Wednesday, 14 February 2024 - Volume 773 Sitting date: 14 Feb 2024 WEDNESDAY, 14 FEBRUARY 2024 The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m. KARAKIA/PRAYERS MAUREEN PUGH (Assistant Speaker—National): Almighty God, we give thanks for the blessings which have been bestowed on us. Laying aside all personal interests, we acknowledge the King and pray for guidance in our deliberations that we may conduct the affairs of this House with wisdom, justice, mercy, and humility for the welfare and peace of New Zealand. Amen. VISITORS Germany and Nepal—Parliamentary Delegations SPEAKER: Members, we have two delegations from other Parliaments here today. I'm sure members will want to welcome, from the German Bundestag, members of the German-Pacific Parliamentary Group, led by Filiz Polat, and the Hon Narayan Prakash Saud, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Nepal, and his accompanying delegation, who are all present in the gallery. SPEAKER'S RULINGS Content of Answers SPEAKER: Members, yesterday I indicated that I'd respond to a point of order from Ricardo Menéndez March. I want to affirm Speakers' ruling 205/5, "Ministers should not commence an answer to a question with a political attack on the person asking a question." I'll watch for it in the future, and members are always able to raise a point of order if they think this has occurred. APPOINTMENTS Assistant Speaker SPEAKER: Members, we're short of a presiding officer this week, believe it or not. Having discussed it with the member, I wish to seek leave for the Hon Jenny Salesa to be appointed an additional Assistant Speaker until 6 p.m. on Thursday, 15 February, despite Standing Order 29(1). Any objections? There is none. Congratulations, Jenny. PETITIONS, PAPERS, SELECT COMMITTEE REPORTS, AND INTRODUCTION OF BILLS SPEAKER: There have been no petitions delivered. Ministers have delivered papers. CLERK: 2022/23 annual report for the New Zealand Conservation Authority 2022/23 actuarial valuation of the Government Superannuation Fund Authority Financial Statements of the Government of New Zealand for the year ended 30 June 2023. SPEAKER: There are no select committee reports. No bills have been introduced. ORAL QUESTIONS QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS Question No. 1—RMA Reform 1. Hon JAMES SHAW (Co-Leader—Green) to the Minister responsible for RMA Reform: What progress, if any, has been made on policy decisions for the proposed fast-track consenting reforms? Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform): A lot. Hon James Shaw: Very good. Has the list of projects that will be contained in the bill that will be first to be approved been decided upon by Ministers? Hon CHRIS BISHOP: No. Hon James Shaw: Were any of the projects that are on the proposed list proposed to him by the Minister for resources and regional development? Hon CHRIS BISHOP: There are a range of proposals that are being proposed. Cabinet will be deciding on the listed projects in the bill in due course, and when the bill is ready to go, that member will be one of the first to know. Hon Dr Megan Woods: Why don't you answer the question? Hon CHRIS BISHOP: I did. I just did. Hon James Shaw: Does the proposed list of listed projects in the bill include any coal mines? Hon CHRIS BISHOP: As I say, there are a range of projects that have been proposed and are being proposed, but we are going through a process around the development of the bill now. What I've outlined to the environmental movement, what I've outlined to local government, and what I've outlined to a range of stakeholders is the broad, high-level framework of what Cabinet has agreed, and the finer details of the bill are being worked through as we speak. As the member knows, it's a part of the Government's 100-day programme of action, so in due course—not too many sleeps to go—he will find out what the fast-track consenting bill looks like. [Interruption] Hon James Shaw: Well, as part of the process that he's just outlined, has a climate— SPEAKER: Just a moment—just a moment. Don't talk when someone is asking a question. Hon James Shaw: As part of the process that he's just outlined to the House, do the projects that are being included in the bill—has there been a climate impact assessment done for those projects? Hon CHRIS BISHOP: We're not at the point where that would take place yet, and Ministers will be taking advice about the appropriateness of that in due course. Hon James Shaw: Has he sought assurances that the projects that are being considered for inclusion in the bill are not connected to any people or companies that have made substantial donations to any of the coalition parties? Hon CHRIS BISHOP: No, but that member will know from his time as a Minister in the previous Government that all Ministers are subject to Cabinet Act processes around things like he is describing. Rt Hon Winston Peters: Point of order. There is a trend in that sort of question to make an allegation without one skerrick of evidence and think you can get away with it in this House. If that's what that member wants, then he's come to the right place, because you're not going to put up with those lies anymore. Hon James Shaw: Speaking to the point of order, Mr Speaker. SPEAKER: No, no—I'm not taking any more on that. It was an interesting point of order, pointing out there were veiled threats from one side only for the point of order itself to contain a less than veiled threat, so we'll move on. Chlöe Swarbrick: Point of order, Mr Speaker. SPEAKER: Moving on. Question No. 2. Chlöe Swarbrick: Point of order, Mr Speaker. SPEAKER: A new point of order? Chlöe Swarbrick: Yes, Mr Speaker. SPEAKER: Completely different point of order? Chlöe Swarbrick: Well, relating to— SPEAKER: It's not a day to come close. Is it new? Chlöe Swarbrick: Mr Speaker, point of order. There has been a lot made in this House over the last few months about the use of the term "lying", and in that statement just then from the incoming Deputy Prime Minister, the statement "lie" was used in relation to the Hon James Shaw. SPEAKER: I'll review it and consider it. Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can I speak to the point of order? It is simple: there is a requisite under the electoral law of this country for declarations to be made. Those declarations have been made. The Electoral Commission has not challenged it, nor has anybody else. So what's happening in this House? It has to be that or plain ignorance. Take their choice. Chlöe Swarbrick: Speaking to the point of order, Mr Speaker. SPEAKER: No, I'm sorry; this is not going anywhere. James Shaw, do you have another supplementary? Ricardo Menéndez March: I have a new point of order. It's unrelated. SPEAKER: OK. Try hard and try to be different. Ricardo Menéndez March: No, but I did want to raise the point that particularly around Speaker's ruling 24/2 regarding constantly raising trifling points of orders, it's itself disorderly, and the Acting Prime Minister has, in my view—and I'm just asking the Speaker to reflect on the fact that throughout the passage of this Parliament, I think there have been constant points of order that have been raised that I would say are within the nature of that. I'm concerned about what that sets in terms of precedent of trying to raise points of order in a way that is constructive. SPEAKER: Well, thank you for that. We'll go now to question 2. Question No. 2—Finance TIM COSTLEY (National—Ōtaki): Thank you, Mr Speaker, and can I wish you a happy Valentine's Day. I'm sure you were hoping to hear that from me. SPEAKER: We'll move now to question No. 3! TIM COSTLEY: Like so many women in my past. 2. TIM COSTLEY (National—Ōtaki) to the Minister of Finance: What recent reports has she seen on Government spending? Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance): As I said yesterday, I received Treasury's briefing to the incoming Minister (BIM) and it made for sober reading. It told me that core Crown expenses have increased markedly since 2017, peaking at 35 percent of GDP in the 2021-22 fiscal year, which is the highest rate in New Zealand in decades. Tim Costley: What has been the change in core Crown revenue? Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Treasury's BIM told me that in 2021-22, core Crown tax revenue was also the highest as a percentage of GDP for many years—not surprising, as personal income tax rates and thresholds have not been adjusted for 14 long years. Tim Costley: What have these changes meant for the operating balance? Hon NICOLA WILLIS: The Government operating balance is the difference between what the Government receives each year and what it spends. Core Crown expenses are higher than core Crown revenue and have been rising faster, meaning that the Government is in deficit. In fact, the Government has been in deficit since 2019. Tim Costley: Is the Government deficit due to COVID? Hon NICOLA WILLIS: A good question. While temporary factors such as COVID and the North Island weather events have certainly contributed to the weak fiscal position, much of the operating deficit is structural, which means the Government would still be in deficit even if the economy was operating at its potential. In fact, Treasury's BIM tells me that after stripping out large one-off expenditures like COVID and after adjusting for the economic cycle, the Government is currently running a structural deficit of around 2 percent of GDP, largely because of growth in Government spending. That is the mess Labour has left us in. Question No. 3—Child Poverty Reduction 3. Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Labour—Kelston) to the Minister for Child Poverty Reduction: What advice has she received on the likely impact on child poverty of the Government's policies? Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Child Poverty Reduction): Thank you, Mr Speaker. The Government receives a wide range of advice on the impact on child poverty of policies it implements across the board. Hon Carmel Sepuloni: How many children will be lifted out of poverty due to the Government's changes to the indexation of benefits? Hon LOUISE UPSTON: There's not one policy that will have a single impact on child poverty. Our Government is directly focused, as the previous Government was, on lifting the number of children out of poverty. Hon Grant Robertson: Point of order, Mr Speaker. The supplementary question that the member asked was very specific and the primary also was on notice. I don't believe the Minister addressed the specific question that the member asked. Hon Chris Bishop: Speaking to the point of order, the Opposition might not like the answer, but the Minister did address it. She talked about how there is not one way of lifting children out of poverty, which directly addresses the question from the member. Hon Grant Robertson: Speaking to that, the point is that the member asked a question about a specific legislative amendment that the Government is making. There is some obligation, surely, on the Minister to answer about that. You know, we've been urged consistently by previous Speakers on both sides of the House to ask specific questions, ones that are not political in nature. That was what my colleague did, and the answer she got was a generic response that did not, in my opinion, address that question. SPEAKER: That might be your opinion, but if you think about it, the question was about the specific policy; the answer was—perhaps the Minister could've put the words in "that's a wrong assumption" or some other such, but it was about the fact that in the Minister's view, just like the questioner has a view, there isn't one policy that answers it. Hon Grant Robertson: Point of order. Sorry, Mr Speaker, to belabour the point, but that wasn't the question. The question wasn't "Is there one policy?"; it was "What does this particular policy contribute?" Those are actually materially two different questions, and the question that the member asked has not been answered. SPEAKER: OK, good—would the Minister like to answer in a different way? Hon LOUISE UPSTON: The member asks a question about child poverty, and there will be a number of policies, including indexation, that our Government will put in place to reduce child poverty. Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Did she receive the preliminary modelling showing that indexing main benefits to inflation leads to an estimated increase in the number of children in poverty over the forecast period? Hon LOUISE UPSTON: There will be a number of forecasts that we look at around policies in a range of portfolios across the Government that we are absolutely focused on in reducing child poverty, including reducing the cost of living, growing the economy, improving attendance at school, and preventing preventable hospitalisations for children. Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Point of order, Mr Speaker. Given that the bill I'm referring to is currently going through the House in urgency and the preliminary modelling is attached to that bill in the supplementary analysis, I expect a straight answer, and I do not feel like that Minister has responded adequately to the question. SPEAKER: Yes, well, the difference between your expectations and what you feel about an answer doesn't necessarily mean that the answer hasn't been given. The question has been certainly addressed. Hon Grant Robertson: Point of order, Mr Speaker. The difficulty with that approach is that there is not an unlimited pool of supplementary questions. In the House, we're allocated a certain number of supplementary questions and therefore we have to use them in a way to extract the information. When a member asks a question "Did a Minister receive a particular piece of advice?", that is an attempt to ask a specific enough question that it will get a specific enough answer. If we had an unlimited number of supplementaries, we could go down the path we're going— SPEAKER: I'll tell you what, I fully understand your point of order. I'm not saying I'd be the original author of it, but it's certainly been used in this House before. To move us on, would the Minister like to answer the question in another way, again. Hon LOUISE UPSTON: The one individual piece of legislation that is before the Parliament at the moment—the figure is 7,000. Our Government is absolutely focused on reducing the number of children living in poverty, and one of the areas we'll focus on is reducing the number of children in benefit-dependant homes that blew out under that Government— SPEAKER: Yes, before we go any further, the question was about receiving some advice. Did you receive some advice? Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Yes, and I told her the figure. SPEAKER: OK. Hon Carmel Sepuloni: What advice has she received on her Government's broader policies' ability to mitigate the forecasted risk of an estimated increase of 7,000 children under the AHC 50 poverty measure, and an estimated increase of 7,000 children under the BHC 50 poverty measure due to the change in indexation? Hon LOUISE UPSTON: I'm trying to make it simple to get an answer. So, one piece of legislation, one policy of multiple that this side of the House will be focused on in terms of improving child poverty reduction—and this is one measure that has an impact of a suite of policies around the cost of living crisis that we are focusing on. So this is one of many. Hon Carmel Sepuloni: What advice has she received about her Government's intention to set targets for the number of beneficiaries with respect to perverse intentions that may be created in the system and the possible impact on child poverty? SPEAKER: I think we might have that question again, a little more slowly. Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Maybe I'll cut it back. What advice has she received about her Government's intention to set targets for the number of beneficiaries and the possible impact on child poverty? Hon LOUISE UPSTON: I've been clear about my priority about reducing the number of children in benefit-dependant homes, and there will be a range of advice that's coming to support that end. Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Is her Government committed to the child poverty reduction targets enshrined in legislation, and if yes, is she expecting to meet the targets? Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Just to put on record, the previous Government was not on track to meet the targets. We supported the legislation when it was introduced, we're not making changes to the legislation, and our Government will work incredibly hard to lift children out of poverty. Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Point of order. I didn't ask about the Government's track record; it was a very straight question about commitment to the enshrined targets in legislation and whether she expects to meet them—that her Government expects to meet them. SPEAKER: Well, look, that explanation probably explains what the question was about but I asked you to repeat it because I couldn't quite follow what you were asking either. So I think we'll move on; if you've got another supplementary, try that. Well, I'll give you an extra one so you feel better. Hon Carmel Sepuloni: An extra question? SPEAKER: Yeah. Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Does she agree with the member Paulo Garcia that there is dignity in poverty? Hon LOUISE UPSTON: This side of the House is very clear that we need to lift children out of benefit-dependant homes, to give them the shot at a great future that they deserve in New Zealand. Currently, 60 percent of the children in material hardship are in benefit-dependant homes. There is no dignity in them having poor or worse outcomes because of the family circumstances they were born in. Question No. 4—Justice (Treaty Principles Bill) 4. Dr PARMJEET PARMAR (ACT) to the Associate Minister of Justice (Treaty Principles Bill): Why is the Government introducing a Treaty Principles Bill? Hon DAVID SEYMOUR (Associate Minister of Justice (Treaty Principles Bill)): Next year, it will be half a decade since this House passed the Treaty of Waitangi Act, saying that there was such a thing as the principles of the Treaty. Since that time, Parliament has been silent about their definition while the courts, the Waitangi Tribunal, the Public Service, and many others have had their say. This Government is introducing a Treaty principles bill to democratise that process of defining the Treaty principles because, for the first time through this representative House of Parliament, all New Zealanders will have a say about what our founding document and our constitutional future means. Dr Parmjeet Parmar: How will the Treaty principles bill honour the Treaty? Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: The Treaty of Waitangi, or Te Tiriti of Waitangi, as our founding document, is enormously important to our past but also to our future and our conception of ourselves as a country. The fact that it has been interpreted through a lens of principles upon which most New Zealanders have had not a chance to have any influence or say, I believe, has diminished its mana and made it a source of division when it should be a source of unity. The Treaty principles bill and the debate surrounding it is designed to enhance the mana of Te Tiriti and ensure that all New Zealanders believe they are invested in its principles. Dr Parmjeet Parmar: Will the Treaty principles bill abolish or rewrite the Treaty, like some people have claimed? Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: Absolutely not, and as some people who, I believe, have been mischievous— Hon Willie Jackson: Who? Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: —misinforming the public, and I heard heard Willie Jackson, as if on cue, say "Who?". I think he could answer that question for himself. Some mischievous people have made false claims. It is impossible to abolish the Treaty. What we are doing is democratising the process of defining its principles, which has been going on for the last 50 years, almost, but without the vast majority of New Zealanders having any kind of input or say into it. This will enhance the Treaty. It certainly will not rewrite the Treaty itself, let alone get rid of it; it will simply democratise the definition of its principles. Hon Willie Jackson: Who is right: the Prime Minister, who has said that the Treaty principles bill is divisive and unhelpful, or the ACT Party, who think it's all about freedom at the expense of Māori? Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: Well, the Treaty principles bill does have the potential to be divisive, particularly when certain leaders in Māoridom who should know better threaten violence and uprisings, instead of actually engaging in a democratic debate. So in that sense, the Prime Minister is absolutely right, and when it comes to the characterisation of my statements, I don't believe that this debate does come at the expense of Māori. So I actually can't agree with my own statement because that member has completely mischaracterised it, and misrepresenting other people's views is a major problem in any public debate. I hope that member will stop doing it. Hon Willie Jackson: Which iwi are supporting the bill—is it Ngāti Whātua, Tainui, or his own tribe, Ngāti Rēhia—and what feedback has he got in terms of support for the bill? Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: Well, I've heard there is support for the bill from people up and down this country, and those people are Māori, they're non-Māori, they're old, they're young, they're from north, they're from south, they're from down, they're from town, and they're from country. There is widespread support for the idea. In fact, the member may have seen opinion polling by Curia which found that 60 percent of New Zealanders support the principles in the bill and 18 percent oppose it, and maybe it's time for the member to get on board. Dr Parmjeet Parmar: What does he say to people who claim the Treaty principles bill is an attack on Māori? Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: Well, that's an excellent and well-timed question because there are clearly people who would like to make the Treaty principles bill a debate between races. People that say that have bought in to the fetish of racial identity that it is our race; it is our ethnicity; it is our background and ancestry that defines us more than anything else. But the truth is that there are Māori who agree with this particular kaupapa; there are Māori who disagree. Rawiri Waititi: Who? Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: There are non-Māori who agree; there are non-Māori who agree. I think we just saw an example of that right now because people won't be able to see, but off screen Rawiri Waititi is saying, "Who?" Who are these Māori who agree? Nicole McKee's sitting beside him and she said, "Me". I think that sums up this debate perfectly well and I think Rawiri Waititi: my message for you is keep heckling, brother, because you help more than you realise. Rawiri Waititi: Supplementary. SPEAKER: Supplementary? Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: No, it's a point of order. SPEAKER: A point of order. Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Mr Speaker, I just want to seek confirmation from you, based on some comments that various Ministers have made outside of the House, that the Standing Orders and the conventions of this House continue to apply, that an answer that a Minister gives in the House to a question from any member is an answer on behalf of the entirety of the Government, not just that member's party. SPEAKER: Well, I'm going to go back and have a look at what the arrangements were between 2002 and 2005, where there were different arrangements for Ministers inside one Government, and I'll come back to you on that. Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. It has always been the case, under every confidence and supply or coalition agreement, that where a Minister is speaking as a Minister in the House—clearly at question time they are answering questions as a Minister—they speak on behalf of the entire Government and are therefore bound by Cabinet collective responsibility, which therefore means they speak on behalf of the whole Government. Now, we've had some suggestion from Ministers that that is not what is happening. That would be a departure from all of the rules, practices, protocols, and conventions of this House that no previous Government has made. When David Seymour delivers those answers, I want to be clear from you that he is delivering them in accordance with every convention of this House on behalf of the whole of the Government. SPEAKER: Yeah, well, you're not going to get that now because between also 1999 and 2002—where there was a significant meltdown in Government arrangements at that time—there were various conventions put in place for the answering of questions by people who were Ministers inside a Government but representing a multitude of parties outside it. I want to go back and have a look at that and see where exactly we're at. Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. Are you indicating that there has been a breakdown of the Government? SPEAKER: No, I'm not. That is not a helpful comment and I would ask the very experienced member of Parliament not to trifle with the Chair. Hon David Seymour: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I may be able to assist. Every— SPEAKER: Well, you know, you do these things at your peril, but away you go. Hon David Seymour: Mr Speaker, I may be able to help the member. Every answer I have given is as the Minister responsible around the intentions behind the kaupapa that I'm bringing on behalf of the Government. I have not portrayed myself— SPEAKER: That's enough. Hon David Seymour: No, one second. I have not portrayed myself as representing any Cabinet decision. SPEAKER: That's enough. The honourable—sorry—Rawiri Waititi— Rawiri Waititi: Thank you. SPEAKER: The honourable member. Rawiri Waititi: I like your matakitetanga [prediction], Mr Speaker. Given the Associate Minister of Justice has become an expert in Te Tiriti o Waitangi, can he tell me how many Māori chiefs signed Te Tiriti o Waitangi? Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: Well, first of all, it's approximately 500, but learning is a journey and I expect to learn more. Perhaps the member would like to come on this kaupapa with me. Rawiri Waititi: Has he spoken to both sides of the Treaty in regards to this bill—that's te Iwi Māori and also King Charles? Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: Well, as we know, our King is laid up with a few medical challenges at the moment. Thankfully, there are many people, the Māori people of New Zealand, who are in very good health and I'd be very happy to speak to them every day. Question No. 5—Prime Minister 5. Hon MARAMA DAVIDSON (Co-Leader—Green) to the Prime Minister: Ka pūmau ia ki tāna kōrero, "our focus is on making sure that we honour the Treaty"; mēnā āe, ka pēhea tā tōna Kāwanatanga whakahōnore i te Tiriti? [Does he stand by his statement that "our focus is on making sure that we honour the Treaty"; if so, how will his Government honour the Treaty?] Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Deputy Prime Minister) on behalf of the Prime Minister: Yes. Our unrelenting focus is on raising achievement and opportunity for Māori and non-Māori alike, after both have gone backwards during the disastrous past three years of non-achievement from the Government the member's party was nominally a part of. And if those members there looked around their own people, they'd know exactly and precisely what I'm talking about. Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order. SPEAKER: It's all right. I know where you're coming from. That was a great answer up until the point where there was the attack on the previous Government. Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Well, they chipped at me—they started chipping at me. SPEAKER: Well, you can assert that anywhere you like but you can't assert it during question time. Hon Marama Davidson: Kei te whakaae ia ka whakahanga i ngā mea nei, a Te Aka Whaiora, Te Taraipiunara o Waitangi, me te Tekiona 7A o te Ture Oranga Tamariki ki te whakahōnore i te Tiriti; waihoki ka whakatikahia ngā Tiriti takahitanga e te Karauna; mēnā kao, he aha ai? [Does he agree that these structures—i.e., Te Aka Whaiora, the Waitangi Tribunal, and section 7A of the Children's Act—allow for the honouring of the Treaty; further, that Treaty breaches will be corrected by the Crown; if not, why?] Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Can I say to that rather confusing question, there is no statement from this Government or any member of it of getting rid of the Treaty of Waitangi. Anybody else that says otherwise is spreading malice of forethought and we're not going to tolerate it. Secondly, we're going to stand behind the Treaty and we always have. But what we won't do is have this unmandated, unelected judicial woke concoction that that member seeks to subscribe to, which wasn't supported by the greatest scholar ever to come to this House on this matter, Sir Āpirana Ngata—he's our authority. What's yours? Hon Marama Davidson: He matatika ki a ia ki te whakamatetia, tapahia te pūtea, me whakakoretia i aua kaupapa e hanga ana ki te whakahōnore i te Tiriti, ā, ka auaha i ngā putanga pai mā Ngāi Māori? [Is it ethical to him, the annihilation, funding cuts, and cancellation of initiatives that are created to honour the Treaty, and create positive outcomes for Māori people?] Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Again, our response to that is an extraordinary, confusing allegation is being made, talking about a multitude of projects, none of which help ordinary Māori. They're based on the elite Māori in this country who would never consult with their own people. And out there in New Zealand, the mass majority of Māori have proven that by not even being on the Māori roll subscribed to by that member. Hon Marama Davidson: Ki tōna whakaaro, ka whai te whakareretanga a ngā kāwanatanga National kua pahure, kua whakahāngai i ngā mea nei a Kōhanga Reo, te Taraipiunara o Waitangi, ngā whakataunga Tiriti, me te Ture mō te Reo Māori; mēnā āe, ka pēhea? [In his opinion, does this align with the legacy of previous National Governments that implemented such things as Kōhanga Reo, the Waitangi Tribunal, Treaty settlements, and the Māori Language Act; if so, how?] Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Again, this is misinformation of the worst sort concocted by way of a question. The reality is Kōhanga Reo was started by the National Party. Does that member not know it? No. What was going on here is the allegation that we're going to stop it; that's false. And as for all the Treaty settlements, this Government is going to go on honouring—Mr Prime Minister and every member has said so. But what we're not going to do is see unmandated and unelected, and therefore unauthorised by the New Zealand people—this woke concoction that the Green Party and this party over there subscribe to. Hon Marama Davidson: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I am happy to repeat the question again and slowly for the member's benefit, because he is accusing my question— SPEAKER: No, sorry, that's not going to happen. Do you have another supplementary? Hon Marama Davidson: I do. SPEAKER: Please carry on with that. Hon Marama Davidson: Sorry, can I get an answer—point of order. The member seemed to completely misunderstand my question. SPEAKER: No. That's not a question. That's not reasonable. Hon Marama Davidson: He aha ia i moumou wā ai, moumou moni ai ki te Treaty Principles Bill mēnā e mea ana ia, "dead duck walking"? [Why did he waste time and money on the Treaty Principles Bill if he says it is a "dead duck walking"?] Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: At no point in time have I ever said that it's a dead duck walking. Mind you, I've seen something that looks similar. But the point of the matter is, the ACT Party had negotiations with the National Party. Their subscribers and supporters are entitled for them to honour their campaign promises, and that's why Mr Seymour can come to this House with an agreed statement on behalf of everybody on this side of the House and it's in the coalition agreement. But the statement that we're getting rid of the Treaty of Waitangi is categorically false. Hon Marama Davidson: Point of order, Mr Speaker. Could I seek clarity on whether the Minister is speaking as the Prime Minister or as himself? The quote was to the Prime Minister. SPEAKER: I don't think that matters. His answer was as the Prime Minister. Question No. 6—Social Development and Employment 6. Dr VANESSA WEENINK (National—Banks Peninsula) to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: What reports has she seen on the predicted and actual amount of time people spend in receipt of benefit payments? Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment): The social outcomes modelling commissioned by the Ministry of Social Development shows the amount of time New Zealanders are predicted to spend on benefits throughout their lifetime has substantially increased. Recipients of the jobseeker work-ready benefit are now expected to spend, on average, 13 years of the future on a benefit—an increase of almost four years compared to 2017. The modelling estimated that 626,000 New Zealanders who received a benefit in the last year would collectively require another 6.43 million years of income support. Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Point of order, Mr Speaker. This is a question on notice from a member of the Minister's own party. It's quite clear that the question asks "predicted and actual", and yet all of the answer detailed the results of modelling and expectations, and not figures that relate to the real-world experience. SPEAKER: Yeah, I disagree. Dr Vanessa Weenink: What does the modelling show about the length of time young people are predicted to spend on benefit? Hon LOUISE UPSTON: In 2017, the modelling showed that teenagers who went on to the youth payment or young parent payment were expected to spend 15.2 future years reliant on a benefit in their lifetime. By 2022, teenagers who go on to welfare were expected to spend, on average, 24 years relying on a benefit—a staggering nine extra years of their lives on welfare. That didn't seem to ring any bells of alarm for the previous Government, but the increase in benefit dependency that occurred under the watch of the previous Labour Government is of real concern to us. Dr Vanessa Weenink: What did the modelling associated report say about the impact of people being reliant on benefit for longer? Hon LOUISE UPSTON: While the report said one consequence would be additional cost to the taxpayer of expenditure on benefit payments, I was most concerned that those trapped on welfare for longer would face profound impacts on their future earnings and life satisfaction and have more contact with police and mental health services than they otherwise would. Dr Vanessa Weenink: Is this Government comfortable with the trend of people spending longer periods of time on welfare, as identified by the social outcomes modelling? Hon LOUISE UPSTON: No, absolutely not. With the report showing worse life outcomes for those trapped on welfare long term, it is cruel to stand by and allow these people's potential to be wasted. We believe that New Zealanders deserve the opportunities and choices that come from employment. That starts with a Government that understands, as this Government does, the importance of breaking vicious cycles of dependency. Question No. 7—Finance 7. Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour) to the Minister of Finance: What is the complete list of adjustments and exclusions that have been made to the eligible baseline of expenditure that is subject to the 6.5 percent or 7.5 percent savings that have been sought from Public Service agencies? Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance): The much-needed savings programme under way as part of Budget 2024 requires agencies to put forward options for 6.5 percent or 7.5 percent savings from an eligible baseline calculated by Treasury. As I have previously explained to the House, the eligible baseline had some exclusions when it was calculated, including the non-departmental spending of Health, Education, and Ministry of Disabled People - Whaikaha. I have also previously confirmed to the member that benefits are not included in the eligible baseline. There is a very long list of exclusions to the eligible baseline, and many of them are exactly the same as the member's own savings exercise from last year. The list is much too long for me to read out in full, but I am happy to table it if the House permits. Before I do so, I would note for the member that the eligible baseline does not necessarily indicate where savings proposals will come from. Hon Kieran McAnulty: Are you going to seek leave to table it or not? Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I seek leave to table the document. SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that? There appears to be none. Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House. Hon Grant Robertson: Has spending on the Defence estate been excluded from the eligible baseline of expenditure? Hon NICOLA WILLIS: There have been a number of exclusions made from the eligible baseline, some of which are agency specific. Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. The member just said that she was tabling a list. She was asked if something was on the list. She hasn't even got anywhere near to addressing it. Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Mr Speaker, I'm very happy to help out Mr Hipkins. The list which I am tabling, and which perhaps members would like to read, specifically notes other agency-specific exclusions. Hon Grant Robertson: Is the Defence estate one of those agency-specific exclusions? Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I am releasing a full list of the general exclusions that apply in the majority of cases, and I am noting that there are also other agency-specific exclusions. Now, the member clearly is very interested in this savings exercise, and what I would remind that member is that he too initiated a savings exercise in August last year. Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. We've now had two very specific questions that the Minister's refused to answer. Having refused to answer them, to then go on and attack the person who's asking the question steps well outside of all of the rules of this House. SPEAKER: Yeah, I'd just ask the Minister to address the question that was asked, which is: is the Defence estate expenditure part of the other agency exclusions? Hon NICOLA WILLIS: As I said to the member in answer to my primary question, baselines have been calculated in order to create a quantum of saving target. That does not indicate where savings will come from. There is a long list of generic exemptions, and, in addition, there have been agency-specific exclusions. Hon Grant Robertson: Can she guarantee that work on the Defence estate will not be subject to a 6.5 or 7.5 percent cut? Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Defence have been asked to put forward proposals to achieve a baseline reduction. Our guidance to Defence has been that we recognise they face significant cost pressures and, as such, we do expect them to—we have, in fact, invited them to submit what costs that they may need met in this Budget. In addition, just like with all other agencies, we have asked them to focus on low-value programmes, programmes that don't align with the new coalition Government's priorities, and non-essential back-office functions, including contractor and consultant spend. I would note to the member, as I have many, many times now, that proposals are yet to be considered by Ministers, and all decisions will be made by Ministers. Stuart Smith: What is the purpose of the savings exercise? Hon NICOLA WILLIS: "The Government is requiring public agencies to find permanent savings including through cutting back on contractors. … trimming back some programmes, and taking back underspends. … It is clear given the economic conditions that we need this work to happen more than ever." Members opposite who cry out at this may wish to know that I've just quoted from the honourable member's own press statement of 28 August 2023, in which he announced his own— Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. Given the Minister persistently refuses to answer the questions being asked by the Opposition, for her then to have a Government patsy question which she then uses to attack the Opposition means that she's repeatedly falling foul of all of the rules of this House. I wonder if you would consider, given that this is a relatively consistent pattern from the Minister of Finance, whether in fact there should be some sanction applied to that. For example, the number of supplementary questions that have been, effectively, wasted to not get an answer should be credited back to the Opposition on a future day. SPEAKER: Well, there's a couple of points I'd make. First thing is, while members will ask questions and may not like the answers that are coming, I think in the end, the explanation given by the Minister of Finance was quite reasonable; I took it as being so. With regards to the question that was set up, I have made it clear that questions should not be used to attack the Government. I'm not sure how quoting a previous Minister is an attack on the Opposition, but I will have another look at this, obviously, as we progress through the day. Hon Grant Robertson: Supplementary. Stuart Smith: Supplementary. Hon Grant Robertson: Oh, he can have another go. SPEAKER: Are you yielding? Hon Grant Robertson: Supplementary. SPEAKER: Supplementary, the Hon Grant Robertson. Hon Grant Robertson: Is the Minister aware that even if she sacked every person who does work on policy, communications, and cancelled all the publicity work of the Department of Conservation, she would be tens of millions of dollars short of the target for cuts that she has set for that agency? Hon NICOLA WILLIS: As I have said many times to the member, we have asked agencies to look for savings across a number of categories—including programmes that are not delivering maximum value, including programmes that aren't delivering results. Those proposals will be considered by Ministers in full. One of the great things about our savings exercise is that we're actually going to complete it, unlike the former Minister. Stuart Smith: What does the list—[Interruption] SPEAKER: Wait on, wait on—noise on both sides; Mr Bishop. Stuart Smith: What does the list that the Minister has just tabled show about where the savings will come from? Hon NICOLA WILLIS: The member asks a very good question. The list of exclusions I have tabled does not indicate where savings will come from, because agencies can put forward savings options from wherever they wish to. We've asked chief executives to exercise good judgment in putting savings options up to Ministers, and we've also asked that staff are able to put forward ideas. It is Ministers who will make the final decisions on whether savings options progress as part of Budget 2024. We will have a firm focus on shifting resource from the back office to front-line services, in line with our commitment to New Zealanders to stop wasteful spending, improve value for money, and drive resources into the front line. Hon Grant Robertson: Can she guarantee that no front-line services provided by the Department of Conservation will be cut as a result of the savings exercise? Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I'm yet to even see the proposals from the Department of Conservation. Question No. 8—Prime Minister 8. JAMIE ARBUCKLE (NZ First) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his statements and actions? Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Deputy Prime Minister) on behalf of the Prime Minister: Yes, in the context in which they were made and taken, and whilst evidence supporting those actions and statements remains the same. Jamie Arbuckle: Does he stand by the coalition's actions to restore law and order and personal responsibility? Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Well, where do we start? We're doing so many good things that it's hard to keep track. We are committed to training an extra 500 front-line police in the next two years. Hon Willow-Jean Prime: In two years or three? Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: We're going to address youth offending by increasing—beg your pardon? Hon Willow-Jean Prime: In two years or three? Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Oh, well, catch up and be at Parliament—that was decided about two weeks ago. Try and catch up. Hon Member: Two weeks ago! Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Yeah, two weeks ago. You know, it's not too difficult. Nothing else to do, sitting in the Opposition! No record of having done anything in her whole career, and she wants to know—will somebody tell her?—and she's on the front bench! Now, we're going to address youth offending by increasing the number of youth aid officers over the term. We'll adequately resource community policing—including Māori and Pasifika wardens, community patrols, and Neighbourhood Watch—and we'll protect first responders and prison officers by introducing legislation with specific offences for assaults on our police, firefighters, prison officers, and ambulance officers, and a whole lot more desperately, out there, needed by New Zealand society. Jamie Arbuckle: Does he stand by the coalition's actions to deliver better public services? Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Most definitely. The focus has strayed too far towards wokeism and not on better education and health outcomes. We've already started doing basics better through emphasising reading, writing, and maths, and banning cellphones in schools. If they doubt that matter about education, a former Labour Minister—none other than Richard Prebble—is pointing out how hopeless their performance was in the last three years, where 55 percent and more of Māori are not even at school. And how can we possibly get our nation ready, let alone those young people ready, for the future with such grave irresponsibility? And since compulsory education has been around since 1877, maybe, again, they should catch up. Jamie Arbuckle: Does he stand by the coalition's actions for an independent COVID inquiry? Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Most definitely. We're in early days, but we are seeking feedback from the people on explaining the terms of reference on the current royal commission of inquiry. It's preposterous that the Government that was in charge of the original inquiry went to set out their own terms of reference for an inquiry into their own decisions. In short, setting up an inquiry to cover one's derrière is not in the public interest, and we're going to fix it up. Jamie Arbuckle: Does he stand by the coalition's actions to keep the superannuation age of eligibility at 65? Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Can I say that's a superb question, and out there there's about 895,000 people who need to know that—and a whole lot more coming up to 65 years of age. And given the GDP—given the ratio against the GDP—which is way better than most developed nations, yes, we are going to keep it at 65. On that, you've had our long, 40-year promise. Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I just want to confirm—similar to the previous point of order I raised—that the Rt Hon Winston Peters was speaking there as Prime Minister and, therefore, all of the answers that he delivered were as Prime Minister. SPEAKER: Yep. Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I was responding to the coalition agreement. We made sure it's in the coalition agreement. [Interruption] No, that's the point. Question No. 9—Health 9. Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Labour) to the Minister of Health: Does he stand by all his statements and actions? Hon Dr SHANE RETI (Minister of Health): Yes, in the context that they were given. Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Does he agree with Shane Reti, who said, "In the primary care sector it's really hard to see a general practitioner any time soon", and, if so, will he include access to primary care as one of the five major health targets in the coalition agreement? Hon Dr SHANE RETI: I'm not in a position to discuss Budget-sensitive positions, but I do agree that it is hard to see primary care. Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Does he agree with Shane Reti that "this Government will take actions to improve the health outcomes for all New Zealanders", and, if so, will he make surviving cancer a health target? Hon Dr SHANE RETI: To the first arm of her question, yes. Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Will he commit to preventing the gaming of targets, such as the practice of admitting emergency department patients to non-existent virtual wards so that the 6-hour target can be met? Hon Dr SHANE RETI: I commit to keeping a very close eye on the gaming of any targets that we might announce. Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: If a patient dies three hours after arriving in the emergency department, has the 6-hour target been met in their case, and, if so, is this the better health outcome he's promoting for New Zealanders? Hon Dr SHANE RETI: We're still to confirm what our targets will be, including emergency department targets. Question No. 10—Social Development and Employment 10. DEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER (Co-Leader—Te Pāti Māori) to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: Does she stand by all of her statements and policies? Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment): Yes. Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: What evidence does she have that the sanctions on beneficiaries will help get more people into employment? Hon LOUISE UPSTON: The empirical evidence that says the number on jobseeker benefit has gone up by 76,000 when there's been a 50 percent reduction in the number of sanctions applied in the last six years. Ricardo Menéndez March: Point of order. The question was not addressed. There was a specific question around empirical evidence and then she talked about the number of people on the benefit. Sorry—the question was relating to evidence on sanctions and she just spoke on something completely unrelated, which is just people on the jobseeker benefit. Those two things are not related to one another. SPEAKER: Yeah. It's the same problem that everyone has. When a question is asked, the answer won't always be satisfactory. However, the question was addressed. Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: How will the Government get job seekers into work? Hon LOUISE UPSTON: I thank the member for their question, because I know that many are worried about the number of people who have been on jobseeker benefit and stuck there for years. There's a range of things that we will do. Our Welfare that Works policy is the first one we will roll out, because of the significant increase in the young people under 25. Individuals will get a needs assessment. There'll be a job coach. We want to work with community providers, and I've already been talking to iwi organisations who may well be interested in providing that service. And there will be a carrot and stick approach to ensure that young people who can work do. Takutai Tarsh Kemp: How many tamariki would be impacted by sanctions if the traffic light system were in place today? Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Thank you for that question. One of the elements that is a significant change in the traffic light system that's proposed are non-financial sanctions. I have been concerned, as others have, that there have been financial sanctions where there has been a household with children, so the deliberate design is to come up with non-financial sanctions to prevent that from occurring. Takutai Tarsh Kemp: How will the ministry assist children whose parents have had their benefits cut? Hon LOUISE UPSTON: As I said in my last answer, part of the traffic light system is the introduction of non-financial sanctions. The front-line staff who work at Work and Income work incredibly hard to ensure that people do comply with their obligations, and we're looking at fairly simple obligations if you're a job seeker: to have a CV, apply for jobs, turn up to a job interview, and accept a job that is offered. It is really important for the tamariki in those families that they do have a parent in work. Takutai Tarsh Kemp: What benefit security is in place for people with disabilities and long-term medical conditions to ensure they can live with dignity without having to continually prove their medical condition to the Government under the threat of being sanctioned? Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Much of what I've spoken about is in terms of the traffic light system for obligations around job seekers. I appreciate that we must always have a welfare system that supports those who have permanent disabilities—they are on the supported living payment, for example. But I also accept that there will be some who wish to work in some capacity, and we should support them in doing that. Question No. 11—Transport 11. TANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North) to the Minister of Transport: Does he stand by all his statements and actions? Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Transport): Yes, particularly when I said that this Government will not tax Aucklanders an additional 11.5c per litre on fuel to fund more cycle lanes, red light cameras, speed humps, and lowering speed limits across the city. Tangi Utikere: Why does he still stand by that Government decision to axe the regional fuel tax, a decision that has required Auckland Mayor Wayne Brown to stop work on multiple projects that are funded by that tax? Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, that's a very excellent question, and it's because on this side of the House, we're not going to tax Aucklanders an extra 11.5c per litre to fund wasteful projects like $500,000 speed bumps, lowering speed limits across the city, red light cameras, and cycle lanes. We're actually going to make sure we get the infrastructure delivered that New Zealanders and Aucklanders need. Hon Julie Anne Genter: Point of order. The Minister referenced a $500,000 speed bump, and I would invite the Minister to table any evidence of any speed bump anywhere in the country costing anywhere near $500,000. Hon Simeon Brown: Speaking to the point of order. I may have misspoken; it was a $490,000 speed bump, which had $172,000 of traffic management to construct. I'm happy to table the New Zealand Herald article. [Interruption] SPEAKER: OK. We'll all calm down and listen to the question from Tangi Utikere. Tangi Utikere: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Who was correct: Simeon Brown, when he said, "The reality is projects can still be funded by Auckland Council and Auckland Transport; they just won't be receiving a regional fuel tax in order to fund", or Wayne Brown, when he said, "The government's announcement therefore creates significant funding uncertainty for a large portion of Auckland Transport's capital programme"? Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, this Government will be ensuring that the remaining regional fuel tax revenues—over $300 million, which is two years' worth of collection of Aucklanders—will go into delivering the priority projects such as the Eastern Busway, City Rail Link electric trains, and local roading projects. But what we won't be spending money on and won't be taxing Aucklanders more for is wasteful projects which aren't priorities of this Government. Tangi Utikere: How is threatening to legislate any time a mayor makes a decision that the Minister disagrees with in line with allowing councils to make their own decisions in the best interests of their ratepayers? Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, I completely reject the premise around threatening. We've sat down and we've discussed the priority projects. The legislation we are putting to this Parliament will ensure that the remaining revenues—over two years' worth of tax revenue taken from Auckland motorists—go towards those priority projects. Tangi Utikere: What does he say to National MP Simeon Brown, who said that the Eastern Busway was the first thing he thinks of in the morning, the last thing at night, and is in his thoughts probably 100 times a day in between, or to National MP Erica Stanford, who led a petition to secure funding for the Glenvar Road - East Coast Road realignment project, now that the full completion of those projects have been sent to the scrap heap? Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, what I'd say to those members is that those projects will be prioritised for the remaining funds—that the revenues which have not been spent but have been collected from Auckland taxpayers will be prioritised to those projects. But I'd also say to the member Simeon Brown that I wish the Eastern Busway a happy Valentine's Day. Helen White: How can the Minister justify creating a $1.2 billion shortfall in the plan to decongest Auckland over the next four years, when congestion will cost us about $5 billion in productivity in the same period? Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, as I said to the House yesterday, it was the last Government which caused the congestion in Auckland—$228 million on consultancy reports for light rail, and didn't even deliver a business case. The six wasted years in Auckland, failing to deliver the infrastructure that we needed. Rt Hon Winston Peters: Could I ask the Minister, as to the so-called $1.2 billion shortfall, how does it compare with the $29 billion that was going to be assigned to light rail in Auckland? Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, that last Government spent hundreds of millions on consultancy reports and business cases but failed to actually deliver and had no plan to deliver their phantom ghost train down Dominion Road. SPEAKER: Yeah. That's enough. Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order. SPEAKER: Yeah, I know what your point of order is. The question was, though, for a comparison, and you've got it. Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order, Mr Speaker. The fact here is that you have made a ruling, a clarification to the House, at the start of question time today, and pulling up members at the end of their answer, when your ruling was talking about the start of their answer, I don't think is following what you told us at the start. SPEAKER: Well, thank you. I'll try and follow my own advice from here on. Question No. 12—Justice 12. CAMERON BREWER (National—Upper Harbour) to the Minister of Justice: How much Government funding has been devoted to section 27 reports since 2017, and what actions is the Government taking to address it? Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister of Justice): I'm advised by officials that since 2017, $26.3 million of taxpayer funding was spent on crafting section 27 reports designed to encourage lighter sentences. Last week the Government announced our plan to end taxpayer funding of those reports and to put an end to a thriving industry that the previous Government left untouched. Cameron Brewer: Is the Government scrapping cultural reports entirely? Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: No. Despite the assertions made on the other side of the House, the Government has been very clear that offenders can continue to use section 27 by asking someone to speak in court or by providing a written statement. Section 27 has not been scrapped; taxpayer funding of professional report writing is. Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Will the Minister implement the promises set out in the National Party's Real Consequences For Crime document, which states "Ending taxpayer funding for written cultural reports is expected to save around $20 million over four years. National will direct all of this funding towards victim support services, which represents an increase of 29 percent"; if not, what increases in funding for victims will the Minister commit to? Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: We are committed to providing more support to the victims of crime in the justice system, and we're working with officials to assess the best options for supporting victims through the savings generated. Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Point of order, Mr Speaker. That was a very clear question, which was: will he commit to increasing funding for victims of crime? He didn't address it. SPEAKER: Good, we'll try it again, then. Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, I addressed that question. Yes, we are committed to providing more support for victims of crime. Cameron Brewer: Why is it important that taxpayer funding of section 27 reports ends? Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, because there is a great deal of pressure on the legal aid budget and we need to spend our money wisely. Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Will he increase grants for victims of crime to access support services such as mental health assistance, counselling, or help with travel costs to court cases or hearings, as set out in the National Party Real Consequences For Crime document, or is that just another broken promise by National? Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: A bit early for that, Mr Speaker. We will work with officials, as I said, to assess the best option for supporting victims of crime. But one of the best things we can do, of course, is to speed up the processes of the court so they're not waiting years and years, like they have over the past six years, to get a resolution to the cases that they're facing, to get on with their lives. And that's the best thing we can do. Cameron Brewer: Is the Minister aware of any notable section 27 report authors who have received taxpayer funding? Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, members might be interested to know that the cultural report provider Hard 2 Reach, headed by lifetime Mongrel Mob member Harry Tam, boasts on its website that offenders "have received sentence discounts of up to 35 percent because of factors raised in our reports". Cameron Brewer: What other changes does the Government intend to make in regard to the Sentencing Act? Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: The Government has committed to wider changes to sentencing laws to restore real consequences for crime. That includes capping sentence discounts at 40 percent, and my colleague Minister McKee is leading work to reinstate three strikes legislation. PETITIONS, PAPERS, SELECT COMMITTEE REPORTS, AND INTRODUCTION OF BILLS SPEAKER: I neglected to mention before that Ministers have delivered papers. The Clerk will read those. CLERK: It's just your one. I don't have any. SPEAKER: Oh, just the one, is it? OK, I do it. OK, I present the report of the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment entitled Estimate of Environmental Expenditure 2023-24: Method and results. That paper is published under the authority of the House. GENERAL DEBATE Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister of Justice): I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business. Six years of loose spending, of hopeless, naive law and order policies, of waffle, and of almost comically poor delivery came to an end last year. Now our country has a coalition Government led by the Rt HonChristopher Luxon that has the capability, the plan, and the determination to get our country back on track. Unconstrained Government spending by Labour has added to the inflation that every family knows about and is struggling with. That inflation has forced higher interest rates for families and businesses. Those higher borrowing costs are squeezing the economy. We as a Government right now are going through the arduous process of restoring discipline to Government spending. And I can tell you it's a lot harder than flinging money around like the previous Government did for six years, but it needs to be done in order to deal effectively with the cost of living crisis. A naive approach to justice exemplified by Labour's only clearly articulated justice sector target to reduce the prison population by 30 percent, irrespective of what's happening in our community, on our streets, and in our houses, has been followed by a rise in violent crime, by an explosion in retail crime, ram raids, gang membership, and paying for the victims of crime. Week in, week out, we have seen hard-working New Zealanders—often new New Zealanders—at their wits end, having their businesses done over, and seeing no consequences for the younger offenders. Well, that's going to change. Last week, the Government announced ending the 30 percent target. Our focus is on reducing violent crime, lowering the number of serious repeat youth offenders, and then on the nuts and bolts of the justice system, which is the hard, gritty task of dealing with the chronic delays to justice—we can't continue to have Kiwis waiting years to get an outcome for their changes. And we're going to deal with the boondoggles that were left unchecked by Andrew Little, by Kris Faafoi, by Kelvin Davis, by Kiri Allan and Ginny Andersen and all the long crew of justice people that made no progress. The section 27 reports that went from $40,000 a year in 2017 to $7.5 million will be not funded anymore. That cottage industry is gone for it. SPEAKER: I don't like to interrupt the member but look, this place is just not where you have discussions in the aisles. So we had a discussion going on over here before—I sort of let that go. Would those two members standing in the aisles talking go back to their seats or leave the Chamber. I'm sorry to interrupt the member, I'm inclined to give him another 30 seconds. Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, that's very kind. That's very kind— SPEAKER: But then I'm not going to do it. So carry on. Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: I've always enjoyed your support, Mr Speaker. We're not pleased with the advertising promises in some of those section 27 reports. New Zealanders are sick and tired of reading about people convicted of serious violent offences that would attract significant prison sentences and finding that those sentences are whittled down by a series of discounts. So they end up on home detention playing PlayStation, which is not dealing real consequences for crime. That's why we're going to limit discounts to 40 percent, and the next in our 100-day plan to restore law and order, we'll be giving the police the powers they need to deal effectively with gangs. Finally, I want to make some comments on Waitangi Day. I spent several days up North and joined the Prime Minister and many Ministers on the Opureroa Marae. We experienced, like all members of the House, that unique blend of confrontation and friendliness up at Waitangi that Waitangi Day brings. Many New Zealanders don't see the friendliness and the constructive debate, but it was there, I can assure you. What we're trying to achieve as a country isn't easy. At bottom it is to try to honour the Treaty and treaty settlements while at the same time not losing sight of or undermining those core human rights that all people in modern democratic societies expect—equal voting rights, equality before the law, and an equal say in the big decisions affecting their lives. We have to appreciate that there is tension between those two things— Hon Willie Jackson: Are you supporting the Treaty bill now, "Goldie"? Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: And the previous Government led by, including Willie Jackson, leaned too heavily away from those core human rights, most notably in the move away from equal voting rights in Canterbury and through some of the co-governance arrangements, and they never made a case. They just stood up on the TV once and said "Democracy has changed.", with no explanation and not bringing the people of New Zealand along with them. So we need to unwind some of those changes and we will. We also heard from many people in Northland that there are two things that will make a real difference to that beautiful part of the country. First is a decent road—ridiculously described as a holiday highway by Phil Twyford and so many MPs on the other side—a decent road is the best thing you can do for Northland. And secondly, they want to see a Ngāphui settlement, and ultimately success on that front will be determined by the various hapū of Ngāphui. But we stand on this side ready to do a deal. So, thank you, Mr Speaker. Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the Opposition): It is very appropriate that Paul Goldsmith began his contribution talking about comically poor delivery because he then gave us a five-minute demonstration of what that looks like. The Government got off to a shambolic start before Christmas, proving that they had no plan to take New Zealand forward, only a plan to cancel things, stop things, repeal things, and take us backwards. You would think after the shambolic start that they got off to, that they might have had that opportunity over the summer to reset and come back and think, "Let's try that again. Let's maybe start the new year on a better footing. Maybe let's start to look like we're getting on top of things." But what a shambolic start we've had to this year as well. Let's go to the first week of Parliament. They made a big song and dance about the fact that they were going to get back to work faster and then brought us back to work roughly the same timetable that Parliament would normally come back to work based on. Then they had a debacle of a week in the House where we had Ministers unable to answer questions and then changing their answers. I lost track of how many corrections Ministers made in the first week of the year, but it extended all the way from the top down to Ministers correcting their answers. We had Mark Mitchell saying that, "Oh, actually I couldn't guarantee 500 police within two years" and then saying, "Oh, but actually he did" because he had been corrected by the Prime Minister. We never quite got to the bottom of what happened there. Then we had the very, very strange situation with Casey Costello's office and the mysterious document that appeared out of nowhere, as if by magic. Nobody seems to have written it, but somehow she gave it to her officials as if it was an instruction on Government policy—despite the fact that no one seems to know who wrote it and no one seems to know who actually produced it or where it came from, and no one seems to be able to explain it or what's in it. A shambolic year to start the new term of Government. The summer reset clearly didn't happen, but it hasn't gotten any better for them in the last few weeks, because what have we seen of their plan to take New Zealand backwards? Well, first of all, they've abandoned any commitment to reducing the rates impost on New Zealand families from the water infrastructure crisis that we face. I would say the only thing that has more leaks right now than the Wellington water pipes is this Government because it's abundantly clear that they've got no plan to fix water. They said they were going to repeal and replace the water reforms that we put in place. Well, they've got a plan to repeal them, but there's no plan to replace them. They're simply pushing back onto councils the water crisis that we have in New Zealand and the result is going to be very simple: ratepayers, Kiwi families will pay more—and those rates increases will start very soon. Kiwi families are going to see that in a cost of living crisis, this Government's first actions was to push up their rates bills by saying that the water crisis we face is simply someone else's problem. Then we've got minimum-wage workers who saw the whites of the Government's eyes when it came to their real commitment to supporting low-income New Zealanders: an increase in the minimum wage that is well less than the cost of living. So the lowest-income New Zealanders go backwards under this Government and they are only a few months into office. We saw them scrapping universal free prescriptions so people pay more every time they go to the pharmacy. We saw them scrapping free early childhood education for two-year-olds, adding extra costs onto Kiwi families. But while we're talking about people on low incomes, there aren't many New Zealanders who are on a lower income than those who rely on a benefit for their main source of income, and one of the first decisions of this Government is to change the way benefits are calculated so that beneficiaries go backwards in the future. That's one of the first decisions they took: 7,000 more children living in poverty. That is one of the first decisions that they have taken as a Government: is to put more Kiwi kids in poverty. But, actually, that's not the most shameful. The most shameful decision that they have taken is to encourage more New Zealanders to smoke so that they can fund tax cuts. It is one of the most morally repugnant decisions any New Zealand Government has taken, and it's one of the first decisions that this Government has taken. They have no plan to move New Zealand forwards. It's all about going backwards. New Zealanders deserve better. NANCY LU (National): Mr Speaker, happy Year of the Dragon to you and to all members of the Parliament, parliamentary staff, and all families in New Zealand. 新年快乐, 新年快乐。In Korean: Saehaebok mani badeuseyo. In Vietnamese: Chúc mừng năm mới! And in Malay: Selamat tahun baru. Today is the fifth day of the Lunar New Year celebration, and hundreds of thousands of New Zealanders, especially in our migrant communities, are still celebrating the Year of the Dragon. This Monday, on the third day of the Lunar New Year celebration, our Hon Melissa Lee, Minister for Ethnic Communities, hosted the inaugural Lunar New Year celebration at Parliament to celebrate this very auspicious event. Me and my colleague Dr Carlos Cheung had the honour to MC the event for hundreds of community leaders from across the country. Chinese New Year events have always been hosted in Parliament since 2002. This Monday's event is, however, the first time in the event's 21 years of history in Parliament that it is officially celebrated as Lunar New Year. This reflects the diversity of cultures that celebrate Lunar New Year in New Zealand, including Chinese, Korean, Vietnamese, Cambodian, Filipino, Malaysian, Singaporean, and many others. This year, Minister Lee of ethnic communities expanded the celebration to include the various communities celebrating the Lunar New Year, aiming to be as inclusive as possible. New Zealand is known for its incredible diversity. So, as a nation, it is important to acknowledge the traits we share and celebrate them. Cultural celebrations hold immense importance for communities and nurture a strong sense of belonging. They recognise and welcome diversity, while also giving the wider population an opportunity to embrace other cultures. This celebration event is a great example of how our similarities and differences can actually bring us together. For generations, Asian communities have had a long and significant presence in New Zealand's history. Trade and immigration between New Zealand and Asia have existed since the 19th century, and we can expect the contribution and value of Asian communities in our nation to only grow. The Year of the Dragon in 2024 symbolises bravery, honour, strength, success, and innovation. As we celebrate the auspicious fifth day of the Year of the Dragon today, marked by the themes of prosperity, money, and fortune, it is a moment to reflect on our collective journey towards economic growth and our abundance. So, today, I am filled with optimism as I envisage a future where the blessings of prosperity reach every corner of a beautiful country, New Zealand. On this day, people engage in various activities aimed in attracting prosperity into their lives: from offering prayers and making offerings to 财神, the God of fortune, to practising acts of generosity and charity. Each action is believed to invoke positive financial energy and blessings. Under the National-led Government and the visionary leadership of our Minister of Finance, Hon Nicola Willis, we are embarking on a path towards a stronger economy—one that uplifts every individual in a community. The significance of sound economic governance cannot be overstated. A thriving economy brings tangible benefits to all citizens, fostering opportunities for employment, entrepreneurship, and upward mobility. It paves the way of improved infrastructure, healthcare, education, and social welfare, ensuring a higher quality life for everyone. So a robust economy empowers us to tackle pressing challenges such as climate change, inequality, and healthcare access with resilience and determination. It also enables us to build a more inclusive society where every individual has the chance to fulfil their potential and contribute meaningfully to our nation's progress. So as we honour today as the day of prosperity, the fifth day of the Lunar New Year, I sincerely wish all New Zealanders a joyous celebration filled with blessings and abundance. So, finally, happy Year of the Dragon. 