're going to keep doing it. Hon Kieran McAnulty: Doesn't like questions from him; doesn't like questions from us. SPEAKER: When you're ready. Hon Kieran McAnulty: Oh, can I keep going? SPEAKER: No, you can't. Question No. 4—Prime Minister 4. 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 moves that we are making to deliver world-class infrastructure and to rebuild the New Zealand economy. We know the difference that world-class roads can make to local communities—helping Kiwis move faster and supporting growth and investment across the country. So it was absolutely fantastic news yesterday that this Government is accelerating work on a four-lane expressway from Auckland to Whangārei as part of our hugely successful roads of national significance. We know the difference that roads like Waikato expressway and the Kāpiti expressway have made for the regions, and now we're bringing that to Northland. Whether you're driving an EV or a truck, running a business or going on holiday, great roads matter, and our coalition Government's going to build them. Chlöe Swarbrick: Can the Prime Minister name just one policy in the Government's draft emissions reduction plan that will "make it cheaper for households to reduce net emissions"? Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, what will happen is that we are going to double the amount of renewable energy in this country, and we're going to do that by accelerating our fast-track, one-stop shop legislation. I encourage that member to support it. Chlöe Swarbrick: Does the Prime Minister believe that our pathway to a climate-friendly future lies in more extraction of coal, oil, and gas, or ensuring 100 percent renewable energy, or is he intent to keep talking out both sides of his mouth? Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: What I'd say to you is that we are going to double the amount of renewable energy in this country. It is unacceptable to take eight years to consent a wind farm and then two years to build it. I would encourage that member and the Labour Party to actually support that legislation so we can get renewable projects consented in one year and built much quicker. I'd also say to that member, you're well aware that under the ending of the oil and gas ban, we now have some energy security challenges around gas supply, and I'd encourage that member to also support that legislation too. SPEAKER: Before I call the member, I'd just say the little flick at the end of the last question could well see questions terminated in the future. Chlöe Swarbrick: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Does the Prime Minister know or care that if you add up the emissions reductions of his Government's so-called key policies in the draft emissions reduction plan, they make up a third of the emissions increase that his reversal of the oil and gas ban will create? Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: What I'd just say to that member is we are consulting on a draft emissions reduction plan. I encourage the New Zealand public to submit on it, and we'll have a final plan announced at the end of the year. Chlöe Swarbrick: How does the Prime Minister feel knowing that his Government's decision under even just the emissions reduction plan alone has taken us off track to meet our climate goals and will increase inequality? Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, we remain on track to deliver the emissions reductions budget one and emissions reduction budget two. Chlöe Swarbrick: Is the Prime Minister incapable or just too scared to answer a question, straight up? SPEAKER: That question is out of order. Question No. 5—Transport 5. GRANT McCALLUM (National—Northland) to the Minister of Transport: What recent announcements has he made on the four-lane roads of national significance between Auckland and Northland? Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Transport): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Yesterday, I was pleased to announce that the coalition Government is accelerating work on the new four-lane expressway between Auckland and Whangārei. For too long, the lack of resilient transport connections between Northland and the rest of the country have been a handbrake on the regions' economic development. Planning for a replacement to the Brynderwyns was abruptly stopped by the last Government and it's left Northland far too often in a vulnerable disruption. That's why we're moving at pace to get this project back on track, and I acknowledge the New Zealand First - National coalition's commitment to this project. Grant McCallum: How is the Government accelerating work on these roads of national significance? Hon SIMEON BROWN: As part of our Roads of National Significance programme, we have agreed to an accelerated delivery model to deliver this project faster and more efficiently. Our accelerated delivery strategy includes a progressive public-private partnership model that will achieve efficiencies and innovation in planning, procurement, design, and construction across the entire roading corridor between Auckland and Whangārei. It will do this by treating the three roads of national significance as three stages of the same project and incentivising the partner to deliver excellence in design, construction, finance, maintenance, and operation for each phase of the expressway. This Government is focused on getting infrastructure built. Grant McCallum: What benefits will this accelerated delivery model have on these roads of national significance? Hon SIMEON BROWN: There is great news for the hard-working people of Northland. Our accelerated delivery model means the New Zealand Transport Agency will avoid multiple procurement processes and will deliver integrated design, construction, and maintenance operations across the entire Northland Expressway and allow greater efficiencies through scale to deliver the project up to 10 years faster than traditional processes. The coalition Government is delivering for Northland. Grant McCallum: What benefits will the Northland Expressway bring to Northland? Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, once the Northland Expressway is completed, it will provide a modern, reliable, and efficient link between Northland and Auckland, unlocking economic growth and boosting productivity. Last year, a report by the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research found that the Warkworth to Wellsford section of the expressway alone would increase New Zealand's annual GDP by $497 million including benefits for Northland. The AA has said, following this announcement, that this would be a "game changer" for Northland. Whangārei's Mayor Vince Cocurullo has said it was awesome news and a project that "Northland welcomes with open arms". Hon David Seymour: Does the Minister view this project as a cost to New Zealand or an investment in a region that has been underserved and called the "roadless north" for far too long, and, yet, has better weather, better beaches, and more potential to be a place and a home for more and more people for generations to come than perhaps any other region? Hon SIMEON BROWN: Oh, well, the fond remarks that man says of Northland are true for the hearts of many New Zealanders. But, ultimately, we know that if we want to unlock economic growth and productivity for New Zealand, we need to build the modern, reliable infrastructure that New Zealand needs, and that includes building the roading infrastructure that New Zealand needs. The last Government cancelled the Roads of National Significance programmes—one of the worst decisions they made. [Interruption] SPEAKER: That's enough. Now we're just going to try and have a degree of calm. The House is getting a little bit too fractious. Question No. 6—Finance 6. 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, what specific initiative in her Budget, if any, can she point to that will reduce inflation? Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance): Yes. And to the second part, the member seems to fundamentally have a misunderstanding, because the significance of the impact of the Budget on inflation is not about individual initiatives but rather the overall impact of spending and revenue decisions taken together—for example, the more-than-240 savings initiatives progressed by this Government in the Budget. I refer the member to Treasury's analysis in the Budget Economic and Fiscal Update, which says—and I quote—"The decisions taken through Budget 2024 will on balance reduce the contribution fiscal policy is making to inflation pressure." Hon Barbara Edmonds: What specific initiative, if any, can she point to in Budget 2024 that will reduce rates that are up an average of 9.6 percent? Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I can point to the fact that this is a Government that is spending wisely and that, therefore, the overall impact of our Budget is to reduce pressure on inflation. Hon Barbara Edmonds: What specific initiative, if any, can she point to in Budget 2024 that will reduce insurance that is up 14 percent, with some families paying an additional $2,000 per year or $45 per week extra? Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, as with the answer to the previous question, I do not set rates, nor do I set insurance levies. And if the member thinks it would be appropriate for the Minister of Finance to set insurance levies, then there's a much broader discussion we can have about that. However, what we are seeing across New Zealand is that many insurers are introducing risk-based pricing and are looking at the risks which exist in our insurance market. One of the most significant risks is the risk of climate change and the more extreme weather events that are created by it. A specific initiative in Budget 2024 is the establishment of the Regional Infrastructure Fund. And the first set of projects that that fund will support are flood-mitigation projects, including stop banks across our regions, which is intended to reduce the risk of major climatic events, which, in turn, will help the context in which insurance rates are set. And to the earlier question in terms of rates, again, we do not set rates, but we are a Government that is ensuring we are providing uplifts and support for local roading projects, for many of the projects that local government are trying to carry out, and we are supporting growth in our regions. Hon Barbara Edmonds: What specific initiative, if any, can she point to in Budget 2024 that will reduce rents that are up 4.8 percent—and the medium rental is $600 a week? Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I do think it's important that the member continues to reflect on my answer to the first question, which is that we know the cumulative impact of the initiatives in Budget 2024, in Treasury's advice, is to reduce inflation pressure. In answer to the question specifically about rents, I can tell you this: increasing costs on landlords through removing their interest deductibility increased pressure on rents. And so the corollary is this: in an environment where interest deductibility was not restored, I guarantee rents would have increased faster. Hon Barbara Edmonds: Why have rents increased by 4.8 percent when she said her $2.9 billion tax break for landlords would put "downward pressure on rents"? Hon NICOLA WILLIS: As I just said, I am confident that it has put downward pressure relative to the alternative, which was ratcheting up costs on landlords. What that Government had budgeted for was to grossly increase costs on landlords, which, I believe, would have been passed on to tenants in the rents that were charged. But, furthermore, what we are doing as a Government is the most fundamental thing we can do, which is move our levers to increase housing supply. Ultimately, we want a situation where landlords are competing much more robustly in the rental market so that, actually, there is maximum downward pressure on rents, and that's about fixing the Resource Management Act, it's about fixing constraints on land supply, and it's about the changes Chris Penk is making in the building and construction portfolio to make it cheaper to build a house. And I'll tell you what we're not doing: we're not going around New Zealand promising people we'll build 100,000 KiwiBuild homes. Hon Barbara Edmonds: Will she continue to claim responsibility for the decrease in inflation, as set out in her media release last week, when her actions have done nothing to cause it? Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I once again point the member to the Treasury analysis, an institution she used to speak very well of. The decisions taken through Budget 2024 will, on balance, reduce the contribution fiscal policy is making to inflation pressure. I would also point her to market analysts who agree that inflation is now lower than it had been forecast to be at this point in the cycle. The plan is on track, and New Zealand is getting back on track. Question No. 7—Building and Construction 7. SCOTT WILLIS (Green) to the Minister for Building and Construction: Are new houses in New Zealand too well insulated; if not, why is he considering rolling back insulation standards? Hon CHRIS PENK (Minister for Building and Construction): To the second part of the question, no decisions have been made by the Government in terms of whether there needs to be changes in settings to clause H1 of The Building Code. To the first part of the question, I wouldn't say that houses in New Zealand are too well insulated—the older stock certainly are far too far under-insulated—but I would note, however, and I would be surprised if any member of this House disagreed, that housing in New Zealand is far too expensive. It is unaffordable for many Kiwi families to be able to afford a home, which is why we have the homelessness problem in this country. As Minister, I have heard significant concerns from a range of people who are actually building houses—unlike those members opposite, who merely pontificated on the subject—about the practical realities of implementing the new energy-efficiency standards. That is why I have asked Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) officials to investigate the way that these are being practically implemented and the implications such as the additional cost, the role that choice should play, and also counter-productive effects such as moisture build-up due to additional insulation being required in roofing. Scott Willis: Supplementary. SPEAKER: We'll just wait until the House settles a bit—too much interjection on that one. Scott Willis: Does the Minister accept that increases of less than 1 percent of overall building costs to save 40 percent on heating costs is a winning investment for reducing household living costs, improving health and wellbeing, and conserving energy to help decarbonise our economy? Hon CHRIS PENK: The figures that the member has cited are hotly contested—if you'll excuse the pun—at best. People who are actively engaged in building homes in this country have frequently said to me that the costs are far more often in the range of $35,000 to $50,000. Chlöe Swarbrick: Give us a name. Hon CHRIS PENK: I will give you a name of a person who has said that. I quote, for example, construction sector adviser Mike Blackburn, who was quoted recently in the media as saying, "Most builders that I have spoken to on this confirmed the $35,000 to $50,000 increase in building costs. These costs are passed on to the homeowner." Hon David Seymour: If a mere 1 percent increase in building costs could save 40 percent on the price of heating, why would the Government have needed to regulate people to do it in the first place? Is it because they think New Zealanders are a bit dim? Hon CHRIS PENK: The question is an astute one because it actually goes to the question of incentives versus mandating. The member points out, in effect, in his question that if the financial and other incentives are such that people wish to choose to make those decisions when they are building a home, then they are free to do so. [Interruption] SPEAKER: We're about to go into hearing questions in silence. It's just getting a bit over the top. Scott Willis: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I certainly appreciated the Minister's reckons. But does the Minister respect the expertise of the Construction Industry Council, Master Builders, Community Housing Aotearoa, the Building Industry Federation, the Institute of Architects, the Green Building Council, Community Energy Network, Insulation Association of New Zealand, and the Building Research Association, who all support the successful H1 insulation standards, not reckons? SPEAKER: The Minister can answer one of those questions. Hon CHRIS PENK: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I appreciate the different perspectives and interests of a range of different key players in the building sector, including those who are actually building homes, of course, and I don't think it's particularly appropriate for the member to dismiss those views as mere reckons. Obviously, he can say whatever he likes in terms of my ability to process those points of view. But the fact of the matter is that unless we engage broadly across the sector and listen to the feedback that is being provided in the real world about the practical realities of implementing this policy, well intentioned as it may have been, we'll be no further ahead either in terms of energy efficiency or in terms of the reality of the housing supply and affordability crisis that we've inherited and are actually doing something about. Scott Willis: Will the Minister commit to establishing a zero carbon building hub, as recommended by the Green Building Council, to ensure a collaborative and sector-led approach to ensuring affordability and better building standards? Hon CHRIS PENK: I'm not going to make any commitment on behalf of the Government as to the method by which we are going to improve sustainability of building outcomes in New Zealand. But I will say, in relation to the Green Building Council's advocacy, I have been engaging with them pretty diligently over the last several months, including as recently as last week and including as recently as this week, in fact, on these very subjects. I will make recommendations to fellow Ministers in due course, but they will expect, no doubt, that any proposed solutions that I bring to the Government would meet the dual aims of improving sustainability, including energy efficiency and the health benefits, but without making housing so unaffordable that we have the homelessness problems and all the energy efficiency and social and economic problems that go with that, which is the current reality. Grant McCallum: What comments has he been hearing in Northland about the effects of recent changes to clause H1 of the building code? Hon CHRIS PENK: I've heard a number of comments from the excellent member of Parliament who represents Northland, and he's in touch with his constituents. So too is the Mayor of the Far North, Mr Moko Tepania, who said he would like the H1 changes reversed—again, listening to his constituents—because in his view, these are contributing to the critical shortage of affordable housing that they so desperately need. He said earlier this week: "We have huge levels of overcrowding for the housing that we have. Our housing is severely unaffordable, according to the housing index, and we have got hundreds on our waiting list for public housing." He also went on to say, "We want to ensure that any housing that is built up here is going to be safe and warm and affordable. But also we don't want them to be inappropriate or cost prohibitive to us, ensuring that we are boosting the number of houses that we are building up here for our people." The point there, that's a very astute one on behalf of His Worship, is that we have a blunt instrument at the moment, such that the settings in Northland are exactly the same as they are in Southland. And I think that's a legitimate avenue for inquiry and part of the review that I have asked MBIE officials now to conduct. Scott Willis: Is the Minister comfortable committing more families to cold and unhealthy under-insulated housing when almost one in five hospital admissions of young children with acute respiratory infections could be prevented if their homes were free from damp and cold? Hon CHRIS PENK: I've done no such thing, but of course the Government will enter into the discussion of how we can balance the requirements of affordability and sustainability, including as to the health effects, in a way that's realistic and reflects the practical implementation realities such as currently we're hearing from people who actually know what they're talking about—that these various aims are not being met at the moment. Question No. 8—Conservation 8. Hon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel) to the Minister of Conservation: What recent announcements has he made about conservation funding? Hon TAMA POTAKA (Minister of Conservation): I have recently announced the projects that will be funded by the international visitor levy. The funding has provided a $25 million funding boost to conservation, including $5 million for Cathedral Cove, Mautohe, and $6 million for enhancing tracks and expanding Department of Conservation's (DOC's) network of short walks and day hikes. These are major projects that will protect and enhance our country's majestic landscapes, flora, and fauna and make it easier for New Zealanders and our visitors, our manuhiri, to experience nature—toitū te taiao. We know that nature is one of the key reasons people choose to visit Aotearoa New Zealand, and it's important the international visitor levy funding supports these outcomes. Hon Scott Simpson: To the Minister: how will this announcement benefit the beautiful Coromandel? Hon TAMA POTAKA: He whenua taurikura a Moehau, Te Tara-o-te-ika. [Coromandel is a paradise.] Coromandel is an iconic place, and Cathedral Cove is one of the most spectacular beaches, not just in New Zealand but in the world. Before COVID-19, Mautohe Cathedral Cove was the fourth most visited DOC site in New Zealand. In 2023, the walking track was significantly damaged by successive weather events, having a big impact on the local economy and