Thursday, 15 February 2024 - Volume 773 Sitting date: 15 Feb 2024 THURSDAY, 15 FEBRUARY 2024 The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m. KARAKIA/PRAYERS SPEAKER: Almighty God, we give thanks for the blessings which have been bestowed on us. Laying aside all personal interests, we acknowledge the King and pray for guidance in our deliberations that we may conduct the affairs of this House with wisdom, justice, mercy, and humility for the welfare and peace of New Zealand. Amen. BUSINESS STATEMENT Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Leader of the House): Next week, the House will consider legislation under urgency to progress the Government's 100-day plan. Hon member: What a change! Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Busy Government. [Interruption] Ah, well. Legislation to be considered will include the Misuse of Drugs (Pseudoephedrine) Amendment Bill 2024, the Social Security (Benefits Adjustment) and Income Tax (Minimum Family Tax Credit) Amendment Bill, the Land Transport Management (Repeal of Regional Fuel Tax) Amendment Bill, and the Legal Services Amendment Bill. Other Legislation to be included will include the final stages of the Social Workers Registration Legislation Amendment Bill and there will be two maiden statements during the week. Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Labour): Why does the Government deem those bills to warrant missing out on the public's participation through a select committee process? Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Leader of the House): In part because the Government sought a mandate at the election to do those things quickly, and in case it has escaped the notice of the member that mandate was delivered. Hon JAMES SHAW (Co-Leader—Green): I just wanted to ask the Leader of the House about a bill that in Opposition the National Party did ask about quite frequently to see how it was progressing through the House; just to see how the Kermadec Ocean Sanctuary Bill is progressing, because I notice it has been languishing at about 18 or 19 since this Government was elected, and of course it was a matter of some concern to that Party when they were in Opposition. Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Leader of the House): Well, the Kermadec Ocean Sanctuary Bill is at No. 19 on the Order Paper, and when the Government is ready to make moves around it that member will be one of the first to know. PETITIONS, PAPERS, SELECT COMMITTEE REPORTS, AND INTRODUCTION OF BILLS SPEAKER: A petition has been delivered to the Clerk for presentation. CLERK: Petition of the Public Health Association of New Zealand requesting that our House urge Te Whatu Ora to develop and implement a strategy and implementation plan to improve the health and well-being of ethnic minority population groups. SPEAKER: That petition stands referred to the Petitions Committee. I've received the report of the Controller and Auditor-General entitled: Meeting the mental health needs of young New Zealanders. That paper is published under the authority of the House. There are no select committee papers. The Clerk has been informed of the introduction of bills. CLERK: Parole (Mandatory Completion of Rehabilitative Programmes) Amendment Bill introduction. Goods and Services Tax (Removing GST from Food) Amendment Bill introduction. Income Tax (ACC Payments) Amendment Bill introduction. Companies (Address Information) Amendment Bill introduction. Local Electoral (Abolition of the Ratepayer Roll) Amendment Bill introduction. SPEAKER: Those bills are set down for first reading. ORAL QUESTIONS QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS SPEAKER: We come now to oral questions. The first in the name of— Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Deputy Prime Minister): Point of order, Mr Speaker. I'm not too certain whether we've got an organisational or structural problem or some teething problems in your office, but having checked the questions of the House today, I thought there's something drastically wrong, because there are no questions to the Prime Minister. SPEAKER: Well, that's a very interesting point of order. I'm not sure how we remedy it here. We'll have the question of the day in the name of the Hon Carmel Sepuloni. Question No. 1—Child Poverty Reduction 1. Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Labour—Kelston) to the Minister for Child Poverty Reduction: How many more children are forecast to be in poverty as a result of her Government's decision to change the indexing of benefits from wage growth to inflation? Hon NICOLA WILLIS (National) on behalf of the Minister for Child Poverty Reduction: The analysis, which is publicly available and has been tabled in this House, states that preliminary modelling shows indexing main benefits to inflation in isolation as a policy may increase the number of children captured by the after housing costs, fixed-line, and before housing costs, moving-line, measures of child poverty by 7,000, plus or minus, by the year 2028 in the absence of other Government policies and intervention. The Government is, however, making policy changes before 2028, such as tackling the cost of living, delivering tax relief through Back Pocket Boost, and stopping petrol tax hikes that will significantly help New Zealand families with children in modest- to low-income households. It is also our intention to break vicious cycles of welfare dependency that substantially increased under the previous Government that trap children in poverty. Hon Carmel Sepuloni: What advice has she received on how many of the forecast 7,000 extra children in poverty are likely to have a disability or live in a household with a person who has a disability? Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I'm not aware of having received that advice. Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Given that the supplementary analysis report of the indexation bill clearly states the risk of disabled people and people with health conditions being disadvantaged by the change in indexation, does she expect more children and households with disabled parents to have increased poverty? Hon NICOLA WILLIS: On behalf of the Minister, as I said in answer to the primary question, the modelling that the member refers to is in the absence of any other Government policies and interventions. Our Government fully intends to take other policies and interventions, such that we can have confidence that we will be doing more to help children in poverty than that Minister ever managed to achieve. SPEAKER: Just to remind members that when asking supplementary questions, they need to begin with a question word. Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Will the number of children forecast to be in poverty because of her Government's change to indexation increase or decrease as a result of wage-growth figures outstripping inflation in time for this year's 1 April general adjustments to benefits? Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, I think what the member is referring to is the fact that, unfortunately, under the last Government, we had a situation where inflation was outstripping wage growth. What that meant was it not only eroded the purchasing power of New Zealand workers and their families it also meant that the previous administration's wrong-headed changes to the indexing of benefits would have, effectively, meant, actually, that benefits would have reduced by less than they will actually under this Government this year. Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Does she agree with the supplementary analysis report that $670 million in savings the Government will make from changes to benefit indexation will be available to be used for tax cuts, and is this fair on the poorest New Zealanders? Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, that money will actually go into the consolidated account, where it will help pay for schools, where it will help pay for nurses, where it will help ensure we have police on our streets, where it will help ensure we lock up the offenders that they wanted running free. We will ensure that that money—we treat it with much better care than that Government ever did. SPEAKER: Just wait—wait for silence. There was talking during your last question from your own side, which is not very respectful. Hon Carmel Sepuloni: I think it was in support, but thank you, Mr Speaker. Does she agree with the Children's Commissioner that indexing benefits to wage growth was the single biggest step to stop children remaining in poverty; and, if so, why is she reversing these changes? Hon NICOLA WILLIS: No, I disagree because, actually, the single biggest thing we can do is reduce the number of children growing up in benefit-dependent households. And then the second biggest thing we can do is provide those children a decent education by ensuring they're turning up to school and we're teaching them how to read, write, and do maths. These are tasks that the previous Government ignored. They were prepared to see children trapped in cycles of poverty, and this Government is not. Question No. 2—Social Development and Employment 2. Hon MARAMA DAVIDSON (Co-Leader—Green) to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: Does she accept the statement in the Salvation Army's State of the Nation 2024 report that says that "in 2023 for households relying on welfare benefits, income levels continue to fall significantly short of what is needed for some level of participation in society"? Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance): on behalf of the Minister for Social Development and Employment: The answer is no; however, I do agree with the statement in the Salvation Army report that says, "We have a new government that cannot take credit for the positive developments outlined in this report or be blamed for the disturbing developments that have taken place over the last one to three years." Hon Marama Davidson: How can the Government justify generating savings by reducing benefit increases for people already living below the poverty line to pay for tax cuts for the rich? Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, the member may be concerned that she was aligned with a Government that was responsible for delivering some of these outcomes that are also reported in the Salvation Army report. The proportion of children reporting some level of food insecurity rose sharply in 2023, including 40 percent of Pacific households with children, and the number of children in benefit-dependent households increased during 2023, meaning more children are at risk of poverty. Ricardo Menéndez March: Point of order. Before addressing that question, that answer clearly came with a political attack in relation to the member's alignment with the previous Government, and you had just ruled about the need to start the answers by addressing the questions rather than with political attacks. SPEAKER: Well, I heard from my left that it wasn't a political question. I think, essentially, it was. All questions, by their nature, are political, but the question is: what is the intention of it? I didn't think that the response from the Hon Nicola Willis was particularly pernicious. It was a question about reflection. Ricardo Menéndez March: Does she stand by her statement that "It's challenging to live on a benefit at any rate.", and, if so, why did she decide to deliberately make it more challenging by lowering increases to benefits? Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I stand by my statements. Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order. I'm seeking some clarification from your ruling just now in that all questions, by nature, are political. Speakers' rulings are quite clear that it makes the distinction between a general question and one that is political in nature, and if a member asks a question that's political in nature, they can expect a political answer. The converse of that is if they ask a straight question, they should expect a straight answer. I'm concerned that your response goes counter to that, so could you please clarify. SPEAKER: No, I don't think it does. I think it just in many ways clarifies the degree of thinking. Insomuch as we're all elected because of the political system, then anything we do in here has a political nature, but, look, I'll take it under advisement as I have done on other occasions and reflect further on your submission. Ricardo Menéndez March: Does she agree with the statement from the Minister of Finance that "What I'm conscious of and what I want New Zealanders to appreciate is that when our economy is deteriorating, in the way that it has been, that comes with pretty profound human impacts in terms of unemployment.", and, if so, why is she choosing to punish people experiencing unemployment? Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I think the Minister of Finance put that very well, and that is actually why this Government is so determined that for those who can work, we want to support them into work, because that is what lifts their incomes in the long term. We think it is shameful that under a time of declining employment, 69,000 more people went on to the jobseeker benefit under Labour, with 50,000 more children living in benefit-dependent households. That is no way out of poverty. Kahurangi Carter: Supplementary. Rt Hon Winston Peters: Supplementary question. SPEAKER: She beat you by some seconds—I know that's unusual. It's not something I could do. Kahurangi Carter: Thank you. Is she concerned by advice from officials that indexing benefits to inflation rather than wage growth will result in bigger reductions to increases of the supported living payment than to the jobseeker benefit? Hon NICOLA WILLIS: on behalf of the Minister, what I am pleased to see is that we have a Government that is taking action to support incomes and address the cost of living across the board. That includes policies such as the Family Boost policy to provide childcare rebates to families with children in childcare, policies to remove the Auckland regional fuel tax, to stop petrol tax increases, and to ensure the economy is better managed so that there are more opportunities for New Zealanders in all circumstances. Hon James Shaw: Point of order. I know that we are straying into territory that we've visited in the not too distant past, but the question was quite specific, around advice that the Minister had received from officials in relation to a specific Government policy. Now, the Minister referred to a number of other policies but not to the one that was asked. I know that we've had a conversation—saying, you know, that the question was addressed. But, in the past, such as under Speaker Carter, if a question was narrow, then it was fair to expect a response that was relating specifically to the question that was asked. If a question was broader and more political, you could expect a broader and more political response. But if we find ourselves in a situation where members are trying to ask specific questions that are quite narrow in nature in order to elicit a response, and all we get is a general answer that talks about the topic that the question happens to be related to, it somewhat obviates the need for question time at all. SPEAKER: That's very reasonably put. Would the Minister like to expand on the answer given previously. Hon NICOLA WILLIS: On behalf of the Minister, I am simply not aware of the detail of the advice to which the member refers. Rt Hon Winston Peters: Could I ask the Minister whether she is concerned, with respect to the Salvation Army's State of the Nation report and its concerns about poverty, outlined in that report, at how it was the fact that 128,000 immigrants came to New Zealand in the year ended October last year, exacerbating all the conditions that this Government now has to deal with? Hon NICOLA WILLIS: On behalf of the Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister makes a very good point. I recently sat down with the Minister of Immigration and looked at what has happened with immigration in recent years, and what we saw was that despite the rhetoric about highly skilled migrants being targeted, what instead we saw under the last Government's immigration settings was a significant spike in lowly skilled workers at the expense of highly skilled workers. Kahurangi Carter: How does this change support her focus on "getting people who can work into work" when officials have advised that "Beneficiaries that are not able to work will also be impacted by this change but will have no ability to enter work to change their situation."? Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, the member is correct that different groups of beneficiaries are affected in different ways, and some beneficiaries have more options to seek employment than others. It is important that we take steps across all of our policy settings to support New Zealanders, including, for example, ensuring that when they need to access the health system they can do so, ensuring that their children attend schools where they get taught the basics of reading, writing, and maths, and ensuring they live in safer communities and aren't victimised by violent crime at the rates they were under the last Government. Rt Hon Winston Peters: Has the finance Minister received any reports requested by the last Government, and members of that Government, into the effects of 128,000 people coming here in one year flat, and what it would mean for housing, health, access to infrastructure, and, dare I say it, law and order in this country? Has she received any reports of their requests back then, rather than the faux concern they're showing now? Hon Grant Robertson: Point of order. Several points, but the biggest is that the question is not to the Minister of Finance. SPEAKER: Sorry? Hon Grant Robertson: It's not to the Minister of Finance. The question is out of order. Those were the very first words that the questioner said—"To the Minister of Finance"? SPEAKER: Well, because I'm very fair, would the Rt Hon Winston Peters like to address the first part of his question to the appropriate Minister? Rt Hon Winston Peters: Has the Minister received any reports of requests by the previous Government of their officials as to the unheralded impact of 128,000, a record number, coming to New Zealand in just one year, and its impact on housing availability, educational facility availability, infrastructure, and health? Were there any reports requested back then by these people now today showing faux concern in the House? Ricardo Menéndez March: Point of order. The issues the Hon Winston Peters raised are not related to any responsibilities that the Minister for Social Development and Employment has. SPEAKER: When he opens the questions with "Has she seen any reports of", it's in order. Any further questions on this? OK, then we move now to question No. 3, in the name of Nancy Lu. Question No. 3—Finance 3. NANCY LU (National) to the Minister of Finance: What recent reports has she seen on the Crown accounts? Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance): This morning, Treasury released the Government's financial statement for the six months ending 31 December 2023. These show that most of the key fiscal indicators are slightly stronger than expected in the Treasury's half-year forecasts before Christmas. However, saying they are slightly stronger than expected is damning with faint praise. It does not disguise the fact, for example, that the accounts show an increase in core Crown expenses of around 10 percent since the same statement a year ago. Nancy Lu: Do these results change the outlook for the next six months? Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Unfortunately, I don't think they will make the outlook any rosier. Data revisions in recent outturns since the half-year update indicate that the economy is likely to be in a weaker position than understood before Christmas. For example, GDP growth was weaker than expected in the September quarter of last year, contracting 0.3 percent, and growth in the preceding two quarters was revised down. Looking ahead, while business confidence has picked up, a prolonged period of pressure on household budgets means growth is expected to remain weak, and high migration means GDP per capita is expected to continue to decline. Inflation, however, is expected to continue falling, reducing cost of living pressures for New Zealand households. Nancy Lu: What will this outlook mean for the Government's fiscal position? Hon NICOLA WILLIS: We won't know for sure until the Budget update on 30 May. The Half Year Economic and Fiscal Update forecasts before Christmas were for three more years of operating deficits followed by a wafer-thin surplus of $100 million in the 2026-27 financial year. However, a combination of slower than forecast growth and lower than forecast inflation may result in weaker tax revenue, placing further pressure on the pace of fiscal recovery. Put it this way: I think it is highly unlikely that the full set of forecasts in May will deliver any upside surprises. Nancy Lu: When will the Government set out its fiscal objectives? Hon NICOLA WILLIS: The Government is required to set out its long-term objectives for fiscal policy in the annual Budget Policy Statement (BPS). The Budget Policy Statement will also set out the Government's priorities for this year's Budget. The BPS will be released on 27 March. Question No. 4—Finance 4. Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour) to the Minister of Finance: My question—I'll just give the member a breather for a moment—to the Minister of Finance: Does she stand by the commitment in the coalition agreement with ACT to "restore mortgage interest deductibility for rental properties with a 60 percent deduction in 2023/24, 80 percent in 2024/25, and 100 percent in 2025/26"; if so, what is the estimated cost to the Crown of this commitment? Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance): To the first part of the question, I can confirm to the member that that is indeed the wording in the coalition agreement, and that the Government intends to keep its coalition commitments. To the second part, Cabinet has yet to consider the details of this policy and its implementation, so the member will have to wait until it is announced. Hon Grant Robertson: Can she confirm that she has had advice that the cost of adding retrospectivity to the change to interest deductibility is close to $1 billion? Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I can confirm that I have had advice on this issue, and I can confirm that discussions have not yet been had by Cabinet, and I will not be getting ahead of those discussions. Hon Grant Robertson: Can the Minister confirm to the House that adding retrospectivity to the interest deductibility changes will increase the costs to the Crown? Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I can see that the member is getting excited because taxpayers might be getting something back from the Government! He should really wait and see when the policy is announced. Hon Grant Robertson: Is she concerned about the precedent that would be set by giving retrospective tax cuts that have been described by tax experts as "highly unorthodox" and "really very unusual"? Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Mr Speaker, let me tell you about the precedent I'm excited about. I'm excited about the precedent of tax reduction, for the first time in 14 years. The member opposite had six opportunities to do it, and he couldn't bring himself to let New Zealanders keep more of their own money—and this Government will. Hon Grant Robertson: Point of order, then, Mr Speaker. So I understand that the word "precedent" was in the question, but it was the precedent of retrospective tax cuts. The member didn't even go close to addressing that. SPEAKER: Well, OK. Let's do it again. Hon Grant Robertson: The whole thing? SPEAKER: No, no. Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I think what the member is inquiring about is the precedent that would be set by a form of tax reduction. I would refer that— Hon Members: Answer the question! Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Can I just advise members opposite: if they want an answer, I'm very prepared to speak if they're prepared to listen. [Interruption] SPEAKER: That's enough. Hon NICOLA WILLIS: As I answered in answer to the primary question, the details of the application of this policy are yet to be considered by Cabinet. When it comes to precedent on tax policy matters, we are a Government that will be very happy to be setting a precedent of letting New Zealanders keep more of their own money. Hon Grant Robertson: Why is it a priority to give tax cuts to landlords at a time when there is legislation going through the House today that will cut the incomes of the poorest New Zealanders, and push thousands of children into poverty? Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I find it interesting that the member opposite wishes to demonise landlords. If there were no landlords in New Zealand, there would be no tenants. No one would be able to rent a home. Under that Government, I would note, rents went up considerably. Well, we want to be a Government that delivers more housing, that actually achieves more affordable housing, unlike that Government, which colossally failed. Remember the 100,000 KiwiBuild houses? Question No. 5—Local Government 5. DAVID MacLEOD (National—New Plymouth) to the Minister of Local Government: Does he stand by his statement, "The Government will restore council ownership and control of water assets"; if so, what actions has he taken to fulfil this commitment? Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Local Government): Yes. Yesterday, the coalition Government delivered on its promise to repeal the divisive three waters programme that would've taken local decisions away from communities. The vast majority of councils were opposed to Labour's three waters. This Government is delivering on our commitment to restore local council ownership and control of water assets. David MacLeod: Why was it necessary for the Government to repeal the Water Services Entities Act 2022? Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, communities throughout the country made it clear that the previous Government's plans to mandate 10 mega-bureaucracies, taking local control of water assets and prescribing co-governance, was hugely unpopular. We're asking councils to lead the way in developing local solutions to our water services challenges. This includes requiring them to provide water service delivery plans that outline how they will deliver on outcomes for water quality, infrastructure investment, and financial sustainability. David MacLeod: Why is it important for councils and communities to have local ownership and control of water assets? Hon SIMEON BROWN: Because councils know what is needed for their communities when it comes to water infrastructure in their communities, unlike the previous Government, which wanted to mandate— SPEAKER: No, that's enough—that's enough. David MacLeod: What are the next steps in making sure that local water is done well? Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, the Government will be implementing Local Water Done Well through two further bills. The next bill will be passed by the middle of 2024, setting out provisions relating to council service delivery plans and transitional economic regulations. A next bill to provide for the long-term replacement scheme will be introduced in December 2024. Question No. 6—Transport 6. 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 bumps, and lowering speed limits across the city. Tangi Utikere: Has he already determined that the Eastern Busway and the Glenvar Road - East Coast Road adjustment projects "will be prioritised for the remaining funds" of the regional fuel tax, and will he simply continue to just tell Auckland Council which projects it will now fund? Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, the mayor and myself have sat down with each other and discussed what the priority projects should be from the remaining funds: the Eastern Busway, City Rail Link trains and stabling, and local roading improvements—that's what we're going to make sure those remaining funds are spent on. Tangi Utikere: What other local projects are on his list to tell Auckland Council what they will be funding as a priority, and has he told Auckland Council of this yet? Hon SIMEON BROWN: We sat down and had a conversation around what the priority projects are: Eastern Busway, City Rail Link trains and stabling, and local roading improvements—that's what we're going to require those remaining funds to be spent on. What we're not going to be charging Aucklanders 11.5c per litre more on is to build speed bumps. If that's what that member wants to do, you go tell Aucklanders to go and ask them for more money to build speed bumps. Tangi Utikere: Does he agree with the Prime Minister: "Our fundamental belief is localism and devolution. We do not believe in centralisation and control through Wellington."; and if so, why is he dictating to Auckland Council what they will and won't build? Hon SIMEON BROWN: I always agree with the Prime Minister, and we will be making sure that the remaining funds go on the priority projects which Auckland Council and the mayor has identified around what are the priority projects for the remaining funds, which is the Eastern Busway, City Rail Link, and local roading projects. But if the Labour Party wants to go to Auckland and tell Aucklanders they need to pay more money for speed bumps, I wish you luck. SPEAKER: The last part of that question was just unnecessarily provocative on what is otherwise quite a productive House. Rt Hon Winston Peters: Point of order. Sir, you might talk about an unproductive House, but the reality is, if over there they don't like the answer, then not just one or two people were heckling, which was understood to be the precedence in this House, but about seven, eight, or 10 are shouting at the same time. That represents disorder extremely, and they should be told to behave themselves. SPEAKER: Thanks very much. Hon Grant Robertson: Speaking to the point of order, Mr Speaker. SPEAKER: No, don't need any help on that one—I don't need any further guidance on that one. Tangi Utikere. Tangi Utikere: Another supplementary? SPEAKER: I beg your pardon? Tangi Utikere: Extra supplementary? SPEAKER: Oh no. Well, I didn't know, but thanks for self-reporting! Question No. 6— Tangi Utikere: No, no, I have one—I have one. Well, then, does he agree with Wayne Brown: "A negotiation isn't telling me what happens. I'm not a supine thing you walk over"? Hon SIMEON BROWN: The Government has made it clear we will be ensuring the funds that are remaining will go to the priority projects which the mayor and I have discussed, which is the Eastern Busway, the City Rail Link trains and stabling, and local road improvements. As I said, if the Labour Party wants to ask Aucklanders for more money to build speed bumps, get on your bike and enjoy yourselves. SPEAKER: And that's why the House gets a bit rowdy at times. Question No. 6—Laura Trask. Laura Trask: I think it might be question No. 7, but thank you, Mr Speaker. SPEAKER: Oh, seven, sorry—you're quite right. Question No. 7—Children 7. LAURA TRASK (ACT) to the Minister for Children: What are her priorities for the Children's portfolio? Hon KAREN CHHOUR (Minister for Children): My goal is to ensure that Oranga Tamariki is truly a child-centric care and protection agency, where the safety and wellbeing and the best interests of children are at the forefront of social work practice and decision making. One way I intend to do this is by repealing section 7AA of the Oranga Tamariki Act. This section places duties on the chief executive that are at odds with the agency's primary purpose, which is to support the wellbeing of our most vulnerable at-risk children. Where Oranga Tamariki has entered into strategic partnerships under section 7AA, I have directed them to continue with these where they are delivering positive results. Laura Trask: What other priorities does the Minister have? Hon KAREN CHHOUR: I want to see real change in how caregivers are treated and supported. In Opposition, I heard many stories about how caregivers couldn't make everyday decisions about the children in their care, like sending them to a school camp or even enrolling them in school or with a GP. In one case a caregiver had paid for counselling that was desperately needed for a child—they paid for it themselves so they didn't have to wait months and months—only to be told that this would have to stop as it had not been approved by Oranga Tamariki. I am also focused on cracking down on serious youth offending and on deterring young people from a life of crime and equipping them with the tools they need to turn their lives around. Laura Trask: What feedback has the Minister received from the sector about these priorities? Hon KAREN CHHOUR: I have been travelling all around the country visiting Oranga Tamariki site offices and residences and meeting with strategic partners, including Auckland, Lower Hutt, Hawke's Bay, Christchurch, Whangārei, Kaitāia, and Palmerston North. The feedback I have received about my vision and priorities for Oranga Tamariki has been overwhelmingly positive. When people have heard about this Government's plans beyond what they may get from the media or from some members on the other side of the House, people appreciate and understand that Oranga Tamariki needs to get back to its core purpose of keeping young people safe and making sure they are cared and loved for. Iwi and Māori strategic partners have also responded positively when I have met with them and talked about continuing to work in partnership with Oranga Tamariki. This matches with my vision to devolve decision making and accountability back to the communities who are best placed to know what their young people need to live a safe, fulfilling life. Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Given the views of the Minister that young people— Rt Hon Winston Peters: What's the phone for? Hon Dr Duncan Webb: —need to be "cared and loved for"— Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can't write your own questions? Hon Dr Duncan Webb: —and the six recommendations— Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can't think of your own questions? Hon Dr Duncan Webb: —of the Auditor-General in respect of Oranga Tamariki in respect of mental health— Rt Hon Winston Peters: Good God! Look at this. SPEAKER: Well, I'll tell you what, we're going to stop, sorry—quite apart from the chipping—and start with a question word. Hon Dr Duncan Webb: How—[Interruption] SPEAKER: That's enough—that's enough. Hon Dr Duncan Webb: How does the Minister's priorities meet the needs of young people for a caring and loving environment, given the six recommendations of the Auditor-General in respect of Oranga Tamariki and the lack of evidence that boot camps have any assistance in that regard, whatsoever? Hon KAREN CHHOUR: I will never apologise for adding more tools and skills to our young people so that they can cope when they come out of these facilities and have a better chance at life. Laura Trask: What feedback has the Minister received from children about her priorities? Hon KAREN CHHOUR: Just last week, I visited a youth justice residence. I had received feedback about a young person there who had heard about our plans to establish military academies. He was very excited about this and said he would be very excited to take part in something like this. This is just one example of the positive feedback I've received not just from social workers and iwi and Māori partners but also from children and young people. They are the ultimate reason I am here, in this privileged position, to be able to be able to make their lives better so they can not just survive but thrive. Question No. 8—Education 8. CARL BATES (National—Whanganui) to the Minister of Education: What reports has she seen about the introduction of the policy to remove the distraction of cellphones at school? Hon ERICA STANFORD (Minister of Education): There have now been multiple media reports of the positive changes seen in schools since this policy was introduced. A Wellington student was quoted as saying that by having her phone off and in her bag, she was already paying more attention to school notices and concentrating better in lessons without her phone distracting her. This is exactly why this Government has removed the distraction of phones from schools. Carl Bates: What feedback has the Minister seen from principals about the policy to remove the distraction of cellphones from schools? Hon ERICA STANFORD: An Otago principal said that their teachers support the ban, as the removal of phones helps students engage better with their learning. And a principal from Central Hawke's Bay also reported that students have responded well to the change in policy and are engaging and interacting more face to face. Carl Bates: [Springs energetically to feet] Hon Members: Gee whiz! Careful! [Laughter] Carl Bates: What feedback has the Speaker seen from the—sorry, what feedback has the Minister seen—[Interruption] SPEAKER: Hang on. Just a minute. A question is being asked, so you get a little bit of silence. You can start again. Carl Bates: Thank you, Mr Speaker. What feedback has the Minister seen from the public about the cellphone policy? Hon ERICA STANFORD: I have received multiple correspondence from the public supporting the policy, saying that it's about time and it's a no-brainer, and in an interview with The Northern Advocate, a Kaitāia mother said, "They're there to learn. As a parent, I think it's really good. They've actually got to interact more." Carl Bates: What other feedback has the Minister received about the cellphone policy? Hon ERICA STANFORD: A Wellington year 9 dean said she has seen no cellphones in class at all or walking around during school on duty. She noticed students engaging in game playing, like cards, and said that the librarians have been thrilled with the number of books students are taking out and have noticed students are reading in the library much more than last year. We are pleased with the implementation of the Government's policy, and it's been warmly welcomed by principals and teachers and is having a positive impact on students. Hon Member: Leap, leap. Rt Hon Winston Peters: It pays to be athletic! [Laughter] Can I ask the Minister as to whether she's been told that this ban on phones in schools by school children has been so successful that the Queensland State Labour Party Government in Australia has now adopted it as well? Hon ERICA STANFORD: I am hearing reports about Australian states picking up this policy, like many other countries are around the world, and I look forward to speaking more positively about it in the future as more data and evidence comes to light as to the success of the policy. Hon Ginny Andersen: Why, thank you, Mr Speaker. What is the benefit of banning cellphones from classrooms at Wainuiomata High School now that their rebuild has been cancelled by the Government and there won't be enough classrooms for the growing number of students? Hon ERICA STANFORD: Speaking to the question and, also, as it relates to the primary, the cellphone ban for Wainuiomata will have similar impacts to every other school that I'm hearing from in that students are interacting more with each other, focusing on their learning, not getting distracted, and very soon, we are going to have evidence and data to show that this policy is working. Question No. 9—RMA Reform 9. Hon JAMES SHAW (Co-Leader—Green) to the Minister responsible for RMA Reform: Does he have confidence that the proposed approach to fast-track consenting will protect due process for the consideration of environmental effects? Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform): Yes. Hon James Shaw: Will he rule out including any projects that have already been considered and declined on environmental grounds, such as the Hananui open ocean salmon farm? Hon CHRIS BISHOP: No. Hon James Shaw: Is he aware that when the panel declined the Hananui salmon farm, they found that there was a risk that even a small change in their population could have "irreversible and catastrophic effects" on the survival of critically endangered hoiho, yellow-eyed penguin, in the area? Hon CHRIS BISHOP: I haven't read the decision of the panel in relation to that particular project, but what I would say in a more general sense is that it is possible to have environmental conditions proposed on projects that mitigate and remedy the environmental effects of a variety of projects, including, for example, renewable energy projects that will help decarbonise the economy and grow the economy at the same time, and I would have thought the member would be in favour of such projects. Hon James Shaw: If a project that has been previously declined on environmental grounds by an independent panel is authorised by this legislation and then leads to the functional extinction of a species like the hoiho, yellow-eyed penguin, will that Minister take responsibility? Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, the member is asking hypothetical questions. I just haven't ruled out the premise of his original question. Decisions around the precise pathway for projects that will be referred are the subject of discussions right now, as we work through the process of getting the bill ready for introduction within the hundred days. And once the bill is ready to go and it's gone through Cabinet and presented to the House, he'll have a good chance to have a look at it, as will a select committee. Hon James Shaw: Can he confirm the Hon Shane Jones' comments to an energy breakfast this morning that under the new regime, "Permits will be granted by politicians,"? Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Yes, in the sense that Ministers will be able to refer projects. There will be two pathways. One will be there will be a range of projects listed in the legislation, and then the second pathway will be, upon application to the Government, Ministers will be able to refer projects to an expert consenting panel. This is not new, by the way, because the COVID fast-track legislation also listed projects in the legislation and also set up a process for Ministers to refer projects to an expert consenting panel. So this is not particularly new; this is the existing law. So, in that sense, Ministers will be able to refer projects to panels who will then set the conditions upon which those projects will take place. Hon James Shaw: Will he now seek assurances that all Ministers are fully meeting their conflict of interest disclosure obligations under the Cabinet Manual, as he described yesterday in relation to decision making on potential projects; and, if so, will he also commit to ensuring that no listed projects are connected to people or companies that have made substantial donations to coalition parties? Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, matters for the Cabinet Manual, as the member well knows, are matters for the Prime Minister, but I think I would be right in saying that the Prime Minister expects all Ministers to uphold the principles and the text of the Cabinet Manual. Rt Hon Winston Peters: Point of order, Speaker. That question might have sounded innocent, but, like the others that that Minister has asked, insinuating that there should be, and the Minister should be looking out for, a conflict of interest that is outside our electorate laws is, I think, out of order. More importantly, if I hear that one more time, we're going to talk about people's qualifications at university. Hon James Shaw: Speaking to the point of order, Mr Speaker—[Interruption]—speaking to the point of order, Mr Speaker—whilst methinks that the Acting Prime Minister does protest too much— SPEAKER: Well, that's irrelevant. What is your point? Hon James Shaw: My point is I made no such insinuation. I was merely asking the Minister if he was going to ensure, as part of the process of putting together the bill, that there were steps being taken on due diligence to potential or perceived connections— SPEAKER: Yep—we heard the question. Hon James Shaw: —sorry, I haven't—because of the significant concentration of ministerial power on consenting decisions in this regime. And it is one of the first duties of this House to ensure that the executive is being accountable for their actions, and, in this case, there is extraordinary concentration of ministerial power in this bill. So I think it does warrant the House's attention on issues like, is the Cabinet Manual being observed? SPEAKER: And you've got an answer that I think was more than satisfactory from the Minister. Hon James Shaw: That's true, but the Deputy Prime Minister raises— SPEAKER: No; that's irrelevant. There's no acceptance, one way or the other. Question No. 10—Māori Development CUSHLA TANGAERE-MANUEL (Labour—Ikaroa-Rāwhiti): Tēnā koe e te Māngai o te Whare. Ko tēnei taku tūnga tuatahi i roto i tēnei Whare o tātou, nā reira me mihi atu ki a koe ka tika. Kei te mihi hoki au ki ngā whānau whānui e noho tonu ana i raro i ngā uauatanga o Cyclone Gabrielle kotahi tau ki muri. Ko taku pātai ki te Minita take Māori. [Thank you to the Speaker. This is my first time standing in this House of ours, so it is appropriate to acknowledge you. I would also like to acknowledge the wider families that continue to live under the difficulties of Cyclone Gabrielle one year ago. My question is to the Minister of Māori affairs.] Does he stand by his statement, "What we're really focused on is delivering outcomes and working with communities"— SPEAKER: I'd just ask the member—you cannot stand up and say anything during question time when you're asking a question other than what is written on the sheet. So I'd ask the member to start again. 10. CUSHLA TANGAERE-MANUEL (Labour—Ikaroa-Rāwhiti) to the Minister for Māori Development: Does he stand by his statement, "What we're really focused on is delivering outcomes and working with communities—Iwi communities, Māori communities and others—to make the changes to the inequalities we see on a daily basis"? Hon TAMA POTAKA (Minister for Māori Development): Āna, I do stand by my statement, and our Government deeply cares about inequalities of opportunity that many communities in New Zealand are facing, particularly Māori communities, around housing, health, and education. That's why our view is that the devolution of resources is generally better to achieve equalities of opportunity, such as the recent funding announcement by the superlative Minita Matua tākuta Shane Reti to help with child immunisation rates. Cushla Tangaere-Manuel: What is the Minister doing to support whānau and owners of whenua Māori in Tairāwhiti and Kahungunu one year after Cyclone Gabrielle? Hon TAMA POTAKA: Over the last couple of months, Ministers including myself have visited Te Tairāwhiti and throughout Te Matau-a-Māui to understand some of the challenges that those whānau are facing. There's also some provision of funding, both in mainstream and kaupapa Māori pathway funding, to assist with those communities, and we continue to look at how we can use that. Cushla Tangaere-Manuel: Was he advised prior to the recent $63 million boost funding for Hawke's Bay and Tairāwhiti announced by Minister Mitchell, and if so, did he relay any concern regarding the lack of any support for Māori and whenua Māori? Hon TAMA POTAKA: Ministers including myself are in regular communications with one another about the efforts made to try and help those people who have gone through difficult weather events over the last year or so. As a result, I continue to work with and engage with those Ministers responsible for the kaupapa Māori pathway to support Māori land that has been—[Interruption] SPEAKER: No, no, you answer the one question that's asked appropriately. Hon TAMA POTAKA: I continue to work with Ministers in that regard. Question No. 11—Building and Construction 11. TOM RUTHERFORD (National—Bay of Plenty) to the Minister for Building and Construction: What reports has he seen on the cost of building in New Zealand? Hon CHRIS PENK (Minister for Building and Construction): I thank the member for the question. The latest inflation data from Stats New Zealand shows that the price of building a new house has increased by 41 percent as compared with 2019 prices. This massive increase in the cost of building over the last four years has made housing even more unaffordable for Kiwi families. Tom Rutherford: Are building costs higher or lower in New Zealand than other countries? Hon CHRIS PENK: Analysis shows that building costs are generally higher in New Zealand than in comparable overseas jurisdictions. In Australia, for example, the cost of building a stand-alone house is some 50—five-zero—percent higher in New Zealand. Clearly this is not good enough, and we're working to resolve that problem. Tom Rutherford: What impact do high construction costs have on New Zealanders? Hon CHRIS PENK: Another great question—I couldn't have written it better myself. Not only do high building costs make it harder for families trying to purchase their first home but they also have far-reaching economic and social consequences, such as higher mortgage repayment costs, higher rents, and increased demand for social housing. Tom Rutherford: Does the Government have any plans to change this? Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Does the Government have any plans? Hon CHRIS PENK: Yes, we certainly do—we certainly do. I'm pleased to inform all members that we most certainly do have plans in this regard. For example, our coalition agreement with our New Zealand First friends sets out that this Government will amend the Building Act to make it easier to build granny flats—smaller structures, up to 60 square metres—and, in addition, our coalition agreement with the ACT Party also states that the Government will explore allowing builders to opt out of needing a building consent, provided they have long-term insurance for the building work. So, again, we will explore that. Tom Rutherford: What else is the Government doing? Hon CHRIS PENK: Another good question. The Government is focused on slowing the rise of construction costs so that we can make it more affordable to build a home. Kiwis pay too much for building materials, for example, and ensuring more high-quality building products are approved for use in building sites across the country will increase competition, lower building material costs, and support our resilience in the event of supply chain disruption. Question No. 12—Mental Health 12. INGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri) to the Minister for Mental Health: Does he stand by his statement, "under this Government, mental health will be a priority"; if so, what actions, if any, has he taken to make mental health a priority? Hon MATT DOOCEY (Minister for Mental Health): In answer to the first part of the member's question, yes, in the context of the full quote of establishing a mental health strategy within the Pae Ora legislation for the first time, where I said, "Why not have a strategy on X or Y or Z? Yeah, I agree. It comes down to priorities, and under this Government mental health will be a priority. That's why we're legislating it as one of the strategies under the Pae Ora health reforms." In answer to the second part: establishing the role of New Zealand's first mental health Minister, which now includes the responsibility of the almost $2.5 billion of ring-fenced mental health and addiction funding. Ingrid Leary: Is the Minister's answer that in 80 days, the only real action he has taken as the Minister for Mental Health is to support his former member's bill? Hon MATT DOOCEY: I've enjoyed working with mental health professional bodies to grow the pipeline of mental health professionals, and I look forward to making announcements about this in due course. Ingrid Leary: Has he set a target to reduce mental health specialist wait times, and can he assure lower South Islanders they won't have to wait longer for mental health specialist services than those elsewhere? Hon MATT DOOCEY: Well, I won't be lectured by that member when today we published a report in the House from the Auditor-General that says more young people are waiting longer for specialist services when they came into Government—shame on them. SPEAKER: Yeah, that's good—that's good, but the question was about now, so could the Minister have another crack at addressing that. Hon MATT DOOCEY: I've been reviewing the mental health Budget announcements of the last Government to identify underspend so I can get the money out of Wellington to the front line to address waiting times, and I look forward to making announcements about that in due course. Ingrid Leary: Does he stand by his statement that being Minister for Mental Health is "also a role of advocacy where I can go to those Ministers and say, you know, 'What are we doing in this space and can we do better?' ", and, if so, what projects has he advocated for in the Government's first hundred days? Hon MATT DOOCEY: I've been working with other Government departments to develop a cross-Government approach to mental health, and I look forward to making announcements about that cross-Government approach in due course. Ingrid Leary: What recent reports has he seen on the link between mental health and financial stress, and has he asked the Minister for social development to reverse her decision to index benefits in line with inflation, which will push more New Zealanders into poverty? SPEAKER: That really wasn't a question, but anyway. Hon MATT DOOCEY: Well, yeah, the report I have seen, sadly, is the one published today in the House at 2 o'clock from the Auditor-General, after I wrote to him in April 2022 because of the promised funding the last Government announced yet it made no material difference. The report findings are clear: things have got worse, there's no workforce plan, and, basically, they failed in mental health. POINTS OF ORDER Oral Questions—Prefacing of Questions Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Labour): Point of order, Mr Speaker. Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I thought it best that I wait until oral questions had concluded before I raised this point. Earlier, the MP for Ikaroa-Rāwhiti took the opportunity, as local MP and spokesperson for cyclone recovery, on this, the day after the one-year anniversary of Cyclone Gabrielle, to acknowledge those that have been impacted. Your ruling was that no member should say something before they ask the question. That's fine, although I would ask that you reflect on other occasions, most notably yesterday when you were wished a happy Valentine's Day and the same warning was not given. We just ask for some consistency and perhaps some reflection on it. SPEAKER: Well, I did comment on the greeting that was sent my way, and I think the comment I made somewhat sunk in that it was inappropriate. Consistency, I agree, but the statement today was somewhat lengthy, and it was only on that basis that I spoke. It was also the member's first time asking a question, I think, so that's another aspect to it. HOUSE IN COMMITTEE CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Members, the House is in committee on the Social Workers Registration Legislation Amendment Bill and the Social Security (Benefits Adjustment) and Income Tax (Minimum Family Tax Credit) Amendment Bill. SOCIAL WORKERS REGISTRATION LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL In Committee Clause 1 Title CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): We come first to the Social Workers Registration Legislation Amendment Bill. Members, we come first to clause 1. This is the debate on clause 1 Title. The question is that clause 1 stand part. Hon MELISSA LEE (Minister for Economic Development): It might actually help if I set a little bit of background on this particular bill. The Social Workers Registration Act 2003 sets out occupational regulations for social workers. These regulations ensure the safety of members of the public by ensuring that social workers are competent to practice and are held accountable, while also enhancing the professionalism of social workers. Since 2021, the Social Workers Registration Act 2003—the Act—has required all social workers to register with the Social Workers Registration Board (SWRB). To be eligible for registration, applicants must have a prescribed qualification recognised by the SWRB. Section 13 of the Act provides an additional registration pathway for people with extensive practical experience but without the prescribed qualification—the experience pathway. For the experience pathway, instead of demonstrating their competence by having a prescribed qualification, applicants must satisfy the SWRB of their competence based on their significant practical experience. Both pathways require an initial competency assessment and a fit and proper person test once registered. Further assurance is provided by the accountability and oversight mechanisms that come with the registration. This particular bill, basically, is a very small amendment to actually extend—there was an extension made where the registration could take people four years to register, but, in hindsight, with the social worker sector facing a significant workforce shortage, with an estimated 700 unfilled vacancies and growing demand for social work services due to the impact of COVID-19 and Cyclone Gabrielle, and also the number of students enrolled in social worker qualifications declining, It has been reviewed and looked at to shorten the period. Having said that, as long as the people who are registering do, in fact, register before the deadline, their registration process will continue to happen. I look forward to the contributions of the members in the Chamber. Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Labour—Kelston): I'm really glad that the Minister mentioned the amendment that they're putting up. Can I make it very clear that we are supporting the bill overall; in fact, it started whilst we were still in Government and it is a good piece of legislation and it is the right thing to do. Just as context for those that are new to the House—because it is important to know, when we're considering a bill like this—previously it was not mandatory for social workers to be registered. We had many people across the country who were calling themselves social workers. The expectation from the public was that these were professionals and they were qualified, but that wasn't always the case. The expectation from the social work workforce is that we would take them seriously and professionalise that workforce by making registration mandatory. We did that, and now there is an amendment here. What this bill does— CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Can I—just for the purposes of the exercise, there are parts that we're taking, so we're actually talking to clause 1, which is the— Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: I'm going to speak to what the Minister spoke about, which is the amendment that she's put forward. CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Yeah, but if we're not taking it as one debate, it would be really good if we could talk about the title in this part, and then we can get to the part that actually starts talking about the amendment. So I know it has been broadened out a little bit, and given that you're the first speaker let's just sort of give a little bit of leeway here, seeing as you've started. But, for the committee, it would be really good if we're taking this in clauses, let's go clause by clause. Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: OK. Point of order, Madam Chair. Just to clarify: because the Minister went broad, I've come in broad, and you're OK with me to continue? CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I've opened that up for you to finish your speech. Yes, thank you. Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: OK, great, thank you. So what this bill, effectively, does is provides that pathway for people to become registered through their experience—well, we already were doing that, but to extend that pathway. The issue is, as the Minister has said, that we do not have enough social workers, that there are a number of people who haven't quite finished the qualifications or become registered yet. The issue that will come up over the course of this debate is the Government's decision to put up an amendment to reduce the time frame for them to be able to access that experience pathway from four years to two years. Why I'm concerned about this—and it will be discussed, I'm sure, in more detail across the course of this committee stage—is that the social workers association themselves have written not only to me this week but also to the Minister for social development, to make it clear to her that, actually, their intention is not for it to be reduced to two years. Now, there has been confusion and we need to put on record how that confusion came about, which led to the Government putting up this amendment that I'm hoping that they will actually retract, given the advice we're getting from the professional workforce that is out there. The association did make it clear to the Minister and myself that there was a submission made to select committee by their former chief executive, who had asked that the period of time for getting that access to the experience pathway be reduced from four years to two years, but they themselves have said that they didn't actually all agree as an association. Nor did the Tangata Whenua Social Workers Association agree with that. In fact, they tried to pull their submission so that it would remain a four-year extension and not be reduced to a two-year extension; however, it wasn't withdrawn and that submission went through select committee. So they have written to the Minister to make the point that they want it to remain as it was, at four years. They do not want this amendment to go ahead. I want to make the point because I was hoping that the Minister for social development would have received that correspondence and rethought putting this amendment up in the debate. Either she didn't receive it, it hasn't been brought to her attention, or she is choosing to ignore the professional social work workforce associations here with regards to their recommendation. It is important that we put this on record so that we're clear why we, on this side of the House, will not be supporting the amendment, even though we are completely in support of the legislation and we very genuinely ask the Government to reconsider that amendment—in fact, just withdraw the amendment, and then the legislation, as far as we are concerned, is absolutely fine. I also just need to make the point before I sit down that the two population groups, in terms of the social workers, that would be most effected by reducing that time from four years to two years would actually be Māori and Pacific who have been working within their community and iwi organisations, haven't yet finished their qualifications or their registration and are going to be denied the four years to actually get up to speed and get that registration that we need them to get. Thank you, Madam Chair. CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Thank you. I call Ricardo Menéndez March and I just reiterate to the committee, if we could work through the clause that we're currently on, we'll allow plenty of time to have the debate on the relevant clauses. So could we stick to the title clause in the beginning, please. RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): Thank you, Madam Chair. In relationship to the title—the Social Workers Registration Legislation Amendment Bill—and, I guess, to the theme of the title, I wanted to ask whether the Minister, in the passage of this bill, and, particularly—I know we're going to talk about the amendment later, so I don't want to relitigate the amendment—on the broader issue of social worker registration, whether she has sought any subsequent advice, just more broadly, on the impact that this bill will have and any subsequent actions that she may need to take to ensure that those traditional registration pathways outside of the experienced pathway are being able to be scaled up as a result of what this bill is proposing. This felt like one of the best places to potentially ask this question. So it's in relation to whether she acknowledges, along with whether it's a two-year or four-year date, that the broader issue is about whether the Social Workers Registration Legislation Act is able to keep up with the demand that we have for social workers. Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Thank you, Madam Chair. Just speaking to the title, I'm just really wondering—I've always been a bit perplexed as to how titles are landed. As I understand it, it's usually the Parliamentary Counsel Office that comes up with it. Most amendment bills will give you—because there can be many amendment bills in respect of one piece of legislation. This bill has a very clear and short purpose: that extension of time for the experienced pathway. I guess, in terms of the title, it might be better actually to have some descriptor in there to distinguish it from other amendment bills. Of course, having heard Carmel Sepuloni speak, it may well be that if the Amendment Paper isn't withdrawn, we'll need another amendment bill a bit later on to extend it further. So I'm really just asking whether that title shouldn't be a little more descriptive of the fact that it's a Social Workers Registration Legislation Amendment Bill in respect of the experienced pathway. Would that perhaps be a better title for the bill? Clause 1 agreed to. Clause 2 Commencement CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Members, we now come to clause 2. Clause 2 is the debate on commencement. The question is that clause 2 stand part. Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Point of order, Madam Chair. Sorry, just checking through my Amendment Paper, is this what the amendment by the Minister is addressing, or is this the next section? CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): It's clause 4. Hon Carmel Sepuloni: OK, thank you. Just clarifying so I don't miss something important. Clause 2 agreed to. Clause 3 Principal Act CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): We now come to clause 3, and this is the debate on the principal Act. So the question is that clause 3 stand part. Clause 3 agreed to. Clause 4 Section 2 amended (Commencement) CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Members, we now come to clause 4. This is the debate on clause 4, "Section 2 amended (Commencement)". The question is that clause 4 stand part. RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): Thank you, Madam Chair. So, as it stands, we've got a four-year extension of the ability for people to enter through the experience pathway, and as it has been noted through submissions and the explanatory note, this experience pathway has been critical in bolstering the workforce, particularly for Māori and Pasifika social workers. And, for example, as I've mentioned in previous contributions, it also enables people who have experience in navigating systems that they may not be able to get experience from throughout a degree. So, I guess, I'll try to get her to address one of the questions I met earlier, which is whether she sought any advice around what else you may need to do to bolster the workforce as that four-year period comes to an end. And then I'm really keen to get an understanding around the rationale of potential change—well, changes—that she's wanting to make to reduce that to two years, (a) because that, as the Hon Carmel Sepuloni noted, is not something that professional bodies want, and, additionally, because, as has been canvassed before, without any further action to bolster the ability to take more social workers to those other pathways, we could end up with a situation where the needs of many of our community members are simply not being met. And that is a reality that many people experience. So I'm just really concerned about what seems to me a premature move to close those experience pathways from four to two years and, beyond that, just the rationale in there responding to the professional bodies and what she thinks the impact may be in terms of the ability to enable social workers to be recruited at a rate that serves the needs of our communities and in a way that helps diversify the workforce. Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Labour—Kelston): With regard to the amendment to two years, we're not going to be able to support that. I do want to put on record the correspondence that both the Minister and I have received from the Aotearoa New Zealand Association of Social Workers regarding this matter. It is important that the committee is aware so that, when we vote on this particular amendment, we do that equipped with the information from the professional body. Directly from the Aotearoa New Zealand Association of Social Workers, we've heard in the past week, via email—myself and the Minister for Social Development and Employment—that their previous chief executive prepared and presented a submission to the select committee arguing for a two-year extension to the S13 experienced pathway to social work, rather than the four years, as agreed by their other sector partners. I quote: "I did try to have our submission removed and adjusted from the select committee process, but the email did not get passed on to the appropriate people. I did not follow it up, which is unfortunate. I have been in touch with Miriama Scott from the Tangata Whenua Social Workers Association to affirm our collective position of supporting the extension of four years to 27 February 2028. The Aotearoa New Zealand Association of Social Workers supports the sector position that an extension of four years provides time for the Social Workers Registration Board, alongside the Ministry of Social Development and the sector, to consider the longer-term options for entry into social work, which is in crucial need. The Aotearoa New Zealand Association of Social Workers supports the training of more social workers, which includes alternative pathways, and for more culturally appropriate training to occur. We are very concerned with the low numbers of Māori and Pasifika social workers in the sector and note that there are many working with whānau, hapū, and iwi and in marae who would benefit from these alternative pathways to acknowledge their mahi and years of experience. We also acknowledge the skills and knowledge they bring to the sector and that many will, in time, engage in social work education programmes." The letter ends with: "Minister, please accept my humble apologies for any confusion the Aotearoa New Zealand Association of Social Workers' submission had caused with this very important kaupapa." So this is a last-minute plea from the Aotearoa New Zealand Association of Social Workers and from the Tangata Whenua Social Workers Association to actually stick to the four-year time frame. They have made very clear that an unfortunate mistake was made in their submission that they tried to retract but were unable to, and they wanted to put this on record so that we could, basically, stop the amendment to this legislation. Apart from the amendment, the legislation itself, as it stands, I think is supported across the House. It is the right and fair thing to do. It is good for social workers in general, but actually crucial for Aotearoa, because we need to give time for people to take up this experienced pathway. We do have a shortage of social workers. What we don't want to do is reduce that time and actually end up in a position where we have less-qualified registered Māori and Pacific social workers. I'm sure everyone in this House would agree that we need more Māori and Pacific social workers as well. So I would ask the Minister to reconsider that amendment. In fact, I would ask the Minister to withdraw that amendment. I'd like to hear from the Minister her thoughts on the submission that has been made by email this week from the Aotearoa New Zealand Association of Social Workers. If the Minister is not going to withdraw the amendment, I really want to hear from the Minister why that is the case, given that such a credible and informed submission has been made on this particular point. If the Minister is going to withdraw the amendment, I'd also like to hear from the Minister, because, of course, I'd like to hear her thought process and I want it confirmed that they're not going to go ahead with the reduction from four years to two years. MARIAMENO KAPA-KINGI (Te Pāti Māori —Te Tai Tokerau): I support the idea of withdrawing, and this is why: pathways take time. Pathways of learning take time, particularly so when systemically it prejudices particularly Māori in the process of registration. And why I know this is because I was one of those that attempted the registration process some while ago. Because particularly what we had to deal with over the years is systems, processes, clinical practice which has always alienated Māori. So this process of pathway is critical. I'd be interested if the Minister could clarify whether she has secured and appreciated the position and advice particularly from tangata whenua, not only from the official body but from other Māori settings across the motu. It's an important exercise because rushing this in this way, I'm going to say, would fail Māori yet again. This particularly piece relates to section 7AA of the Oranga Tamariki Act. It relates to the other situation that we were debating this morning; it relates to it closely. Unless this piece—it's not understood what it means for Māori but also Māori whānau. This exercise also relates to cultural reports and the way in which those were ignored in a previous debate that we were having, because what we are trying to drive in this thinking space is the critical value of Māori pedagogy in all of this work, and it's misunderstood—in fact, it's ignored. So if the Minister's able to answer in terms of her ability to have secured good, rigorous advice and appreciated it in this exercise, I'd be keen to know that. Thank you very much. Hon MELISSA LEE (Minister for Economic Development) on behalf of the Minister for Social Development and Employment: Thank you, Madam Chair. I will address part of the question that members have asked, starting with Mariameno Kapa-Kingi. Thank you for the kōrero that you've actually produced in the House, and I appreciate your experience in the kaupapa that you have actually been working in. We acknowledge that the experience pathway is currently an important entry point for Māori practitioners and Pacific communities. The Social Workers Registration Board have recently made changes to the experience pathway application process to make this more accessible for Māori and Pacific practitioners, I believe. We anticipate that this will support experienced Māori practitioners to register as social workers through the experience pathway over the next two years. A shorter time frame could also encourage more of an uptake in social worker qualifications. A two-year delay will also provide an opportunity to consider an alternative entry pathway into social worker registration that is more accessible, including for Māori and Pasifika and other communities who are actually wanting to take part in this profession in this pathway. This includes reviewing recognition for prior learning requirements and considering staircasing education pathways and training. This work could provide long-term options to support more inclusive and accessible entry into social worker registration that are, in fact, enduring. I seek the committee's indulgence a little bit, because obviously I'm not an expert in this field—I'm sitting in the chair and I'm trying my very best to actually answer the members. Having said that, the question from member Menéndez March and also Hon Carmel Sepuloni in terms of what kind of consultation, we have undertaken and the reason why this bill is actually before the House is the Government considered the future of the bill, including whether to progress the bill in its current form or to amend it. The consideration has been informed by the feedback from submissions to select committee, which I believe, actually, when there is kōrero in select committee, people have an opportunity to raise their issues of the bill or the support of the bill and advice provided by officials. I considered that a two-year delay would balance the need to support the sector in the short term to address workforce supply issues while maintaining the emphasis on training to a mandatory qualification setting as soon as possible, considering there is actually a shortage of social workers that we are facing in this country. Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Labour—Kelston): Point of order, Madam Chair. I'm not sure what our recourse is here, but the defence and the reference to the submissions for the two-year reduction have actually been responded to by the major peak bodies, saying they made a mistake with the submission that they put through, but the Minister in the chair is using evidence that these particular associations have said they wanted withdrawn. So I don't think that the amendment is well informed, and I'm concerned that we're moving ahead using information from a submission that this very important professional body have said they want withdrawn. CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I'll just take some advice on that while we have a call. Is this on the same— Ricardo Menéndez March: It's a call. CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): It's a call. OK. If you take your call, I'll just take some advice on the point of order. Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Labour—Kelston): Point of order. I seek leave to table the letter that went to the Minister for Social Development and Employment on Tuesday, 13 February, I believe, from Sharyn Roberts, who is on the Aotearoa New Zealand Association of Social Workers board, outlining their humble apologies for that submission and saying that they wanted it withdrawn. CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Leave is sought for that purpose, is there any objection? There is none. Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House. RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): Thank you, Madam Chair. So further to that, I do want to plead to the Minister to take that information that was just given into account because so far the arguments that have been made in terms of the shortening and part of that amendment do not take into account best available information, and part of the coalition agreement is to do policy based on good data and evidence. She's just been presented with some new evidence which I would then encourage her to actually follow what she has committed to in the coalition agreement and actually then utilise the evidence that's been presented to her by the member who spoke previous to me, to ensure that she doesn't continue an amendment that would actually go contrary to that. I guess if that was to not be the case, if the Minister was to go ahead with the amendment, I'm curious to know how she then expects to actually meet the demands of the workforce and to adequately diversify the workforce based on just extending the experience pathways by two years. So I'm curious in between her—again, I know the Minister in the Chair isn't the Hon Louise Upston, but I'm curious to know if she has any knowledge of any engagement the Minister has had with the sector to address the potential more pressing issues with closing the experience pathways in two years as opposed to four years as desired by professional bodies in the up to date evidence that we've got in the correspondence that has been tabled. So curious to see what engagement she's got, the Minister has, in between coming into her role and now to seek assurances that her amendment actually meets the aspirations of professional bodies, and if she hasn't had any engagement, I'm curious to then understand whether she'd just going from old evidence rather than the most up to date information that's available to us. Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour): I'm just concerned that if the Minister isn't in a position to respond to the questions and the comments that have been made by both of the speakers previously, and you take a closure motion on this particular section, then it will go through and we haven't actually had the question addressed. So if the Minister is ready to respond to that, otherwise I can take more time and ask more questions—no? Hon Member: She's still standing. Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME: Well, I'm still standing because I don't want to sit down and the debate collapse when I'm not— CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): OK, well, we won't collapse the debate because I haven't given you an answer yet, so I undertake that we won't collapse the debate. I've just been taking some advice here, so— Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME: Great. Well, if you're in a position to respond to that, my contribution will depend on what the answer to that one is, because I think the concerns that I want to raise have been raised by the two previous speakers in asking the question. So I'm interested in how the Minister is going to respond to that for my contribution. Hon MELISSA LEE (Minister for Economic Development): If I could actually provide some context and be helpful, Ministry of Social Development officials have discussed a potential two-year time frame with sector representatives, including Social Service Providers Aotearoa, Aotearoa New Zealand Association of Social Workers, and the Tangata Whenua Social Workers Association. The sector continues to be broadly supportive a short-term delay. ANZASW highlighted that they supported a delay in the repeal of the experience pathway but that this should be as short as possible. The ANZASW provided a submission to the Social Services and Community Committee recommending shortening the time frame to two years. However, we understand that, as the member says, the ANZASW have softened their view on the need for a shorter time frame. It is important that the sector continues to take the lead in developing their work towards increasing the pipeline of social workers entering the profession. There is a select committee process, it has actually happened, and we are now trying to deal with the decision-making process that has happened since then. The Government is actually focusing on developing a pathway to deliver more social workers to the industry, as we have a shortage in that sector. CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Just to come back to the point of order that was moved by the Hon Carmel Sepuloni, we're in a situation now where the issue has been brought to the House and the Government has said that they want to continue with the motion, so when we're ready to put the motion and when the speakers have finished speaking to the motion, the options are that if it's not acceptable to the members, then the members will vote against it. But that's the situation we're in. The Government is putting it forward. Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Labour—Kelston): Madam Chair, I actually find that completely unacceptable—the Minister has stood up after having had the evidence tabled, after the association having written to her. It is not a softening of position between the four years and two years. They have made it very clear and they have apologised—there was a mistake made in the submission. All of the evidence that the Government is using to actually justify the reduction in time for the extended pathway is now null and void because the most important professional body has come forward and written to the Minister and said to her that there was a mistake in that submission. They tried to withdraw it. They do not want it reduced to two years—they want it at four years. They've given every reason why it needs to stay at four years, and the Minister has ignored that. Now, I feel for the Minister in the chair, the Hon Louise Upston, because she is not the Minister who is leading the actual bill, but the Minister who is leading the actual bill should be reading her correspondence and should be nimble enough to change her position. This is a very important letter that went to the Minister this week. So I am concerned that the Minister in the chair is going move ahead regardless and that the Minister in the chair continues to stand up and spell out the dissent for why they're doing it, which is now null and void because the association has said that they do not want that to happen. So what I don't want to hear from the Minister in the chair is actually that the association, the professional body supports this, because they are clear that they do not support this. One thing I do want to add is that any Government, any Minister, has to be nimble and has to be ready to change position when they are presented with quality evidence that suggests that their way forward is not the right way forward. So it's disappointing to see that this Minister and this Government when presented with solid evidence and information just this week are not willing to change their position on this. I want to hear from the Minister as to why that is the case. RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): Thank you, Madam Chair. So, again, pleading that the Minister for Social Development and Employment engages with the recent events, but, as we stand in the debate that we're having, really keen—the Minister hasn't addressed around what actions or what advice she's sought about the impact of changing from four to two years, and I really would like the Minister to engage with the consequences of her amendment. If there is to be an amendment that will change that time line from four to two years, what advice has she sought on the impacts in the intake of Māori and Pasifika social workers, any advice that she's sought around the intake of social workers from low socio-economic backgrounds, and what conversations has she had, in between coming into the role and tabling the amendment, with those professional bodies? And other than professional bodies, I'm also interested in what conversations has she had with tertiary education institutions around their ability to adequately train the necessary amount of social workers to meet demand. Why I'm asking those questions is because I think tabling this amendment based on a small amount of submissions that she's received has deep consequences, so I wonder whether there was any other work that was done in preparation of this amendment that would outline the consequences of changing the time line from four to two years and whether she's then been proceeding with what else she will need to do to address any negative impacts that prematurely closing the experience pathway will have. I want to reflect on why I'm asking for the engagement of tertiary education institutions, because, being a field educator for social workers, I've done guest lectures for social work classes, and it's really clear that a lot of the people who are able to get registered through the experience pathways are some of the people who are really struggling to enter the professional sector through the traditional pathways. I've seen students who are having to work multiple jobs to make ends meet while expected to complete their unpaid labour that they do as part of the degree. So if the Minister is going to close the experience pathways in two years per the amendment that we have in front of us, that will have consequences for those people who otherwise would've been able to enter through the experience pathways as the Minister works her way to ensure our tertiary education sector is up to speed and being able to support those students. Otherwise, if the Minister didn't do any of that engagement, then this amendment's kind of based on little evidence. And I take the Minister's point that this is not an area that she has expertise on, but I really, really would like her to try to at least get some advice around the level of engagement while she's in the chair to give us assurances, then, that this amendment that we seem to be moving towards won't have any negative consequences in the workforce and diversity of the workforce that we will have. Subsequent to that, I'm also interested in, for example, any engagement she's had with other agencies such as the Ministry of Social Development's front-line staff in relationship to, for example, the impact that having social workers who come from those experience pathways accompanying people who need support from places like Work and Income has. Some of those people from experience pathways have lived experience of being on a benefit and they're able to provide support that, for example, others may not. So I'm keen to get a sense of, for example, the feedback that she's sought from front-line services and how those social workers from the experience pathways affect their ability to engage with the community. If she hasn't had that engagement, how can she then be confident that this tabled amendment won't have perverse consequences? MARIAMENO KAPA-KINGI (Te Pāti Māori—Te Tai Tokerau): Thank you, Madam Chair. I do have some expertise—and I'm glad to share it with you this afternoon—and some demonstrated experience in this particular instance. Just as an example—I won't say the exact number of years, but it was certainly more than four years that it took me to do my social work degree, finally, because I had to work. And there are many, many like me who have gone through and credentialled themselves while working. Four years would be an absolute minimum. I'm happy to share that, and I ask that it be taken on and understood in a careful way, because shortening it—and interestingly the word "short" comes up a few times: the "shortage of workforce". To shorten time just to fill a shortage of workforce and this idea is an unsafe way to go. It's unsafe. And I'm talking as a clinician, and I'm talking as an experienced clinician. I'm not talking theoretically; I'm not talking as a politician, I guess; I'm telling you this is the reality of it, and I know, because I was in that space, so I'm sharing this. To withdraw means that you do have to change your mind, and I think my colleagues on this side of the House are similar thinking. When you're tabled with something that is clearly not a softening; it is assisting you—sorry, it is assisting the House; it is assisting this discussion, and it cannot be ignored. When you get that kind of professional Māori body helping the House to make a good decision today and in the future, I would certainly encourage that it is taken note of and is considered seriously and that it matters in your final decision. So I want to make those points. I guess I just want to acknowledge all the wāhine Māori and tāne Māori that are working their way to a credential and working inside a system, which is mostly alienating, but still struggle to get there. And the pathway cannot be shortened just to fill a shortage of Māori social workers or any kind of social worker. So these are my thoughts. Kia ora tātou. Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour): Thank you, Madam Chair. So having listened to the Minister's earlier response, I just want absolute clarification: did the Minister's office receive the correspondence that we have been discussing this afternoon and that has been tabled in the House? Did she receive it on the date that it was sent? Did she read it? Did she consider it and, therefore, did she ignore it and decide to proceed with this tabled amendment, which is reducing it from four years to two years? Did all of that happen before we came into the House today? Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Labour—Kelston): I'm looking forward to the Minister in the chair answering the question that the Hon Willow-Jean Prime has put forward. But I have another question: given the advice from the sector that two years is not long enough and that it should remain at four years, and the retraction of the submission that they made to the select committee that suggested otherwise, does the Minister anticipate that we're likely to be back here in a year and a half, going through this legislation again, putting another extension in place, because the professional bodies have said that we will not have the workforce that we need by that stage, and not all of the people that we'll need to take up that extended pathway opportunity would have? Therefore, is the Minister expecting that that will be the case? Would that be an acceptable way for the public sector to spend their time or their resourcing that we come back here—having to extend again—in a year and a half because the Minister chooses to ignore the advice of the main professional social work bodies? Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): I move, That the committee report progress on this bill. CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Just a moment. Right, OK, we can't report progress without the questions. So my advice is that we need to put the questions. Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): We can stop the debate and report progress. CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Well, is there any objection to that course of events to stopping and reporting—yes, there is an objection. Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): It's a motion, Madam Chair. I didn't seek leave. It's just like a motion to close the debate. A motion can be put to the committee on the committee's next step. CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Yes, I've just been advised that we can vote on that. So there is a motion on the Table to report progress on this piece of legislation, remembering that we still have another committee stage following this one. OK? So I am put that to the committee—that the committee agree to report progress on the Social Workers Registration Legislation Amendment Bill. A party vote was called for on the question, That the Committee report progress on the Social Workers Registration Legislation Bill. 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. Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour): Thank you, Madam Chair. Given that we are continuing with this debate, and, obviously, the Government is confident in progressing this proposed amendment, I ask again my questions to the Minister. Did the Minister receive the correspondence on 13 February? Did her office and herself read that correspondence, give it consideration, and decide to ignore the request to set aside their submission upon which this amendment is actually basing the proposal to reduce it to two years—has that happened before we came into the House today? Hon MELISSA LEE (Minister for Economic Development): Thank you, Madam Chair. It might help the House if I actually sort of answer some of those questions. It is my understanding that the correspondence was actually received by the Minister this week and, as members know and our former Ministers actually know, there is a process that happens once correspondence is received, and the officials, I believe, literally received it not very long ago. I'd like to address some of the questions that were asked in terms of the extension. The extension to the pathway is a temporary measure while work is actually underway to address long-term issues. The purpose of the two-year extension is to maintain the emphasis on the sector to take steps towards addressing the pipeline of social workers into the industry. The two-year change maintains the balance between short-term support while moving towards maintaining qualifications over time. That is the reason why we're actually wanting to amend, to make sure that we have a pipeline of social workers coming in, giving the opportunity for those currently who are in the industry going through the experience pathway. As I said right at the beginning, if they in fact are going through the process of qualifying, as long as they registered before the deadline, their registration will continue until they are able to finish their qualification and actually register officially. Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour): Thank you, Madam Chair. So, given that answer from the Minister, what I understand the Minister to have said is that her office did receive the correspondence, but it sounds like the Minister has not received any advice on that piece of correspondence—oh, here's the Minister. Should I wait? CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): It's OK. Just take a break while the Ministers swap over. The Hon Willow-Jean Prime, would you like to start that call again, just in case the Minister hasn't heard the start of the question. Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME: Sure. We were just discussing that and suggesting that might be a good way forward. Tēnā koe e te Minita; welcome back. We have been discussing this afternoon the tabled amendment to reduce the time from four years to two years, and in earlier contributions from the Hon Carmel Sepuloni and the member from the Greens and Te Pāti Māori we have been referring to a letter that has come through, we understand, to your office and also CC'd in to the Hon Carmel Sepuloni's, which says that they wanted to remove their submission. They tried to withdraw their submission, which said they supported a reduction to two years. That was an error, is what the correspondence says, and that they tried to withdraw their submission but were not able to do that, and subsequently wrote to clarify what their actual position is, which is that they do not want it to be reduced to two years; they, in fact, want it to be four years. So we have been having questions and conversation about that this afternoon. That has been tabled. The last response I got from the Minister was that your office had received that correspondence, however, it does not sound like you had received advice on that prior to this debate recommencing for us to make a decision on that. So we have been seeking clarification that you have received it, considered it, and that you, having given it consideration, you still intend to reduce it to two years on the basis that doing that was because that was the submission that you had received from the organisation who is now saying, "Please withdraw it. It was a mistake. That is not our position and we do not want a reduction to two years." So we've been trying to get that clarification in this particular clause 4. Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment): Happy to provide that clarification, and, yes, a letter was received yesterday, I think it was, in relation to this piece of legislation, and it has been considered—a bit challenging, given the content of the letter suggesting that a submission that had been submitted on behalf of their organisation wasn't valid, but the select committee process has finished, basically, and that submission was considered and included. So as part of my consideration, I had three pathways available. One was to not proceed with the bill—and the member would understand that if the bill didn't proceed, then the experience pathway would close this month—or I could proceed as planned, or not submit the change. I've made the decision, for a range of other reasons, that the two-year time frame is what the Government will stand with. Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Labour—Kelston): We absolutely support the legislation, and it's always good when we in the House all support something and all political parties are on the same page. We don't support the amendment, for the reasons outlined in the letter that both the Minister of Social Development and I received. I do believe it was 13 February—so not yesterday—that the letter went through to your office. It is good that the Minister did see it, because all of us would expect that a letter like that, when a bill is going through, would be treated with urgency, and attention in any Minister's office would be turned to that. I understand that the submission and the contents of it went through the Social Services and Community Committee, and that informed the Minister's position, but our expectation, and our question to the Minister, is about her ability to be nimble, given that this very important association, and actually not just the Aotearoa New Zealand Association of Social Workers but the Tangata Whenua Social Workers Association have both expressed fervently that they do not support the reduction from four years to two years. So I'm asking the Minister why, given the strength of the contents of that letter, she is not willing to reconsider and actually retract that amendment. Secondly, I want to put to the Minister the issue that may arise if she continues with the amendment that she has on the table at the moment. The issue that I want to raise with her is that given the experts, the professional bodies themselves, are saying they need four years, if we reduce it to two years because of the amendment, then we will be back here in a year or a year and a half, realising what they are saying: that it wasn't enough time for those who needed to actually access the extended pathway, and is therefore going to use the resource of the public sector—and the fiscal considerations that come with that; the cost of the public sector doing the work again—and the time of this committee, when, actually, we've already been told very clearly, don't reduce it to two years, leave it at four years. So my second question is: is the Minister comfortable that there is a strong likelihood, given the professional bodies' advice, that we will be back here in a year or a year and a half, potentially pushing to extend for another two years again? Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment): I'm comfortable with my decision. It is really important that part of the consideration was to ensure that we kept the emphasis on transitioning to a mandatory qualification regime, which has been signalled in legislation since 2017. So I don't accept that it is not going to be possible within the two years. I do expect that that will apply some pressure. That's what I believe that we need to do to ensure that we move to that mandatory registration—and that we provide that experience pathway for those who are yet to enter into it. I accept that that is not the member's position, but it is the position of the Government. Hon Carmel Sepuloni: That's not the association's position. Hon LOUISE UPSTON: It is not the position of the Government. It has been through a select committee process. It's a process issue that I think is also useful. It is not the practice of this committee to interrupt legislation at this stage, when a submission is made, late in the piece, that is completely contradictory. Hon Carmel Sepuloni: We're not interrupting legislation; we're responding to an amendment. Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Well, as I said, I accept the former Minister doesn't agree with the position. As I said, there were three options available. One was to not proceed with the legislation at all, which I think would have had concerning impacts, because it is important that we have people who are able to come through the experience pathway. Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Nobody is suggesting that today; it's the amendment—it's the amendment. What option did you have in terms of that? Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Yep—so the options were: provide an amendment, which is on the table; not proceed with the bill. Hon Carmel Sepuloni: No one said not to proceed with the bill. Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Well, no—as the Minister in charge of the bill, that was one of the options available to me. So I accept there is a challenge, and I accept, with the amendment that I have tabled, the two-year time frame is how we get the balance right of ensuring that we get to mandatory registration in a timely manner. So unless there are new questions on that, I don't think I can answer it any more fully. CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Yeah, excuse me—I'll decide when the questions come. Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour): Thank you, Madam Chair. The Minister said she was presented with three options after receiving that correspondence. We have made it clear in our submissions this afternoon and our contributions this afternoon that we support the bill. We understand what the need for it is. What we are expressing concern about is the tabled amendment. What options was she presented with after receiving that correspondence from the peak organisation to do with social workers registration in terms of the tabled amendment and the time frame difference between two years and four years? Any options? Hon MARAMA DAVIDSON (Co-Leader—Green): I was hoping to bring in, perhaps, a ground-case scenario to really understand and test with the amendment of chopping down to two years. I mentioned in, I think, the first reading the value of lived experience, and I acknowledge the Minister has referred to the 2017 sort of heads-up. I acknowledge that. I want to understand then, though, what is the benefit—what is the benefit? So we've talked about a mandate of chopping down two years. I won't scope that, because we've already been there. But then I want to talk about benefit, from the Minister's position, because in the first reading, I spoke to lived experience and the systemic structures and barriers that can deny whānau the experience that only lived experience can provide. And I used the specific example of men and people who have used violence and that when—and I preceded that by saying that the prevention of violence sector has been so clear to me over the last three or four years of how important safe practice is. So I do want to make that very clear. In fact, they've made it clear to me that unsafe practice can cause deep, irreparable harm. So I have that understanding. At the same time, we have seen that the most enduring and transformational outcomes sometimes only come from those who have shared those very experiences but with the necessary supports around them to be able to safely practise and work with whānau and instead draw on their incredible knowledge and experience that only they possess towards healing. And I just wonder then, for the Minister, if you could articulate: what is the benefit as the Government? Because what my feedback has been from that very sector is that we haven't done the systemic work enough to remove those barriers. Yes, 2017 has still not allowed for the systemic barriers to be removed yet, and so what that, from their perspective, will result in is that some whānau will be denied the experience and skill that only the experience pathway would have allowed for. So I'm genuinely wondering if the Minister could be quite clear about what the extra positive outlook is from chopping from four to two years. Thank you. Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment): I agree with the member wholeheartedly in that lived experience is part of the reason that we have an experience pathway, so there's no disagreement there. We've just made a decision that it will be two years, not four. So there are still two years for those who are interested in pursuing that path to do so. MARIAMENO KAPA-KINGI (Te Pāti Māori—Te Tai Tokerau): Madam Speaker, kia ora. Just to tautoko my colleagues on this side of the committee by saying, this—i roto i te hauora—all of those in our hauora and our social service sector: we must cause no harm, right? This will cause harm—this will cause harm. When you shorten time, particularly for Māori and social workers to gain the credentials but particularly the cultural aspects of it and shorten it simply to fill a shortage of social workers is simply unsafe. I can demonstrate that because it took me more than four years—and I said earlier before that I wouldn't say what the number was, but it did take me time, and many like me. Why? It's because we're working while we're getting credentials—we're working while we get on the way; we are on the job. I think that's missing in the understanding and the result that we're getting to in this amendment. I mean, when the whole registration board idea came about, I was a social worker in the sector—well, we didn't call ourselves "social workers" because we weren't allowed to, even though we did; we were more like Whānau Ora workers, we were more like kaitiaki. We carried that responsibility, which, you know, over years that whole concept of working with cultural capability has never been truly understood, right? So part of this work, I hope, is to understand that. My position and, I guess, my insistence is to say that this will cause harm. I know it to be so because of my experience of more than 40 years in the sector, working in social justice, working in the space with whānau who have harm just hoisted upon them particularly by the system and by legislation that just doesn't understand our reality. So I want to make those points. It's a set up. You're setting up—sorry, this idea sets up our people—I'm trying to manage the "you" word— CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Thank you, I appreciate that. MARIAMENO KAPA-KINGI: —as you can tell—even though, in my heart, that's probably what I'm feeling, because this is a space that I've worked in too long to ignore what I'm listening to today. So it is a set up and it will cause harm not only to our practitioners but also to our whānau, because the idea of putting in our social workers when they're just not ready in that way, it will bring harm—more harm. So my question is: are you saying, by your decision— CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Is the Minister saying. MARIAMENO KAPA-KINGI:—sorry—the Minister's decision. What I heard in your discussion was that you are content with your decision, which sounded to me like the Minister will go on record as rejecting the written record by the national body—two of them, in fact, the tangata whenua body—that the Minister will go on record as being satisfied that that's the position that'll be taken, and, in fact, rejecting tangata whenua outwardly, and therefore Māori. Thank you, Madam Chair. CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): OK. So, at this point in time, I'm just going to say that we've got to a point where we've had a lot of debate on the Minister's position and we have had two Ministers in the Chamber this afternoon. I think we have clarity on the Minister's position at the moment. So I'm looking for any other clarification around this very small piece of legislation. So I'm just going to call Willow-Jean Prime. Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour): Thank you, Madam Chair. My earlier questions were about whether she's received it, whether she's read it, and whether she's understood it or sought advice on it—her subsequent decision. This contribution I'm making now is to support the points that have been made by Te Pāti Māori and Mariameno Kapa-Kingi. It is specifically relating to our Māori social workers. Is the Minister rejecting the letter and the plea from the Tangata Whenua Social Workers Association to allow four years as opposed to two, which is in the tabled amendment? Is she rejecting their request? The Minister said in her earlier answers that she had other considerations outside of just what was in the select committee process, What specific considerations has she given for Māori social workers in making this decision to introduce an amendment—two years instead of four years? Because as we understand it from the Māori social workers workers, from somebody here with professional and lived experience, the two-year time frame will simply be too tight for them to be able to do that. So what in the Ministers opinion—what advice has she received that she has taken and considered that supports her decision to reduce it from four years to two years, and my question is specifically about Māori social workers and their pathway to registration. DAN BIDOIS (National—Northcote): I move, That debate on this question now close. A party vote was called for on the question, That debate on this question now close. Ayes 68 New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Noes 55 New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6. Motion agreed to. CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that the Minister's amendment to clause 4 set out on Amendment Paper 12 be agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to. Ayes 68 New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Noes 55 New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6. Amendment agreed to. Clause 4 as amended agreed to. CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I will report this bill with amendment. SOCIAL SECURITY (BENEFITS ADJUSTMENT) AND INCOME TAX (MINIMUM FAMILY TAX CREDIT) AMENDMENT BILL In Committee Debate resumed from 13 February. Part 2 Amendments to Income Tax Act 2007 (continued) CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Members, we come now to the Social Security (Benefits Adjustment) and Income Tax (Minimum Family Tax Credit) Amendment Bill. When we were last considering the bill, we were debating Part 2. Part 2 is the debate on clauses 9 and 10, amendment to the Income Tax Act 2007. The question is that part 2 stand part. Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Labour—Kelston): Madam Chair, I believe the last time we were debating this we were having discussions around the minimum family tax credit and the Minister was asked—and I'm not sure if we actually received a response, so this is where I'd like to start—whether or not there would continue to be a differential between those on the lowest income who are getting the minimum tax credit versus those that are on benefit. There was also a question raised about whether or not the numbers of those receiving the minimum tax credit will increase or decrease because of the changes to this particular piece of legislation. Those were the first two questions I could remember on the minimum family tax credit and there were others, but I will ask the Minister to answer those ones first. Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Thank you, Madam Chair. Look, I'm interested in this bill and the minimum family tax credit. In particular, I'm interested to know exactly how it is going to address the cost of living issues that the new Government is so committed to. I appreciate it's an indexing issue and, obviously, this House has seen considerable debate around indexing over the past week or so. I'm interested to understand exactly how this bill will relate to the other debate we've been having and whether, in fact, it's taking the same approach or whether it's taking a more generous approach given that it's a tax credit framework. Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Labour—Kelston): One of the issues that came up with Part 1 that is relevant to Part 2 was we were trying to ascertain what the adjustment would look like, what the differential was between inflation and our wage growth and so what the point of difference would be there. At the last committee stage, we did have it clarified that net wage growth was going to be 5.3 percent versus the Consumers Price Index, which is 4.7 percent. I just want to know how the Minister is able to make the adjustment known in Part 2 for the minimum family tax credit when we haven't yet got the figures for benefit in terms of the 1 April adjustment. I thought that the minimum family tax credit adjustment was made in line with the shift that benefits receive on 1 April, but that doesn't seem to be the case if they are already able to state what the adjustment for the minimum family tax credit is, but they're not yet able to state what the adjustment for the actual benefits are going to be. I think that that is a valid question. I think that the Minister may be seeking advice on that one. However, I'm going to give the Minister a little bit of time so that she can seek that advice because I'd be really interested, actually; why do we have the numbers for minimum family tax credit, but we don't have them for what it will mean for indexation to benefit? Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour): Thank you, Madam Chair. I can see that Minister isn't yet ready to answer that question. Once again, for fear of the debate collapsing because the Minister is not responding to the questions, what I would like to know further to the questions asked by the Hon Carmel Sepuloni is—hers was about the formula and how you arrive at those figures. Given that the number that we have been using in the supplementary analysis report and so on has subsequently been updated, will that affect the numbers that are hard here in legislation? It doesn't just say it will be according to the formula that's used, but actually gives the prescribed amount in the legislation, so are we passing something that really should be updated? Has it been updated according to that or is it working off some different type of formula? My next question is: how many people does this apply to? Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): I have, I think, a relatively brief question. Because, as I understand Part 2, the framework is about when the tax credits kick in to make sure that families are, in fact, better off in work than not in work. Given the change to the indexation of main benefits to track inflation rather than wages or inflation, will this in fact have a projected fiscal saving to the Government? Because benefits are going to increase at a slower rate, I'm assuming that will also mean that the family tax credits will increase at a slower rate as well. And has there been work done to understand that because this increases at a slower rate because it tracks main benefits, whether there's fiscal savings to the Government in the forecast? Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment): Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm not going to traverse issues from Part 1 in this contribution. So the specific questions around the minimum family tax credit, there's been no change in the way it is calculated, it has been calculated the same way for quite some time. The only change in this legislation is the threshold and there's—for members benefits, I'm sure some are well aware of it but I'll go through it anyway—the calculation considers a range of factors: the rate of income taxes, main benefits, and the minimum wage, and the approach to calculating it as I have said in earlier contributions in this debate, ensures that sole parents are better off working and receiving the minimum family tax credit than they would be receiving a benefit on an annual basis. In terms of timing, it comes into effect at the start of the tax year. RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): Thank you, Madam Chair. This picks up nicely from what the Minister just talked about, in relationship to being better off in employment. I won't relitigate stuff from Part 1, but I do want to pick up on the fact that there is a missed opportunity in this bill too. Because of the reversal to inflation adjustment main benefit changes, it's interesting that in Part 2, in relationship to the minimum family tax credit, there is no update to the abatement threshold for inflation. I do have an amendment here in relationship to that that would actually update the abatement thresholds in line with inflation. I guess my question is: how can she be confident that the settings that we have adequately support people into employment when the abatement threshold for the minimum family tax credit is so out of date and does not reflect the incomes that have grown over time or real costs that families experience? Because that means that, in terms of real purchasing power and wages that people earn, people actually will have that income abated at a rate that would have been faster than in 2006. So my question is: does she think that by leaving those abatement thresholds not fully updated, she's actually creating a perverse outcome in not adequately supporting people into employment? And, if so, then, how can not updating those abatement thresholds stand up to the statements she has made previously around her focus being supporting people into employment? LEMAUGA LYDIA SOSENE (Labour—Māngere): Thank you for the opportunity to ask this question on Part 2. Minister, I wanted to ask you, in terms of arriving at the explanation that we have here in the paper, what engagement or consultation you have specifically had with parents or the community who will be affected by this legislation change once it passes, because there are many families in our community where the cost of living is really important and they are suffering. So, if there are changes from the way it is indexed, that is going to mean—although I have heard earlier contributions from $2; however, the figure is an $18 loss in their income per week. Can you explain to me, to help me understand, what specific engagement you have had with the community? RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): Thank you—sorry, I was just laughing because some of us were competing for a call. Subsequent to my questions in relationship to abatement thresholds, I was curious to see if she had done any distributional impact analysis on the changes to the minimum family tax credit and particularly with the abatement thresholds as they are. I wanted to pick that up, because of the fact that we do have a relatively large number of people who are working part-time and who may not be working those 40 hours, and who have a varying degree of incomes. A lot of the people who are working part-time, who may be receiving some form of income support, are parents, are people who may be studying, are people who may be juggling other caregiving responsibilities—because we know this from the debate on Part 1, in relationship to the impacts on child poverty. I wonder whether there is a missed opportunity to at least mitigate some of the harm done in Part 1 by actually having a minimum family tax credit that adequately supported those people in part-time work. And, subsequent to that, does she know who the communities are who could most benefit from having the abatement threshold changed, or does she know who is actually losing the most by keeping the abatement threshold as it is right now? Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Labour—Kelston): I really would like some more clarification from the Minister around the way in which the minimum family tax credit is adjusted. In the clause by clause analysis of Part 2, it states, "For the tax credit system to work as intended, the minimum family tax credit must be increased whenever main benefits go up. Clause 10 therefore increases the minimum family tax credit, effective from 1 April 2024, in line with the adjustment to the main benefits that is due to happen from 1 April 2024 under section 453 of the Social Security Act 2018". If it's in line with the adjustments to benefits that are going to be made on 1 April, then how can we have this figure already in legislation, given that recently the number has changed from the modelling for wage growth or Consumers Price Index—the comparative at least—and/or how come we've got that figure in the legislation but we don't have the figure for the changes to benefits in the legislation? Surely if a minimum family tax credit is being adjusted in line with the changes that are going to happen on 1 April, then we would have those changes in the bill as well. So I just want to know from the Minister, what is the case there? Just going back, I think it was a really good point that Duncan Webb made, and that was the point around whether or not there are going to be projected increased fiscal savings with the minimum family tax credit, given that the modelling that the Minister has now shows that the inflation number did outstrip, or will outstrip, for the 1 April adjustments, the actual—no, wage growth will outstrip inflation, which is a change from the modelling that we received before. Also, in the supplementary analysis report that we received for this bill, we do have the modelling around the indexing of benefits and we do have the number of $670 million fiscal savings from this piece of legislation. Is the $670 million just on benefits or does that include savings to the minimum family tax credit because of these changes? If not, are there other savings that will be made from the minimum family tax credit? Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment): I want to just come back and answer the question from Mr Menéndez March and the question around part-time work. In terms of the minimum family tax credit work-hours test, "full time" is actually defined as 20 hours or more per week for a sole parent and 30 hours or more combined for a two-parent family. So you could potentially have each parent working less hours than that for a combined total of 30, and we're not proposing any changes in this bill. RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): I take the Minister's point. And to that, I guess I'm asking whether the Minister realises that because of the current abatement thresholds, it actually eats up what they could be getting from the minimum family tax credit at a much faster rate than would have done, say, in 2006. And when that happens, it actually creates a situation where the so-called that she seeks to widen between wages and the benefits actually is narrowed by the fact that people are not able to keep as much as they could from the minimum family tax credit when they enter employment due to those abatement thresholds not being updated, effectively undermining the goals that she has talked about time and time again of relentlessly supporting people into employment. The abatement threshold as it is right now actually undermines people receiving adequate support when they enter employment. And I just really wanted to ask the Minister to look at updating it, because otherwise she seems to be contradicting herself by pushing people further into poverty by what she's doing in Part 1 and not adequately supporting people who entering employment by updating that abatement threshold. So, again, looking at the Minister's comments in relationship to how the current settings that she's only very, very, very, very marginally tweaking are actually supporting families entering the workforce. Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment): I have said I'm not going to talk about things that are not in this bill, and the abatement rate and abatement thresholds are not in the bill. So, no, I'm not going to answer questions on that. Ricardo Menéndez March: Madam Chair. CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Ricardo Menéndez March—just in the nick of time. RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): Thank you. So I hear the Minister saying that she won't talk about things that aren't on the bill, but there are tabled amendments in relationship to this issue. If she doesn't want to support them, that's fine, but what it is in the bill is an overall bill that it is creating impacts on how incomes change for those on the lowest incomes and an intent to push people into paid employment. Now, the consequence of the way that Part 2 is outlined and of the very, very marginal changes that she's making to the minimum family tax credit do have consequences for the people who continue entering employment with a minimum family tax credit that is out of date in the way that it is being set up. And rather than just pushing back my argument as though it is not related to what we're discussing, I'm asking the Minister to engage with substance on the issue of how we then support people entering the workforce—particularly those with children—to then have enough to get by. Otherwise, as I said, the settings, as they are, and in relationship to what my amendment is trying to address—so, yeah, the settings as they are basically create a perverse outcome for people entering the workforce when they're not adequately supported in the way they would have been, say, in 2006, because, since then, wages have moved, costs have moved, and we have gone through a period of high wage growth as well, which means that really effects those abatement thresholds—sorry, not abatement thresholds; it changes the rate or it affects the point at which that abatement starts kicking in and, therefore, creates situations where families may be thinking, "How much am I actually better off in employment as a result of that and how much am I actually supported, if I've got a family, when I'm thinking of moving into employment?" So I think in some ways she's actually undermining the work she says she wants to do by not supporting my amendment, by leaving things as they are bar very, very, very minor changes to the prescribed amount in the family tax credit from $34,216 to $35,204. So that's something I'm really, really keen to unpack, because she is changing that amount ever so slightly, but not the threshold to which it starts abating. So, if she's just changing that amount ever so slightly but not the rate it abates, she's actually condemning many families who are entering the workforce to not receiving support that matches the current realities that we're experiencing. [Bell rings] CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): I call Ricardo Menéndez March. RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH: Sorry, I'll just ask in relationship to— CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): I'm expecting new material. RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH: Did she seek any advice or did she engage with groups such as the Child Poverty Action Group? I'm trying to now unpack on Part 2 in relationship to engagement with stakeholders or conversations she would have had with organisations that have been advocating to changes to the minimum family tax credit. Has she engaged with published reports and research from groups, like Child Poverty Action Group and others, who have called for changes to the minimum family tax credit? And the reason why I'm now moving into engagement on literature and stakeholder groups is because the issue that's been addressed in my amendment is not new. So, when deciding to shift that amount ever so slightly, I'm interested to know who she's engaged with, basically. What level of advice has she sought about the impact that just changing the amount would have for those people entering the workforce? And, if she didn't engage with anyone, I'm just really curious—and I'm pleading in good faith—for the Minister to engage with the reality of increasing that amount slightly but the abatement threshold not changing. I won't relitigate that part that much, but I just genuinely am asking for that engagement in relationship to how Part 2 affects people entering the workforce and, then, getting the minimum family tax credit in the way it was intended to. DAN BIDOIS (National—Northcote): Madam Chair, it is an absolute privilege to contribute to this debate. We are on Part 2 of the Social Security (Benefits Adjustment) and Income Tax (Minimum Family Tax Credit) Amendment Bill. Part 2 is a pretty narrow part of the bill, looking at the changes that are made to benefits and the impact that it has on tax credits. I do have a question around the tax implications of such a move and whether the Minister has in fact investigated any of the tax implications and the fiscal implications for such a change, because, of course, greater tax credit to families will, of course, impact the fiscal envelope and the fiscal financials for the Government. So I'd be curious to know if the Minister has received any advice around the likely tax implications. I think that that would be something we'd want to consider in terms of the overall cost of such a change to the Government's books. Overall, there have been some discussions around the abatement changes and the impact of those, and I think there are legitimate questions around making sure that we're not discouraging those families from working and not discouraging those families from getting ahead. On this side of the House, we certainly want to encourage those families to get ahead through work and through less time spent on a benefit. So am curious about the Minister's perspective on this. I know it is in Part 2, and we look forward to traversing this topic in more detail. Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment): I thank the member for his question. So the minimum family tax credit is actually part of the Working for Families suite. What we want to ensure is that there are incentives for people to work, so lifting the threshold provides that opportunity for people to be in work and not be penalised and for it not to then be a choice between working or not. In terms of the impact on tax, I mean obviously what we'd like to see over time is that with more people being in work, taking on more work, obviously that's lifting their incomes—and the Minister of Finance would also like, over time, some of the income tax that that generates. But the two pieces—so the second part fits very importantly with the first part that we've already talked about. So anytime that there is the ratio to increase benefits, we must also then look at the threshold for the minimum family tax credit to ensure that it is in balance. That is, quite simply, a very small piece in Part 2. We've debated it at length, but it is about making sure—and our Government is very focused on how we support more people into work. This is a small measure of a suite of measures that our Government will progress in terms of making it beneficial for people to be in work. RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): So I think both the member and the Minister just almost got to the point of this issue, right? The member was asking about issues around the mission to support people into employment; I hear that. At the same time, you know, while I would dispute what Part 1 is doing in relationship to actually meeting those goals, Part 2, as the Minister alluded to, speaks to the broader Working for Families package, which, as she said, is intended to support people into employment. And when people transition from a benefit into employment, they may incur additional costs, right? They may incur childcare costs, transport, etc. Now, the Working for Families package is supposed to assist with those things, but the Minister talked about the need to change the threshold, and just in the previous call. That's not necessarily what Part 2 is doing in any way that actually adjusts for inflation. And by not changing the abatement threshold in line with inflation, what that means is that the amount that people receive will start being eaten away a lot faster, because we haven't changed those settings, effectively undermining the things that both the member and the Minister have just outlined. I think this is what I'm getting at with my amendment and those contributions and the continued goal around supporting people into employment, because Part 1 certainly does not do that. Part 2 changes and slightly tweaks a package that is supposed to support working families, but not in any way that actually updates the threshold at which it starts abating in a meaningful way. So I just would like the Minister to help me understand how the settings and the way that she's tweaking them right now actually will support families entering work. And if not, can she give us assurances that she will look at those abatement thresholds? Because in a vacuum, I know that she's talked about how this bill will be part of another range of interventions, but in a vacuum, as it stands, we're not doing anything to support people who are entering work by leaving things as they are. Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment): I thank the member for his persistence, and I can give him every confidence that we will absolutely, as a Government, be looking at those pieces to ensure that it is—we want to encourage more people into work, and there will be barriers currently, but today is not for debating that; that is for another occasion. CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Ricardo Menéndez March—this is new material, isn't it? RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): Yeah. So did she seek any advice at any point around the thresholds, then, or was this not considered by the Minister at all in the process of introducing this legislation? So the thresholds at which it starts abating the minimum family tax credit—did she seek any advice and relationship to it or no? Was this considered any point in creating this legislation? Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment): It's not in the scope of this bill. CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Ricardo Menéndez March's amendment to insert new clause 9A set out on Amendment Paper 13 be agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to. 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. Amendment not agreed to. CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Ricardo Menéndez March's amendments to insert new clauses 9A and 11 set out on Amendment Paper 15 be agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments be agreed to. 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. Amendments not agreed to. CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Ricardo Menéndez March's amendments to clause 10 and to insert new clause 11 set out on Amendment Paper 16 be agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments be agreed to. 