新年快乐, 龙年大吉。Saehaebok mani badeuseyo. Chúc mừng năm mới! Selamat tahun baru. Thank you. Hon MARAMA DAVIDSON (Co-Leader—Green): I too want to acknowledge the Year of the Dragon—Chinese and many other Asian peoples and communities, and the celebrations here in Aotearoa. This is key to Te Tiriti, in fact. Te Tiriti has always been inclusive. Our tūpuna had the vision, when they were the dominant population in this country, back in those years when Te Tiriti and, previous to that, He Whakaputanga, was signed and discussed—our people were the dominant majority population, and what did our ancestors do? The most generous, humbling act of all: say "Yes, there is room here for all of us. We're happy to share. We will maintain our tino rangatiratanga and our mana motuhake, but let's work together. There is room here for everyone to live and be who they are in this beautiful, beautiful country of ours. Let's sign an agreement that is going to protect mokopuna for generations to come, that upholds all of their whakapapa from all around the world. And we will not cede sovereignty; we will maintain sovereignty, because that is the most precious thing to us." This is what our tūpuna said. That is not even up for debate—this has been affirmed time and time again with various reviews, evaluations, Treaty settlements, research. So why is it, then, that even the National Government, who has done considerable work with the establishment of institutions and initiatives that seek to uphold the mana motuhake of mana whenua and tangata whenua—why is this House wasting money inciting racism and ignorance; a narrative that is leaning into the worst of us instead of the best of use, and targeting Māori whānau—Māori whānau—with the ignorance? Why is this House doing that with the proposed Treaty Principles Bill that is currently on the Table? When generations of tauiwi, Pākehā, tangata tiriti, and Māori have already been working together—we're still not there yet, we still haven't properly embellished the vision of our tūpuna to uphold mana motuhake, and their Crown has consistently continued to breach that agreement. But we have now got generations of people of all backgrounds who have seen it, who have seen the beauty of that vision, whether it's restoring wetlands, restoring and cleaning up rivers and waterways and oceans; whether it's marae being generous and opening their doors to all communities, especially in times of need and crisis; whether it's Māori social service organisations not just catering to Māori but understanding that, as tangata whenua, we have a role to affirm the mana and integrity of everyone. We have generations who know this now, and they are the people who turned up in force all around the country just last week on Waitangi Day. That gives me incredible hope, because they're not having a bar of this narrative. They already know—it's too late. You can't put back generations, now, of people who have seen what our tūpuna always intended when they signed Te Tiriti. You can't shove that back in the bottle now; it's out there. So I stand here with hope and pride in the vision of my tūpuna, who always knew that maintaining the mana motuhake and the tino rangatiratanga was the right thing to do for our whakapapa as Māori, but also for the benefit of our living systems, the hauora and the oranga of our communities, and, most importantly, to ensure everyone here has a home and can live with dignity and respect. Thank you. CAMERON LUXTON (ACT): Thank you, Mr Speaker. On Friday of last week, a 4-metre cavity was discovered on State Highway 29A in Tauranga. It seemed to have been caused by extensive leaking from a failing stormwater drain which went undetected for an extended period of time. This sinkhole, in addition with other roadworks in the city, led to the Tauranga City Council advising the Bay of Plenty population to stay off the roads and work from home. Not everyone can work from home. For our tradespeople, our healthcare staff, and many other workers who keep New Zealand going every day, working from home simply is not an option. On Monday, people who couldn't stay home experienced serious interruptions, including businesses with employees unable to make appointments and therefore missing out on customers. Some children missed out on after-school activities. There has been a negative impact on the economy and this event has shown the importance of good roading infrastructure to the life of the Bay of Plenty. The leaking pipe which caused significant subsoil erosion was broken for an unknown period of time before being detected. The cavity formed under a small pothole on a busy freight route. I fear that if it had not been detected when it was and the whole 4 metres had opened up in, say, the middle of the night, it could have caused a serious accident. Both local and central government have responsibility for the assets involved, which demonstrates the importance of clear communication between councils and the New Zealand Transport Agency. The residents of Tauranga want answers about what happened, what checks were happening, what monitoring procedures were in place, and what allowed for this leak to go undetected for so long. We must know what went wrong in order to prevent issues like this from reoccurring. Closing down New Zealand's fifth largest city because of a hole caused by a broken pipe is embarrassing. Tauranga hosts our largest export port, which is an essential link to the economy of the upper North Island. This Government is committed to investing in infrastructure, including a sufficient roading network, and council water assets through Local Water Done Well. We are a growing country, and ACT understands that when you build more houses, you need to build more infrastructure to support them, which is why, as part of the coalition agreement between National and ACT, we will introduce financial incentives for councils to enable more housing, including consideration of sharing a proportion of GST collected on new residential builds with local councils. The Western Bay of Plenty is one of the fastest growing regions of New Zealand and is expected to be the home of more than 250,000 people by 2050. While previous Governments have put forward fantasy projects for Auckland and Wellington, it is essential that we do not forget the regions and that we do not leave essential cities like Tauranga to put up with avoidable road closures on top of the worst congestion in the country. Thank you, Mr Speaker. JAMES MEAGER (National—Rangitata): It is a great day to be a member of this coalition Government. It is a great day to be the representative from the greatest electorate in the country, proudly representing the hard-working people of mid- and South Canterbury. And it is a great day to be a New Zealander, because today we saw the beginning of the end of the previous Labour Government's centralisation agenda. Today, this House repealed the disastrous, power hungry, Wellington-centric three waters reforms. Today, we took our first steps towards restoring local council control of local assets and the first steps towards long-term, sustainable, collaborative investment in our water infrastructure. This is a great day for the people of mid- and South Canterbury. My two councils, the Timaru District Council and the Ashburton District Council, led ably by mayors Nigel Bowen and Neil Brown, have long been two of the fiercest critics of these doomed three waters reforms. We heard a lot last night from the Labour shadow Leader of the House, Kieran McAnulty, who threw around a bunch of funny numbers about Ashburton council's water infrastructure needs. Well, can I just remind the member that three days after the general election, Mayor Brown went on the record along with 30 other mayors saying—and I quote—they "look forward to the new Government swiftly repealing the outgoing Government's legislation" and "they have the electoral mandate now to get on with it and fix this flawed reform." Well, that's what this Government has been elected to do. We have the electoral mandate granted to us by the people of New Zealand to get on with the job and deliver. After six long years of non-delivery, we are here to get the job done. As an aside, as it is Valentine's Day, can I extend my heartfelt congratulations to my parliamentary cricket co-captain, Mr McNulty, on his recent wedding. I wish he and his wife all the best. Having known them both for several years now, I know that they are a perfect match for each other and are destined for a long and happy future. But that gushiness aside, delivery is what the people of South Canterbury and the Timaru District Council have elected us to do. Timaru council, under Mayor Bowen, have been the staunchest opponents of the previous Government's centralisation obsession. They put their necks on the line. They tossed in their membership of Local Government New Zealand. They exercised their rights to challenge the Government in court. They tried everything they could to prevent central government confiscation of their assets, assets built up by generations of South Cantabrian ratepayers who have consistently and responsibly invested in pipes and storage and treatment. As a result, South Canterbury has been consistently rated and recognised as having the best drinking water in the country. From the New Zealand Herald in 2019: "Timaru takes out title of best drinking water in New Zealand". From Stuff in 2021: "South Canterbury tap water the best in New Zealand". Wow—that is what leadership looks like. That is what you get when you trust local decision makers to invest in local infrastructure. Yep, pipes and drains may not be sexy, and it's hard for attention-seeking politicians to cut a ribbon on something buried six feet under the ground, but it's the stuff that well-functioning, exceptional councils should deliver on. I'm proud of my local authorities, and I'm proud of the focus that they've put on investing in critical water infrastructure. I'm proud of their opposition to centralisation and their commitment to high-quality decision-making at a local level. And I'm proud to be part of a Government that trusts locals—one which believes the idea that decisions are best made as close to the people that they affect as possible, a Government that believes that services delivered by the community for the community are far more effective than those dictated by us up here in Wellington. I'm proud to be part of a Government that will support all councils with the funding tools that they need so that every town and city across the island can have water as good as what you can drink at home in the "Riviera of the South". This is a great day for New Zealanders, and we're only just getting started. Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Xin nian kuai le and gong xi fa cai—happy Lunar New Year. The National-led Government was sworn in on 27 November. That means that today they are on their 80th day in Government. They will reach 100 days in Government on 5 March. So on 6 March, we're going to wake up and think "What have they achieved?" What have they achieved? Well, Mr Speaker, the coalition Government has a 100-day plan, and I want to read out to you the operative words in some of the 49 things they have promised to do. They have promised to stop work on the income insurance scheme, stop work on the industry transformation plan, stop work on the Lake Onslow pumped hydro scheme. The next operative word is "withdraw". They go on to "start producing". They go on to "narrow the mandate"; to "remove" something. They use the word "cancel". Then it's "repeal". The next word is "stop", then it's "repeal", then it's "repeal", then it's "repeal", then it's "cease to implement". Those are the operative words in their statement. From there on, the next word is "abolish". It's "stop", "begin to repeal and replace". It's "stop". It's "lodge a reservation against". They're going to begin disestablishing. They're going to disestablish. They're going to repeal amendments. They're going to work to repeal the Therapeutic Products Act. So of the 49 steps that they are going to take, 24 broadly use a negative word in them. A negative word like "repeal", "replace", "abolish", and "stop". In fact, there is one other action that they propose to take in there. They say it's phrased positively: "Introduce legislation to restore [the] 90-day trial periods". But, in fact, that means stopping worker protections. Of the 49 steps that that Government has chosen to take, more than half of them are negative. More than half of them say "reduce", "repeal", "replace", "stop". This is an incredibly negative Government. They've got no ideas. In fact, their only idea seems to be: not Labour. There are no positive ideas coming from that Government, and their only idea is: not Labour. In fact, so intent are they on doing this, they have rushed a number of bills through this House, under urgency, without full discussion, and with committee stages that have not been given their full rein. Shanan Halbert: Outrageous. Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL: That is outrageous when we do not have a full select committee process. So we repealed the Reserve Bank's mandate. We got rid of those fair pay agreements. They removed the Clean Car Discount. They repealed the Natural and Built Environments Act. They repealed the Spatial Planning Act. They repealed 90-day trials. They repealed the Tax Principles Bill. They repealed the affordable water legislation. And right now, they're working on repealing the indexing of benefits to wages. All done under urgency, all negative. In fact, that's a real problem because it means there are some unforeseen consequences of their actions—unforeseen consequences of their negativity that have a seriously deleterious effect on New Zealanders. Let's start with one which they are so proud of: repealing the Auckland regional fuel tax. Now, the way the regional fuel tax was that councils could ask for it. Auckland Council asked for it. It turned out that the price of petrol in Auckland is roughly the same as everywhere else in the country anyway. But now that that levy is gone, some of the much-needed transport projects in Auckland are under threat—some of the safety improvements, some of the alternative modes of transport, some of the measures which will reduce our emissions are under threat. That is the negative consequence of what they have chosen to do. They've linked main benefits to the Consumers Price Index. That might seem innocuous, but the appalling consequence of it is that 7,000 children will move into poverty. Now, those child poverty reduction goals are tough, and it has been hard to meet them, but to take actions that push children into poverty is absolutely appalling. So that's the kind of negativity that has come through from this Government. When it comes to the water reform, the negativity from this Government means that ratepayers up and down the country will be faced with huge bills. So all the way through the country, this has a negative effect on people. Reduce, repeal, replace. I say to the Government, they must stop. Dr VANESSA WEENINK (National—Banks Peninsula): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I'd like first to take a moment to acknowledge all of the firefighters and emergency responders who are currently battling a large blaze in the Port Hills in Christchurch and my electorate. I know that for many people in my electorate, this fire will be bringing back horrible memories of the 2017 fire, which burned for over 66 days and took the life of a firefighter, Steve Askin. I'd like to acknowledge his family and the heroic work that he did in that fire. It's my privilege to serve on the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee. Now, economic development is actually intimately linked to my other really obvious passion, which is health. So, as a medical doctor, I am very aware of the huge impact that income has on health. Income is perhaps the most impactful social determinant of health outcomes. And that's why for me it's vitally important that the health of our country and help that we have sustainable economic development, which will help lift incomes for everyone. The importance of purchasing power is why it's vital that the real costs of living are accounted for in our support to people on main benefits. And that's why our Government has returned main benefit indexing to the Consumers Price Index, which has been the case for over 30 years. Having meaningful work is vital to both physical and mental health. And while it's good for mental health and wellbeing, it's also directly tied to productivity. That's why I'm delighted that we have New Zealand's first Minister for Mental Health in the Hon Matt Doocey. Another thing that's vital for mental health and is also tied to economic development is that we host and have interesting and fun events in our communities. For example, we have SailGP, that is coming back to Lyttelton for a second year. In 2023, we had a very successful event, and Auckland's misfortune is Christchurch's good luck and we are hosting the event again next month. I hope that many of our colleagues will be able to join us, but if you don't, we'll probably get the chance next year, all going well. SailGP is one of those amazing examples of both innovation and new technology, and at the same time, it's just fun to watch. We've got these great little boats—well, quite large boats—zipping along on their foils, and it's great entertainment. So not only do we have the crowds that come to watch, but the event is beamed all around the world, and people from every walk of life and everywhere get to see the beautiful Whakaraupō Harbour and, hopefully will be enticed to come along, if not on one of the over 80 cruise ships that grace our harbour this year, then perhaps on one of the new flights that are coming into Christchurch on United Airlines. So improving our overall finances means that we can afford some of the big investments that we need to make in things like our health workforce. I was so proud to see the announcement of the furthering of the development of the idea of the Waikato medical school yesterday. That's an idea that's been bouncing around in health circles for well over 20 years. And, frankly, it's yet another example of something that would have been best to have been done 20 years ago, but the second best time to do it is now, so we're getting on to it. Just because I'm a medical doctor doesn't mean to say that I don't understand the importance of our nursing and other allied health workforce. And that's why National and our coalition partners are working to bond nurses to New Zealand. If they work for five years, then we will be paying them $4,500 a year towards their student loans. That kind of initiative will help to give choices to our nursing students so that they can choose to stay and work in New Zealand. These pragmatic and innovative programmes and policies that we are implementing will help to improve our economic development and also will lift our overall incomes and help to get our economy and our country back on track. ANDY FOSTER (NZ First): Mr Speaker, thank you. This is the first general debate, I think, since the election. It was a historic election, where you had a single-party Government for the first time under MMP, and it managed to lose half of its members—half of its members—in one fell swoop. It was swept from power. Now, I guess you could say that in the wake of that, the Leader of the Opposition said that they needed to take a good, hard look at themselves and look in the mirror and say, "What went wrong?" Well, they don't seem to have started that process at the moment, so maybe we will help them out. Jamie Arbuckle: They need a very big mirror. ANDY FOSTER: They do need a very big mirror, but maybe we will help them out just a little bit. New Zealanders, quite clearly, wanted change. They wanted change, and we actually made a pretty big change this morning. They wanted change from overbearing, controlling, centralising Government. They didn't like that at all. They didn't like their assets being taken away from their local councils and taken away by central government. They didn't— Shanan Halbert: That was you when you were mayor, Andy. ANDY FOSTER: Well, we didn't like that either. They were suffering under a high cost of living, and we're working very, very hard to deal with that. High inflation, high interest rates brought on—oh, we know now that it's not really driven by international inflation rates. It's driven by domestic rates. It's driven by too much spending, and what did that give us? Not a lot, apart from a lot of debt and a lot of pain. Far too much money was spent by that Government. New Zealanders were also concerned about poor economic performance. All of those things go together to make poor economic performance, and we need to lift that. They recognised our failures in education. They recognised that far too many of our young people weren't at school. Far too many of our young people weren't learning the things that they need to learn to make sure that they are equipped for life, not only as New Zealanders but as international citizens. They recognised the failures in health—I mean, crikey, we had a pandemic. You'd think that was a real focus on health. What did we do? We actually sent medical professionals back home to wherever they came from because we couldn't find it within ourselves to keep them here in this country. We didn't try. We squandered opportunities there. We squandered a lot of opportunities in our health catastrophe to look at our health system. Our people recognised the division in our society. You could see the numbers. The polling said that we were more divided than ever before. Our people recognised that. Today, we've removed the divisive three waters—divisive for many reasons. Divisive because of the Labour Government beat up on councils; divisive because of the way in which people from different ethnicities were treated in different ways. We're also working very hard to put together—and we're consulting on this—an inquiry into COVID. Why are we doing that? Because a lot of people suffered from that, as well. They felt divided, they felt alienated, and that's why we saw people out on the Parliament lawns. They felt alienated by their own Government, which didn't listen to them. There's a big, big mirror to be looked at, and that's why we're engaging on a proper COVID inquiry; not a butt-covering exercise. The three coalition members have come together and we are delivering at speed on what we promised. Actually, we heard from the Hon Deborah Russell just a few moments ago about there being far too many things in the first 100 days, but, remember, it is the first 100 days. It's not three years, it's not six years, nine years, or 12 years. It's the first 100 days, which they are saying are negative. They say that this is negative and that we are getting rid of things, but I always thought that a negative negative was positive, and why are we doing that? Because we've got to get rid of those things before they confuse the people—it doesn't matter who it is—who have got to implement something that the previous Government has put in place that we don't want to carry on. You know, why would you want them to do new planning rules, why would you want them to do new water systems—why would you want any of those things? Why not get rid of them straight away, clean the slate, and be able to move ahead—and that's exactly what we're doing. That's why there's quite a few repeals and getting rid ofs and stops, but then there'll be the starts, and we're looking forward to doing that. I am privileged to be the chair of the Transport and Infrastructure Committee, and what we really, really need— Tangi Utikere: Oh, good committee—good committee. ANDY FOSTER: And, Tangi, it's great to have you on there. It's very, very clear that we have an infrastructure deficit. What is not clear is that it is not just about how much money we spent but how well we spend it, how efficiently we spend it, and how effective we are about what we choose to do. So the first thing is whether we are investing in the right things, and we've got to make sure that we are investing in the right things. We've got to make sure that we have