regional economy. I've approved $5 million of international visitor levy funding for Cathedral Cove to deliver walk-in access to the cove by summer 2024-25. Hon Scott Simpson: Back on track. Hon TAMA POTAKA: Back on track. There will be ongoing challenges at this site, which is prone to storm damage, landslides, and rock falls. This funding package will help curate better visitor management, explore revenue generation opportunities, and start a more enduring access solution. Mautohe Cathedral Cove is the major drawcard to the Coromandel region. This investment is expected to increase regional GDP by around 7 percent once the track is fully operational again. DOC and Ngāti Hei have been working closely to ensure the experience of visiting Mautohe Cathedral Cove is safe, respects the cultural significance of the area, protects the fragile environment, and is sustainable. And I'm glad that I've made a decision rather than waiting another nine months to make a decision. Hon Scott Simpson: To the Minister: what other projects has he announced that encourage New Zealanders to get out into the great outdoors and connect with nature? SPEAKER: I'd encourage brevity in the answer. Hon TAMA POTAKA: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Six million dollars will go towards enhancing tracks and expanding DOC's network of short walks and day hikes so more people are encouraged to enjoy a great day out in nature, in the taiao. The tracks are spread across the country and will promote tourism and export receipts that our country desperately needs. A new programme to support the maintenance and management of huts of recreational importance through partnerships will benefit from funding of $4.2 million over the next four years. And, over the next three years, $5 million will be invested in information and advocacy activities to connect people to te taiao and manuhiri experiences across the country, making it easier for people to get involved through activities like donating, volunteering, and investing. Hon Scott Simpson: To the Minister: how does this announcement relate to his priorities for the conservation portfolio? Hon TAMA POTAKA: Thank you, Mr Speaker. My vision for conservation is to encourage more visits by tourists and New Zealanders to our iconic landscapes, activate commercial opportunities of public conservation land, and, ultimately, to enhance biodiversity across our country within the fiscal responsibility championed by our Government and manu pūtea, Minister Willis. My priorities for conservation include focusing greater efforts on high-value conservation areas and ensuring we're generating additional revenue for conservation. So targeting efforts in high-conservation areas, both in terms of biodiversity and the manuhiri network, means spending money wisely, ensuring investments are providing high benefits, and returns on investment. Targeting investment and visitor infrastructure at some of our busiest locations, such as Cathedral Cove or other day hikes and short walks, means more people can continue to interact and enjoy the environment around them, and places that are easy for them to access. I hope members of the Opposition will spend more valuable time on our DOC estate rather than beavering away in their little chains. Kia ora. SPEAKER: In general, those answers were far too long, and a number of Ministers are straying into that territory. Brevity is important, for this is an information session, not a propaganda session. [Applause from Opposition] Well, that applies to the Opposition as well with some of their questions. Question No. 9—Social Development and Employment 9. Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Deputy Leader—Labour) to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: Does she stand by her statement that "We are focused on lifting New Zealand families out of hardship and giving them more opportunities to get ahead by helping all who can work into jobs"; if so, why has the number of beneficiaries continued to rise across the country? Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment): Yes. The Government has already delivered a range of measures to help people into work, including requiring job seekers to have a work-focused appointment with the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) inside their first two weeks on benefit, and six months. Just last week, we announced that an additional 4,000 18- to 24-year-olds will be case-managed over the phone. The Budget Economic and Fiscal Update always forecast benefit numbers to rise until January 2025, and we acknowledge the current numbers are tracking slightly ahead of these forecasts. This is the result of challenging economic circumstances that we inherited. The economy has been weak for two years, which inevitably means there are fewer job vacancies for those on welfare to move into. We remain committed to our target of reducing the number of people receiving the jobseeker benefit by 50,000 over six years, and we'll take further actions to make sure the welfare system is more proactive in helping New Zealanders into work. Hon Carmel Sepuloni: How can she claim that she's focused on getting beneficiaries into work when there are over 20,000 more people on benefits since she took office? Hon LOUISE UPSTON: I'm really thrilled that that member is finally interested in benefit numbers, given the six years she was in office, there was a 51 percent increase in the number on jobseeker benefit. As I said, we have two years of very challenging economic times. We are absolutely focused on ensuring that we support more New Zealanders into work. We're not going to wait until economic conditions improve; we're doing the work now to ensure job seekers are ready when those jobs are there. Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Is she concerned that only 297 jobseeker support recipients exited into work, as reported in the most recently published weekly update—a worse result than even at the height of COVID? Hon LOUISE UPSTON: As I said, I'm always concerned about the number that are on the jobseeker benefit and on main benefits across the board. We are doing what we can. That's why economic recovery is job number one. Fighting inflation is job number two, because we know New Zealanders are doing it tough and we want to ensure that jobseeker numbers come down. We have to recognise the economic conditions we are in today, and the forecasts show, unfortunately, those numbers are due to get worse before they get better. Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Why did she ignore advice from the Ministry of Social Development when she picked a 50,000 reduction target for jobseeker beneficiaries rather than an exit into work target as was recommended by officials to her? Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Because I'm not just interested in those who are on the benefit today; I'm interested in the numbers who are coming on to welfare as well. If we are not managing the flow on to benefit, we're not reducing the overall number of New Zealanders in hardship, and I want to see more Kiwis off welfare and into work. Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Is it the Minister's plan to achieve her target of 50,000 people off the jobseeker benefit by simply sanctioning them until they leave? Hon LOUISE UPSTON: No. We are really clear that there are a number of steps that job seekers need to take to improve their chances of finding a job. That's why we have work obligations. They're quite simple: have a CV, turn up to a job interview, take a job that's offered, meet with MSD on a regular basis. Those are fairly simple things that will improve someone's chances of finding a job. Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Would she sanction someone who didn't show up to work with no explanation? Hon LOUISE UPSTON: We've been really clear about the fact that there are work obligations. We want to ensure that New Zealanders are getting off welfare and into work. Question No. 10—Building and Construction 10. CAMERON BREWER (National—Upper Harbour) to the Minister for Building and Construction: What announcements has the Government made about remote inspections? Hon CHRIS PENK (Minister for Building and Construction): The Government is progressing work to require building consent authorities to use remote visual inspections as the default approach, so building a home in New Zealand can be easier and more affordable. It is an exercise in increasing productivity. Cameron Brewer: Why is the Government progressing this work? Hon CHRIS PENK: Well, a constant frustration getting in the way of those doing the building work is a cumbersome consenting system and an inconsistent one, including as to building inspections. Some councils typically conduct these in person, but others are much more forward-looking in using remote visual inspections. Where there are massive delays in consenting, this forces builders and other tradies to delay their work, in turn pushing up the costs for the end-user and making it difficult for our already struggling building and construction sector to get on with the work that they need to do. Cameron Brewer: What benefits do remote inspections have compared to traditional in-person inspections? Hon CHRIS PENK: Remote visual inspections, including through various apps that are already available, offer significant productivity gains, making it easier and cheaper to build. These include lowering costs by removing the need for inspectors to travel to site, reducing delays by enabling more inspections per day and allowing inspectors to work in other regions remotely, and reducing transport-related costs and emissions. The use of remote visual inspections is currently inconsistent across the country, and so it's our intention to consult on ways that we can ensure we have an efficient, productive system by ensuring that these are used as the default method and determining exactly the circumstances in which they shouldn't be. Question No. 11—Internal Affairs 11. MARK CAMERON (ACT) to the Minister of Internal Affairs: What recent announcements has she made about lotteries for charitable purposes? Hon BROOKE van VELDEN (Minister of Internal Affairs): Yesterday, I announced that fund-raising lotteries run by not-for-profits such as the Heart Foundation, the Coastguard, the Auckland Rescue Helicopter Trust, and many more throughout New Zealand will be able to operate online permanently. During 2020, a temporary exemption was granted but only until October of this year, after which charities would be required to return to selling tickets via the post or in person. I am pleased to say this Government will now be making the exemption permanent so charities can continue to fund-raise effectively for causes that benefit the community. Mark Cameron: What impact will this change have for non-profit organisations who fund-raise using lotteries? Hon BROOKE van VELDEN: Allowing charities to advertise and run their lotteries online will allow them to reach a wider audience as well as saving time and money in selling tickets to participants. It is also safer for their staff and volunteers to not have to sell tickets in person. These lotteries are a significant source of funding for well-loved Kiwi charities, and this change ensures they are not forced to use increasingly outdated systems such as bank cheques and the postal service. Mark Cameron: What impact will this change have for communities? Hon BROOKE van VELDEN: Many communities throughout New Zealand benefit significantly from the services provided by charities that fund-raise through lotteries, such as large organisations like the Heart Foundation, through to your local hospice in regional New Zealand. This change means charities can continue to fund-raise to provide these services to the community. Question No. 12—Health 12. Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Labour) to the Minister of Health: Does he agree with Health New Zealand Commissioner Lester Levy that "we don't need more money"; if so, on what date did he first become aware that Health New Zealand was on track for a significant overspend? SPEAKER: The Hon Shane Jones—oh, Shane Reti! Hon Members: Ha, ha! SPEAKER: Well, they look alike. Hon Dr SHANE RETI (Minister of Health): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Yes, and I also agree with his comment that a $1.4 billion deficit was entirely unacceptable, because never before has there been so much money invested into healthcare. To the second arm of the question, up to March 2024 I was advised that Health New Zealand was tracking towards a forecast surplus of $583 million. Later in March, I was made aware of significant overspends that would impact that forecast. By that point I had already taken steps, including adding greater financial expertise to the board, in order to uncover the underlying financial and structural issues. Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Has the Government funded Health New Zealand sufficiently enough to ensure all hospital wards have safe nursing staff levels? Hon Dr SHANE RETI: What we have done in the past budget is increase our uplift, our cost pressure uplift, by the greatest amount ever over three budgets, $16.67 billion, to take into account and to make sure that we are appropriately staffed across our hospital sector. Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Has the Government funded the health system sufficiently to cover rising costs in general practice, or will patients have to pay more to go to the doctors? Hon Dr SHANE RETI: The community allocation in the last budget was around $531 million, increasing in each of the following three budgets. And a portion of that will go towards general practice with our expectation that they'll be able to continue to deliver excellent patient services. Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Has the Government funded Health New Zealand sufficiently to fill critical specialist vacancies? Hon Dr SHANE RETI: I am encouraged by the increasing health workforce that we have had every single month, despite that member claiming that there's been a hiring freeze. I'm encouraged by the increasing number of registered nurses, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, resident medical officers, every single month, including those that will serve in critical care areas. Hon Nicola Willis: When agreeing to the amount of cost pressure funding that would be allocated to Health New Zealand, did the Minister become aware of any other plans for cost pressure funding that had been set by, for example, other political parties, and, if so, were those more or less than the amount the Government agreed to? Hon Dr SHANE RETI: I was made aware that the Labour Party last year were indicating— SPEAKER: No, no. You can't talk about that. Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order—point of order. SPEAKER: Yeah, that's right. There's two things here. One is it's not unreasonable to ask the question—that was not out of order; the answer certainly was. If the Minister wants to answer in a different way, he may, but only within the bounds of his portfolio. Hon Dr SHANE RETI: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Yes, I was made aware that others had expressed an interest in funding less than we did in the last budget. Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: If his view that the health system is funded adequately is correct, when will hiring restrictions in public hospitals end and when will general practice get the funding it needs to stop the public paying more for having to go to the doctor? Hon Dr SHANE RETI: As part of the reset, we will be returning to a degree of regionalisation that will encourage regions to be able to recruit to their needs, and have the ability, the commissioning, and the budget to recruit to their needs. This will then mean that we'll be able to flex our health workforce much closer to the health needs, closer to the front line, and that will deliver better patient outcomes. GENERAL DEBATE Hon SIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga): I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business. Mr Speaker, it's only one week to go until New Zealanders will, for the first time in 14 years, get tax relief in this country. I just want to start by saying thank you to the Minister of Finance for the extraordinary hard work that she has done, and thank you to New Zealanders who voted for the coalition Government at the last election. We are delivering on our promise to deliver tax relief. We are keeping the promises that we made to New Zealand at the last election. We're delivering the cost of living relief that New Zealanders voted on at the last election. We know, by travelling up and down this country over the last three-week recess and talking to real New Zealanders, that the cost of living is the number one issue facing New Zealanders. That's why this tax relief, which, as the Minister of Finance highlighted—over half a million people have been on the tax calculator. We know 727,000 households are projected to receive a minimum of $75 per fortnight from 31 July; 187,000 households will be benefiting by at least $100 a fortnight by 31 July. We promised tax relief and we are delivering tax relief for New Zealanders, for the hard-working families of New Zealand. On this side of the House, we're the party of workers because they voted against it; they keep voting against tax relief. Last night they had an opportunity, an opportunity in this House to change their mind. They've had three weeks to go and talk to New Zealanders, listen to their concerns, and they came back and they voted against tax relief again. We remember, seven years ago when National last put tax relief in place, what did Labour do? They cancelled it. New Zealanders will not forget. Well, it's been a busy three-week recess for this Government, hasn't it? The Prime Minister has been at NATO in Washington, DC, strengthening our international alliances and our trade connections. The Minister of Foreign Affairs has been providing more support for Ukraine. The Minister of Education—she's announced a new school for Flat Bush. What a great announcement for the good people of Flat Bush, one of the fastest-growing parts of Auckland. Minister David Seymour has been keeping Country Kindy open—how good?—and deregulating, I think, and announcing new cancer treatments for New Zealand. The Minister of Health has been fixing up the mess left behind in the health system, and what a mess it has been, left behind for New Zealanders; the Minister for Regional Development announcing the regional infrastructure funds that are going to help jobs in our regions and combat climate change and support our councils; and the Minister of Housing has announced our Going for Housing Growth plan. We all remember KiwiBuild, don't we, and what a useless mess that was. Of course, I've been out there busily getting the roads of national significance under way, making sure NZTA has 24-hour pothole repair targets for our highways, getting traffic management under control, and also getting those bridges on our State highways—the Pepe Bridge in the Coromandel; isn't it going to be great to have that double lane in the Coromandel? What has the Opposition been up to? What has the Opposition been up to? Well, Chris Hipkins, he's been to that foreign land of Auckland. And what did he do in Auckland? [Holds up photo] He opened an office! He went to Auckland—the "International Affairs Office", I think he's the Minister of Foreign Affairs now. That far-flung part of the country which rejected the Labour Party at the last election, in record numbers. They are now sending their Minister or their member for foreign affairs, their spokesperson for foreign affairs, to go and search out that once-known land of Auckland to try and find out what the people of Auckland might think and what they might be concerned about. Of course, what they think the best way to do that is to sit behind a desk in an office. That's how you find out what Aucklanders think. You've got to have an office, you've got to have a desk, you've got to sit behind it. That's how they think they're going to win the next election. Well, I just say "good luck" to those people—voting against tax relief, not supporting our law and order policies, not supporting our transport policies, continuing to support slower speed limits. Aucklanders will continue to reject the Labour Party. Thank you, Mr Speaker. Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Labour): Mr Speaker, a question often asked in politics is whether a matter is a cock-up or a conspiracy. Well, the Government's efforts to blame Health New Zealand budget overspends on others has the unique distinction of being both. It had all the hallmarks of a conspiracy: a crisis manufactured from a growing deficit, a Prime Minister and health Minister at the podium speaking to a slanderous Cabinet paper, a long cast of alleged villains, but 24 hours later the Government's efforts at spin have not stood up to basic scrutiny. Their poorly executed conspiracy has morphed into a cock-up; here's three reasons why. Firstly, they allege that growth in back-office staff is the reason for the overspend, but it's really hiring more nurses and paying them what they're worth. That's what Margie Apa, Chief Executive of Te Whatu Ora Health New Zealand, said yesterday at a press conference. She said, "In relation to better than expected international recruitment and improved retention after COVID.", she said, "We found ourselves actually over-correcting much faster than we had expected." New Zealand's new health commissioner, Lester Levy, said yesterday, "We pay nurses what they deserve." Yes, pay equity for nurses is what they deserve. They deserve the pay rise; that is why they're being retained in our health system more. As we traversed in the House yesterday, Dr Reti blamed growing middle management over the last six years for overspends in Te Whatu Ora. Well, that's farcical. It shows how financially illiterate he must be. Saying changes in back-office staff that happened over six years could cause a budget blowout in March of this year is totally ridiculous. These are desperate attempts to fit the facts to their narrative about back-office spending and it is just not true. Their attempt at a manufactured crisis just shows their financial illiteracy. The second reason: they knew that they needed to fund the health system more, but they decided not to. The kicker is that this Government knew it before Budget '24 was passed. They knew that the allocation was going to be insufficient well ahead of Budget day and they did nothing to address it. That's why the health system is in the position it's in. On 1 March this year, those of us diligently sitting in the Health Committee heard from Te Whatu Ora about their budget troubles. We knew then, well before the ink was dry on the Budget. We knew that the costs calculated in the Pre-election Economic and Fiscal Update (PREFU) were insufficient to meet this year's pressures in the health system. The Minister had plenty of time to act before Budget day but ignored this important information from officials. This situation, this manufactured crisis, goes back to the bad decisions this Government has made. They went to the election with a tax plan that didn't add up, they made poor choices, and this underfunding of our health system is all on them. And they keep raving about Labour's fiscal plan. I just want to point out to you that what's not in dispute is what PREFU said. That's not what's in dispute. What's in dispute is what the Government did when the situation changed and Labour was not in a situation where we had an unfunded tax plan, and we would have had much more room to move, and I could confidently say we wouldn't be in the position the Government is now in. The third thing is that this Government hopes this whole performance will be a justification for their cost cutting. But Kiwis have seen right through it. The New Zealand people can see what they hear in the news every day from front-line workers about the cuts that are already happening on the front line: nurses being told that vacancies they have can no longer be filled; vacancies that are on the Te Whatu Ora website just being removed; people finding out that their maternity leave can no longer be filled; Whangārei Hospital saying the emergency department is routinely overwhelmed; nurses going on the record saying it's routinely in code black; nurses and graduates not being able to get work in our public hospital system because they cannot find the budget to employ them any more. Hon Kieran McAnulty: Shameful. Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: Absolutely shameful. Our public hospital system is where they should be trained. People can see this and it doesn't make sense to say that there is bloat in our hospital system; there is underfunding and this Government had an opportunity to do something about it and then it chose not to. This Government is taking New Zealand backwards. They are scrambling to blame their incompetence on anyone else. They are casting blame far and wide. Their small-minded managerialism just sees them change the governance arrangements, but they won't fundamentally fix the problems. I take responsibility for Health New Zealand hiring more nurses; when will this Government take responsibility for its decisions? TODD STEPHENSON (ACT): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise today to speak about a topic—and, in fact, a right that we get to exercise every day in this House as a privilege—something that is actually fundamental to our democracy, and that is freedom of speech. ACT has always been and always will be a leading voice in Parliament for the protection of this fundamental democratic value of freedom of speech. Why am I talking about this today? Well, during the recess, something very exciting happened—something very, very exciting happened—and that was that the University of Otago, my old university, now led by a former member of this House, the Hon Grant Robertson, released its free speech policy on 10 July. It is a wonderful, wonderful document. I'm going to come back to that in a minute. Freedom of speech is really a core classical liberal value and it needs to be protected in any democratic nation. Freedom of speech is protected in New Zealand under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. A number of people will know section 14, the "Freedom of expression": "Everyone has the right to freedom of expression, including the freedom to seek, receive, and impart information and opinions of any kind in any form." Again, we do that every day in this House and we see robust debates, often of ideas that we don't agree with, but they're allowed to be expressed and we try to win each other over. Freedom of expression obviously has a long history. I was looking back today and there are a few points in time I just wanted to point out which I think are very, very interesting. Way back in 399 BC, Socrates, speaking to the jury in his trial, said this, which is great, "If you offered to let me off this time on the condition that I no longer speak my mind, I shall say to you, men of Athens, I shall obey the Gods rather than you." He was prepared to be sentenced to some horrific sentence rather than be silenced. Another obviously famous one that people will be familiar with is Voltaire, where he says, "I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write.", which is, really, a great sentiment about actually being tolerant of others' views. Our New Zealand Bill of Rights Act "Freedom of expression" obviously is built on the Universal Declaration for Human Rights, which in 1948, again, gave a number of rights, including the freedom of expression. The last quote I'm going to use before I return back to the University of Otago is actually Norm Chomsky— Hon Member: Noam. TODD STEPHENSON: —which, again, probably not such a—Noam, yes, sorry—great liker of some of the politics that ACT espouses, but what he actually did say was this, which I love: "Goebbels was in favor of free speech for views he liked. So was Stalin. If you're really in favor of free speech, then you're in favor of freedom of speech for precisely the views you despise." It does remind me of some of the members on the other side of the House when they did actually try to bring in hate speech laws, which, again, this Government got rid of, which would have actually severely undermined the rights of Kiwis to have a free and open debate. Now, I do want to just return to the University of Otago. As I said, they've put out this excellent policy, and I hope it actually will be a blueprint for other universities in New Zealand to follow. Some of the wonderful things they say are that free speech is the lifeblood of a university: "It enables the exploration of ideas, the challenging of assumptions and the uncovering of truth through open exchange. It allows students, teachers and researchers to know better the variety of beliefs, theories and opinions in the world." I think that's a great sentiment. Another great line is: "The university is not a place for safety from ideas". Time and time again, I think we've seen too many universities actually try to censor free speech and not let there be a free and open debate of ideas. Immediately, my colleague Parmjeet Parmar put out a statement welcoming this in her role as university spokesperson. I just want to end with this: "Our education system must prepare young people for life in a liberal democracy. That requires practice in expressing and contesting all kinds of ideas, many of which will be unappealing and some of which will be upsetting. We must develop their resilience, so they can productively converse with those with whom they vehemently disagree"—like we do in this House every day. "We must teach them to express their own arguments and counterarguments". Thank you. Hon CHRIS PENK (Minister for Building and Construction): I begin my remarks today by acknowledging those in the gallery who have gathered for the very particular purpose of the acknowledgment of the abuse in State care that was visited upon far too many New Zealanders over a number of decades, including embarrassingly recent times. The subject of my remarks will be something different, but I did just want to take a moment to acknowledge the courage of those who have gathered here today. The things that we will hear in the next few hours will not be easy for politicians to say but they will be harder for those to hear. Turning to other matters, I do just want to focus on the importance of the work in the building and construction portfolio that this Government is undertaking as part of our broader remit to rebuild the economy so that we can afford services in health, education, and other matters of importance to Kiwis. The importance of the building and construction sector, which is currently facing difficult times, can be measured in a number of different ways. As a percentage of GDP, it might be as much as 6 to 10 percent on some measurements, with ripple effects out to the rest of the economy, of course. One in 10 workers is directly employed in the management of the built environment. In terms of our carbon emissions, some 20 percent of New Zealand's carbon emissions are directly involved in the construction and in the use of buildings. So there's a lot at stake for many people who are directly affected by the workings of the industry, but, of course, also for those who live, work, and play in our built environment, which is all of us. So what is the Government doing about it? What is the Government doing to ensure that we have a better built environment? The answer is, happily for me—and I can assure you and the rest of the House—that we are making changes, going beyond the typical thing that has happened in this House far too often in the past, including particularly in recent years, which is problem definition at best and outright inertia at worst. We must take measures to ensure that we have affordable housing supply, and for those opposite, I challenge them to consider that by opposing measures that would have the effect of making housing more affordable and more available to people, by not being prepared to support any changes that would actually enable that, they remind me of that famous expression that "Everyone wants to go to heaven, but no one wants to die." As it happens, it is a false choice to say we can either have quality versus affordability, or sustainability versus affordability. The better way to look at it is to say that if we can have much better productivity, then the people who know what they're doing in this country can be enabled by the Government to get on and do it. That means removing red tape and removing regulation that is not justifiable. Of course, there will be occasions on which sensible regulation is needed to maintain minimum standards, and of course we would acknowledge that. But we must challenge ourselves to take a risk-based approach that acknowledges all the different considerations, makes the trade-offs appropriately, so that we can have houses and other buildings that New Zealanders can actually afford to use. Part of this is to ask what part of the building control system we can make more efficient. Do we need to issue consents for relatively straightforward low-risk properties, such as small structures? I refer to our granny flat policy, developed in conjunction with our friends in the New Zealand First Party. I refer also to measures that will make it much more possible to have a greater range of innovative products in New Zealand, increasing choice, increasing affordability. I shout out not only to our New Zealand First colleagues again but also to our friends in the ACT Party. I see Mr Cameron Luxton, MP, nodding. He is the only member of this House who is actually a licensed building practitioner. I asked him his view on these matters, and I asked the view of those who are actually engaged in building in this country, who may or may not usually be part of the political process but whose views should carry more weight in Wellington than they have over many years. They are the ones who are engaged in the work. They know what is needed and our role in this House should be to support them to do that work well, not to get in their way. We also need to think about how we can ensure better land supply, better infrastructure, and better decisions in the resource management space that actually allow an environment to be built in the first place, and I acknowledge the work of Chris Bishop and also Parliamentary Under-Secretary Simon Court, who are working hard to ensure we have those settings right so that we can actually have the ability to build in the first place. So it's a whole-of-Government effort. We're engaged in the process of working through sensible changes that will enable a better environment for New Zealand as part of our plan to rebuild the economy and get New Zealand back on track. SPEAKER: I call Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan. Congratulations, by the way. Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Thank you. Today, I would like to talk about some of my favourite things, which are processes and appropriate decision-making. I would like to use one particular example, which is the Education and Training Amendment Bill. At the end of June, we had this debate around the fact that we had to shorten the select committee stages for this particular bill that introduces charter schools. The Education and Workforce Committee got together and we discussed what the best course of action was. In this particular case, I found it odd for a party, and for the Associate Minister of Education—who is all about democracy and all about giving people the voice—to drip-feed information to the New Zealand public as submissions are still going. For example, we are seeing that the deadline for the submissions closing for the Education and Training Amendment Bill is meant to be tomorrow. But then, just yesterday, the Associate Minister dropped a bombshell on us with some amendment, while at the same time a number of submissions have already been made. I don't think that is very democratic or very appropriate at all. At the same time, what we are also seeing is that before this bill has even gone to the select committee stage, the application for conversion to charter schools has already opened as of 11 July. That is two weeks before submissions close. That means that, presumably, there is a level of predetermination. But what does it actually mean for those people who take the time to write submissions, take the time to make those kind of applications? If there's any changes, would that mean that we then have to go back to those applicants and say, "Sorry, there's been some changes. You may want to reconsider your application."? Going to the submitters and saying, "Sorry, we now have a new little Amendment Paper happening. You may want to resubmit or reconsider your submission." So both people who made submissions and people who made applications are now at a loss as to what to do when the Government and when the Associate Minister drip-feed information on something. This comes to the fundamental issue we're having with a number of the bills that we're seeing going through, which is the fact it is rushed, it is not well-thought-out, it is not going through the process that I expected, and the New Zealand public expected, from the Parliament. Just a few days ago, we saw that the Attorney-General herself wrote a letter saying that there is genuine concern when the Government pushes through legislation at a much faster rate. It says, and I quote, "rushing legislation and skipping steps increase the risk that we get it wrong and the legislation is ineffective or unworkable in practice." As part of this, when we are looking at the bill, regardless of what our political inclination is, we would like to do the best thing and contribute the most to a particular bill, and so we work on this. With this particular bill, we have identified some gaps which I think could be addressed—for example, the reversion from charter school to State school if it doesn't work. But there's no safety, there's no precautions around something like that. Having the applications open and having us being drip-fed the information will only confuse and discombobulate the public about this bill and what we are actually trying to do. Lastly, when we're looking at this, we talk about the fact that we want students to be at the centre of this, but the charter school model is anything but placing the student at the centre. It is about making for-profit companies make more money. The fact they are not allowing for the collective bargaining by unions, and they mask it as being for the students—you know what it is for the students and local communities? It is the model we have now with State schools, where student representatives are allowed to be on school board. I want to acknowledge those of you who are in the audience today as part of the royal commission of inquiry into abuse in care. One of the recommendations for that is that it is supposed to be student-centred. Student voice is really important, and we may not see that with the introduction of charter schools. So this is a serious concern in terms of the rushed process we're having, and it should be a concern for all New Zealanders. GRANT McCALLUM (National—Northland): I'd like to begin by acknowledging the members of the gallery who have been victims of abuse in State care. Your bravery is very humbling. Yesterday was a great day for Northland, the electorate that is miles above the rest. Our great Minister of Transport, the Hon Simeon Brown, confirmed that the coalition Government is accelerating work on the four-lane expressway to Northland. The importance of this project to Northland cannot be overstated. It is why five local businesses chipped in $50,000 each to pay for a study by the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research (NZEIR), which I have here. They looked at the benefits of a four-lane highway to Northland. It is why I made it a main focus of my maiden speech. It is something that unites Northland. Why? Because Northlanders know the benefits it will bring. It will help to change the deprivation map from the highest levels of deprivation in the country to some of the lowest. It will address our high unemployment rate and in particular our youth unemployment rate, which is currently the worst in the country at 16.3 percent. The economic numbers revealed in the NZIER report are compelling. The expressway will boost New Zealand's GDP by over $1.2 billion per year by the year 2050. How will this critical piece of infrastructure achieve this? Firstly, it will provide a resilient, reliable, and safe means of transport to the north and to New Zealand's largest city of Auckland. The importance of this was once again demonstrated at the weekend when a slip on the Brynderwyns closed the road for about eight hours. This, following on from the recent four-month closure of the Brynderwyns to fix the damage after Cyclone Gabrielle, sent a message that Northland is hard to get to and it's difficult for people to do business here. Well, for Northland to grow, that has to change. The four-lane expressway will help to do that. It will allow Northland to capitalise on the new dams that are being built near Dargaville and Kaikohe. Northland will become the food basket for Auckland. It will make it easier for tourists to visit us and enjoy our great attractions, be it stopping into the Kauri Museum, admiring Tāne Mahuta, enjoying the breathtaking beauty of the Bay of Islands and the Hokianga, and of course the final journey over the soon-to-be-opened Mangamukas to the awe-inspiring Cape Reinga. Northland is the birthplace of New Zealand. It is where the Treaty that helped define us was signed. In 2040, we will celebrate 200 years since its signing. It will be great to welcome New Zealanders to these celebrations after they have driven on that new four-lane highway. Yesterday was a great day for Northland for another reason. As the local MP, I met with Transpower. Some of you may have noticed recently that we had a power outage in Northland. A pylon fell over after a few too many nuts were undone. This caused the entire north to shut down. It cost a lot of people a lot of money and once again damaged the north's reputation. So I met with Transpower on behalf of the people of Northland and requested compensation. The acting CEO John Clarke is taking my request back to the board. I look forward to his response. Transpower owes Northland. This was not an act of God; it was an act of incompetence. This outage did reinforce the importance of quality, resilient electricity infrastructure and generation. A study will soon be under way to determine what is needed to make Northland self-sufficient in electricity. The completion of the carbon-neutral geothermal plant at Ngāwhā will be critical. This, along with solar and wind developments, will make Northland not only self-sufficient in energy but carbon neutral as well. So I say to New Zealand, move to Northland. Move to Northland now. We are a region which will welcome you, we will embrace you, and inspire you to get ahead. SPEAKER: Thank you. GRANT McCALLUM: Come and enjoy our great—you're welcome, Mr Speaker. Come and enjoy our great lifestyle, our beaches, our fishing, and our unique history. We are united and we are miles above the rest—yes. Nō reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa. Hon WILLIE JACKSON (Labour): It's time to expose this terrible Government—particularly what they're trying to do in terms of passing the Treaty principles bill by stealth. And I'm focusing in on the ACT Party today. So a quick lesson for the ACT Party. The Treaty principles were developed and passed in 1987 by Justice Robin Cooke, who described the '87 lands case as "perhaps as important for the future of our country as any that has come before a New Zealand Court." His judgment has become a precedent for later judgments and Waitangi Tribunal reports. I want to be clear: this was a Pākehā solution, a mainstream solution. This was no Ngāpuhi Māori solution; this was a mainstream solution to the injustice of Treaty breaches. Now, almost 40 years later, we have reactionary, angry ACT supporters wanting to dump all that and remove all the obligations for the State to work with Māori. This nation is built upon a Treaty. That is a historical fact, and while New Zealand is certainly a multicultural society, it was founded on a Treaty