good business cases behind those things. We've got to make sure that we have the workforce to deliver those things. What we know is that our construction industry actually has not been improving in productivity, and we have to be laser-focused on making sure that we are more efficient and more effective because we want to increase living standards. It's just not good enough to throw more and more people and more and more resources at something; we have to get more and more out of that. We need to have the right signals and make sure that we remove the inefficiencies from that area. So I am delighted to be part of this Government. We are going to make massive changes in our community for our community, and I'll just finish off by saying that it's really not about us and it's really not about members opposite, but it's about what we, together, can do to make our wonderful country a much, much better place, a much more productive place, and a much more prosperous place for us all to live in. HANA-RAWHITI MAIPI-CLARKE (Te Pāti Māori—Hauraki-Waikato): Ngā mihi e te Pīka, otirā tēnā rā tātou e te Whare. [Hawaiian text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.] Koinei te haka i hakangia e tātou, ngā uri o Waikato, i a tātou e whakaeke ana ki runga o Hawai'i, ō mātou tūākana ki roto mai i te whenua, te Hawaiki Tūturu o Hilo, Hawai'i. Koinei te haka hei tautoko i ō tātou nei tūākana i tēnei rangi whakahirahira o tātou, the original navigators of the world. [This is the haka that was performed by us, the descendants from Waikato, as we arrived in Hawai'i, our elder siblings within that land, True Hawaiki of Hilo, Hawai'i. This is the haka to support our seniors on this significant day of ours, the original navigators of the world.] Tēnā rā tātou e te Whare. I am not interested in talking about this Government's actions or their 100-day plan. I would like to take this time and this opportunity to thank and mihi from Te Pāti Māori to our people, our magic people—tangata Tiriti mai, tangata whenua mai, tangata moana, tangata tauiwi [people of the Treaty, people of the land, people of the Pacific, people newly arrived]. Since our first activation of toitū te Tiriti on 5 December around the motu, even reaching overseas, to the karanga of our King, Kīngi Tūheitia Pōtatau Te Wherowhero VII, at Tūrangawaewae to a gathering of 12,000 people, to the protection and guidance of Rātana, from the karanga of our two ariki, to the 64,000 who walked the bridge at Waitangi, we have seen Māori and non-Māori walk alongside each other as a direct response to this Government. We have seen our ariki, our Kīngi, our iwi leaders weave together. We walk in thousands of our ancestors and future mokopuna. From Te Pāti Māori e kore ngā mihi, e kore e ea i te kupu ki a koutou katoa kua whakarangatira i tā tātou nei kaupapa. [From Te Pāti Māori, effusive thanks, that cannot be effectively expressed in words, to all of you who have honoured our initiative.] We have had an inside scoop and a view of what an Aotearoa hou can look like, what it smells like, what it feels like. I could talk about the many different policies, bills, and laws of this coalition Government and what it is bringing to our country, from the axing of a smoke-free country to the removal of reo in spaces, to the repeal of the three waters bill, section 27 in justice, section 7AA in Oranga Tamariki. We could talk for days, but we will talk about our action from our forum tents to our wānanga, to endless lunch packs, Māori wardens, paepae actions, karanga calls, ringawera, parking kaimahi—we can do it, and with not one fault. I put a post up a few days ago on my Facebook page: "If you could sum up the Hui-aa-motu, Ratana & Waitangi in 3 words what would it be?" Over 330 comments, with not one negative thing to say about our direct response. Kupu like "preparation", "mobilisation", and "response". Our generation is tending to our whenua, from our tūpuna, preparing our Hawaiki hou. We will not stand to hear or see people talking at us at our own marae rather than talking and listening with us. There is a huge difference. We will not stand for people to stand under our mahau from Hobson's Pledge. My generation will not stand for people yelling at us to get an education when our grandparents gave their blood, sweat, and tears to establish kaupapa Māori like Kura ā Iwi, Te Aho Matua, kura kaupapa, wharekura, kōhanga reo. Government didn't do that; we did that. And I definitely will not stand to hear someone shout, I quote, "Ngā Tamatoa has been shouting the Treaty is a fraud since long ago." Well, guess what! Wake-up call: their mokopuna is shouting that too, because as we have, as their children and grandchildren—the Treaty has different Ts & Cs compared to Te Tiriti, and 500 signed those Ts & Cs. I have been hearing a lot of kōrero around "We are not getting rid of Te Tiriti." My answer is that if you even dare touch, you even dare change or alter a single word or letter, you are getting rid of Te Tiriti. Waiho i ēnā kupu kia tapu. Waiho i ēnā kupu, waiho i tēnā tiriti kia mohoa mō ā mātou tūpuna, kāore mō koutou. Mō ā tātou rangatahi, mō ā tātou mokopuna, nā mā ō tātou kaumātua, mā ō tātou tūpuna tēnā kawenata, tēnā tiriti e whakamana. Waiho kia rāhui. [Leave the sanctity of those words intact. Leave those words, leave that Treaty at the present time for our ancestors, not for you all. It is for our young people, it is for our grandchildren, it is for our elders, it is for our ancestors to give authority to that covenant, to that Treaty. Leave it protected.] Look, it's pretty simple: Te Tiriti is every single person's landlord agreement in our country. It is what keeps us all safe. It is what not only keeps Māori safe but every single soul that walks on this whenua. In the words of my ruruhi and koroheki [female and male elders], tākiri tū te iwi Māori e, kia kotahi rā [arise and stand, the Māori people, be as one]. Otirā tēnā rā tātou katoa SPEAKER: Just before I call Tim van de Molen, I'd just remind the new member that sometimes when you're using the word "you", it's best not directed at the Chair. If it's used in a general sense it's fine, but it's a little bit directed here. I'm not hurt by it, but keep it in mind. TIM van de MOLEN (National—Waikato): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It's a pleasure to take the final call, I think—the second to final call; the penultimate call—in this general debate, the first general debate of this Parliament. We have been straining at the seams as a country. We have been struggling along, getting by off the hard work, the tenacity, of everyday New Zealanders, and it's no thanks to the previous Government, which let this country down time after time in area after area. It's a wonder that we were able to still perform to the level we were. It feels at times like we're in a Third World country when you look at some of the terrible statistics that have been rolling out under the past Government. But help is here, thank goodness. The Government has changed and the Waikato electorate and the Waikato region is well poised to capitalise on that. I wanted to take the opportunity of seeking this call today because we had a fantastic and momentous occasion yesterday where a memorandum of understanding was signed to start the third medical school in this country. Now, that is a fantastic piece of progress under this Government and a clear demonstration that outcomes matter, as opposed to the last Government that was all about discussion and no delivery. This Government is getting on and delivering. Quite clearly, a third medical school is needed. We are seeing the numbers of GPs declining, unfortunately, in this country. When you look at the population dynamic within that GP sector, we're going to see an increased number of retirements over the coming years. When you look at our closest partner, Australia, and the number of medical schools they have per capita, on a similar comparison we should indeed be looking at a fifth medical school now, not a third. So a third medical school is well and truly due. The innovative part of what is being proposed at Waikato University is a graduate entry programme. That is the point of difference that really adds some value. Alongside the two existing medical schools we have in New Zealand, we'll now have a third medical school with a different entry pathway, a graduate entry pathway, so that people can come in with another undergraduate degree, work through a four-year programme instead of six at the other medical schools, and indeed come out the end as a GP. Now, the point of this being based in the best region in the country, the Waikato, is, of course, to help identify and create a solution for the fact that we are seeing a shortage across rural areas in New Zealand. We hear members on the other side talking about a million dollars of consultancy, but what about that last Government and the hundreds of millions chucked at light rail alone? Mr O'Connor is walking out of the room because he's scared about that. Now he's coming back—perhaps he wants to say something about the outrageous wastage the former Government brought to this country. An utter disgrace. New Zealanders were let down time and time again by overspending and a total lack of delivery in sector after sector. And, sadly, the health sector was one of those. The former Government let Kiwis down, and rural New Zealanders in particular were really struggling. And for a member like Mr O'Connor to be opposing support for health into the rural sector is an absolute disgrace. Rural New Zealand deserves the same healthcare as anyone else in New Zealand, and this medical school will help to fix that problem. What we've seen is a massive pressure point on our GPs across the country, but particularly in rural areas. People haven't been able to get into their GPs. Instead, they've been presenting at emergency departments. We've seen ramping up of ambulances at the hospitals; it's been well documented on the news. There have even been instances of police cars having to transport patients to the hospital because there's no ambulance available. We have a health system struggling under the negligence of the former Government. Thankfully, help is here. This third medical school will be a great benefit to New Zealand, but particularly to our Waikato region. It will help our GP network have a better understanding of the needs in rural New Zealand. It will grow the institutional knowledge within our region, and I have confidence that it will deliver stronger, better, more sustainable outcomes for New Zealand, and the health of New Zealanders, more importantly, because this is a Government that cares and we are getting this country back on track. SPEAKER: And welcome back to the House, Shanan Halbert. SHANAN HALBERT (Labour): Kaupeka ki runga, kaupeka ki raro, kui, kui, whiti ora e. [A branch above, a branch below, the shining cuckoo celebrates its successful crossing of the ocean.] Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker, and thank you very much for giving me the honour to rejoin the House yesterday. Can I acknowledge all of my colleagues across the House in this 54th Parliament. It hasn't been long since I was speaking in this House last time. An election's gone by but, in fact, actually, for a Government that did big talk that says, "We'll get back in the New Year and we'll get things going."—actually, you didn't get back so fast. It's only four weeks on my attendance register that I've missed. But I'm pleased to be here and pleased to make a contribution in this general debate today. It hasn't been easy, though, sitting on the sidelines at home, watching this House over those mere four weeks give an assault on vulnerable workers in Aotearoa in this country, an assault on Māori—indigenous people of Aotearoa—and an assault and broken promises to our Aucklanders and ratepayers of Tāmaki-makau-rau. This Government was elected on what I call the three Cs: addressing congestion, cost of living, and addressing crime in our biggest city in this country. But where it counts—and the days are numbered for this Government's 100-day plan. They haven't got much longer to go to fulfil the promises that they made and the big speeches, the big talk that they made in this election. Tom Rutherford: Talk about congestion. SHANAN HALBERT: I will talk about congestion. The people of Auckland suffer from congestion the most in this country. And anyone who knows anything about infrastructure and transport in this country actually knows the investment under the previous Government: $77 billion pipeline planned for the next five years. But, actually, what's important is the investment that's required in this country: $177 billion, actually, is what the infrastructure sector is asking us for. Politics aside, we know, we say that we need to invest in infrastructure in this country to get us to the place that we need to go. But we are going backwards, and we have seen that in the last couple of days in the legislation that has been pushed through this House. Yes, I will use the word outrageous, because as I stood on that side of the House last time, and people on this side of the House said it was outrageous, that it was an assault on democracy that we were pushing things through urgency in this House. Well, ana, here you are, an assault on democracy. As we talk about three waters and repeal that piece of legislation, I heard in the general debate today one, two, three speakers from the Government side actually talk about water infrastructure. They talked about issues in their local electorates, but what we saw today was a repeal of, actually, a plan. Politics aside, we can disagree with each other's plan, but that was a plan in place to address the issues that this country faces. My biggest concern—and I'll come back to Auckland here—is that the repeal of this legislation will increase water rates in Auckland. Last year, we saw an increase of 9 percent. Without three waters, without water infrastructure legislation, we can see that rise up to 25 percent that Aucklanders will be paying in their water rates in the coming years. I won't stand here for that. Alongside that, we see the impact of transport projects being cut by the Minister for Auckland and the Minister of Transport, Hon Simeon Brown—the $1.7 billion hole that is left in transport infrastructure in Tāmaki-makau-rau Auckland. The question is—and the people of Muriwai asked this question—where is the Minister for Auckland at a time of need? Who is advocating for us? I'll say it again: where's the Minister for Auckland? Who is advocating for Auckland in this shocking repeal, no plan Government that's in front of us. The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed. DISTRICT COURT (PROTECTING JUDGMENT DEBTORS ON MAIN BENEFIT) AMENDMENT BILL First Reading Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I move, That the District Court (Protecting Judgment Debtors on Main Benefit) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Justice Committee to consider this bill. Thank you, Madam Speaker. This bill is about keeping people out of poverty and that is a matter which is close to Anahila Kanongata'a's heart and my own. That member was the author of this bill, and it's really pleasing to me that I'm able to now continue in this work and bring it to this House. The central purpose of this bill is to limit the amount that can be compulsorily deducted by court orders to repay the debts of beneficiaries from their benefit. Now, this Government is in the midst of passing legislation to limit the increases in benefit rates, and that's going to compound the problems of people who are on benefits and who struggle to repay their bills. Benefits are intended to be enough for people to get by on and not a great deal more. In fact, we know as a fact, through the work we've done in child poverty reduction, that there are many people who are on benefits who are in poverty. So when things go wrong, when there's extra expenses and money is borrowed or credit is run up and the creditors chase them up, it causes real hardship. Now, obviously, when people borrow money they have to pay it back and it's entirely appropriate that the law and the courts provide procedures and systems for the collection of that money. But we have moved on from a repressive system. Debtors' prisons are a thing of the past, workhouses are a thing of the past, writs of arrest are a thing of the past. We recognise that when we allow people to collect their debt, there is a balance to be struck; that we need a humane system, a system that doesn't make people go hungry, go cold, go without shelter, and not able to care for their children and their whānau. That's what this does. It is, in fact, a very modest bill. I have discussed this bill and these problems with a number of entities in the finance sector, and certainly some of them would say that there should be no collection of debts against beneficiaries through these attachment orders because, by definition, they won't have enough to live on. But the member who drafted this bill, Anahila Kanongata'a, has indicated that she thinks it's appropriate that that amount be capped at 5 percent. So 5 percent of the net amount of the benefit can be deducted, but no more. Because at that level, it's an indication that their payments are being made but it won't throw them into the kind of hardship that would otherwise be the case. There are certainly plenty of studies where beneficiaries have found themselves in trouble and they have had very significant outgoings deducted from their benefits in a way which leaves them—and, of course, the first: rent has to be paid. There are other compulsory outgoings and the thing that is last on the list is often food. So they find themselves with only a few tens of dollars a week to feed themselves and their family, and we know what then happens: poor nutrition, and poor nutrition leads to poor health outcomes. So what this bill does is to cap the amount that can be deducted. It's a very simple bill, and the bill itself, as can be seen, is a very short bill simply amending the District Courts Act 2016 to insert this limitation. So it's a simple bill and I'm hopeful to get the support of this House because all it does is really prevent hardships. We know this new Government has been very clear that it wants to address the cost of living crisis, and this is about the cost of living. We know that, most of the time, lenders act responsibly and there's been a number of reforms to make sure that lenders lend only when it is affordable to repay. That doesn't always happen, but the other thing that happens, of course, is that people's circumstances change: that they might have borrowed money when they had a job, but they now find themselves on the jobseeker benefit. Of course, they can't then make the payments on their car or whatever it might be, and they simply can't make ends meet. They can't pay their rent and their payments on their car and off they go to the court, a judgment's entered against them. Having worked in that field, I know that once that kind of thing happens, penalty interest accrues, legal costs accrue, and the debt becomes many times larger sometimes than it originally was. Of course, that then becomes a millstone around the debtor's neck—a trap from which they certainly can't escape. Now, there are procedures—we know there's a no-asset procedure and a bankruptcy procedure—but there's a lot of people out there who, for their own reasons, and quite good reasons, don't want to go down that track. Bankruptcy has its own stigma and, of course, the no-asset procedure can only be used once, and, of course, people actually want to repay their debts. There's a certain dignity and appropriateness and wanting to repay their debts and they often find themselves in this debt trap going through the courts getting these attachment orders. There are no particular prohibitions in the current law as to the amount of the attachment orders. Judges are expected to undertake an assessment of the ability to pay, but there is also an expectation that they will be repaid, and quite often those attachment orders—which may only be $30, $40 a week, which to most of us wouldn't seem a huge amount, but it becomes a crippling burden. So this is a simple piece of legislation aimed at making sure that the impost put on beneficiaries on main benefits, when they find themselves in a difficult position with an order of the court, a judgment of the court, against them and enforcement proceedings for collection of that debt, that their income, their only income, isn't reduced to such a point that they are thrown into fundamentally abject poverty. So following some Victorian legislation in Australia, it's a very modest move, it's a humane move, and it's one I hope this House will support. Thank you, Madam Speaker. ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): The question is that the motion be agreed to. PAULO GARCIA (National—New Lynn): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I'd like to preface my contribution to the District Court (Protecting Judgment Debtors on Main Benefit) Amendment Bill by discussing a bit of a background to this bill. Those not in the legal profession may not know that attachments are the most common use of the law to enforce a civil debt, through which debtors could have their income, whether from Work and Income or from employment, already designated for payment to their creditor. In 2014, the law addressing this civil debt situation was passed to allow for collection of civil debts by an enforcement system. It has been troubling to note that by 2015, the Commerce Commission noted that the numbers of orders per month increased approximately 400 percent after that change—from approximately 200, to over a thousand. Public reporting has further highlighted that, in 2018, over 24,000 attachment orders for civil debt were granted against people on the benefit—beneficiaries. Only around 5,000 of civil attachments were made against people on wages—people who were working. In 2020, the Salvation Army also noted that only 14 percent of attachments in 2020 were placed on people who were working and receiving wages, leaving a massive 86 percent of attachment orders against beneficiaries. The law, as drafted, seems to offer a limited prospect of reducing the debt burden on beneficiaries. The bill primarily targets orders made under the District Court. The District Court is not the only avenue for attachment decisions to be made, and other legislation allows for that in other jurisdictions as well, outside the District Court. For that main reason, there is a limited scope. It will not stop the large amounts of attachment orders being made to beneficiaries. Also, the District Court already has the power to limit an attachment order on beneficiaries. Currently, that limit is at 40 percent of their income. I think that the object of the law in 2014 has mainly been to help people take responsibility for the debt that they take on. Yes, circumstances may change, but then the responsibility of taking more debt is a personal one and something that each individual truly needs to get a handle on in life. This is one of the major points in life, that when we take debt, we should be able to take responsibility for that and make repayments. The law, in that sense, also oversteps the decision that District Court judges are already enabled to make, limiting what attachment judgments that they can make decisions on and use the protected earnings rate at 40 percent to limit those decisions. The object, really, is personal responsibility. If we look at the increasing number and percentage of attachment decisions from 2014 all the way to 2020, which is what we have in evidence, the fact is that a very large sector of persons who are receiving the benefit have found themselves unable to pay for one reason or another—some, surely, on legitimate grounds. But the Government also needs to be responsible in making sure that individuals are able to well foster that ability to make decisions about their expenses and their debt going forward. The idea of limiting to 5 percent attachment judgments will not incentivise individuals from pushing themselves to taking on that personal responsibility of being mindful of the debts that they incur. We want to foster that knowledge and ability among everyone in the community, and particularly beneficiaries who are dependent on welfare for their daily means. Our objective of getting people back into work also falls within this attempt to get people out of the cycle of dependency and getting them to take responsibility and to get into work. The bill, essentially, oversteps an existing ability of District Court judges to make that decision. Also, because it is limited to just the District Court, then, essentially, the scope is very limited and will not really—probably slow down the number of people on the benefit who are taking that well beyond their capability. It is often that we have also heard about lenders' responsibility, and this has been dealt with as well. While there is legislation for lenders' responsibility, then providing for a limited cap on what can be attached in a debt judgment to 5 percent does not work to foster their responsibility among individuals to actually be mindful and to control their decisions in seeking debt or borrowing money. I think that, very often, there is no discussion on personal liability; it has to be the liability of everybody else other than the person taking on the debt, to be conscious of what