with the indigenous peoples of this country. That makes us stronger, not weaker. To be clear, these are not race rights; these are legal rights. We must work together in this country, not against each other. Labour want to work with Māori; ACT wants to work against them. The Treaty principles bill is the most dangerous bill against Māori of the last generation. Although National are only supporting it to select committee, it's already causing considerable damage, which they need to take responsibility for. In fact, it would be fair to say that the bill has already been introduced by stealth. For example, just look at the disgraceful behaviour of David Seymour in this Government already. With no Treaty principles legislation in place, he and this Government have arrogantly told Government departments to use their English names more prominently than Māori. They told Corrections to no longer have Treaty provisions in their legislation. Can we believe that? Fifty percent of Māori are in jails at the moment, but this Government now doesn't want to consider the Treaty. And the most recent nonsense: directing Pharmac to stop wasting time on the Treaty. That's unbelievable when you look at the disparity in terms of Māori. Can someone tell Mr "Know-it-all" Seymour that the Treaty is part of our constitution and he and his stupid party are wrong? But, hang on. There's lots of people telling him and his party that this Government is stupid and wrong. In fact, former National education Minister Hekia Parata is emphatic. She says to ignore the select committee process. She's calling for a boycott in terms of the select committee process. Former National Treaty Minister Chris Finlayson says, "Look, you can't have a referendum on this material.", because it will bring out of the woodwork all the people who wrote to him and said, "Why don't you get cancer, Mr Finlayson, and how dare you give property rights to people above their station." Former National Treaty Minister Doug Graham said he couldn't see any sense in the proposal. And it goes on and on. Jenny Shipley, Jim Bolger—these are National Party people who are condemning this bill. Then we come to our people. We look at Natalie Coates, our brilliant young Māori lawyer, who called it "the most flagrant breach of the Treaty in modern times", Professor Margaret Mutu, who said it was "an unspeakable violation". Not even the secretary of Justice, Andrew Kibblewhite, supports the Treaty principles Bill. To quote him: "it's a novel interpretation of article 2: there's no support for it in legislation, judicial interpretation, [and] expert opinion." So, Mr Seymour, if you're right, then everyone else is wrong. In the last minute, I just want to address the survivors in the gallery. E mihi ana ki a koutou i whakarangatira i a mātou i tēnei wā. He Hōnore nui ki te mihi ki a koutou i tēnei wā. [I thank you who have honoured us at this time. It is a great honour to acknowledge you at this time.] Obviously, I don't want to pre-empt our political leaders who'll be speaking shortly, but I want to mihi to these survivors for their courage in coming forward with their stories, heartbreaking stories, chilling stories, of their experience with the State when they were in care. Mihi ana ki a koutou. It took a lot of courage to come forward. The State should be ashamed of the treatment you have had to experience. There is no excuse in terms of what happened to you. But I want to say, if I can finish, that despite all the trauma and misery, there's still a few shining lights. Some of those shining lights are in the audience today. They have overcome all the barriers. Some of them are very good friends. And I mihi to you for your courage. You're examples for Māori and for all of this country. Tēnā anō tātou katoa. HŪHANA LYNDON (Green): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker, otirā koutou ngā morehu, ngā survivors, koutou kei roto i te Whare. [indeed, to you the survivors, to you who are in the House.] We see you, we feel you, and we want justice for you. That is our duty as people of this House. You deserve justice. Give our people justice, and today I bring the words and the voice of Hokianga Whakapau Karakia into this Whare. Puhanga-tohorā, Te Ramaroa, Panguru, Papata, Maungataniwha, ngā pou o te Whare Tapu o Ngāpuhi e paihere nei i a tātou. [Puhanga-tohorā, Te Ramaroa, Panguru, Papata, Maungataniwha, the pillars of the Sacred Hall of Ngāpuhi that binds us all.] I bring the voice of Hokianga. What is a house? Is it just a building, some walls, and a roof? It's a kāinga, it's a place to provide shelter, it's a place to raise your mokopuna and have your best life. But in Hokianga we have our kaumātua, we have our whānau, and we have our mokopuna in tents, in their vehicles, in shacks—kāinga kore in their own tūpuna whenua. They live without water and heating. This is their reality. The negative impact of being kāinga kore of course affects your wairua, of course it affects your physical wellbeing, and of course it maintains all those issues that we have been affected by, by the acts and omissions of the Crown. We have people in this Whare, and I acknowledge our whaea from Hokianga Whakapau Karakia, who brought her voice to the hui and fronted this issue with my cousin Roddy Pihema. It's about those who live outside the system, those impacted like you, ngā mōrehu, those who have been impacted by the State, those who cannot access our mainstream services. This is the story of Hokianga Whakapau Karakia. Golden sandy beaches? Āe. Beautiful mountains? Āe. Heaps of whenua Māori, but it's so hard to whakamahi our whenua in Hokianga Whakapau Karakia. Homeownership is often unachievable. Rentals—there's a huge shortage. Emergency housing—that's in Whangaroa; you get exported to Whangaroa. Kāinga Ora homes—limited capacity and really hard to get on the list. Council pensioner flats—they're full. Kaumātua flats on our marae—they're full. Hauora Hokianga, I acknowledge you as the bridge. I acknowledge Hauora Hokianga as the people who are on the ground, who are trying their best to support and awhi our whānau, because our whānau want to be on their tūrangawaewae. They want to wash in their river, they want to sustain themselves on their whenua, and they don't want to be exported to other parts of Tai Tokerau. Hokianga is mighty—40,000 hectares strong, massive blocks of whenua Māori, and yet our land is prone to flooding. Our land is steep and often unusable for kāinga. I acknowledge there are many in this space trying to activate housing: Whenua Tōpū Trusts, incorporations, Ahu Whenua Trusts. We have funded initiatives through the last Government and this current Government whether it be Kāinga Ora, the Ministry of Housing and Urban Development, also the Homelessness Action Plan where we have Te Hau Ora ō Ngāpuhi and also He Korowai Trust trying to deliver support to whānau. Te Pouahi o te Tai Tokerau, our iwi Māori-led housing prototype. These are all initiatives that are trying their best, but it doesn't take away from the fact that Hokianga needs help now and into the future that is sustainable for our kaumātua, is sustainable for our mokopuna, that they may wash in their rivers, that they may sustain themselves on their whenua tūpuna, and, like you, ngā mōrehu, stand proud with your whakapapa now and for ever. Kia ora tātou. GREG FLEMING (National—Maungakiekie): Tēnā koutou ki ngā morehu. Ka tipitu tāku mihi ki a koutou i tō koutou kaha, i tō koutou ngākau māhaki, ki tō koutou aroha noa ki a mātou. [Greetings to you, the survivors. My greetings come down to you due to your strength, your humble heart, and your unreserved compassion to us.] This is a heavy day, and whilst there are comments that I want to make about my own electorate of Maungakiekie, I want to first pause and acknowledge what this afternoon will truly be about, what this day will be about and acknowledge your strength, your grace, and your perseverance in being here today. Can I particularly recognise and aroha mai, e hoa, kāore au e wareware tō ingoa, heoi e rua ngā wā i mātaki au i te hōtaka o Waka Huia e pā ana ki tō kōrero. [apologies, my friend, I will not forget your name, however I watched the programme on Waka Huia about your speech twice.] Yeah. And there was a reason I watched it a second time. It impacted me deeply, sir. To see you here today speaks to the gravity of what this kaupapa is, so tēnā koutou. Huri ōku whakaaro āianei ki ngā rangahau kia tautoko ai ngā tāngata o tōku wāhi o Maungakiekie. [My thoughts now turn to the research to support the people of my place, of Maungakiekie.] Because of the nature of today, I really wanted just to turn my thoughts to those charitable organisations with which I've had the pleasure and the privilege of spending time with in my rohe, in my electorate of Maungakiekie in these recent months since I was elected to support them. I want to say a mihi to Oranga Community Centre. I am staggered by the humble work that you do there in the suburbs of Oranga and of Onehunga and the number of whānau that you support there and the blessing and the hope that you bring. Likewise to the Onehunga Community Centre, ki tōu wāhi, to Shanti Niwas Charitable Trust, to Harmony Trust. I recognise the work of Onehunga Citizens Advice Bureau, of the extraordinary grace that is offered most nights of the week by Everybody Eats, by the work of those at Dance & Arts Therapy, at the Kindness Collective, at Recreate New Zealand, at the Māngere Budgeting Services at your office in Onehunga, at Disability Connect, to The Hearing House, to those at the Dolphin and Factory Theatres, and to the incomparable team at World Vision. I want to make special mentions to our own Police Constable Don Allan at the Onehunga station there on the Mall. He recently received a Community Patrols of New Zealand Silver Shield award. This is rarely given out—rarely given out—and it recognises and acknowledges his extraordinary service in bringing justice and comfort and hope to our community of Maungakiekie. So his boss, Chris William, who leads that team at Onehunga, and to his counterpart Matt Williamson for his work in Mount Wellington and Ellerslie. I want to acknowledge the extraordinary and ongoing work of the patrollers of Community Patrols NZ in Mount Wellington and Onehunga and Ellerslie. And to your colleague and my new friend Rebecca Smith for the amazing work that she does in Neighbourhood Support in fostering support, connection, and safety in the neighbourhoods throughout Maungakiekie. I want to also acknowledge the work of Russell Grainger and his team at the Mount Wellington Community Trust. Russell, I have seen and learnt of your efforts for over two decades now, and I am looking forward to leaning my weight and my advocacy to your work in setting up the Mount Wellington Residents Association and then pushing on to build a secure home, a place that will genuinely be a community centre for the people and the residents of Mount Wellington. In closing, I want to bring to the House's attention one project. There are many that I'm working on now in this privileged role that I have in representing the people and the organisations of Maungakiekie, but it is simply this. It is: dredge, please, the Onehunga lagoon. This was the beautiful lagoon—once beautiful lagoon—that was set up on the foreshore. It was small compensation for Onehunga's loss of its waterfront when State Highway 20 was set up in the 1970s. For about three decades, it was a beautiful, beautiful lagoon. It is no longer, and we need it dredged. So I say, please, to Auckland City Council, prioritise that, dredge it, and make it once again a beautiful asset for the people of Maungakiekie. Tēnā koutou anō. REUBEN DAVIDSON (Labour—Christchurch East): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I want to start by acknowledging the significance of today, Wednesday, 24 July 2024, the date of the final report of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Historical Abuse in State Care and in the Care of Faith-based Institutions. Thank you to all who have taken part, for your commitment to the process, and for your bravery. Ki te kotahi te kākaho, ka whati; ki te kāpuia, e kore e whati—when we stand alone, we are vulnerable, but together, we are unbreakable. The journey continues today. Kia kaha. I turn now to a local issue in our electorate of Christchurch East. I want to take this time to speak to three small words: build the bridge. Three small words that could be the difference between life and death for residents of New Brighton. The Pages Road Bridge is our vital lifeline. It carries traffic and utilities, like water, fibre, and power, into New Brighton. In an emergency, it will be crucial to be able to get residents out and emergency services in. Our current bridge was badly damaged in 2011. It's only had a temporary repair since. It's not safe. It's not strong. Our community deserves better. Now, there are many in this House today, and some who are watching or listening, who have lived through the Christchurch earthquakes, and others who have lived through natural disasters here in Aotearoa. For those of us who live in Brighton, we know how vulnerable we are and that the risk of a tsunami is real. We all remember what happens in the immediate aftermath of natural disasters. Communities can come together, they help each other, they commit to building back better, and to making sure we create safe and resilient homes and infrastructure. I do not see that commitment from the Minister of Transport. I do not see a commitment to the South Island, to Christchurch, to Christchurch East. The Minister Simeon Brown is missing in action. I know this because I have read the Government's policy statement on land transport. The Minister claims in that report to have an, and I quote, "ambitious land transport investment agenda, designed to boost economic growth and productivity, resilience, reliability, and safety." Does the Minister even know what that means? Not when it comes to New Brighton and the Pages Road Bridge, he doesn't. He either doesn't know or he simply does not care. At the start of this month, we hosted our annual fireworks display in New Brighton. It's a massive night: 1980s bangers and 10 minutes of fireworks. But at the end, when everybody goes to get home, it takes over an hour to get across that bridge. If there's a tsunami coming, we will not have an hour. If there's a tsunami coming, we will not have a traffic management plan and staff directing cars. If there's a tsunami coming, people won't be able to get out fast enough, and those who don't get out could die. All New Zealanders deserve to feel safe and to know they have a Government that backs them and will invest in the vital infrastructure they need. So why is this not the case for residents of New Brighton? Instead, we get a Minister fixated on removing road cones and fixing potholes. The biggest pothole we've got in New Brighton is the river between Hawke Street and Pages Road. So I have launched a petition: build the bridge. Our transport spokesperson, Tangi Utikere, joined me in Christchurch to launch that petition and it has a very simple ask: it calls on the Minister to step up and play their part. [Interruption] The good news for those bellowing from across the House is that the response locally has been much louder than yours. We've had people signing the petition. We've had volunteers already coming door to door with us. We've had people asking to put signs on their fences. This morning, I got a call from the local library telling me they have a steady stream of visitors asking for a hard copy there. So I have two invitations for the Minister: come to New Brighton for a public meeting, we're very good at those and I can guarantee you'll get safely in, but I'm not sure you'll be able to leave because of the bridge; or come for a closer look—I have a local boatie who'll take you out on to the water and show you that there's much more than water under that bridge. Thank you. SPEAKER: I appreciate the gallery want to respond, but it's not a usual sort of reaction. If you wouldn't mind, we'll get through this part before we get to the most important part of the afternoon. I call on Rima Nakhle. RIMA NAKHLE (National—Takanini): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise to take a call in the general debate. It's the first of mine since becoming an MP for the electorate of Takanini. But before I proceed, I would like to acknowledge all those present in the gallery today. I'd like to acknowledge you and the pain that you've been through—something I will never, really, fully understand. It's a profound day and my heart is with you. To my neighbours in Takanini, if this debate is a bit more toned down than usual, it's because we're about to enter a very sombre kōrero, so it's only fitting. It was really wonderful to be back in my electorate, my beautifully eclectic electorate of Takanini, in south-east Auckland. Part of the beauty was being able to spend quality time with my fantastic electorate office team, Derek, Lauren, and Simon; thank you very much. And I was able to spend uninterrupted time with my darling husband Roger. There were a number of highlights in this recent recess. We kicked off with Matariki celebrations around my electorate, including a brunch in the gardens in Manurewa, which was hosted by a kaitiaki trust. Anne Kendall has just been made chair of the New Zealand Māori Council, and she helps run these trusts that for many years have been celebrating our champions. People like Gary and Nancy, Māori wardens, have been serving for decades; Piripi and Malcolm, who help with Christmas Day lunch at Papakura marae, thank you. It was a wonderful event to start off Matariki before going to the Botanic Gardens where there was an extremely fun-filled day all the way to the evening. Another highlight was the opening of Derby Square in Takanini town centre. There's a beautiful cinema there, extra eateries, and I would like to acknowledge the Wallace family who have done so much and are synonymous with the suburb of Takanini and its growth. Another highlight was sharing with my neighbours in Takanini and beyond the excellent news that Mill Road is on the list of seven roads of national significance, and work will begin in three years. An absolute highlight was to have the Hon Nicola Willis grace Takanini over the weekend and spend time particularly at the Takanini Gurdwara, run by the excellent work of Daljit Singh and the team there. Minister Willis got to see the Punjabi school that takes place every Saturday where there's an incorporation of cultural studies, language, speaking, as well as learning other aspects of our Māori culture as well. There are right now over 22 Portacoms, and the list is growing. Thank you, Minister Willis for making time to come out to our gurdwara. Since we're on the subject of education, I think it's a perfect segue to the final aspect when I'm listing the highlight of many highlights during my recess in my wonderful electorate of Takanini, and that is that the Minister of Education, Erica Stanford, announced that in Takanini, in the suburb of Flat Bush, there was the first announcement of three new schools that will be built across the country. I'm proud and I'm honoured that the first one was announced for our electorate of Takanini—a new primary school. This is part of our Government's Budget 2024—a $466 million investment for school property growth. Now, this school is going to be located at 121 Murphys Road, Flat Bush. That area of Takanini is in fact the second-fastest growing area in the country. The school is going to cater for 600 children from years 1 to 6, and the intended building will be complete by 2026. Construction will begin later this year. This investment is another step that shows how committed our Government is to investing in world-leading education for our tamariki, our rangatahi, around New Zealand. I'm so blessed that this new school is coming to our electorate. I'm so blessed to be the MP for Takanini, and I thank everyone who's helped on this journey. My heart is with you all. Thank you. SIMON COURT (ACT): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Firstly, I'd like to acknowledge those people in the gallery who have travelled from Auckland, and Northland in particular, to hear the Government response to the report on abuse in State care, which will follow this general debate. The reason I mention Northland in particular is because Northland is often described as the "roadless north". A strong economy, a strong community depends on strong connectivity. The recent announcement that the Northland roads of national significance will proceed using a progressive public-private partnership (PPP) model should give some hope to those people living in Northland, in particular, who have to travel long distances on difficult roads that this Government is going to help solve those long-term problems. We're going to start work on the first of three stages of that road. The Warkworth to Te Hana stage: we're going to get going on that so that the people of the North, their local government, all of those private sector investors can put their own money on the table, with confidence, and get on with making their own investments to support development in Northland. The PPP approach to delivering the Northland roads of national significance is critical to drive maximum value for New Zealanders and deliver that connectivity much sooner than otherwise. In my infrastructure under-secretary role, I'm driving the work on developing policy to update New Zealand's public-private partnership model, which, it's fair to say, hasn't always delivered what the New Zealand Government clients need, what the contractors need, or what the users of public infrastructure need. That's why it's time for an update. ACT certainly championed this innovation from Opposition. We appreciate the discipline, the efficiency, and the expertise that those who want to participate in the private sector side of public and private partnerships bring to these important public infrastructure projects like Northland's roading connection. Public-private partnerships are ultimately about recognising that the expertise brought by the private sector has always been available to us; it's just that Government hasn't necessarily been a very good client or very good at asking for things and getting good value for money. That's why we expect public-private partnership to deliver not just roads but, in time, potentially other important social infrastructure for regions like Northland, like schools, and like hospitals, so we can make the taxpayer dollar go further and we can deliver this infrastructure for the people of Northland faster. It's not just finding the money and finding the contractors to build roads and buildings; we also need change in the way we consent infrastructure. This Government has committed to replacing the Resource Management Act with a system based on property rights and what that means not just to the Government that might want to build a road but also, say, to a business that wants to develop or extend a port to provide economic opportunities and social enhancement for the people of the North. By reforming the Resource Management Act, making it easier to get consents to enable infrastructure, this Government intends to provide far more economic opportunity for communities like that in Northland. It would be fair to say that when I heard a decision a week or so ago that commissioners had declined to consent a port in Northland and that that was going to be a constraint on the economic development of that region, it's very disappointing. Now, we've got a bit of time to consider how we fix that. This Government is committed to replacing the Resource Management Act, though, by July 2026. In summary, Northland is New Zealand's jewel in the crown when it comes to natural beauty and its enormous human capital, its potential to be an economic powerhouse hitherto untapped. Sitting next to me is my colleague Mark Cameron, a dairy farmer from Ruawai, who tells me regularly how much more efficient and productive Northland could be if it had better roading connectivity. The Northland roads of national significance are going to deliver that to the region, so is the work we're doing to fund and finance it for our PPP programme and replacing the Resource Management Act with a system based on property rights. Thank you, Mr Speaker. The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed. PAPERS Final Report of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Historical Abuse in State Care and in the Care of Faith-based Institutions SPEAKER: In accordance with a determination of the Business Committee, I call on the Hon Brooke van Velden to present the report of the royal commission of inquiry. Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Deputy Leader—ACT): I present the final report of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Historical Abuse in State Care and in the Care of Faith-based Institutions. SPEAKER: That paper is published under the authority of the House. DEBATES Final Report of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Historical Abuse in State Care and in the Care of Faith-based Institutions SPEAKER: Members, we now come to the debate on the final report of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Historical Abuse in State Care and in the Care of Faith-based Institutions. I call on the Rt Hon Prime Minister to move that the House take note of this report. Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON (Prime Minister): I move, That this House take note of the final report of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Historical Abuse in State Care and in the Care of Faith-based institutions. This is a day that many New Zealanders who were abused in State care never thought would come. It's the day that this Parliament accepts with deep sorrow and regret the report of the royal commission of inquiry into abuse in care. At the heart of this report are the stories of 2,400 survivors—many of whom are here today. To every person who took part, I say thank you for your exceptional strength, your incredible courage, and your confronting honesty. Because of you, we know the truth about the abuse and the trauma that you endured. I cannot take away your pain, but I can tell you this: you are heard, and you are believed. Many of your stories are horrific and harrowing. They are painful to read, but not nearly as painful as they were to endure. The State was supposed to care for you, but, instead, many of you were subjected to the most horrendous physical, emotional, mental, and sexual abuse. A number of faith-based schools, institutions, and people in positions of authority, who you should have been able to trust, failed you in the worst possible way. When you tried to speak up, those same people turned a blind eye, they covered it up, and they prevented you from seeking justice for far too long. Māori, Pacific, deaf, and disabled people disproportionately bore the brunt of a lot of what had occurred, and not only did this have a devastating impact on your life but also on your families and your communities. We like to think that abuse like this doesn't happen here in Aotearoa New Zealand, but it did, and it is a shameful chapter of our history that we must confront. This is a dark and sorrowful day in New Zealand's history, and it's important that, as a country, we bring to the surface and we understand the hard truths of what happened so we can try and move forward together. I say to the survivors: the burden is no longer yours to carry alone; the State is now standing here beside you, accountable and ready to take action. The royal commission traversed many types of care as part of its inquiry, and it is my heavy duty to say today the Government is formally acknowledging that the experience of some children and young people at Lake Alice Hospital did amount to torture. Patients at Lake Alice were given electric shocks without anaesthetic, as well as painful and immobilising paraldehyde injections. These so-called treatments were not administered for medical reasons; they were used for punishment and emotional control. These experiences were nothing short of horrific, and they happened in the New Zealand health system in living memory. To the survivors of Lake Alice, some of whom are here today, thank you for your determination to ensure that what you suffered was brought to light. What happened was wrong. You knew then it was wrong, and all these years later, the State also acknowledges that it was wrong. Today, I stand humbly before you in this House to offer a long-overdue apology to the survivors of Lake Alice. I am sorry that it has taken so long for this acknowledgment of torture. I want to also acknowledge Paul Zentveld and also Malcolm Richards, who took cases against New Zealand. I want to acknowledge both of them because they took cases against New Zealand to the United Nations Committee against Torture. Thank you for your courage, thank you for your bravery, and thank you for your determination. I know that for some Lake Alice survivors, the acknowledgment today that what happened to you was torture is something for which you have been waiting for decades. And, for you, this is a day of great significance. For others who suffered torture, I know that this acknowledgment feels hollow without the recognition that comes with redress. I regret that it is not something that we can give you today, but I assure you it is a priority for the Government in the coming months. We are here today because it was important to the Government that an acknowledgment and sincere apology be made with gravitas and dignity. It deserved to be made in this Parliament. I know that some survivors are in fragile health and also that a number had passed away during the inquiry, never hearing the State acknowledge the true extent of what happened to them and to their families and to their whānau. I am sorry that they are not here to hear the State admit to what we should have owned many years ago. Not every child in State care was harmed, and, of course, there are and always have been many dedicated and devoted foster parents and social workers committed to looking after children in their care, but today is about acknowledging those who had their childhoods cruelly taken away from them. The tabling of the royal commission of inquiry into abuse and care report is of historical significance to New Zealand. It is the result of the largest and the most complex public inquiry ever held on our shores. The report has taken six years to write, and it is almost 3,000 pages long, comprising 16 volumes. Because of this, the content needs to be considered with respect and with care, it cannot be rushed, and the findings in this report need to be widely understood. While we can never make right the harm that survivors experience, the Government must be accountable and support survivors. Erica Stanford will lead a ministerial group to respond to the report's findings and the 138 recommendations. The first step is a formal apology, which will take place on 12 November. This is a significant and important milestone, and we are working with survivor groups on the apology and the event. The apology will provide an important opportunity for the Government and the leaders of other political parties to take responsibility on behalf of the nation for the failures of the State across many Governments. I know survivors have been waiting a long time for changes to how the State and churches provide redress, and I want to assure you that we understand the urgency and the importance of that work, and we will provide clarity before the end of the year. I do want to pay special tribute to the commissioners and to all of the staff who worked on this inquiry. There is no doubt—no doubt—that for those who have heard and have written and have read these accounts, they have been impacted by these horrific and harrowing experiences. The care, the sensitivity, and the dedication you have shown in compiling this report is greatly appreciated. Thank you. I would also like to acknowledge the previous Labour Government who commenced this important inquiry almost six years ago. A terrible injustice was done in the name of State care, and it is now the responsibility of the State to make redress, and this Government will ensure that it happens, and, as Prime Minister, I will ensure that the State carries its care and protection responsibilities with tremendous weight. As difficult as it is, I hope that all New Zealanders take the time to read this report, to understand the abuse that you, the survivors, suffered, and the lifelong impact it had on your lives. Through this, we will understand the obligation that we all have to prevent it happening again and to speak up whenever and wherever we see abuse of anyone, in care or otherwise. I want to again acknowledge the survivors for their exceptional bravery and for sharing their stories. I share your dream for the next generation where every child, young person, and adult is loved, is safe, and is cared for in a manner that supports their growth and development to becoming a thriving contributor to our society. I will never lose sight of what you have endured to bring the truth to life. I would like to close with an excerpt from a karakia written by Te Waihoroi Shortland, who worked on the inquiry. And he said, "To you upon whom this inquiry has been centred, Resolute in your pursuit of justice Relentless in your belief for life, We have only our highest regard and respect. May your peace of mind be assured." Thank you. Waiata—"Purea Nei" Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the Opposition): It's difficult to put into words what a huge and momentous day this is for New Zealand, and no one will be feeling that more than the survivors of abuse in State and faith-based care whose experiences have been heard and now told by the royal commission. As I look in the gallery, I see many familiar faces. I want to acknowledge you, the survivors, for your strength, your courage, and your perseverance. How long and hard you have fought. Many of you have dedicated your lives to this fight, and many of you have dedicated your lives to protecting and being a voice for future generations so that they do not have to endure what you had. We see you, we hear you, and we thank you, and whilst a formal apology is still some time away, we are sorry. As a society and as a country, we are sorry. For too long, across Governments, across generations, far too many people have turned their backs on you. The State and its institutions not only allowed this abuse to happen; it then denied you your voice and, worse, covered up the extent of the atrocities that took place. Debts come in many forms, not just financial, and New Zealand owes an enormous debt to the survivors. The royal commission has shone a light on a nationwide, intergenerational shame for New Zealand. We must finally hear the voices of the survivors and we must take action. Reading the report, I cannot imagine how it would feel to be told, as a child, that nobody loves you and then for those who were entrusted to care for you to then set about demonstrating that through their actions. I cannot imagine the trauma—the lifelong trauma—that would have inflicted. I was moved by a quote relatively early in the report from one of the survivors: "I was always unwanted as a little kid, and now I always think I'm unwanted by other people or my partners. The trauma endures. The trauma doesn't go away." Abuse in state care took many forms: shame, humiliation, physical abuse, physical violence, sexual abuse, sexual violence, weapons, electric shocks, drugs, deprivation, isolation. The burden of abuse in State care afflicted some sections of our population more than others. Tamariki, rangatahi, and pakeke Māori were often targeted due to ethnicity and, as the report finds, this was often overlaid with racism. Pacific children were similarly targeted; deaf and disabled, as well. The survivors live on a day-to-day basis with the consequences of that abuse, but so do we as a society. The report asks the question: how did this happen? I want to quote directly from the report, a sobering finding: "Society's discriminatory attitudes towards difference, including racism, ableism, disablism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, punitive attitudes towards whānau and individuals who need support all had one thing in common: they devalued and dehumanised children, young people and adults in care." Those words are a siren call to all of us today. They are a ruler that we should measure our actions today against because the abuse in State care is not over. I want to quote another sobering passage from the report: "Most of the factors that led or contributed to abuse and neglect during the inquiry period continue to persist." If this inquiry is to mean anything, we must consider the voices of the survivors in the actions that we take today, as we respond to contemporary challenges of today. I want to, in that regard, quote again directly from the report—make sure I get the right quote—and it's from Dr Rawiri Waretini-Karena, who was quoted start of this report. "I was 18 when I walked into the yard—never been to prison before. I walked out into the yard and there were 50 men there. I knew 45 of them, that's because they were beside me in the social welfare homes, the family homes and the boys' homes. So that's when I realised there was a pipeline to prison process." We must remember that. We must acknowledge that the shameful history of abuse in State care has led to prisons overflowing with some of the survivors of that abuse. Gangs contain survivors of that abuse. I want to address the Prime Minister and thank him for his words. Our Government set up this inquiry and we'd made some changes. We changed the redress rules on an interim basis and we did set up the Survivor Experiences Board. But, Prime Minister, we didn't do enough and the ball now falls to you and your Government. This must be bigger than politics. We owe it to the survivors and to future generations to finally deliver justice and to finally end the ongoing abuse that happens in State care. This work will extend beyond the life of any one Government, so we should work together to make sure that happens. I finally want to end with the words of the royal commission and how they began their report because I want those words to be read into the record of the House: "Greetings to you who came to us with nothing in your hands, with sorrow clouding your hearts, the burden of guilt weighing heavily on your very being, spirits crushed by the shame that still pervades your minds, proffering a simple prayer, deliver us. We listened to your anguished memories, heard the sobbing of your hearts, and have been tasked to give you solace from the harsh winds of time, resolution from the gravity of your abuse. May the unseen hand of Providence shine upon you, the wisdom of the ages guide you, and that the truth and justice we have sought together may find you respite. Finally, let us pay homage to those who did not see the end of this long journey, those of you who now rest beyond the collective realm of memories, into the deep recesses of night, we bid you farewell. Sleep in eternal serenity in the embrace of your ancestors. While your voices are now silent, your words will endure. Rest in peace. And in that peace, we hope you find solace in this report." SPEAKER: The question is that the motion be agreed to. CHLÖE SWARBRICK (Co-Leader—Green): Tēnā koe e te Māngai. Tēnā koutou e te Whare. Nau mai, haere mai e te whānau. I just wanted to acknowledge the weights of history and of resilience and the potential for healing that currently exist palpably in this room. Words cannot adequately convey the systemic failures and the injustices perpetuated by the State, but words do matter. They are something to be held accountable to. So joining with all of Parliament, let it be clear that we in the Greens are so, so deeply sorry. I want to acknowledge all of the survivors and their whānau who are here. I want to acknowledge those survivors who told their stories in public and in private in contributing to this royal commission of inquiry. I want to acknowledge the commissioners and the many kaimahi who made this happen today. I also want to join in acknowledging the Rt Hon Jacinda Ardern and the Hon Grant Robertson, who drove this in the last Government, and this Government, for picking it up. I also want to acknowledge who should be here giving this speech, the Hon Marama Davidson, who has long worked with survivors and who many will know is presently in cancer treatment and recovery, but it is, hopefully, her fire for compassion and justice that I will bring to this kōrero today. Last night, our MPs heard from a few survivors and supporters who reached out asking if there was any formal welcome to Parliament, and when we couldn't find any, we decided to do something small ourselves. I wanted to acknowledge those who joined with us and shared their stories this morning. There, I spoke to one survivor, Gary, who handed me personally a letter to hand to our Prime Minister. I want to tell Gary that I have done just that two hours ago now—you're welcome. I also asked survivors what they wanted me to say in this speech. Broadly, they said that they wanted two things on record: firstly, the apology and, secondly, what redress and justice actually look like. Today's apology is long awaited. I want to acknowledge that this morning many survivors told us that they believe that this apology should have happened on their terms and in their turf, not in this institution which has caused so much harm. I hope that is the Government's next step, to come to survivors, not to continue to ask survivors to come to us. Now, an apology means acknowledging what happened. It means taking responsibility, and it means change. It means that the State at worst helped to facilitate and at best was complicit in the abuse of so many of the hundreds of thousands of New Zealanders who passed through State and faith-based care institutions between 1950 and 1999. But survivors today wanted me to be clear that that abuse did not stop in 1999 and there are some who continue to experience it to this day. The royal commission inquiry itself tells us that—and I quote—"People were more likely to be placed in State and faith-based residential and institutional care if they had experienced poverty, family crisis or violence, parental abuse and neglect, or were deaf, disabled, and mentally distressed." They also said, and I quote, "The effects of colonisation, urbanisation, the breakdown of social structure, and racism saw Māori more likely to be placed in State care." The royal commission tells us that institutional care was overused for deaf, disabled, and mentally distressed children, young people, and adults. It tells us that through the 1950s and the 1980s tamariki, rangatahi, pākeke, and wāhine Māori as well as Pacific peoples were all disproportionately targeted, monitored, and therefore placed into care by the police and other State agencies. It tells us that through the 1950s and 1970s, many unmarried and pregnant girls and women were placed in faith-based homes, often having their babies taken away from them and adopted out in a way that was discriminatory, and for Māori legally severed their ties to whakapapa and identity. All of this underscores what almost doesn't need to be said, but must be if we are to be serious about this apology in this place. In this Parliament the attitudes that we have about the humanity and the worthiness of people and of groups of people inform and create policies that do and can cause real-world harm. That harm did not just happen in State care in the form of immense and devastating physical and sexual abuse. It stayed with the people, and in some cases it multiplied. That harm was the seed that grew gangs in this country, and the State responded largely by compounding that harm. The most obvious place that you will see the impacts of that today is in our prisons, which, as we know and the data tells us, also fails victims and offenders by producing even more crime, not less. Now, there's a proverb that goes something like: the child who is not embraced by the village will burn it down to feel its warmth. Some, of course, will rightfully point out that not everyone who has been subject to abuse in State care has ended up down a darker life course. Few may try and argue to rationalise that there's no need for us to change anything about