he or she is getting into. What we are focused on is, really, getting individual responsibility up and getting people to understand that they need to be mindful. It is a responsibility of everyone, and particularly if they are already struggling and having very little means or a very small source of funds or limited funds because their funds are coming from welfare. For these reasons, we do not support this bill. RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I'd like to begin by acknowledging former MP Anahila Kanongata'a-Suisuiki for bringing this bill, and we'll acknowledge the Hon Duncan Webb for picking it up. For us, this is a matter of justice, and it's a matter of the systemic failures that have led to so many people on low incomes having attachment orders that basically end up stripping away so much of their income that it makes it impossible to survive. Unlike other jurisdictions—for example, in parts of Australia, there are mechanisms to wipe attachment orders when it becomes basically impossible for people to pay them—we have very little recourse to wipe those attachment orders and to adequately limit them. So it was interesting to hear from Paulo Garcia, from the Government side, where he identified the problem right at the beginning. He almost got it right. He talked about how actually one of the issues that we have is that a huge proportion of those attachment orders are on people receiving income support and that those people are some of the people who are on the breadline. And yet, despite that, while also acknowledging the narrow scope of the bill and that we need to take systemic action, he didn't speak of any intention by the Government to do anything about this. So what I'm hearing from the Government side is they're not going to support this, but they're also not intending to do much to resolve those broader systemic issues, despite acknowledging the extent of the problem which is that a huge proportion of people who have attachment orders are beneficiaries. A lot of them—a great proportion of them—are women and equally Māori, which I think becomes a Treaty issue in the sense of the Crown not meeting its responsibilities for looking after our communities. Once again, we're back at square one by the Government admitting that they don't want to do anything. We have had so many advocates on this issue. In fact, recently, last year, we had a coalition of groups including FinCap, Child Poverty Action Group, the Dunedin Budget Advisory Service, Pakuranga and Howick Budgeting Service, Henderson Budget Service, Auckland Central Budgeting, Debtfix, Good Shepherd New Zealand, the New Zealand Council of Christian Social Services, the Society of St Vincent de Paul, and the Salvation Army as well as the Nelson Budget Service penning a letter to the former Ministers at the time, calling for attachment orders to be stopped for people on the benefit. They were the ones who recognised the extent of the issue. Our front-line service providers are at the front line of recognising that attachment orders on those who are already struggling to survive does not do anything to incentivise better money management as Paulo tried to identify. Instead, all they do is they push people into needing more hardship assistance into more debt. And the key thing here in unpacking that so broken and beaten-up argument over personal responsibility is that you can't actually make life choices when you don't have the choice. Like, if you get stripped of so much of your money when you literally have no money left to make decisions on how you spend it, it doesn't matter how good you're at budgeting; you're put in that impossible situation where you then have to take more debt to survive. Part of these attachment orders on people on the benefit is that it creates a perverse cycle of debt and hardship that creates that poverty trap that people aren't able to escape. Rather than just preaching about personal responsibility, we should realise the collective responsibility we all have to not have a system that pushes people into poverty, that traps people in hardship, and that fails to acknowledge why people may find themselves with those attachment orders in this place, because we've built a House that is broken and that entrenches inequality. So the Green Party does support this bill. We do think that there is space to have a broader and more systemic conversation on attachment orders, but it would be naive to imply that there wouldn't be a difference being made by reducing the amount an income can be deducted to 5 percent for somebody who's on a benefit, and that it would really, really limit the negative impacts that really high attachment orders have on people. This is one area where I do think we're starting to fall behind as a country in recognising that attachment orders do not do good. In fact, they do harm, particularly for those people who have very little money already. So it could have been an excellent opportunity by the Government members to support this bill to the select committee to then to be able to hear—from the same people that the previous speaker was talking about who he doesn't think have made the right decisions—about, actually, what led them to have these attachment orders. And then we could have had a constructive conversation on how to address it, but unfortunately it seems that the Government side is content with the status quo of trapping people in poverty. Dr PARMJEET PARMAR (ACT): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I'm taking this call to say that we won't be supporting this bill. Can I acknowledge the member in charge, Dr Duncan Webb. It's good that you have taken on this bill. And can I also add that I can clearly see that the intention behind this bill is a good one, but that intention won't be delivered through this bill that the member has on the Order Paper. That's the reason that we have decided not to support this bill. Clearly, the member is concerned about people, those who are on low incomes, those who are on benefit; if they incur civil debt, they have to repay that. And the attachment orders, yes, will make a judgment on how much should be returned and what kind of instalments. We can fully understand that. But what this bill does is it's going to create a division between people: those who are on benefit versus those who are in employment. This kind of limit won't work when people are in employment. In our view, it's going to actually create a disincentive for people to get into employment. For example, if somebody has incurred a huge amount of civil debt while being on benefit, they will know that if they take up employment, they will have to pay that money back sooner or in bigger instalments than it would be because of this legislation. So overall, it's not going to actually do good for these people, because overall wellbeing of people is going to be better if they are in employment rather than staying on a benefit. And not just that. As I was listening to Dr Duncan Webb, he mentioned that, yes, when people are in hardship, they might need more money, they go out and borrow some money, and take some loans. That is the reality of life. Yes, people do borrow money. But if these lenders, the reasonable lenders I'm talking about, see that this individual is on benefit and that this legislation will apply to them, they'll know straight away that if they lend money to that individual who is on benefit, then getting that money back will be really hard. Or it would take ages and ages for that person to get that money back. So why would they lend that money to that person who is on that benefit? Actually, it's going to create more hardship for that person, because that person will not be able to borrow that money or take that loan when they really need it. So I would like to put a big emphasis on this, that people do sometimes borrow money, but people will not be reasonable, lenders will not be lending money to people if they are on benefit because of this legislation, if it goes through. The other point I would like to make is that courts make a judgment based on individual circumstances. So it's not like everybody who is on one type of benefit—that their circumstances, personal or family circumstances, are exactly the same, and courts can judge that. So putting this percentage on whatever amount they are getting through Work and Income actually considers that everybody's circumstances are exactly the same, which is wrong. Because individual circumstances can be judged by judges in courts and that amount can be decided; it could be less than 5 percent, it could be more than 5 percent. We should leave this kind of decision to courts rather than putting this percentage and seeing that everybody on one type of benefit should have the same kind of circumstances if they have civil debt. So, in our view, this bill, as I said, yes, the intention is good, but it's not going to deliver what it intends to. It's not actually going to give any financial relief to these people, those who are on benefit and have civil debt. Actually, it's going to create more hardship for these people and that's why the ACT Party opposes this bill. Thank you, Madam Speaker. JAMIE ARBUCKLE (NZ First): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to take this call for the District Court (Protecting Judgment Debtors on Main Benefit) Amendment Bill. Firstly, I will thank the Hon Dr Duncan Webb for putting this bill together. It is something that is new in front of me today seeing this. I haven't had any consultation on this, so I've just read today and heard from Mr Webb what the bill's intention is. As Mr Webb has just said, the intention would be to take this to the Justice Committee, so that is one thing that we probably would agree on if we got to that point. But my question, quickly, when I started to observe this bill was why would we want to do this? And it isn't very well explained throughout this bill. Probably the intention is good, because I think we are looking at people that are struggling with the cost of living. We've got people that we've heard today in this House that are on benefits that are finding it hard to get by, and I think Mr Webb has tried to put this bill together in that frame of mind. As we know, cost of living is a struggle for people in New Zealand at the moment; it's a struggle for all of us. It's a cost to pay rent—I understand that. From what Mr Webb said through his introduction, it's a real hard thing at the moment to put food on the table. So, I understand, when we're looking through this bill and we're looking at 86 percent of attachments are to beneficiaries—that in itself speaks loudly. Also, we look through the bill and we get to the point where we make this nominal figure of 5 percent, but there is no reason why we've got to 5 percent. I think I heard Mr Webb say he would have zero, but to get this bill up to the House, a 5 percent nomination was put forward. So, when I was reading through this, I was thinking, "Well, what about the victims of crime?" We've got the beneficiary who has caused the crime, and now we are going to say to them, "We will give you only 5 percent. You will only need to pay 5 percent of your benefit to that victim." That's where this starts to fall apart, because, in our society, we want law and order to actually do the right things; and that's what we all want from our society. So, all of a sudden, if we passed this legislation, we are actually saying, "If you're on a benefit, you go ahead and you commit a crime, and it doesn't really matter because the highest amount you'll get is 5 percent." I think and New Zealand First thinks that's wrong, because what about the victims? So, as we progress through this, the attachments, we understand, is because it's around being attachments to beneficiaries, this 5 percent figure that's pulled out of the sky, but it's the victims of the crime that will actually suffer here. Actually, probably, for a lot of people there will be no incentive to stop causing crime, and that's the whole reason, in this case, if you can go up to—and I heard from the member on our side of the House—40 percent is the maximum amount the court will actually put. So it is about personal responsibility. If you do a crime, you pay—it's as simple as that. Putting a minimum of 5 percent I just do not think is appropriate. So, yes, the ability to pay if you're a beneficiary is low, I understand that, but don't do the crime in the first place. So New Zealand First will not support this bill. It does not make any sense. For that reason, going forward we will not support. Thank you. ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): The question is that the motion be agreed to. Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I am actually really delighted to have an opportunity to speak on this bill, because, as it was being developed, I had a bit to do with the various budget groups who brought the issue to my attention. I think there are two things I want to address in this speech, which the last speaker referred to. He said, "Well, what is the reason for this bill? You know, people get into debt, but why this bill in particular?" There's a bit of a background as to what's going on here with these attachment orders and why it particularly applies to people with benefits, and it's to do with the industrialisation of attachment orders. So it used to be that in order to get an attachment order, a creditor, someone to whom money was owed would have to get the attachment order and then take it along to the person's employer or, in this case, to Work and Income New Zealand, and, actually, on an individual basis, and get it all processed through the Work and Income New Zealand systems, and eventually perhaps get the attachment order being seen to. That's sort of the process, sort of, 20-odd years ago—25, 30, maybe longer. But it turns out that the contemporary process is quite different, because, at the moment, what happens is a person can get an attachment order and take it along to Work and Income New Zealand and it gets processed through the Work and Income New Zealand computer systems automatically—automatically, so the attachment just goes on straight away. In fact, so automated is this process that it turns out that there are companies that specialise in doing it. So they buy the debt and they get attachment orders on it, and they take these debts along to Work and Income New Zealand—the attachment orders—in bulk lots and get them bulk processed through the Work and Income New Zealand systems. But we have enabled the industrialisation of making poverty even worse through the Work and Income New Zealand systems. Now— Simon Court: Debtors deserve to get their money back. Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL: Of course people deserve to get their money back; there's no doubt about that. But when a person is on a benefit, it becomes even worse and even harder to survive if a significant amount of money is being taken out in order to pay old debt. It gets even worse than this, because some of what has gone on is irresponsible lending. So it's lending where the person selling the products has not taken care, has not taken due regard, to ensure that the person is actually able to repay the debt. The attachment order process makes that worse. Now, what this bill would do would ensure that if a person is going to lend to someone who is on benefit, or if a person is going to lend at all, because they cannot be sure if they're going to get their money back, because they can't do an attachment order so easily, they would actually have to go through the proper credit checks. In other words, it would make sure that people lending money did so responsibly. So that's one of the first reasons to support this bill. It is because of the industrialised process—at the moment, the industrialised process encourages poor lending behaviour. I just want to address the issue that was raised by the member from New Zealand First, worrying about the victims of crime. Actually, he's got a point. He's got a good point on that one. I think there is some regard that needs to be given to the priority of debt and which debt should be repaid first. I agree that reparations to victims of crime should be perhaps further up the list, but that is exactly the sort of issue that could have been discussed through a select committee process. I urge the member that if he wants to make that priority, this is an ideal bill to do it on, to take that issue to the select committee and discuss it in full. Now, let's be quite aware that a lot of these attachment orders are not to with reparations for crime. There will certainly be some of those that would be the case, but I'm going to urge the member to think about taking this opportunity to ensure that there is a full discussion of where debt should be prioritised, what sort of debt should be repaid first out of the limited resources that beneficiaries have. I take his point that it is important to ensure that criminal reparations are properly repaid, but that should not mean that we don't discuss this bill at all; in fact, it should create an extra reason to discuss this bill. So for those three reasons—(1) because of the industrialisation of attachment orders; (2) because of the poor lending practices; and (3) because of the way we can talk about the prioritisation of reparations to victims—I think that we should support this bill through to select committee. Debate interrupted. AMENDED ANSWERS TO ORAL QUESTIONS Question No. 10 to Minister Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment): Point of order. Thank you, Madam Speaker. I seek leave to make a personal explanation to correct an answer to a supplementary question in question time today. ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There appears not. Hon LOUISE UPSTON: In a supplementary answer to question 10 from Te Paati Māori, I answered that the number on jobseeker benefit has gone up by 76,000. It is actually 69,100. ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): Thank you, Minister Upston. STUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I know the Māori Party's speaker didn't speak before but we're OK on this side of the House if she wants to give the speech now. ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): Does the Māori Party wish to take a call? HANA-RAWHITI MAIPI-CLARKE (Te Pāti Māori —Hauraki-Waikato): Aroha mai, we're not speaking on this today. Kia ora. ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): OK, this is very messy, and it's very difficult from the Chair to manage the calls when someone doesn't take it. Very helpful if the party could please give the Chair notice of their intention so that we don't have this confusion. HANA-RAWHITI MAIPI-CLARKE (Te Pāti Māori —Hauraki-Waikato): Member: Yes, Madam Speaker, I'll bring that up with my co-leaders. Thank you very much. Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour): So just checking National aren't taking their call, because they were after the Māori Party. ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): Well, this is the confusion because technically that was the Māori Party call, so now we're up to call number 7 which is yours. Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour): Thank you Madam Speaker. Thank you for the opportunity to speak on the District Court (Protecting Judgment Debtors on Main Benefit) Amendment Bill in the name of my good colleague Duncan Webb. Just acknowledging that this bill was originally in the name of Anahila Kanongata'a-Suisuiki who had done a previous bill also in relation to debt on beneficiaries, and had done some great work there in terms of bailiffs reclaiming things such as mobility scooters. This bill limits the amount that creditors can deduct from benefit payments to 5 percent, and it's really timely, as I think it's been mentioned already today, that on a day where the Government is eroding the financial ability of beneficiaries in the future, that they're also voting against this bill which would seek to reduce the incidence of poverty by reducing the stress on beneficiaries. So it's a double whammy today for anybody who is on a benefit, thanks to the members opposite who proclaim to be fighting the cost of living crisis. This bill does so by amending the District Court Act in 2016 to ensure that an attachment order on its own—that it is making sure it's discounted, any impact the deduction notice may apply to a judgment debtor's earnings—cannot lead to a deduction of more than 5 percent of net earnings; a judgment debtor who is in receipt of a main benefit. I think it's really disappointing that we don't have the opportunity for this to go to select committee to hear submissions on those people who are directly affected by being on one of the main benefits. Generally, as we've heard today, benefits are typically pretty tough to get by on as it is. When people get into financial trouble and they can't afford large repayments, particularly in a cost of living crisis, it's really important to give consideration and that's what this bill does. Other jurisdictions in other countries prohibit entirely the attachment orders in respect of benefit payments. So for New Zealand this is an incredibly modest move. So again, disappointing to see it's not being supported to select supported to select committee when in other jurisdictions you have an outright prohibition on attachment orders. This would be a modest move and it would still require beneficiaries to carefully manage their finances. The way that this bill would work and its aim is that there are absolutely no prohibitions right now in New Zealand on attachment orders being made against beneficiaries despite the limited nature of their income and their ability to pay. It would be a good way of ensuring that there is some protection in place, that people do not get into debt that is simply unable to be repaid and get into an endless downward spiral in terms of poverty and being unable to repay fines and reparations. Some additional information that might be of use: in August 2023 a man who received $452.74 a week in benefits payments had $96 a week to cover off his own debt repayments. So, given the cost of what weekly rents would be, I think he'd struggle to find a one-bedroom apartment for $350 or $400. That leaves insufficient funds for food, for other main utilities, and generally for living. Then he had $30 a week taken for a private debt collector's attachment order; $40 went to the Ministry of Justice; $11.00 to the Ministry of Social Development; and $15 in child support. He was left with $356 a week; $270 had to go on rent, giving him $86 a week to live on. I think it goes to the point that those people in New Zealand doing it tough right now don't need bills like this being voted down. They certainly don't need a change to the way that benefits are indexed to make it even tougher for beneficiaries to pay their bills. If those members opposite think it's OK to live on $86 a week, I'd like to see them try and do it themselves. RIMA NAKHLE (National—Takanini): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise to speak with reference to this bill that's before us, the District Court (Protecting Judgment Debtors on Main Benefit) Amendment Bill. I'd like to say that, like a few of my colleagues on this side of the House, I acknowledge the intention behind this bill, and it's a good intention. And I'd like to say, despite this, we are opposing it. And I want to explain a number of reasons—but I'm going to focus on about three—why we're opposing this bill today. First, the bill, by way of synopsis, seeks to ensure that an attachment order on its own can't lead to a deduction of more than 5 percent of the net earnings of a judgment debtor who is on a benefit. Now, the first reason why, I'd like to discuss, we oppose this bill is because the bill only affects attachments issued under the District Court Act, even though attachments and deductions exist in other legislation. The second reason why I'd like to highlight that we oppose this bill is that there already is a mechanism in the civil court system where 40 percent of a debtors net income can be deducted. So, yes, there are mechanisms that already exist, so the court could change the amount of it if it thinks the debtor won't be able to keep up with the payments. This is a mechanism that already exists, and either party can apply to vary this and to suspend or cancel the attachment order. This is a mechanism that already exists. Now, the third reason, I'd like to highlight, as to why we are opposing this bill today is that limiting the amount the creditor can receive through attachment orders may also incentivise them to pursue other methods of enforcement. And we're talking about methods such as seizing property. Now, while I studied law—and I used to work in the court system—there are a number of times that I came across people, defendants, that were going through the court system. And one of the worst things that they could experience is having their property seized. And they used to come and plead—plead with the judges, plead with the magistrates. It's something that affects their person in a way that we can't describe. So with this bill, even if we were to support it, there are those other mechanisms that exist, and so we oppose it for those three reasons amongst others. Now I want to say this: Mr Webb, I understand, again, the intention behind which you are speaking to this bill. The National Party, we unashamedly align ourselves with the value of personal