the so-called criminal justice system. Indeed, many members of this House continue to call for harsher penalties, more prison beds, and more prisoners. Something has got to give. At one point or another, we must look in the mirror, away from the heat of knee-jerk political campaigns, and the basic question for this House is whether we are serious about transformational change to stop harm at the hand of the State. If we are not, or rather if we are, we need to reconcile that this abuse and the consequences of this abuse are not historic. That abuse and harm cannot be siloed. It is built into the fabric of the way that our State has worked since colonisation in this country established this Parliament. That should not be a controversial statement. We should be brave enough to reflect on the ramifications of decisions made historically and to this day to understand how that shapes the world around us. We can own our history and we can do better. The buck stops here. We either do something or we don't. We either centre the pleas of survivors or we don't. We either tinker or we transform. Now, we here in the Greens can commit wholesale to the foundational recommendation of the report to work in a cross-party manner, to establish and to work through the recommendations of the inquiry. That brings me to the point of redress. Of course, there can and there must be financial compensation for those whose lives that State and faith-based care upended. But more so than that, and as we heard this morning, survivors deserve and want real justice. That means that this apology must transcend into ensuring that no people are ever subjected to this at the hand of the State ever again. To get really real and frank, what that means, and what survivors this morning told us, is no military-style boot camps. It means retention of section 7AA of the Oranga Tamariki Act, at the very least. It means upholding and honouring and ensuring that the fabric of our State honours Te Tiriti o Waitangi. It means a complete transformation of our criminal justice system as Turuki! Turuki!, the safe and effective justice review, chaired by the late great Chester Borrows, demanded of us. It means if we are to do things differently here, we need to genuinely do things differently here. We are here to work with survivors and across the aisle to ensure that this inquiry tabled today represents the first step in a story of restorative justice. To victims and survivors, this is something that you should hold all of us here politically but also personally responsible for. An apology can never just be words alone. Change and action must follow. For at the end of the day, what is the most important thing in the world? He tangata, he tangata, he tangata—it is people, it is people, it is people. Hon KAREN CHHOUR (Minister for Children): Thank you, Mr Speaker. As today is a day of reflection and acknowledgment of the past, I would just like to take a moment to acknowledge those who are no longer with us, those who never had a chance to hear their voices heard, those souls who left this world only knowing the horrors they experienced, the cruelty, and the unbearable treatment that they received, and my heart goes out to them. I'd also like to acknowledge everyone who is in the gallery here today or watching from afar. I know this will not be easy for many. I know our words here today cannot, and will never, take away the pain of what has happened. But I do pray it goes a little way towards lifting the lifetime of frustration of not being heard, not being believed. And for that, I am truly sorry. Today, we table a document in this House that is evidence of systematic abuse that went ignored for decades by those who were supposed to protect us. Through inadequate responses by those who knew or suspected abuse was going on. Through inadequate screening management or accountability of abuse of people who were working in the system. Through children, young people, and those with disabilities and with mental health challenges being ignored or dismissed when they tried to speak up. As both Minister for Prevention of Family and Sexual Violence and Minister for Children, this report is extremely important. It helps myself, and those working within this space now, to have a true understanding of how the State and faith-based agencies so badly failed in their basic duty of care and protection. It lays down the challenge for us going forward when we create systems and policies and practices—that they uphold the rights and the wellbeing of those in need and protection. It has been extremely hard and distressing to read the individual stories of victim/survivors who speak not only of what happened to them back as children but also how that abuse has impacted them throughout their lives and as adults, and the generational trauma that persists in their often complicated relationships with their families to this day. The fact that so many offenders were able to victimise and harm repeatedly for years on end, negatively impacting countless children and their families for generations, long past their own lifetimes, is devastating and unacceptable. The ease with which these crimes were committed is horrifying. These perpetrators knew that society was conditioned to not believe young victims. These monsters used their positions of authority both as a weapon and a shield. Children believed that police, Government, and other adults were complicit in the abuse due to the stonewalling of their cries for help, and rightly so. We must take a long hard look at not only the perpetrators but those who enabled this abuse to continue for so long by choosing to look the other way—which is why I cannot express this enough: if you see something, say something. Too many of us have failed, and still to this day are failing, to do this. There are deep connections between both of my portfolios. Many of those in care and the protection system are there due to family violence and sexual violence being part of their everyday lives. It is unacceptable to remove a child from harm only to place them in an environment that is equally unsafe or worse. What is important now is that we continue to drive change. I cannot stand here and say with my hand on heart that young people are no longer being hurt in care. But what I can say, and what I should be able to say, is that my expectation is that they will listen, they will be believed, and we will address it immediately. To not do so is unacceptable. I have made my expectations crystal clear that the children's system as a whole needs to work to recognise harm and stop it from happening. We are making changes to address the issues in care and protection system, but there is way more to do and it is far from perfect. Some of those working to make the change we need to see, and who are making the real differences, are Oranga Tamariki staff who were themselves survivors, who suffered trauma too and joined the organisation to fight for change from the inside. I want to acknowledge those people today. We need the care system as a whole, for children and for adults across all settings and environments, to become increasingly safer for those who need it. We know that children and young people who were put into these environments were often already victims of abuse, harm, or trauma, which was only made worse by their new living conditions and the lack of sufficient support in care. Time and time again, the report points out Māori being disproportionately affected, being massively overrepresented in numbers of children and young people taken from their homes and put into State care. No one, regardless of their race, gender, or any other identity, deserves to be in a situation where they are abused and denied basic care, and I am committed to doing everything within my power to ensure that no child or young person in New Zealand suffers abuse in State or faith-based care. I want capable workforces who respect those that they work with, social norms that respect everyone, and systems that respond appropriately when we don't. Events at residences such as Epuni were appalling. This has been the driving force for me focusing on ensuring that residences of today are the best that they can be. The severity of what these children went through was repeatedly referred to as "hell on earth". Their time in State or faith-based care included stories of electric shocks, injections as punishment, physical and sexual abuse, extended solitary confinement, emotional and psychological abuse, not to mention the continuous racism, ableism, and homophobia. According to the definition outlined by the Solicitor-General, the children who were sent to Lake Alice went through torture. The unchecked power that people had over children in far too many facilities across this nation, combined with access to isolated physical environments away from families and support networks, led to the ideal environment for abusers to do whatever they wanted, with little to no consequences. This quote from the Stolen Lives, Marked Souls report sums up the nature of the abuse clearly: "These men used and abused their spiritual and physical power and dominance, destroyed the lives of children, and then discarded them." A victim survivor in the Beautiful Children report talks about the vicious cycle these children were caught up in. After being sexually abused by a man in charge of referrals to Lake Alice, a boy tried to commit suicide. He says, "He did it to me and I complained and I wasn't listened to. I tried to kill myself. And because of that, that's how I ended up in Lake Alice. You see what happens? They violate you, they complain, you get punished further, and nothing happens to the perpetrator. Silence is golden." When these children would rightfully lash out or react to the abuse by trying to run away or misbehaving, their abusers would use that as evidence against them to justify locking them up, further mistreating or punishing them, and using the behaviour to discredit these children as not trustworthy and able to be ignored. I have my own personal trauma related to dealing with State care and this report affects me deeply. I am filled with compassion for the hardships and the trauma that so many have endured and continue to suffer from. This report has renewed my determination to break the cycle of family violence and sexual violence. It's time we face this poison that is rotting our nation from the inside. Because of this, I also feel an enormous level of responsibility to be a strong advocate and a leader of change, to ensure that not only those who suffered abuse as children long ago but also those in the system today are heard and our entire system responds to them in a safe and appropriate way. I commend the courage of those who came forward about their abuse, despite being silenced and not being believed in the past. I also would like to acknowledge those who may not have submitted but suffered all the same. I will do everything in my power to make sure that nothing like this can happen again. You have my commitment to listen, to learn from the experiences that you have shared. What has happened is clearly unacceptable. This report tells us that we tolerated rape and abuse of vulnerable people and the misuse of power for far too long. It is time to learn from our mistakes and change. This report and its recommendations are confronting, powerful, and clear. A lot of the stories contained within are extremely vivid and deeply shocking. This did not just happen in a few isolated cases or situations; the abuse was systematic, continuous, and, sadly, normalised. Abusing a position of authority over those who have no ability to stand up for themselves and who needed protection and love at such a critical time in their development is a crime beyond measure. It is important that we act decisively and honour the courage of these victims and survivors by making sure that something like this never happens again. Hon CASEY COSTELLO (NZ First): I speak on behalf of New Zealand First as part of the Government's response to the royal commission's report into historical abuse in State care and in the care of faith-based institutions. Firstly, I would acknowledge the powerful words that have been spoken already today. I would also acknowledge the nearly 3,000 survivors who shared their experiences of abuse and neglect with the commission. For those of you who are here today, welcome and thank you. For those who have not made it to this day, for those who have passed, it is my hope they know that we all in this House are hearing your voices, seeing your faces, and feeling your pain. The report we are speaking to today has captured the attention of our nation and brought so many together to hear and, hopefully, to understand. I particularly want to acknowledge those of you who are here today. It is being here that makes these pages come to life. When, in the coming days, weeks, and months we come together to discuss, reflect, and respond, it will be your faces that keep us focused on the pathway forward. This is the day when Parliament has come together to speak to you all, not just to those of you who are here but to all the voices that were not previously heard, all the faces not previously seen, and the experiences not previously believed. The royal commission's report brought you to visit Parliament, perhaps, for some of you, for the first time. I hope that it now becomes your Parliament and a place where you can feel that the House of Representatives is not talking about you but that we are representing you. No matter your politics, no matter your party affiliations or political outlook, I believe every member in this Chamber knows that the key role of the State is to protect our most vulnerable. Every society should be judged by how we care for and protect those who need it most. This report is our judgment. We are here today recognising that this is a shameful part of New Zealand's history. As a society and as the Crown, we should have done better. As you have heard already today, we are determined that we will do better—not through political posturing, but through a collective will. When we enter this House as the elected representatives of New Zealand, we make what is called our maiden speech, the first words you speak to introduce who you are, the first words that tell the world about why you were brought to this place, and, more importantly, what you aspire to achieve. One of the most common messages you will hear in those maiden speeches is the desire to be able to come together across the political divide to truly make a difference. It is clear to me, and from the words spoken here, we are united to make that difference. I thank you for bringing us to this place. I have been part of the ministerial group that was established by Cabinet to guide the Government's response to the royal commission's recommendations. I can assure you of the passion, determination, and commitment, led by Minister Stanford, to achieve what we are promising here today. It is my belief that we have an opportunity, we have the will, and we will continue to do better, well beyond today. Early in my working life, I joined the police. It is now many years since I ended that part of my career. But in the 14 years of my service, I looked into the eyes of many victims. No matter how long it has been and how far away from that work I have ventured, I still see those eyes and I see those faces. Whether it was a child who had been the victim of recent abuse and the wounds were still visible and the pain still evident, or whether it was a grown adult who was recounting the pain from many years ago, the experiences have never left me. I can still see the pattern of a pair of pyjamas. I can still see the colour of their eyes that had lost the ability to shed tears. I can recall the turn of phrase in recounting events of trauma and pain. I can still be returned to those events and those instances of suffering. No matter how long ago I was involved in the investigations, I can be taken to that place by a smell, a pattern, or a word. It is hard to comprehend how, as a survivor, that recall must impact you every day. It was through walking through that journey from victim to survivor that I am able to begin to understand how hard your journey has been. In some way, it helps me understand what it must have been like for those who have shared their experiences in the report, having to fight so hard to be heard. Even when a victim is immediately heard, when they are immediately responded to and intervention is put in place, it is still a hard journey to walk. To have to fight to have your story heard is a pain that I cannot even begin to reconcile in my mind. I tried to reconcile a particular face that I see often when I close my eyes, not because of the suffering he endured—this poor little boy was tortured—but because of the absolute shining light of joy that he showed when he smiled. The saddest thing was that despite all the suffering, the joy came from the smallest act of kindness; he was given a lollipop from a nurse, and his face lit up. I still see that smile. As I've been reading these pages and absorb the accounts of abuse, it reminds me that for these survivors—for all of you who had so little shown to you in way of kindness and love—it would have been such small interventions that could have made a difference and, for a moment, brought you some joy. Perhaps today, as we speak and recognise the strength, resilience, perseverance, and courage, there will be some light. Today is significant. The royal commission's report is now public. Most importantly, survivors' stories are now public. New Zealand can read these and reflect. As the public and all of us read, reflect, and absorb, I would also like to acknowledge those who worked to bring it to us; the commissioners and all those who committed to a journey that, at its start, had no clear destination. The pathway changed and it was a longer process than we first considered. I know how hard it is looking into the face of suffering. Thank you all for bringing this report to us. We are not yet at a destination. The Government is continuing to digest the commission's final report. This report was six years in the making. The response cannot be rushed. It needs to be considered with respect and care. So many lives have been affected over so many years. You are individuals. You have your own views reflecting your own experiences, including how we should respond to the recommendations and findings made by the royal commission. We know, however, that survivors have waited a long time for this report and are eager to see action. We owe it to people to understand what happened and to ensure we deliver our response with the respect and dignity it deserves. We know, however, that survivors have waited a long time for this report and are eager to see action. But for today, in this place, you should know you are seen, you are heard, you are valued, and you are believed. It will have been hard and painful to share your story. It has been hard and painful to read it. However, you must know that after we all leave this place, when we have taken the action agreed and delivered what is needed, your story will never fade out. We have heard your voice, we have seen your face, and we have felt your pain. Today you have changed lives, moved hearts, and opened eyes. Thank you. DEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER (Co-Leader—Te Pāti Māori): Tēnā koe e te Pīka. Tuatahi ngā mihi ki a koutou kua tae mai ki te kawe, ki te tautoko i te kapua pōuri. Koirā te āhua o te hui. [Thank you, Mr Speaker. Firstly, I acknowledge you who have come here to carry, to support the cloud of sadness. That is the nature of the gathering.] Arrive here and unshackle the weight—unshackle the weight—of the trauma, of everything that you have carried and had to listen to. This is not the place for your rongoā. The place for your rongoā is in your moana, by your maunga, by your awa, by your hapū, by your marae. This is the place where you lay your mamae and you leave it here. You leave it here with those with a forked tongue. To those watching this, do not leave here—do not leave here—without dumping that mamae that you have had to carry and pass on. Our State care system had 655,000 children, rangatahi and pāhake go through it. Over 200,000 were abused that we know of—that we know of. I want to mihi to Whanaketia. I want to mihi to what it is that you have left us, for those who are brave and left us this, for those who represent us who could not contribute to this. We will hold this and we will never let this place of trauma forget it, ever, because that is what we fight for. I've had to listen—and I'll try and hold it back. I've had to listen to the fact that those who targeted our people because they were Māori, they were takatāpui, they were tangata whaikaha, they were tangata turi, and they were poor—that's why we were targeted. What the hell has changed—what the hell has changed? You listen to all the richness of the kōrero today, but what the hell has changed for us? Bernie "Ruru" O'Donnell said it: I get really tired of seeing the looks at the horror stories that he has to repeat. The Crown must be held accountable to the abuse, and for the abuse, because it was criminal. And it is criminal negligence. E te w'anaunga, ka tautoko au. [To my relative, I support you.] There must be consequences. There is no time to digest. We needed time to digest, but they were quick to uplift, quick to move. Quick to ruin us. Quick to displace us. Quick to forget article 2: undisturbed access and rights to all our whenua, our taonga, to us, being Māori—quick to do that. Do not leave here accepting that this report must be digested slowly. For Christ's sake, my mokopuna can see what's needed. I want to share some words that we were exposed to during the hearings, so that this place becomes about you and not us politicians saying "I" 500 times. Tupua Urlich, who's from Ngati Kahungunu ki Heretaunga, shared the experience of being in State care from the age of five. He was placed in multiple foster homes and attended nine schools in 12 years. He missed school so many times because of his bruising and the injuries that he was enduring—by a State-approved caregiver. Hooked in the head at five years old by a fully grown man, crying and bleeding