responsibility. You've heard it called around, and I know that people refer to it so flippantly on the other side of the House, but it is something we feel strongly about. But personal responsibility for us here also comes along with being mindful of people's circumstances, and when I look to what we are as a Government focusing on, we're focusing on abolishing the previous Government's prisoner reduction target, we're focusing on stopping taxpayer funding for section 27 reports, and we're focusing on enabling more virtual participation in court proceedings. This here—this bill before the House today—is a bill where there already exists mechanisms in place where people that find themselves in situations where it is hard to pay—can apply for redress—for recourse rather. We do not support this bill today, as I said. I've mentioned three reasons why we don't support it today. I acknowledge the intention behind the bill with the former MP that is no longer here, Anahila, but we don't support the bill in this form today. Dr TRACEY McLELLAN (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker, and thank you for the opportunity to make a few words and some observations about the District Court (Protecting Judgment Debtors on Main Benefit) Amendment Bill. I'd like to first acknowledge my colleague Dr Duncan Webb, whose name this bill is under; and also acknowledge all of the work that my previous colleague Anahila Kanongata'a did as part of her suite of measures that she put in place through a couple of bills that she was very successful in with the theme of alleviating the pressures and the undue hardships that various people faced, through no fault of their own often. She came up with these quite simple and quite functional ways of helping that reality. So it's very upsetting and quite disconcerting to hear that the opposition aren't going to support this member's bill. I've listened to the debate and heard them talk about things like personal responsibility and incentivisation and "Why would we do this?" The intention's good—everybody acknowledges the intentionality—but no one wants to necessarily take that further step and do something practical that helps someone. We heard my colleague from New Zealand First emphasise, over and over again, "What about the victims of crime?" Although that, as Dr Deborah Russell acknowledged, could make up part of some of these judgments or some of these attachment orders, it's in the minority. It's worth a conversation, though, and that's why this should be supported to select committee: so that the Justice Committee can hear from people and can make those considerations about how to take this bill and perhaps turn it into something that adds some heft to it. While we're talking about personal responsibility, we've heard from contributors today talking about, "Well, what about the responsibility for responsible lending?" Sometimes it's just one of those things where the quickest and easiest thing is always to blame the person at the bottom of the pile. What about their responsibility to make sure that people don't get into that debt? It's not saying that those debts are forgiven. It's not saying that those debts don't matter. It's just saying when we're dealing with people who, by definition, are already almost certainly receiving the least amount of money that you can possibly live on, why would you take any more than 5 percent? Because vulnerability begets more vulnerability, and there are numerous examples of how that works. It's something that spins out of control. Through no fault of someone—as my colleague Dr Webb, when he opened his first contribution to this bill, said—people can take out loans, for instance, under totally different circumstances. Maybe they had a job, maybe they had circumstances in their lives that, for all intents and purposes, they fully intended to be able to service this debt. But sometimes bad things happen to good people, and it's up to us to be able to put measures in place to provide those safety nets for people—of which this bill is one. So I'm very disappointed that this bill harms no one, it's a step forward to making a positive contribution towards the livelihoods and the lives of people who often are the ones that are most vulnerable in our society. So I'm very disappointed that the Opposition won't be supporting this through. However, I think the previous speaker, Rima Nakhle, spoke of three reasons and tried to assume a catalogue of reasons as to why this wasn't being supported. But the theme that I've noticed through the opposition's contributions today has been searching for excuses. None of it was particularly logical; none of it really stood out. The first contributor, Mr Garcia, spoke for about eight minutes before I realised he wasn't going to support the bill because he outlaid what was a pretty logical sort of argument in support. But even then, they couldn't quite cross that threshold to do the right thing. So it's very disappointing, but hopefully we will be able to continue this work and that the people on the other side of the House feel a little bit sad about the fact that they haven't been able to provide this support. Thank you. CAMERON BREWER (National—Upper Harbour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise in opposition to this member's bill, the District Court (Protecting Judgment Debtors on Main Benefit) Amendment Bill, in the name of Dr Duncan Webb. I congratulate him on his advocacy and the work he's done. But we here on this side of the House believe that there are enough protections in place to protect our most vulnerable while balancing up their responsibilities in and around debt. This District Court (Protecting Judgment Debtors on Main Benefit) Amendment Bill, first reading, comes to us this afternoon and we've had a lot of considered speeches from my colleagues Rima Nakhleh from Takanini, Paulo Garcia, from New Lynn, and from many others as well. But, fundamentally, we do not support it. The fact is that the bill amends the District Court Act to provide that if the debtor receives a benefit, the amount deducted under the attachment order cannot be more than 5 percent of the person's earnings. This is intended to help protect debtors on benefits from being subject to excessive deductions. But we believe that there are protections in place already. If you look at the District Court Act, it already provides for a protected earnings rate (PER) below which a person's net earnings from all sources, including benefits, cannot fall after any deductions, including any civil debt attachment orders, and if you look at the District Court Act, it already provides for a protected earnings rate and the PER is set at 60 percent, meaning that no more than 40 percent of a person's net earnings can be deducted. That protection is already in place. And, of course, deductions can include a range of Government or court orders, including child support, tax administration, student loan repayments, Working for Families overpayments, benefit overpayments, recoverable assistance, and fines or reparation payments. These deductions have priority over civil debt. We believe also that the fifth Labour Government introduced the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act, or the CCCFA legislation in 2003 during the Clark years, and then it was heavily amended in the Jacinda Ardern years and, of course, it's unworkable for a lot of people having to present their Netflix accounts to their bank manager at the ANZ. But we know that it ensures that the most vulnerable Kiwis make more informed choices. That's what it was aimed at and that's who it is meant to protect, and to some way it is protecting them in a greater form. It's just been an overreach by the previous Government. But these people that are going to loan sharks, which are heavily monitored and regulated these days, know exactly what they are agreeing to. So we cannot take people's financial responsibility as citizens away with this bill. It's something that the National Party is embedded to—the financial responsibility of an individual—and it extends to everyone. This bill, we believe, will not encourage self-responsibility to those already in debt. It simply reduces the amount that can be recovered. We believe, looking at our priorities as a new Government, that we're focused on victims. The justice system is going to be switched around so that the focus stands squarely on the victim, not on the criminal. We're focusing, again, on self-responsibility, on localism, and on individuality. As you heard during question time today, from an outstanding justice Minister, the Hon Paul Goldsmith, colloquially known as "Goldie", that we're stopping taxpayer funding for section 27 cultural reports. We're enabling more virtual participation in court proceedings, and we're abolishing, aren't we, I say to the member for Pakuranga, the previous Government's prison reduction. I do not support this bill. Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): That, frankly, was an embarrassment—an underprepared member coming along, reading the bill, and talking from a list of points about things which are utterly irrelevant. If you're going to come to this House, treat it with the dignity it deserves. Let's just think about what this bill does. This is a bill about beneficiaries—a 25-year-old on a single person's jobseeker benefit is given $337 a week net. That's how much they get: $337 a week. What I just heard members from the other side of the House say is that it's OK to take 40 percent of that in attachment orders. That would leave them with $202 to live off—another punch down from that side of the House to those in poverty. They're cutting benefits already with their changes to the inflation adjustment and now this is a modest bill, and what do they say? No, don't worry about it. They can live on $202. The member Paulo Garcia, as Dr Tracey McLellan said, spoke for eight minutes explaining why it was a good idea and then trotted out the National Party line: individual responsibility, it's the debtor's fault. Well, maybe Mr Garcia hasn't had the misfortune to lose a job by redundancy, or fall sick, or have a car break down when you're on a low income and have to borrow money to get the kids to school on time. Things go wrong, bad things happen, and people get into debt and can't pay it back. But no, he would have beneficiaries in poverty, children in poverty. We heard today that that Government's actions will see 7,000 more children in poverty, and here's a tiny thing they could have got on board with—not even asking them to pass it today, just to send it to select committee. Dr Parmjeet Parmar talked about it being a disincentive to work—you know, as if someone getting $337 a week needs any more incentive to get out to work than that. Poverty is not a choice. Helping people in poverty is not some kind of charity; it's giving them dignity, and saying that having to repay 5 percent of that $337 is in some way freeloading is absolutely ridiculous and shameful. Now, Mr Arbuckle probably had the most thoughtful comment, which was, essentially, "OK, how does this affect reparation payments for victims of crime?" Well, in fact, they're administered through the Ministry of Justice, but that's a decent question. It was the only sensible question from the other side of the House, and it's a good question to put to select committee to make sure we strike the right balance there, so well done, Mr Arbuckle. I don't think it should be a barrier. I don't think it's the hurdle that he thinks it is, but that's not for this debate; that's for a thoughtful and informed debate at select committee, which the people on the other side of the House have absolutely said isn't appropriate. As for the member Rima Nakhle who seemed to suggest that 40 percent of a benefit could be deducted and that was all right, there's already a flaw. Don't worry; benefits are designed to be just enough to get by on, and we know that for many people in their circumstances, it's not. So to take 40 percent of it away would not just tip them into a bit of poverty, it would be abject poverty. Over on the other side of the House, they just shrug their shoulders and say, "I'm OK. It's called personal responsibility. I don't feel hungry; I don't care." What we have on the other side of the House is an uncaring Government who really doesn't understand poverty and who thinks it's attacking the drivers of crime when it's increasing the drivers of crime. So it's shameful and sad to see that this bill won't see the light of day because on the other side of the House, they just don't care. A party vote was called for on the question, That the District Court (Protecting Judgment Debtors on Main Benefit) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. Ayes 55 New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6. Noes 68 New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Motion not agreed to. MAIDEN STATEMENTS SPEAKER: In accordance with the determination of the Business Committee, we will now hear maiden speeches. I call on Hūhana Lyndon to make her maiden address to Parliament. HŪHANA LYNDON (Green): I te tekau mā whā ka ū te whakapono e i Ki runga i Ōihi, ka tū Te Mātenga e i Ko te kupu tēnei, kei te rangi te Atua Me huri koutou, me titiro ki reira e i Ka huri te Māori, ka titiro whakarunga e i Ka huri Te Mātenga, ka titiro whakararo e i Ki te papa oneone, ki Aotearoa e Taiapa rawa mai ki te pāraharaha e i Ki te pātītī, ki te rōria rino e Ki te paraikete whero nāu, e te Kāwana e i Kua riro te whenua, e tere rā ki te moana e i. [On the fourteenth, faith is confirmed At Ōihi, Samuel Marsden stands This is the word, God is in heaven You all must turn, you must look there The Māori turns and looks up Samuel Marsden turns and looks down To the earthy soil of Aotearoa The wide spaces are truly fenced off By paddocks, by iron shackles By the red blanket that is yours, Governor The land is lost, flee to the sea.] "I te tekau mā whā", a waiata tawhito that commemorates the first sermon in Aotearoa delivered by Samuel Marsden—"Te Mātenga"—on Christmas Day, 1814, in a place called Oihi, in the Bay of Islands. This waiata whakahē [song of opposition] was written a hundred years after that first sermon was delivered and reminds us of our colonial history. As our tūpuna looked to the heavens for guidance, our land was taken by the Crown for the cost of a red blanket, a hatchet, or a Jew's harp. You see, the hapū of Whangārei only retain 2 percent of our tribal estate today. Our people were left destitute within our own tribal rohe. This is our story. Ko Hūhana Lyndon taku ingoa. E ai ki te kōrero a Aperahama Taonui, "Ehara ahau i te rīwai. E tū rangatira ana ahau ki runga i tōku tūrangawaewae." [My name is Hūhana Lyndon. According to the statement of Aperehama Taonui, "I am not a potato. I nobly stand on my land where I belong."] I stand today with my rangatiratanga, on my tūrangawaewae. Ahumairangi, Tangitekeo, Te Whanganui a Tara ki tōku rahi a Te Ātiawa, Ngāti Toarangatira, Ngāti Raukawa ki te tonga—e mihi ana. He uri tēnei nō Kāwharu me taku tupuna a Te Haunga. [Tinakori Hill, Mount Victoria, Wellington Harbour, my people of Te Ātiawa, Ngāti Toarangatira, the southern branch of Ngāti Raukawa, I greet you. I am a descendant of Kāwharu, and my ancestor Te Haunga.] My ancestor Te Haunga lived at Pauatahanui. His rohe included Transmission Gully. Once upon a time, Pauatahanui was pristine. The waters were pure, green, and blue. The fish life was abundant. This is not the case today. I am here for people and planet. Parliament is long way from where I grew up in Pipiwai, Tūparehuia, Ngāraratunua, and Matangirau in the North. I wish to mihi to my tribes Ngātiwai, Ngāti Hine, Ngā Hapū o Whangārei, Whangaroa hoki, Ngāpuhi Nui Tonu, ngā tini whanaunga [my many relations]. Thank you for nourishing me and nurturing me mai rā anō [since way back]. I come to this House with te reo Māori as my patu pounamu, and He Whakaputanga me Te Tiriti o Waitangi as my korowai. Kāhore ahau ki konei mō te hararei e tātou mā—I'm not here for a holiday; I'm here to do the mahi: to tohe and to tūtūki for Te Tai Tokerau. We've just finished a landmark Waitangi commemoration, and on 12 February, we remembered the largest signing of Te Tiriti o Waitangi at Mangungu, Hokianga. But lest we forget the intergenerational pollution of the Hokianga Harbour. Nō Hokianga ahau, e kore e warewaretia. [I am from Hokianga. I will never be forgotten.] I reflect on He Whakaputanga, the declaration of sovereignty made by our tūpuna to the world. Ko kore, kore rawa Ngā Hapū o Ngāpuhi i tuku te mana rangatiratanga ki te Karauna. E kore rawa Ngā Hapū o Ngāpuhi e tuku tō tātou tino rangatiratanga ki te Kāwanatanga. Ka whaiwhai tonu mātou, ake ake ake! [The tribes of Ngāpuhi never ever ceded their noble authority to the Crown. The tribes of Ngāpuhi will never cede our sovereignty to the Government. We will continue to fight for ever and ever!] On Monday this week, the marine and coastal area High Court hearings commenced in Whangārei for Whangārei Harbour. It's outrageous to me that, as the hapū of Whangārei, we must stand before the High Court and plead our case to prove our connection and relationship to Whangārei Harbour since 1840. Meinga meinga? Nā wai i teka? Mā te ture Pākehā e mana ko wai ngā hapū whaipānga ki te moana o Whangārei? [Is that so? Whose is that lie? Is it really for Pākehā law to authorise who are the interested parties in Whangārei harbour?] The Crown has the audacity to assume they have mana moana over Whangārei Harbour? After stealing the lands off our people, enabling intergenerational rape of the kaimoana and releasing tūtae into the harbour for decades, now they think they can determine who has mana moana? Meinga meinga! [Is that so?] No! We will fight this process through the Waitangi Tribunal. Te Tiriti is not a partnership document; it provides a constitutional relationship between two sovereign nations. As Moana Jackson shared, "Treaties are not meant to be settled, treaties are meant to be honoured.", e tātou mā. Te Tiriti is our road map for mahi tahi [collaboration]. I come into this Whare as a kaimahi mō taku iwi [as a worker for my people] and acknowledge that mana rangatiratanga [sovereign authority] sits with our hapū and iwi. Te iwi Māori are intergenerational. We remember our past as we walk forward to the future. We're always looking a hundred years ahead. Governments come and Governments go, but, like Tumutumuwhenua, we are from the soil of this land. I am the eldest child of teenage parents and am fortunate to know three of my great grandparents. Raised in the reo of my father, despite my age, I am youth adjacent. I'm a foundation mokopuna of Te Kōhanga Reo o Ngā Tau e Toru in Pipiwai. Ko Te Orewai te hapū, ko Ngāti Hine te iwi. [Te Orewai is the hapū, Ngāti Hine is the iwi.] Tihei mauri ora! My upbringing is not too dissimilar to many whānau. We moved house a lot for my dad's work and I attended seven schools in primary and secondary school. But we learnt to adapt. In our housing, we had housing insecurity—like many whānau—living at the Ngunguru caravan park and State houses, but we had a good life. With whānau support and getting a good education, my parents purchased their first home in Whangārei many years ago. We were raised with a life of discipline, in academics and sports. Our hāhi was the tennis court, and our school was the Collins Encyclopaedia set my parents invested in when we lived in Lower Hutt. My parents were heavily involved in our school lives, and this was backed up by strong granny support. I'm grateful to have my grandmother and her sister in the Whare today. We have four generations in our whānau. Tihei mauri ora to that! As the eldest of my whānau, there are expectations and responsibilities. I am always mindful of my footsteps and my example to my siblings and those around me. Responsibility to the collective and paving the way for future generations is etched in my whakapapa. In entering Victoria University through provisional entrance as a 16-year-old old from the North, I hit the books and joined Te Herenga Waka Kapa Haka Group and Ngāi Tauira Māori Students Association—and I lived my best life with my metes. I wish to acknowledge Tama Potaka and Cushla Tangaere-Manuel, my friends and colleagues of this House, alumni of Te Herenga Waka. I recognise it's important for us to work across the Whare to meet the challenges for people and planet. I'm blessed to be a single mother of three teenage daughters. Mokopuna raised in 10 years of Te Paparahi o Te Raki Waitangi Tribunal hearings, riding side-saddle with me across the North in events and hui. Like many in Aotearoa, our whānau is not without its challenges. But as the Ngātiwai whakatauki shares "Ahatia pukepuke te moana, ka whakawhitia e Ngātiwai" ["Even though the ocean is rough, Ngātiwai will traverse it"]. To my tamāhine o Te Moana Nui a Kiwa, I love you all very much. My professional life has set the scene for my entrance into this House. Having a diverse background in Māori public health—tobacco control in Māori providers, the district health board, the Ministry of Health—and in education as a director at Northtec, it was Ngāti Hine that gave me my first big break. Working for my iwi, I was appointed by my elders to the role of CEO of Ngāti Hine Forestry Trust. During my time, we implemented Billion Trees projects: 3,200 hectares of second-rotation Pinus radiata and seeing our young people on the land planting 410 hectares of mānuka—tēnā koe, Matua Shane Jones. We grew our portfolio in horticulture too, to 32 hectares of Zespri Gold, and established industry-based training to get our people into orchard or packhouse. And, finally, in an industry first for Aotearoa, a research project in partnership with SCION to plan our indigenous forestry future underpinned by mātauranga o Ngāti Hine. I was then appointed as the first raukura mo te whare o Ngātiwai [chief executive officer of the Ngātiwai Board], the Ngātiwai Trust Board. My elders of Ngātiwai trusted me to set a new operational direction and lead our iwi into the future. As the raukura, I led our team with passion and energy. I gave my all. I love and appreciate the opportunity to serve our people across Te Ākau Roa o Ngātiwai. Tēnā koutou e tōku iwi o Ngāti Wai. While speaking about my iwi, may I pause and reflect on Cyclone Gabrielle—remembering it was this time last year when the big one hit us. In Tai Tokerau, we had communities without water, internet, electricity and with roads blocked for days. We aren't like Te Tairāwhiti and Te Matau-a-Māui, but a year on the people of Pipiwai in the North still don't have fresh drinking water from Te Awa o Hikurangi. The infrastructure breakages are still "a work in progress". But what the cyclone and earlier COVID lockdowns did show was that hapū, iwi, and marae can mobilise. Drawing on supply chains established during COVID, we worked to get support to those most in need. As Ngātiwai, Ngāti Hine, and Ngā Hapū o Whangārei, we mobilised a regional roll-out, connecting through our whakapapa. With manaaki at the centre of our mahi, we went out to support the community. There are many learnings from the emergency response and earlier COVID-19, primarily Māori need to be resourced decision makers and let us get on with the mahi. I've spent many years of my career focused on training and development across sectors, succession on our marae and in our hapū to grow our team. This team includes tangata whaikaha [disabled community], our rainbow community, tangata moana [Pasifika community], immigrants, and refugees, because together, through mahi tahi [collaboration], we can break down the inequalities that exist for so many communities in Aotearoa. Diane Ruwhiu described the Māori economy as a "sleeping and now waking taniwha". Now, much is made of this taniwha economy, yet for all the power and pizazz of the catchy name, the economic taniwha remains leashed by the colonial shackles. This is not to undermine the massive strides that our collective Māori and private business interests have achieved and the many breakthroughs to grow the Māori economy, but te pani me te rawa kore [bereavement and poverty] still exists. Systems change is required with a focus on the wider determinants of health, social, and environmental wellbeing that takes into account our colonial history. Decision makers need a new framework underpinned by Te Tiriti o Waitangi that ensures tangible economic gains and provides social, cultural, health, and taiao benefits to hapū and iwi. You see, Māori are natural greenies. We are kaitiaki; we are concerned for the health and wellbeing of our whenua, our moana, and our waterways because we are interconnected with the taiao. May I speak to waimāori, waipara, and wai tūtae [fresh water, waste water, and sewage]. We have an issue with our piping. We have old infrastructure that was exposed during Cyclone Gabrielle. Wellington and Tāmaki-makau-rau, you've been put on notice. Rural New Zealand, you've been put on notice. This is not a new issue. Te mana o te wai is supremely important in our next steps, with urgent planning needed and investment for the infrastructure rural and urban New Zealand needs. What is our plan to address these important issues? Te Rōpū Kākāriki, I salute you. You embedded Te Tiriti o Waitangi in your party's constitution and move as a waka hourua: tangata Tiriti, tangata whenua. As the "Te Tiriti Party" in Parliament, I am proud to be a part of our team and thank the 330,000 voters that brought into Parliament the largest ever Greens caucus in history. I wish to mihi to the great Green Party co-leaders: first, Rod Donald and Jennette Fitzsimons, then Russell Norman and the amazing Metiria Turei, and to our pou, James Shaw and Marama Davidson. E James he hautupua koe mō te taiao. Tēnā koe e te rangatira. [James, you are an esteemed luminary for the environment. Thank you, noble leader.] I thank our party members and our whānau for supporting my campaign for the Te Tai Tokerau electorate. This was no easy task because the Te Tai Tokerau electorate stretches five hours just one way. Can I acknowledge Kelvin Davis in his retirement but also for his work as a Minister and MP for Te Tai Tokerau. My whaea Mariameno Kapa-Kingi—first wahine to win the Te Tai Tokerau electorate—tēnā koe. To Ministers of the Government and MPs who live and hail from the north: may we work hard together for Tai Tokerau and protect our whanaungatanga as we venture forth in this next term. Hei whakakapi waka kōrero [To conclude my statements], our tupuna Kawiti is the first name on Te Tiriti, and he also signed He Whakaputanga. In his prophecy after the Battle of Te Ruapekapeka in 1846, he refers to the bite of the sandfly—the namu—"Waiho kia kakati te namu i te whārangi o te pukapuka, ko reira, ka tahuri atu ai."