on the floor, told that his father had just passed away, knowing that that was his only source of justice that was ever going to come and save him. A child at the mercy of a monster. No one checked in on him, but he was quick to be uplifted and slow to be checked in on. What's changed? Terrified, having to attest in the CCTV against a defence lawyer. And what happened? That caregiver got 13 months of community service. What have we learnt? Ihorangi Reweti-Peters of Ngati Tūwharetoa, Ngāti Kahungunu, and Ngāti Tahu - Ngāti Whaoa descent, placed in State care at a very young age, shared his lived experiences of physical and mental abuse. While he's ended up in some really great situations, to get there was horrific. Seven placements in six years. Using his experience to ensure rangatahi don't endure what he had to, bravely fronting a call to action to improve access for mental health and counselling support. What's changed? Are we there? Glenda Maihi of Te Arawa descent, placed in foster care by the Department of Social Welfare from the age of five. She spoke about the physical and psychological trauma she experienced during these placements. She discussed recommendations. She does not want any other child to endure what she went through. Do we listen? Tumohe Clarke, Ngāti Hauā and Ngāti Koroki Kahukura, shared the experience of abuse in State care he had, what he suffered, and the impact that it's had on his whānau across generations. Te Aroha Knox, of Waikato-Tainui and Ngāpuhi, went into care at 10 years old because of abuse at home, went through foster homes, and different institutions. She shared how Te Whare Tapa Whā model has helped her in her journey of healing. Karanui whānau Kuini was placed in State care at the age of 11 due to truancy. She was sexually abused in two of her three homes she was placed in. As an adult, she used her Māori values to care for other tamariki. She cares, and she shared her story so the Government can better understand how to look after our tamariki today. What's happened? Paora Sweeney grew up in a loving family but suffered trauma through the loss of his parents. He had multiple experiences of being placed in care and custody facilities as an adolescent, and experienced being abused in care. He talks about the clear link of that experience between being placed in care and ending up in gangs and adult incarceration. How do we treat gangs today? Do we understand how they got here? Wiremu Waikari, of Ngāti Porou descent, reclaimed his ingoa as a form of rejecting the abuse that he experienced in care, and turned to his taha Māori to help him recover from the physical, psychological, and sexual abuse, and racism. He is now a qualified social worker. He works as a Māori consultant, a Māori adviser. He found rongoā in his taha Māori—in being Māori, and not having to defend being Māori. Harry Tutahi, taken into care as a young boy. He shared his experiences and all the time he spent in prison as a teenager, as a young adult. Waiana Kotara, of Māori and Scottish descent, shared her lived experiences of abuse, the pathway that she chose, and the way that she thinks that could be used to actually help and re-navigate other children and tamariki in care. Nothing learnt—nothing learnt. All of these experiences have been shared with the rongoā of how taha Māori helps them. Yet here we are, in the Government—they're saying how sorry it is, but it continues to create mega-prisons, removes section 7AA of the Oranga Tamariki Act, and experiments with our rangatahi and justice in boot camps. Everything that you have told us in this has been ignored. Every experience that you have asked us to think about continues to be perpetuated by this monstrous system that you've talked about. The system that continues to protect, the system that perpetuated and created harm, isn't held accountable. This is on your head, Government. This is on all your heads, Governments. We cannot leave here, have rich words, and then tomorrow we go back to having to defend why tikanga Māori, why Te Tiriti o Waitangi, why Māori rongoā, why our own solution of by Māori, for Māori works, because in here [Member holds up report] they are telling us—they are telling us—how we fight the trauma. They are telling us what it was that they had to do to get over it all. We cannot continuously pretend to have all these ideas of what it feels like when, in fact, the first thing we've done is ignored every experience that was shared with us to 1999, and we do know—we've got Ministers standing up, saying that they can't say hand on heart that this isn't still going on today. I'm, sure as hell, bloody concerned, because we do know. As long as we're here, Te Pāti Māori will hold the ground and fight against the trauma, that we have to keep explaining why we have inequities, and explaining why we should not be attacking gangs, and explaining why Lorreta and why Eugene—why we must have brave faces that hide broken faces. We should not be attacking—we should not be attacking—why we've ended up in the situation. We should be working with the lived experiences and learn from it. Otherwise, all of this is just lip service. It looks really great for the international Governments—it's really great. So we will not stop until the last of our breath goes out and I can sit here and I can say that this place stops creating harm for not just our people but all of our people and all of our mokopuna. Kia kaha, whānau. Hon ERICA STANFORD (Lead Coordination Minister for the Government's Response to the Royal Commission's Report into Historical Abuse in State Care and in the Care of Faith-based Institutions): E ngā mana, e ngā reo, e ngā morehu. Koutou kua haere ki tua, koutou kei te noho mai, he kanohi kitea, tēnā koutou katoa. [To those with authority, the representatives, the survivors. You who have passed on and you who remain, the faces who are seen, greetings to all of you.] Today is historic as we table the royal commission report with an apology to follow on 12 November and we will work alongside, and we are working alongside, survivors to design how and where that apology takes place. Thousands of incredibly brave survivors, many who have made the journey here today to Parliament, have told their stories that are now permanently etched on the pages of history, and the record in those pages is a dark stain on New Zealand's past. The stories contained in this report serve to all New Zealanders a very harsh jolt of reality because I think we believed that these sorts of unimaginable horrors and atrocities never happened here but that they happened in other places, to other people. But because of you, we know that they happened here, they happened at scale, and they destroyed so many lives. Today, these stories are shared with all of New Zealand. As the lead Minister for the Crown response, I have read all of your stories. The young people that were taken into care were disabled, they were neurodiverse, they may have had a traumatic upbringing. Some were put into care for hardly any reason at all. Many of you don't understand why you were put into care and protection at all. But all of those young people needed care and love and protection. They needed an education, they needed specialist support, they needed to be cared for, they needed to be nurtured, and they needed to be loved. Instead, they were placed in facilities and in homes that they describe as "hell holes". Reading the stories, I was struck by the way that so many of your accounts were so disturbingly similar. There was little or no education. Violence was vicious and it was normalised. Beatings from carers were regular. Solitary confinement was used, sometimes for weeks and weeks on end. Sexual abuse was rife and on children so very young. Food was restricted and racism was a constant. There were weak systems, there were weak oversights, and there was certainly weak accountability. At the boot camps on Great Barrier, boys were forced to dig their own graves. They were made to lie face down in those holes while they were being shot at. They screamed and they were terrified. The staff were not vetted, they were not trained in care and protection. They were tormentors. At so many boys' facilities, the adults that were not dishing out the beatings themselves were encouraging those boys to viciously beat each other. At the psychiatric facilities, patients were drugged, they were sexually abused, and they were beaten. They were given the ECT, they spent weeks in solitary confinement, they were racially abused, and they regressed. Many of the people in those institutions should never have been there. There was no reason for them to be there. In faith-based homes, pregnant mothers were denied food so that they would have smaller babies and easier births, and their babies were ripped away from them and adopted out without the chance for a mother to hold her newborn and say goodbye. There was often no medical follow-up for the damage that was caused during birth. Young girls in faith-based care were given abortions without their knowledge and without their consent, to cover up this abuse. These people—you—tried speaking out; it got you nowhere. Nobody believed you, and it was safer just to stay silent. Many would attempt to run away from the horrors, only to be picked up and taken back and be abused again. One particular account noted that "after particularly awful sexual abuse, I ran away that morning, but the police caught me within hours, and when I got back he was still there. He was waiting for me." Story after story say the same thing. "Nobody ever asked us why we ran away. No one at the places we were sent to asked about our home lives, asked why we behaved the way that we did. We were treated like prisoners." The result of these institutions and facilities were that young people were broken. They were separated from their whānau, they were denied their reo, their sign language, their culture. Some recounted turning to substance abuse to numb the pain, and years of violence in care was normalised and so often played a part of the rest of their lives. For so many survivors, they spent stints in jail where they would meet—as we've heard—other survivors they had spent time with in the past. So many survivors found solace in gangs because gangs were the first place where they were cared about. To the survivors, you repeatedly spoke truth to those who you thought were there to protect you, and too often you were ignored. The abuse was covered up, the investigations were botched, or the investigations didn't happen at all. The Crown owed you all a duty of care and protection and we have utterly failed you. E kore e ea i te kupu taku aroha mō koutou. [My compassion for you could never be expressed with words.] While we have come so far, in too many cases we have not come far enough. The stories of survivors are too often mirrored in what we hear today. Young boys in Oranga Tamariki care who are fighting each other in mixed martial arts - style fights and being filmed by the staff; the staff who were not vetted, who were not trained, who were not trained in care and protection—these stories may well have been in these reports, but they're happening now. These are our most vulnerable and damaged tamariki, and this report tells us today that we must do better. As a Government, we are committed to delivering our response to the report with the respect and dignity it deserves. But today is about the survivors. Today we hear your stories. Today we acknowledge your bravery, and your bravery will not only correct the historic record, but it will determine our future. You are brave, we acknowledge you, and we thank you. Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa. Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour): Tēnā koe e te Māngai. E pēhea rā ahau e kōrero ki tēnei take ki roto i te Whare i tēnei ahiahi? Aue, taukuri e. Aue te mamae. Aue te kino. Aue taku aroha mō koutou ngā morehu kei roto i te Whare i tēnei ahiahi. Koutou e whakakanohi nei i te tini me te mano, rātou kua wehe ki te pō, rātou kahore i tae ki te tuku i ō rātou kōrero. Taku mihi kau ana, aroha ki a koutou mō tō koutou kaha, māia, manawanui, manawaroa. Tēnā koutou katoa. [Thank you, Speaker. How do I speak about this issue within this House this afternoon? Dear me. My goodness, the anguish. Dear me, the malice. Oh, my compassion for you, the survivors that are in the House this evening. You who represent so very many, those who have departed into the darkness, those who could not come to present their own stories. My sincerest greeting and compassion to you for your strength, your courage, your persistence, and your resilience. Greetings to all of you.] I don't even know how to begin to express my thoughts and feelings about what we are here debating this afternoon, what has been delivered to this Whare. It is painful. It is heartbreaking. I admire your strength, your courage, your determination, and your perseverance. I want to acknowledge that many that are here today in fact represent many, many more—hundreds, thousands, who could not be here today—those who have passed, those who did not present to the royal commission. You represent them. I had the privilege of meeting a few survivors before this afternoon's proceedings, and I recognise how traumatic and how triggering this is for all of you. They said to me it takes them back to those very moments like it was just yesterday, and it has been 60-plus years for some of those people. What I felt so heartening from those conversations is that their determination and their perseverance is purely so that it does not happen to another tamaiti, to another tamariki. Despite their own traumatic experiences, which we have heard some of this afternoon, they are here for others, and I mihi to all of you. We welcome this report. We welcome the opportunity to work through the 138 recommendations in that report. You have heard acknowledgments from all parties in the House this afternoon. You have heard all parties saying they are committed to this issue and that they want to work on resolving these issues and ensuring it doesn't happen again. There are 138 recommendations. When I look at recommendations, I see that our current system is so out of step with what is recommended that there is a huge job for us to do. The report is harrowing. It's confronting—the atrocities that have been suffered. It was unacceptable and disgraceful, and we owe it to the survivors to read the report, to understand the recommendations, and then to take action. I am sure that all of you who have fought so hard to get us to this point today will continue to hold all of the politicians you have heard from this afternoon accountable to deliver the action that is needed to ensure that this does not continue. One person wanted me to mention in the House and get on the Hansard that this is not a historical issue. It is an issue that is still happening today. I want to acknowledge that rangatahi who were excluded because of the 1999 time frame. They have presented their additional report for our consideration—VOYCE - Whakarongo Mai; has that on their website. I encourage you to read it. They wanted to give this message. Ihorangi Reweti-Peters sent it to me by text message. Designed by Ruby Jones in collaboration with Karah Mackie, "Survivors of abuse in care". It says, "Our rangatahi are saying we fought to survive. Now help us to thrive." He wero tērā ki tēnei Whare, ki a tātou katoa i roto i tēnei Whare. Nō reira i runga anō i ērā whakaaro, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, kia ora huihui mai tātou katoa. [That is a challenge to this House, to all of us in this House. And so, on that note, I thank and greet all of us gathered here.] KAHURANGI CARTER (Green): Māku rā pea Māku rā pea Māku koe e awhi e Ki te ara, ara Tupu Māku koe e awhi e. Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise today on behalf of the Green Party of Aotearoa to hold space alongside survivors, both past and present, who have selflessly made sacrifices in reliving their traumatic experiences in the hope of achieving a better future for our mokopuna and our future generations. You deserve to be safe, loved, and nurtured, but, shamefully, you were denied these basic rights. Words cannot adequately convey the systemic failures and injustices continually perpetuated for decades by the State, and for that, I am deeply, deeply sorry. The State was a place in which you were meant to be safe. It was the very same New Zealand that portrayed itself, both home and abroad, as a sanctuary of human rights, a secure and just nation where children thrived in loving families. If we do not confront this systemic injustice and recognise that the State continues to be the largest perpetuator of violence and abuse towards tamariki, the stain on our national character will be permanent. I want to express my heartfelt gratitude and mihi to mōrehu, survivors, whānau, communities, iwi, and support networks who bravely advocated and participated in this inquiry. We stand beside you, and we'll continue to hold the space that is required to heal, redress, and fight so this never happens again. Your advocacy has been a beacon of hope and solidarity throughout this harrowing process. Your unwavering determination, patience, and courage have been the cornerstone of our efforts, shaping the findings and recommendations aimed at creating a society where everyone can flourish with dignity and pride. I appreciate the immense difficulty in sharing your experiences, especially for those speaking out for the first time, and extend my deepest aroha to those unable to come forward due to fear, loss of trust, or the overwhelming pain of their past. We honour and remember those who have passed away, including those who tragically took their own lives during this process, acknowledging their family and friends and recognising the lasting impact of their stories on our journey towards justice and healing. This royal commission of inquiry has once again shone a spotlight on the systemic inequalities baked into the fabric of our institutions. We know, time and time again, that those who bear the greatest harm of the State's failings, those who have been time and time again let down by the very institutions that were meant to protect them, are Māori, Pacific, disabled, rainbow, and impoverished tamariki. This report, shamefully, highlights the failings in the care system, and I quote the inquiry: "Tamariki, rangatahi and pakeke Māori were often targeted because of their ethnicity, and this was often overlaid with racism. The effects of colonisation continued to further keep many whānau Māori in social deprivation with resulting impacts on whānau wellbeing and financial instability." This inquiry is a testament to the collective strength, mana, and resilience of those whose voices are reflected in this report and beyond. The hope for a better future is found within the recommendations—all 138 of them. We welcome the apology that will be offered by the Prime Minister on behalf of the State. However, an apology is hollow without change. The Green Party is unified in its cross-partisan support to accept and implement, in full, all recommendations and implores the Government to join us. Whilst my words can never come close to healing the decades of neglect, trauma, and failings of the State, what I can offer you is my unwavering dedication to the relentless fight for the recommendations to be fully implemented, because our tamariki, our mokopuna, and our future generations depend on it. Mauri ora. Hon DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): I start by acknowledging those of the 200,000 that we know about who were abused, who did not get to see this day because they passed before it came, because it took too long; those who were put in dark places where the last people that they thought they could trust turned out to abuse them further—physically, psychologically, sexually, medically, educationally, culturally. In every way that a person could be abused, they were, and yet they never lived to see this acknowledgement today. This is their day and the day of all survivors. For those who are here today, those who participated in this commission, this is the day that many perhaps thought would never come, because the thing that bullies and abusers do that they all have in common, no matter what form they take, is that they try to deny your reality, to stop you seeing and saying and asserting your truth and what has happened to you. This report finally puts on the Table of this House of Parliament—your Parliament—a formal acknowledgement of what has happened. It was hideous. Some people who have spoken today have made apologies and some haven't. I want to be clear that people on this side with the Government have not apologised today because we believe it is so important that we make sure that this report and its recommendations are properly considered and the form of apology and anything else that goes with it is not done to those survivors but actually created with them, so that it is genuine. I think the spirit we've heard today that people from all political stripes will put down their political perspectives and work together in order to have that sincere apology and redress is not just welcome; it's the only way that it should be. In that process, we all have to learn. All of us have beliefs. There are some who have already tried to bring politics into today. We should not do that. There are things that we need to learn and acknowledge, that yes, the State failed. The State failed in three ways. It failed to run safe institutions of its own. Anyone who has lived in a place where you are on a site that you may not be allowed or able to leave, with a select group of people, perhaps with walls and people who are put in charge, you can see whether or not abuse happened at the place you lived. If you've lived at a place like that, you can see how strong the potential is. The second thing that the State failed to do was to have the accountability and the oversight and the protection, given that very obvious danger in any kind of residential facility or institution, not only in its own facilities but in facilities run by faith-based and other organisations. The third way that the State failed is that even when people pointed out what was wrong— [Interruption] And