—"Wait until the sandfly nips at the pages of the book, and at that time you must act." Well, Aotearoa, it's time to get out the insect repellent because we have a big namu trying to change the words of Te Tiriti o Waitangi. I, along with my colleagues, will stand and fight for our papa pounamu [greenstone floor], with you in this House and out in our communities and on our marae. I began my kauwhau with Aperahama Taonui, and I will end my kauwhau with Aperahama Taonui. I dedicate this to Marama Davidson: "Ka whakarongo ake au, ki te tangi o te manu nei te pītongatonga. Tōnā tangi 'Patotoi, patotoi, patotoi'." [I listen to the cry of the pītongatonga bird. It cries, "Patotoi, patotoi, patotoi".] E Marama, ka patotoi ōu ngutu ki te tohe mō Te Tiriti o Waitangi. Kāhore anō nei kia tatū te mana motuhake o Ngāpuhi, o Aotearoa whānui tonu—Marama, your lips will be parched fighting for Te Tiriti o Waitangi, as Ngāpuhi and Aotearoa is still waiting for this House to truly recognise te tino rangatiratanga o te Iwi Māori. Nō reira tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa. [Applause, hongi, and harirū] Waiata—"Te Whare e Tū Nei" DARLEEN TANA (Green): Maranga mai e te iwi e Whāia te tika i roto i te ngākau Kei hea ngā hua o te whenua? Aue aue te mamae o taku wairua E kore au e mātakitaki Ko te takanga ki te hē Kia tūpato, whakarongo mai Maharatia ngā tikanga a ō tātou tūpuna Ruia atu e, i aue [Arise, the people Pursue the truth within your heart Where are the fruits of the land? Oh my, the anguish of my soul I will not watch The fall into sin Be careful, listen Remember the ways of our ancestors Cast them wide, alas] Ko Pou-e-rua te maunga, ko Waitangi te awa, ko Ngāti Kawa me te Tiriti o Waitangi ngā marae, ko Ngāti Kawa me Ngāti Rāhiri ngā hapū. Ko Ngāpuhi Nui Tonu, Ngāti Porou, Ngāti Awa, Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairarapa, Ngā Rauru ngā iwi. [Pou-e-rua is the mountain, Waitangi is the river, Ngāti Kawa and the Treaty of Waitangi are the marae, Ngāti Kawa and Ngāti Rāhiri are the hapū. Ngāpuhi Nui Tonu, Ngāti Porou, Ngāti Awa, Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairarapa and Ngā Rauru are the iwi.] Kei te mihi ki ngā mana whenua o tēnei rohe taurikura. Mihi mai ki ō koutou nei mokopuna ka tae mai ki te tū i mua i a koutou. Ko Hōhepa Kōpiri te tangata. Ko Te Āti Awa te iwi. Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou koutou. [I acknowledge the authorities of the land in this thriving region. Welcome your grandchildren that have come here to stand before you. Hōhepa Kōpiri is the leader. Te Āti Awa is the iwi. Greetings and thanks to us all.] Tēnā rā koe, Mr Speaker. Through you, I would like to thank the House for this time that is accorded to us for our kauhau tuatahi [maiden speeches]. At our swearing in ceremony, we were told that we could pledge our oaths on the Bible or on a taonga of our choosing. I chose to do so on this taonga here. It is tohorā—whale bone—and it acknowledges my tūpuna here in Aotearoa from around the early 1800s. Marupō, Pūmuka, rangatira nō Te Tai Tokerau [leaders from Northland] who signed He Whakaputanga me Te Tiriti o Waitangi [the Declaration of Independence and the Treaty of Waitangi] on our tūpuna whenua in Waitangi. Here also, my tūpuna Hōhepa Kōpiri of Te Āti Awa, who signed Te Tiriti here in Whanganui-a-Tara. There is kōrero in my whānau. Hōhepa Kōpiri was born Joseph Phillips. Yes, a Pākehā, who was whāngai [adopted] by Te Āti Awa and went on to sign Te Tiriti o Waitangi as a rangatira Māori. Here also is Hannah King Hansen—my great, great, great, great grandmother, whose grave is in Kororāreka. Upon her gravestone are inscribed the kupu: "The first European born in Aotearoa." With such whakapapa, it might come as no surprise of my position when it comes to upholding ngā kawenata tapu, ko te Tiriti o Waitangi me te Whakaputanga [the sacred covenants, the Treaty of Waitangi and the Declaration of Independence]. Kei te tautoko mārika ahau i ngā kōrero kua kōrerohia e te whanaunga, ko Hūhana Lyndon. [I wholeheartedly support the statements made by my relative, Hūhana Lyndon.] Every 28 October and 6 February, our hapū hosts the nation at Te Tii Waitangi marae, at Toa Rangatira, where we commemorate the kōrero and the dreams and aspirations of our tūpuna rangatira. In as much as my whakapapa might also suggest a predestined career in politics, my journey here has been quite unconventional. I did go to university after high school, which today sounds normal, but back in the 1980s that was not a common thing for our people. I moved to Palmerston North, Massey University, got my bachelor's degree in chemical technology, and went on to work as an environmental scientist for the next seven years. In 1997, I was awarded one of two Rotary Foundation ambassadorial scholarships to study anywhere in the world. I did my masters in business administration at the Université libre de Bruxelles in Brussels, Belgium. I remained in Belgium for 17 years, working in corporate telecom, initially in IT, moving into strategic programme management, and then later head of talent management. My time at Belgacom was incredible and I was so far from home for so long. And at this stage, I would like to just acknowledge alle mijn vrienden, cher collega's in Belgie nog. Een hartelijk, dikke merci. Ca fait si longtemps depuis qu'on s'est vu, vous me manquez tellement, nom d'une pipe! I met my Danish husband, Christian Hoff-Nielsen, while studying, and together we have four beautiful children: Nikita, Joakim, Jules, and Louie. In 2014, we packed up our lives into six suitcases, left Brussels, and came to Waiheke Island. There, we set up Chris' business, manufacturing, selling, and renting electric bikes. I swapped out my pencil skirts and high heels for bike mechanic apron and steel cap boots. In 2020, the Northland branch of the Green Party found me at Waitangi and asked me to stand as a candidate in that general election. I didn't have a clue about politics at that time, but I did know how to ride a bike. So I did that. From Kawakawa, I crossed to Hokianga, up through Pānguru, Ahipara, Kaitāia, Te Rerenga Wairua, and then back down eventually through State Highway 10 to te Kerikeri, hoki atu back west to Ōmāpere, and this time heading south down through Waipoua to Dargaville, to Ruawai, rolling through Maungatūroto, where they go particularly hundy on billboards in my experience, to Mangawhai, and then back to up through to Waipū. Now it was on that haerenga, āta haere ana, āta 'hakarongo ana, [that trip, going slowly, listening carefully] that I realised that the whenua had a lot more, dare I say, important things to say than many of the people. The whenua was in severe drought, there was little or no topsoil, and it struggled to sustain life. It was the same in our awaawa and our moana: sewage, sedimentation, overfishing, all contributing to the complete and utter degradation of the mauri of our taiao. Of course, with my science background, I could speak to these things as the chemist or the geologist or the ecologist, but I knew the critical element was that deep, deep, knowing that, actually, everything is connected. I stepped out of my husband's business after that. I went instead to wānanga to tune into taiao through tirohanga ao Māori, learning pūkōrero, tuku iho, and maramataka, observing the tohu ki te rangi, ngā tohu mā runga, i te whenua, ngā tohu kei roto i te moana, and the tohu within myself. [I went instead to wānanga to tune into the environment through the Māori world view, learning traditional narratives and lunar calendars, observing the signs in the sky, the signs on the earth, the signs in the ocean, and the signs within myself.] It was in that collective bringing together of the aeons of tūpuna wisdom—and the rangatahi sass—to create that new knowledge that I found hope: in spite of changing climate, in spite of collapsing ecosystems, and in spite of this insane idea that we just need more and more and more stuff. I found hope for our tamariki, I found hope for our mokopuna, and I found hope for our mokomokopuna. It was on this day, 14 February, in 2005, that we buried our dad, Te Wini Murphy Ngakoti Honetana. My mummy, Susan Rena Tana, is here today, as are my tēina, Chevy and Rena. E mihi kau ana ki koutou, e te whānau, me tō tātou tūngāne, ko Murphy. [I unreservedly acknowledge you, my family, and our brother, Murphy.] I bring my dad into the kauwhau today because it was he who taught me that to be Māori means to be ordinary, which is to say that we are just part of the natural fabric of this land. We are no better than the manu, the rākau, the kōhatu me ngā tini a Tangaroa [the birds, the trees, the rocks, and the many descendants of Tangaroa]—and we are certainly not any worse than anyone else, either. My parents taught me never to whakahīhī oneself—you know, to lord yourself over another—never to whakaiti, or demean, another; if anything, to whakaiti, or to humble, oneself and to manaaki, or acknowledge, the majesty in the other. They instilled in me the knowledge that everyone and everything has mauri [vitality], has mana [power], has tapu [sanctity], and that it is indeed that sanctity that must inform the quality of our relationships. My coming to this House is me heeding the karanga, me heeding the call, of Hine Moana rāua ko Papatūānuku [the ocean and the land]. I come here to bring their voices into this Whare, in whatever language each of us members of Parliament can understand. I get the need for economic growth and prosperity, but my inoi [appeal], my tono [request], my wero [challenge] is simply that we do this in ways that regenerate rather than detract from the mauri and that we manaaki our hononga ki te taiao [nurture our relationship to the environment]. Ko te whakapapa tēnā. He tapu tēnā. [That is genealogy. That is sacred.] I also wish to thank those who supported me on my campaign journey to get here today, because, well, Hine Moana and Papatūānuku weren't really eligible to vote. To all of our whānau Kākāriki, my never-ending love—tangata whenua, tangata Tiriti [Māori and all other peoples of Aotearoa], working together since well before 1820, if I go back to my nanny Hannah King Hansen's day. To Rolf and Inge, or, as my mummy calls you these days, my German mum and dad: thank you, thank you, thank you. To our children, I am sad that I'm not home much these days, but, you know, Dad and I gave life to you so that you could live, and Mummy is here to make sure that that life is worth living for you and for all of the children on our planet. Lastly, a final short kōrero, if I may, about relationships. My decision to wear moko kauae came after a big kōrero in our family. As tino European Māori, you know, we had to cover off a lot of ground—didn't really help, either, when there were a lot of people out there talking smack out of ignorance. But anyway, after nearly two years, my Danish husband, he acquiesced, and so we took him back to Waitangi. I recall sitting up when my whanaunga Kaitā had finished, tears bursting forth, my mum and my auntie approaching to hongi me. Kua tae te wā—come the time—for my husband to approach me, he looks and he says, "I don't know if I can kiss that.", to which I replied, "That's OK, I'm sure I can find someone who will—but I give you first dibs." Well, I'm pleased to say it's been many a happy Valentine's Day since then. Every relationship, whānau mā, is a work in progress, and I look forward to working on those right here across this esteemed Whare. Nā reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā rā tātou katoa. [Applause, hongi, and harirū] Waiata—Toro Mai tō Ringa CELIA WADE-BROWN (Green): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Ko Ranginui e tū iho nei, ko Papatūānuku e takoto nei, tēnā kōrua. Te Whare e tū nei, tēnā koe. Taranaki Whānui, Ngāti Toa Rangatira me te iwi o te motu, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa. He tangata Tiriti ahau. [The sky above, the land below, I acknowledge you both. The House that stands here, I acknowledge you. Taranaki Whānui, Ngāti Toa Rangatira and the people of the nation, my thanks and greetings to you all. I am a person of the Treaty.] I'd like to acknowledge current and past leaders in this House, including Georgina Beyer from the Wairarapa. When I made my affirmation, I brought in a pair of kahikatea seedlings. They symbolise many things. In particular, for me, they represent Jeanette Fitzsimons and Rod Donald, our first Green co-leaders in this Parliament, who exemplified by words and action our four principles: ecological wisdom, social justice, appropriate decision-making, and non-violence. Their legacy lives on, and I can assure this House that the Greens, including my sisters, will care for nature, including wetlands and forests, rivers and oceans, birds and bats, eels and frogs, while also working for climate solutions and acting on poverty, ending discrimination, and calling for non-violent answers. Te Taiao underpins our existence. As Simon Upton, Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, said recently, "The economy is a subset of the environment." What whakapapa shaped my belief about the fundamental importance of nature? Well, on my mother Estelle's side, it's North West England for generation after generation, century after century. She was born in 1915 and was named Estelle for the stars that my grandfather saw when he fought on the Western Front. My mother was a physiotherapist, painter, and a keen amateur botanist, and she taught me love for the natural world, despite us living next to the soot of the Paddington main line. That didn't put me off trains, though, and I look forward to working with my colleagues Mike Butterick and Andy Foster and, of course, Kieran McAnulty on bringing trains more often, more on time, to the Wairarapa. On my father Paul's side, recent DNA testing confirmed family stories. My Sephardic Jewish forebears were expelled from Portugal in the 15th century, together with Portuguese Muslims. They became conversos in Northern Italy, and then they left the beautiful Italian lakes for the smog of London in the 19th century. My father, Paul, left school at 14. He fought in Egypt and at Monte Cassino, and after the war, he stayed, for security, with one company until he retired. Immigration policies allowed—after my mother had died—him to join me in Wellington, and family reunification is so important, I will fight for people's rights to bring their families here. I grew up in that London smog, and I'm sure you'll agree that the 1956 vintage is a good one, Mr Speaker. Clean air regulations have now vastly improved people's health, so regulation is essential. Our council flat was a good solution for medium-density urban housing, but it was very basic inside. My grandmother tended the basement coal boiler that provided hot water for all six floors. What made our flat work for a young family? Well, it was having great public facilities nearby; extensive, free libraries, museums, and galleries; and parks and swimming pools, and excellent public transport meant we didn't need a car. Public investment, not austerity, underpins social wellbeing. I attended a State high school in Berkshire, where great teachers instilled a love of science and debate. After school, I went to West Africa, at 18, to work as a laboratory assistant in a girls' school in Ghana. Moving to a country where I knew no one, where weekly letters—remember letters?—were the only communication with my family, was so exciting, and after that gap year, I completed my honours degree in philosophy in Nottingham. Then I worked as a systems engineer at IBM, supporting the first computers into small engineering companies, and making some great friends at IBM, who are here tonight. I've also been a schoolteacher in a low-decile area. My best life decision was to come to Aotearoa New Zealand, working for Databank in Wellington. I'd like to say that the digital economy, including games development and films, is a significant earner for this country, and not every export leaves on a ship or a plane. I enjoyed the very first Island Bay Festival. An open day at Tapu Te Ranga Marae was led by the marvellous late Bruce Stewart, and that welcome—I didn't even know I had to take my shoes off, I was so fresh to New Zealand. That welcome shaped my world view, and I'd like to also acknowledge Sam and June Jackson, Billie Tait-Jones, and many other Māori kaiako for opening my eyes to tikanga, land theft, tino rangatiratanga, and the beauty of weaving, singing, and oratory. In Aotearoa New Zealand, we are justifiably proud of leading universal suffrage in 1893. We should be equally proud of He Whakaputanga and Te Tiriti. I was delighted to be with the whole Green caucus at Waitangi again this month and to experience inspiring Māori leadership, supported by so many tangata Tiriti. There is much conflict in this world: huge inequality within countries as well as wars between countries, and the struggles of indigenous peoples against not only an elite class, the 1 percent, but the huge corporations that dominate our world. I stood in the "no blood for oil" marches, against the Mururoa nuclear testing, and for homosexual law reform. I will stand up for social, environmental, and economic justice. I don't support Israel's attack on Gaza, but I don't support Hamas' terrorism either, and I will continue to bear witness to the Holocaust. Deploring violence can be loud and clear, without being anti-Semitic nor Islamophobic. It was an honour to become a councillor and then mayor of our smart, green capital. Our council led the return of nature to the city, from working with Andy Foster on creating the outer green belt in the 1990s, supporting volunteer conservation groups, and ensuring Zealandia, the first fenced sanctuary, was financially sustainable. I'm still part of the world-leading Predator Free Wellington, bringing back the dawn chorus to this city. Those of you who watch my activities closely know I will not swallow a dead rat; I will feed it to the eels. Predator Free 2050 is a worthy goal I will continue to champion and work on across the House. It deserves sufficient funding, adequate legislation, and, above all, continued active public support. I led this city through the 2013 earthquakes, taking decisive action in increasing earthquake resilience funding and partnerships, and I would like to acknowledge Mayor Foster and Mayor Lester for your part in continuing some of those initiatives. We initiated the robust Tākina conference centre in the heart of the capital, but homeowners, renters, and business need certainty and support over both earthquake resilience and climate adaptation, for buildings across the country, whether they're high-rise city apartments, coastal baches, or red-stickered single-storey shops. Earthquakes and water: I could make my whole maiden speech about the three waters, and I'm sure every other local government graduate could do the same. We spent millions and millions of dollars. We built Moa Point. We funded Omāroro reservoir—35 million litres of drinking water on the city side of the Wellington fault. We investigated cross-contamination, diverted closed landfill run-off, promoted conservation habits, and set targets for leak reduction. Now, I'm sure the 2013 and 2016 earthquakes inflicted significant underground damage, yet we didn't do enough. There must be a serious partnership including iwi, central government, and local government to clean up our urban and rural streams and coastlines, and to provide healthy drinking water, without nitrates, E. coli, nor microplastic contamination. Let more of our awa run free rather than always choosing expensive infrastructure that may not stand up to increasingly frequent extreme storm events. A long view is needed, but with urgent action, funding, and cross-party accords. I salute those farmers who earn a living, feed us, and manage their environmental effects well. People are planting natives, recreating wetlands, managing stock to reduce fertiliser run-off, and controlling introduced predators, including along the Ruamāhanga River. Central Otago has got the world's first zero fossil fuel orchard. Martinborough vineyards create habitat to lure back the kārearea. Modern primary production has got some great champions—we saw some of them yesterday at the lamb event—but nutrient pollution, unswimmable rivers, lack of shelter for farm animals from the blazing sun, and sedimentation of coastal waters killing shellfish all show there's a long way to go. I ask rural communities to remember the 20 years of investment from Jeanette Fitzsimons' establishment of the Sustainable Farming Fund. I'm proud of starting our capital's cycle network—and, yes, my bike is in the basement—including commitment to the Great Harbour Way. We're seeing more and more people choosing to bike, one of the best ways to reduce congestion. I am horrified by this Government's reckless blanket cancellation of so many walking and cycling projects, robbing today's children of their independence and health. We made Wellington this country's first living wage council. As the CTU says, rising profits contribute more than half of the inflationary pressure, while labour costs are less than a third. We need to tackle energy, rents, and transport costs, not drive down wages. And I quote, "For over 70 years, economics has been fixated on GDP … as its primary measure of progress. That fixation has been used to justify extreme inequalities of income and wealth coupled with unprecedented destruction of the living world. For the twenty-first century, a far bigger goal is needed: meeting the human rights of every person within the means of our life-giving planet. And that goal is encapsulated in the concept of the Doughnut."—Kate Raworth, 2017, or, as Jeanette Fitzsimons put it, the politics of enough. I'd like to say that I've always recognised the value and delight of cultural diversity, adding Asian, African, and European events to the city calendar. It was ridiculous to have to fight Waka Kotahi to have the Carmen Rupe traffic lights in Cuba Street or the Kate Sheppard lights nearby. All achievements on Council required teamwork. Ehara taku toa i te taku takitahi, engari taku toa he toa takitini. [My strength is not that of the individual, but is instead the strength of the collective.] After choosing to stand down in 2016, my seven years in the wilderness included walking all 3,000 kilometres of Te Araroa and later cycling Tour Aotearoa. Each journey between Te Rerenga Wairua and Motupōhue taught me about the history, people, and geography of this country. They were quite a good political detox tour, too, so I highly recommend it, James! But now I'm wrenching myself away from our off-grid tiny house next to the Tararua Forest Park and returning to politics. I'd like to acknowledge the parliamentary staff—who are missing their dinner break—whose roles are under threat. Without the mahi of our public servants, our words in this House would be empty echoes. I'd like to thank my husband Alastair—happy Valentine's day, dear—our sons Ramsay and Jono, my dear friends and family—different colours, diverse genders, and various political persuasions—for their love and understanding, their kind support, and their gracious criticism. Thank you to all the Green Party staff, volunteers, and voters for making this the biggest Green caucus ever. Turning to my MP colleagues, I do look forward to working with you on projects, private member's bills, and select committees to make our world and our country a better place for the most vulnerable people, and all the species with which we share our planet. We won't become a smart, green country by 2040 with three-year flip-flops cancelling out each other's policies and Budgets. Look to the Waitangi Tribunal, the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority, and the zero carbon Act to understand how implementing shared values can have a lasting effect. Manaaki whenua, manaaki tangata, haere whakamua. [Care for the land, care for people, and advance.] Let me close with the words of Kīngi Tūheitia, "Be who we are, live our values, speak our reo, care for our mokopuna, our awa, our maunga." Tēnā koutou katoa. Waiata—"E tu Kahikatea" Sitting suspended from 6.21 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.