someone says "failing", and that's fair, but for the purpose of this report, the way that it failed is that it covered up. When people thought that they might be listened to, it was covered up. I acknowledge that there have been some of the worst human prejudices against people of a different gender, people of a different sexuality, people of a different race, people living with a disability. Those prejudices came out in these horrible places. But one of the things that we have to accept, beside the fact that the State is not always essentially good and that sometimes it's the god that failed, is that if we hate in ourselves that prejudice that has come out in these places, then we must recommit ourselves to a State that upholds the inherent human dignity of each and every human being, no matter the hue or creed from whence they come. That is the lesson we should take and should recommit ourselves to as we work through the process of apology and redress, as a result of this report. It is for all New Zealand, finally, not only to acknowledge that the State failed, but all of us have to look at the country that we thought was above these bad things, that it could never happen on such a scale, so grotesquely, that we were good people and bad things happened elsewhere. Actually, it did happen here. It is not only the State that failed; it is on all of us to be better parents, to be more caring, to listen to people when we think that they're being ignored. Government and State and Government alone cannot fix this problem; it actually rests on all New Zealanders. This is the day for those survivors and especially to remember those who survived but could not see this report published today. The days to come are the days that we must commit to doing better in every way available to us. Thank you. JENNY MARCROFT (NZ First): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I begin my contribution in acknowledgment of the survivors gathered here today at Parliament. I mihi to Eugene Ryder and also to Loretta, my brother-in-law's uncle and auntie—tēnā kōrua. The final report of the royal commission of inquiry into abuse in care raises many difficult, complex, and serious issues that go to the heart of the ways in which our society has attempted to deal with those placed in the care of the State, the welfare State. A great many of those children and young people who were already abused and traumatised were placed in institutions like Templeton, Lake Alice, Tokanui, Sunnyside, and countless others whose names have acquired an unpleasant aura. That aura has not come about by accident. The inquiry reveals shocking detail, stories that are incredibly harrowing, that have impacted large numbers of people, their families, and communities. Damaged survivors who were traumatised by their treatment—or should I say mistreatment. I am the daughter of a survivor. My mother was strapped to electrodes and delivered electric shock therapy as a young university student. She was locked up without her consent or the consent of her parents and subjected to inhumane, barbaric treatment in the late 1950s. One of thousands of stories just like yours. I'm horrified. I'm shocked and deeply disturbed by all of the stories in the report detailing the scale of abuse, the various ways in which abuse was carried out, by whom it was carried out and concealed and sustained over generations. That the abuse became normalised and integrated into the culture of so-called care is a gross inversion of the purpose of healing and restoration, and is a shameful stain on our nation. The summary of the report has two very clear messages. Bad things happen to people when they are disempowered, when they are segregated away from view, and when they are silenced. Different kinds of bad things arise in people who are put in charge of vulnerable people. Why they become bullies seem to be baked into the institutional architecture, and it's still there. This, of course, is nothing new. Everyone who's ever done PSYC 101 has heard of the Milgram experiment and the Stanford prison experiments. We can hardly claim ignorance as an excuse. Every psychologist, counsellor, and social worker up and down the long white cloud has known that people become corrupted by power when it is not held to account. It is easy to point the finger at those who carried out the instances of abuse and make judgments upon them. The perpetrators will no doubt live with the lie that they are decent people. Their victims, however, will have to live under the shadow of horrible memories and psychological scars as best they can. Many of them were convinced by the perpetrators that they were not good people and that they somehow deserved the torments that were inflicted upon them. Others knew that they did not deserve this abuse, but their voices were silenced. Sadly, many of the abusers and victims, like my mother, are no longer alive. And much damage has been done that cannot now be undone for them. This report brings us back to the question of how we respond appropriately to the needs of people who require some form of care. This is a question common to all societies. As Mahatma Gandhi said, "The true measure of any society can be seen in how it deals with the most vulnerable". Whilst a lot of energy and resources could and should be brought to provide some relief to those who suffered at the hands of those caring for them, it would be even more wrong to not rethink what it means to provide care to people in New Zealand in the third decade of the 21st century. This rethinking will have to re-examine fundamental questions about why caring is important to wider society, and the value of individuals. We, who make policies that affect those we serve, have to be willing to put ourselves in the shoes and the hospital gowns of those we design policies for. Our time in history is both similar and different from the time in which the welfare State arose; similar in that we are beset by large-scale needs. But we no longer have the same wide-eyed confidence in science and institutions to solve the problems that we had in the latter part of the 20th century. But we must tread very carefully and thoughtfully if we are to avoid repeating the evil of the past. If we deny vulnerable individuals their humanity, what would that say about ourselves? The question I ask myself, in conclusion, and I ask all of you here today: how would we want to be cared for if we ourselves or someone close to us requires the State's support—to be cared for in a humane way, with our dignity preserved, and where we are treated with compassion? I acknowledge the significance of this historic report and the collective efforts of everyone who has contributed to it. While a Crown apology is to come and some redress made, it is my hope that all victims know that their voices have been heard and will contribute to meaningful change. In closing, to all the victims, living and past, I hope you find peace. MARIAMENO KAPA-KINGI (Te Pāti Māori—Te Tai Tokerau): Tēnā koe e te Pīka, tēnā tātou. Tū ana rā i te pō uriuri, anga nui ana ki tēnei poupou pupuri kōrero. Anei ngā puta ki te ao mārama. E ara. E ngā manawa kua irihia ki runga, tēnā anō tātou katoa. E rere rā ko ngā tangi kōrero, ko ngā tangi tikanga, ko ngā tangi roimata ki runga ki ēnei, ki ngā purapura ora kua tupu kerekere, kua tupu wanawana. Tēnā tātou. [Thank you, Mr Speaker, greetings to us all. Standing in the darkest night, facing this pillar that maintains the discourse. These are the pathways to the world of light. Arise. To those whose hearts have been elevated, greetings to all of us. Flowing are the resounding statements, the resounding practices, and the tearful cries of grief on these, the living seeds whose growth has been extraordinary and awe-inspiring. Greetings to us all.] My hope is that we see the full whakapapa of this report, as opposed to just the letters and the numbers on the paper, that we see the sickening irony of the phrase "abuse in care", that we see the faces of all the innocent babies who have died in these Pākehā institutions, with some of their bones laying underneath unmarked graves. This world may have forgotten you, but your tūpuna won't. I know that your kuia Hine-nui-te-pō will be loving you now in a way that this world did not have the heart to do. Moe mai rā koutou. My hope is that we see the faces who were hated and abused because they were brown, because they loved in their own way, because they were different, because they were born without the privileges that able-bodied people enjoy; faces that longed for ones like theirs to tell them who they are, to speak to their wairua through the reo and tikanga of their tūpuna, to say they loved them, to make them whole; faces that screamed over and over into an empty void completely devoid of aroha, completely devoid of care. To all of you beautifully made mokopuna, I see you, I see your pain, but I also see your power. Ko tō mana nō Hawaiki mai, nō Rangiātea mai. Ahakoa te aha, e kore e ngaro. [Your power is from Hawaiki, it is from Rangiātea. No matter what, it will never be lost.] You have a just rage within that you shake the world, e hoa mā, let it out. The release of this 3,000-page report culminating from six years of hearing truth and pain is, by no means, an end point; it is just the beginning. It has proved to the world, beyond any form of doubt, the reality of State- and church-sanctioned abuse over generations within a system which, on paper, is meant to care for and protect tamariki. It also proves that, for years, successive Governments have spent more time, effort, and money trying to hide that reality, to save its own reputation, as opposed to saving the lives of innocent children. Today, I say to the Pākehā State: you must answer to your crimes against all tamariki who you have made and watched suffer—the bare minimum response, financial compensation, and enacting all 138 recommendations in this report. Let me say this: when I hear comments like, "We thought this was a great country. We never could possibly do that.", it's such a privileged statement. Māori, for way too long, have absolutely felt the despise, the distaste, and the horror of what Pākehā systemic racism hands to us, right? So, absolutely, it is not a shock to us. It is not a surprise. It is not a surprise to Māori at all that these things occurred then and that they occur right now as I'm standing here giving this speech. All roads must lead to Te Tiriti o Waitangi. My tūpuna did not sign Te Tiriti to watch their mokopuna die. We are the only ones who can care and love for our own. So hands off our mokopuna. The best chance we have of protecting our tamariki from State abuse is to keep them out of it in the first place. Our tamariki Māori currently make up 70 percent of those in State custody, and further, they make up 80 percent of the currently abused by the State. Imagine the next apology that's going to roll out over the next two years. Imagine what that's going to look like. We must dismantle this institution now. Relevant communities, including iwi, hapū, and whānau must be resourced to shape the destinies of their own babies. For us, for Te Pāti Māori, this looks like the Mokopuna Māori Authority, which will prioritise indigenous care models and empower communities. These thoughts aren't a theory—and I just heard my whanaunga mihi, and that's because her and I know that working in the department, at times, back in the late 1980s and 1990s, we saw it, we fought against it, and still they refused to hear it then. So I mihi to every single whānau member in this House that could make it and to the thousands that couldn't: we're with you, we see you. Kia kaha rā tātou. Motion agreed to. SPEAKER: I declare the House in committee for consideration of the Local Government (Electoral Legislation and Māori Wards and Māori Constituencies) Amendment Bill. LOCAL GOVERNMENT (ELECTORAL LEGISLATION AND MĀORI WARDS AND MĀORI CONSTITUENCIES) AMENDMENT BILL In Committee Part 1 Amendments to Local Electoral Act 2001 CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Members, the House is in committee on the Local Government (Electoral Legislation and Māori Wards and Māori Constituencies) Amendment Bill. Members, we start with Part 1. Part 1 is the debate on clauses 3 to 17, "Amendments to Local Electoral Act 2001", and the Schedule. The question is that Part 1 stand part. Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Local Government): Madam Chair, thank you for the opportunity to take a short call on Part 1. Part 1 amends the Local Electoral Act 2001. It puts the poll provisions back in in relation to Māori wards. These are the same provisions that were in place prior to the last Government's change. Hon Member: We can't hear. Hon SIMEON BROWN: Oh—is that not working? Was it me? Is that better? Hello. Is that better? Was it better before—was it? Sorry—well, I won't apologise to that side; I'll apologise to this side. [Gestures to Government benches] Sorry. Shanan Halbert: What do you have to be like that for? Hon SIMEON BROWN: Oh, I thought I was being kind. CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Can we come back to the bill. Come back to the bill. Hon SIMEON BROWN: It refers to the Schedule, which deals with transitional arrangements and deals with some of the postal time frame arrangements as well—which, of course, is in regard to the extension of the postal voting period for future local government elections, which, obviously, is an issue that's going to need to be further dealt with. This really is simply a fix in relation to the next local elections. There's also two tabled amendments from me. Firstly, there's one which is more substantive, and that is in relation to requiring councils to make a choice as to whether they will rescind, disestablish, or have a referendum. So that is requiring councils by 6 December to make that decision. There's a second one, which has a typo that has been picked up. The word "or" was missing from one of the clauses and is being fixed. Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Labour): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. It's a shame that we only have seven minutes or so until the dinner break, but we are very much looking forward to diving into this after the dinner break. There is a lot to cover. It may be a bill of three parts, but they are detailed, and as the Minister has indicated, there is also an Amendment Paper that is thicker than the original bill. So there is a lot to talk about. Of course, this has just been tabled. We haven't had the opportunity to dive into this and consider it. So we're looking forward to using the committee of the whole House stage to have that as our only opportunity. I was hoping to be able to have a back and forth. We all live in hope. We've tried this on a number of occasions, and it doesn't happen very often, but I'll give it a go and we'll see how we get on. I'll start with a very simple question. Would the Minister consider an amendment to include all wards of local body areas, all wards under local councils, not just Māori wards—that they be treated the same under the proposals within this bill? Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Local Government): No, the Government is not willing to accept that amendment. This bill is in relation to Māori wards, wards based on race, ethnicity, rather than geography. Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Labour): So there we have it right off the bat. The Government is treating the consideration of the establishment of Māori wards differently to all other wards—probably the most upfront thing the Minister has said in this House, and we got it right from the get-go, which I appreciate and thank him for. If we actually get to the nub of the issue now, what the Minister is asking us to consider tonight is a bill that brings in different provisions for the establishment of Māori wards than any other wards under local government—urban, rural, whatever. Whatever that community feels would best serve them, a local council can make that decision. If a local council wants to establish Māori wards, the Minister is asking us to vote for a bill that would make that process harder. My next question is: does the Minister know what institutional racism is? Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Local Government): The member Kieran McAnulty's comments in relation to my last question highlight, I think, a difference in terms of where the Opposition's position on this is and where the Government's position on this issue is. In relation to rural wards or urban wards, where those wards exist, everybody who lives within those wards, regardless of whether they're on the Māori roll or the general roll, get to vote for the person that they choose to represent them as a mayor or a councillor. In relation to the position that this Government is taking, we're simply putting the provisions back to what they were three years ago. This is not going back to 30 years ago or 40 years ago; this is simply putting it back to what it was three years ago, which is saying that if a council wishes to make a change and to have a Māori ward—which means that voters are split into whether or not they are on the general roll or the Māori roll—they can put that forward, the public can then petition the council for a referendum, and then voters in that community are able to have their say and make a decision based on whether or not they would like to. And if the public in that community decides that, yes, they would like that—as some councils have—they will have the opportunity to have a Māori ward. If they vote no, there won't be. The difference is that it divides the people in that community based on which roll they're on. An urban ward or a rural ward does not divide the people in those wards based on what roll they're on. Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Labour): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I appreciate the response from the Minister, but it was unnecessary, because we know what the motivations of the Government are. We know that they are wanting, regardless of when the status quo as it is currently was brought in—it was changed to bring it in line with the establishment of any other wards. And the cute argument about, "Well, some people are on different rolls; therefore, we want everyone on the same roll" doesn't wash because we're talking about the establishment of a ward, the recognition of a decision of a council. I do note that the Minister didn't answer my last question, so I will read out a definition of institutional racism. It is defined as "policies and practices that exist throughout a whole society or organisation that result in and support a continued unfair advantage to some people and unfair or harmful treatment of others based on race". Now, I think the committee should reflect on that in the few moments that we have before the dinner break, because I am very interested to hear the Minister's view as to how what he is proposing in this bill—that would treat Māori differently to everybody else in the country—does not fit the definition that I've just read out. And I want the Minister to stand up—he may wait until after the dinner break. By golly, I'll give him an hour and a half to think about it if he wants; I don't care. But I think he owes the country and I think he owes the House an explanation. Why is he asking us to treat people differently because of race? Why should Māori go through a harder process than everybody else? And it's interesting, isn't it, that we have just had a pretty significant moment in this House to reflect on the report that sits on that Table. Riddled and weaved throughout that report are examples of institutional racism, and for a brief moment this House stood as one and said, "Never again." And in the cruellest of cruel ironies, here we are, the very first item immediately after on the Order Paper, and the Minister is asking us to vote for a bill that treats Māori people differently, creates an unfair advantage for non-Māori, and creates a pathway for communities that have already made their decisions more difficult and more likely to be reversed. Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Local Government): The member Kieran McAnulty made a wrong assertion in terms of the comments he made earlier in relation to how the provisions passed by the previous Government treated the Māori wards the same as any other. The reality was that they took away the ability, when councils were putting forward their representation reviews, for the public to be able to go to the Local Government Commission and be able to petition or have their concerns raised around that, even through the Local Government Commission. When councils are establishing a rural ward, people can lodge a complaint or lodge a submission to the Local Government Commission. Even that was taken away. So there was no fair treatment under their provisions. What we are doing is we're simply putting it back to what it was before. Where a council is establishing a rural ward or where they're establishing a Māori ward, there are provisions and abilities for the public to have their say. That is a fair principle. It is a principle that we stand on. And it's a principle that I will argue throughout this debate. Thank you. Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): I have just a brief question, really, in terms of the underlying policy of this bill, because I was noting that at Waitangi in 2024, Christopher Luxon said, "I want te ao Māori to thrive. When Māori do well, we all know it, New Zealand does well." We, like you, believe in localism and devolution, not centralisation and control. And it strikes me that at the guts of this bill is a movement away from devolution of these decisions from local government. In fact, local governments have the ability to choose, in their local body, whether or not they have Māori wards, like they have island wards or rural wards. And I was wondering if there's been a change in the Government policies and, in fact, now the Government wants centralisation and control? CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Members, the time has come for the dinner break. The committee is suspended and will resume after the dinner break. Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. …