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. Amendments not agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question, That Part 2 stand part. Ayes 68 New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Noes 55 New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6. Part 2 agreed to. Clauses 1 and 2 Title and Commencement CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Members, we come now to our final debate, clauses 1 and 2. This is the debate on clauses 1 and 2, "Title" and "Commencement". RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): Thank you. So just on the timeline and commencement of this bill, I guess, I'm interested to get a sense of whether the April deadline was the key consideration that was made, and particularly with the inflation projected to eventually go down, whether there had been any considerations of any reviews to make sure that the current decision formula was working as projected, and to adequately support people, and whether the Minister at the time thought that perhaps evaluating the commencement more in detail could have resulted in better evidence and data being gathered? Because at this point, the commencement date and the lack of any reports and research to support this bill is concerning and I'm just wondering whether anything like that had been considered at any point? Hon ANDREW BAYLY (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): Thank you, Madam Chair. I thank the member Ricardo Menéndez March for his contribution. As my good colleague on the left here, the former Minister of Finance Grant Robertson, will know, every benefit is adjusted on 1 April. It's an absolute, standard date. It would be inconceivable to contemplate—and I see, I think, Mr Robertson agreeing with me—not adopting 1 April as the commencement date. RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): We have a formula, right, as it is, and so not having this bill commence by that date still means that benefits will get indexed, just by the previous formula. I guess what I was trying to ascertain was just around allowing for more time to actually gather that evidence—that is in the coalition agreement—to back the legislation that is being introduced. DAN BIDOIS (National—Northcote): It is a fantastic privilege to get up and speak in this title and commencement debate, because I actually have some really good ideas around what we could change the title. And I know that's very bizarre— Hon Nicola Willis: You're an ideas man. DAN BIDOIS: Yeah, exactly. One thing we would do is the "Back to Work Bill"—getting beneficiaries into work. We could call it that, because that's what it's all about is encouraging people that—was it 67,000 people extra on a jobseeker benefit under that Government? We want to get them into work because that's the way that they will make a better life for themselves and their families. That's the way that they will have mana motuhake. That's the way that they will restore their own dignity and have dignity. That is the way that they will realise tino rangatiratanga. So I think that, actually, changing the title of this bill—I haven't spoken to the Minister about it, but I'm sure she may be open to the idea of changing it to the "Into Work Bill". Let's call it that because that's what it's about under this Government is actually encouraging people into work and encouraging them to live happy, independent lives, independent of the State. Stuart Smith: What about mahi—into mahi? DAN BIDOIS: Mahi? Oh, yes. That's another good title, actually, from the honourable member from Kaikōura, Stuart Smith. We could call it the "Into Mahi Bill". I'm sure maybe that side may be open to that idea—into mahi. Mana in Mahi we could call it. We could call it Mana in Mahi. I think we might have unanimous consent to just all of a sudden change the title of this bill, and I'm sure the Minister will be open to that. So I really would love a discussion in the Chamber today. I know we've all got things to do, but let's create a bit of a vibe in here about what this bill could do to really bring out the ethos of what we're trying to do here. So I'd love to get the Minister in the chair's position on this about amending it to talk about the essence of what we are trying to do in this Government bill today. Hon ANDREW BAYLY (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): Thank you, Madam Chair. First of all, I've got to thank the member Dan Bidois for his very courageous suggestion there. It's pretty unusual, particularly at this late stage. But I've got to say I fully appreciate what he's endeavouring to do, which is: we've got what might be called a very boring bill title, I think: Social Security (Benefits Adjustment) and Income Tax (Minimum Family Tax Credit) Amendment Bill. Yes, I understand if you're listening in from Kaitāia or something and watching this fantastic debate that's going on, you might wonder what on Dickens we're talking about. So I do appreciate the sentiment—Mana in Mahi or whatever his suggestion. But I have to say to the member at this stage that it's probably passed the point. If that recommendation had been made earlier, I think it might have fallen on very receptive ears with the Minister, but at this stage, I think it's very unlikely that we would change this bill title at the moment. But I'm looking forward to his next contribution. Hon BARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana): Thank you, Madam Chair. I thought I'd be able to take a call to give the other side of the Chamber a bit of a hand in relation to the renaming of this bill. I think this bill should be called the "Social Security Bringing More Kids Into Poverty Amendment Bill". So, to be able to assist in relation to that amendment, I thought I would give the Chamber a bit of a history lesson around Working for Families. The actual Working for Families policy is around tax credits — they're tax transfers which are administered through Inland Revenue, and provide different entitlements. When Working for Families came in under a Labour Government, in 2005, it was a staged implementation process. So I think some of the commentary in the Chamber around it—having to be the 1 April; actually, when Working for Families did come in 2005, there was some October implementation dates around that. Working for Families, just so the other side of the Chamber understands, really helps people get them into work. That's exactly why it's called Working for Families, it's to incentivize people to go back to work. The abatement threshold allows—for once you hit a particular rate of income, then it basically starts to cut back on how much the Working for Families entitlement that a particular family can get. I acknowledge the work by Ricardo Menéndez March today to be able to bring back some history to this Chamber. For me, when I was a young mother, going through university, and at the time I had two children— Hon Nicola Willis: Still a young mother. Hon BARBARA EDMONDS: Thank you very much, Minister of Finance is saying I'm still a young mother—appreciate that compliment. I was going through university. My husband was in a low-paid labour job. He just earned just above the minimum wage. We were getting family support. But then in 2004, when the Labour Government decided to bring in Working for Families, we went from $8 in the hand at the end of the week—all our bills paid, $8 in the hand to be able to help our children. We only had only two children at the time— Hon Rachel Brooking: Only two? Hon BARBARA EDMONDS: Only two, and it was really difficult at the time. But then Working for Families came in, and that $8 at the end of the week became just over $100. That is the implication of Working for Families. It actually really helps families come out of poverty, and be able to give them opportunities. I am a living proof of that ability. It allowed my husband and our family to operate while I was studying my law degree. So the reason why I stand for this amendment to rename it the "Social Security Bringing More Kids Into Poverty Amendment Bill" is because this particular bill removes the ability and changes the way in which benefits are basically raised. There is official advice that has been received. I know members have gone through this in both Part 1 and Part 2. But I want to just remind members that this bill will impact on children. We all have a responsibility in this Chamber to those children of the lowest paid families, families both on benefits and entitlements, those who are working, who are trying hard to get ahead. We got to come back to the reason why this side of the Chamber opposes this bill, and why this side of the Chamber absolutely believes that this bill should be renamed about getting children back into poverty. RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): So we're getting into a discussion on what title would be most appropriate, right, and I don't want to indulge the committee in more scapegoating off more people on the benefit and talking about how people on the benefit don't have dignity, but I do think the previous member has a point. But if we were to go by the evidence that was provided to the Minister around the impacts of this bill and we were to be guided by the only reports that this Minister has been able to produce about the impacts of this bill, then, yes indeed, something like the "Increasing Poverty and Retaining the Status Quo for the Family Tax Credit Bill" could be an appropriate name. Again, I think there is a lot in a title, and why we actually should have titles that are not so boring as the Minister described them, it helps people understand what this bill aims to do, which is not just to amend a piece of legislation; it's to create a difference for our communities. Based on the reports that we have, there's actually nothing here—no report—that talks about what the previous member from the National Party said that this bill will support people into employment. We have to call it out for what it is, which is simply an assumption that if you punish people on a benefit, that they'll enter work, and yet, despite those assumptions, there's nothing in this bill to adequately even change how support is provided to people who enter employment despite parts of the legislation that touches the Working for Families package, which the Minister in the chair previous to him being there alluded to are not being addressed. So, indeed, a name that actually describes what this bill does, which is increase poverty, would be far more suitable than what we have right now. I wasn't going to take a call on the title until, actually, the National Party member decided to actually lay bare the truth of what this bill is about. It's about an assumption that people are not worthy or treated with respect and dignity when they are on a benefit. If the member spoke about dignity and work, there's a gross, gross implication here about what they believe people on the benefit experience and how they should be treated. It also assumes that people on the benefit are not doing work. So I'd like to get a reflection from the Minister about why he thinks having a title of the bill that reflects the data and evidence that has been provided to the Minister—which so far has nothing to do with employment outcomes and actually only talks about increasing poverty—wouldn't be a better title for this piece of legislation. Hon ANDREW BAYLY (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for the two contributions about the title. Look, my reaction to this is that it's based on a false premise. Both members referred to the issue of increasing poverty. I remind the members of the House that what this bill does is it returns the situation back to what the situation was since 2011, in which the benefits were and have been linked to the Consumers Price Index (CPI) and not to wage inflation. And, as all the members know, in this first year or the next financial year, there actually will be additional benefit. Hon Grant Robertson: No. Hon ANDREW BAYLY: There is an additional benefit—$38 million it's going to cost extra if we were to change. But the big issue I would also suggest to the members is that there is an issue about getting people back into work. There is a minimum requirement for Governments to make sure that people who can't work and who are on benefits get recognised and get a permit paid by the Government, and this is what this bill does and continues that whole thought. But we do want to encourage people back into work, and the premise around increased poverty is not what the bill is about; it is about making sure that we move back to what was the original situation for a long, long period of time. And that does not necessarily lead to increased poverty. And, furthermore, one of the premises that the members keep referring to is the issue around the projections around what will be the increased CPI rate and what will be the increase in the wage rate. As everyone knows in this House, not even the former finance Minister sitting to my left here would be able to project with some certainty what will be higher over time and what will be lower. There are point estimates in the regulatory impact statement, or the analysis of the bill, but the long-term issue is that we want to return the basis for payments back to the cost of living CPI rather than having it based on wage inflation. Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour): Well, I wasn't going to take a call in the title and commencement debate, but, given Mr Bayly's mention of me a couple of times, I thought it would be worthwhile proffering up to the committee a couple of other titles that could be used for this legislation, because one of those could be the "Social Security (Taking Money Off the Poorest New Zealanders to Pay for Tax Cuts for Landlords and Property Speculators) Bill"—because that's actually what the bill does. There's been this argument throughout the debate on this bill, and during question time this week, about why this was— Simon Court: Hate landlords—demonised them for years. Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: No—you see, the member Mr Court interjects "demonising landlords". It's not landlords' fault that the Government's bringing this policy to the House. What the Government has done—and it's been extremely explicit about this in its fiscal plans—is that this money, $670 million – odd, will be coming out of the pockets of the future recipients of main benefits. And that money is part of what is needed to pay for the tax cuts that the National Party and the coalition Government are now proposing. So that title, I think, would be extremely appropriate because it's actually what the bill does. There's been this inconsistency in the argument of Government members who've spoken on this, who—as Mr Bayly just did in his intervention there—say, "Oh, well, you know, they might be a little bit better off in the first year." We've actually been through that, and that possibly isn't going to be the case. But ultimately, it can't possibly be true that those on main benefits will be better off, because the Government is going to get $670 million. Where's that coming from Mr Bayly? It's forecast. It's in the forecast you and your Government are using, which means that $670 million was going to go to the poorest New Zealanders and now it's not going to. So those people will be worse off. The poorest New Zealanders will be worse off because of this bill. That's a fact, Mr Bayly because it's actually in the projections. So that would be another title for the bill. Hon Member: You're making stuff up, Grant. Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: With respect, the National Party's fiscal plan literally has the numbers in it that they expect to get in future years. That was money that was destined for the lowest-income New Zealanders, and now it's coming back and it's going into the pockets of much wealthier New Zealanders via tax cuts. So that is the reason why I would say that this bill is far better titled as one that actually takes that $670 million away from the poorest New Zealanders and puts it in to the pockets of others. The other potential title for the bill would be the "Social Security (The Children's Commissioner was Wrong) Bill", because one of the things that we were told when we established the Welfare Expert Advisory Group was that one of the best things we could do to lift children out of poverty was to index benefits to wages. That's what Andrew Becroft said. Now, Andrew Becroft was not always a fan of the previous Government, but that was something he said. So when we were working our way through the recommendations of the Welfare Expert Advisory Group, we said, "We're going to pick that one up because we know it will make a massive difference to lifting children out of poverty." And the reverse is clearly true in the material that's on the Table and was discussed in the House today—that this bill will push 7,000 kids back into poverty. Andrew Becroft was right. This was one of the best things we could do to lift children out of poverty: to index benefit to wages. And this bill, the title of this bill, could so easily, actually, reflect the fact that this Government thinks Andrew Becroft's wrong. In fairness, the Government even said today they thought Andrew Becroft was wrong. He wasn't; he was the Children's Commissioner—he worked every day with children and advocating for children. And I'm sure that Mister Becroft would approve of a title that actually accurately stated the fact that the Government thinks that he was wrong and the Government thinks that a bill that pushes more people into poverty is right. I wasn't going to take this intervention, but I've taken it because I think it's important to put on the record what this bill actually does. SUZE REDMAYNE (National—Rangitīkei): I move, That debate on this question now close. A party vote was called for on the question, That debate on the question now close. Ayes 68 New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Noes 55 New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6. Motion agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question, That clause 1 be agreed to. Ayes 68 New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Noes 55 New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6. Clause 1 agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question, That clause 2 be agreed to. Ayes 68 New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Noes 55 New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6. Clause 2 agreed to. Bill to be reported without amendment. House resumed. REPORT OF COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Mr Speaker, the committee has considered the Social Workers Registration Legislation Amendment Bill and reports it without amendment—with amendment; my apologies. The committee has also considered the Social Security (Benefits Adjustment) and Income Tax (Minimum Family Tax Credit) Amendment Bill and reports it without amendment. I move, That the report be adopted. Motion agreed to. Report adopted. SPEAKER: The Social Workers Registration Legislation Amendment Bill and the Social Security (Benefits Adjustment) and Income Tax (Minimum Family Tax Credit) Amendment Bill are set down for third reading next sitting day. MAIDEN STATEMENTS SPEAKER: Members, in accordance with the determination by the Business Committee, we'll now have maiden statements. Following the maiden statements, the House will adjourn until 2 p.m. on Tuesday, 20 February 2024. I call on Fa'anānā Efeso Collins to make his maiden statement to the House. FA'ANĀNĀ EFESO COLLINS (Green): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Mai i ngā hau o Ōtāhuhu-nui-a-Rangi, o Maungarei, o Motukaroa; mai i ngā awa o Hikuwaru, o Tāmaki e rere ki te Waitematā, kei te Mānukanuka-o-Hoturoa, ko Kaiwhare, ko Taramainuku kua tau, kua tau ki ngā whenua o Ngāti Toa Rangatira, o Taranaki Whānui ki Te Ūpoko o Te Ika. Tēnā anō tatou. [From the winds of Ōtāhuhu, of Mount Wellington, of Hamlin's Hill; from the rivers of Hikuwaru, of Tāmaki flowing to the Waitematā, to the Mānukau Harbour; Kaiwhare and Taramainuku have arrived, have arrived to the lands of Ngāti Toa Rangatira, of Taranaki Whānui in the Wellington region. Greetings to us all.] [Samoan text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.] It is an indescribable feeling to stand up and address this House. As a son of Samoan immigrants who made the mighty Ōtara 274—Southside hard—their home, I am well aware of the giants whose shoulders I stand on and the masters whose feet I learnt at. The courage, foresight, entrepreneurial spirit, and hope of our ancestors who journeyed thousands of years ago through the vast waters of Te Moana-nui-a-Kiwa brings me here today. My parents arrived in New Zealand in the early 1960s, told that this was the land of milk and honey. Dad started off as a taxi driver with South Auckland Taxis, and mum on the factory floor at New Zealand Forest Products in Penrose. We lived in a four-bedroom State house on Preston Road in Ōtara, and I attended local schools: East Tāmaki Primary, Ferguson Intermediate, and the great Tangaroa College. We're forever grateful for the State house that was our home for around 20 years, and the quality public education we received from our local State schools. I did try my hand for a short period at a decile 10 school outside of Ōtara, but that experiment lasted only two weeks. It was during the time in the late 1980s, when families from poorer areas were being discouraged from going to local schools because they weren't considered up to scratch. I'm glad we changed course and decided to high school it in Ōtara, where the motto of our school was "Waiho i te tokā tu Moana"—"Steadfast like a rock in the sea". Later, at university, I went on to write my Master's dissertation on brown flight, critiquing the Picot reforms that have wreaked havoc on our public schooling system. That period was also a challenging time for my family because we were being told by our teachers to stop speaking Samoan at home and only to speak English. My parents didn't want us to fail at school, so we were allowed to speak English at home and over time we stopped speaking Samoan altogether. In the end, I lost my language. I struggled, I was embarrassed, and I felt incomplete. Even speaking to you in Samoan this evening gives me major tremors. There's a saying in Samoan: "E le tu fa'amauga se tagata"—no one stands alone, no one succeeds alone—and, for me, no one suffers alone. Over the past years, with the support of my family and friends, I've taken to trying to converse again in Samoan, reading more texts in Samoan, praying in Samoan, and sending our youngest to a local Samoan early childhood centre. Our beautiful language, Gagana Samoa, has returned to our home and is helping to overcome the inadequacy that had taken root in my soul. As I speak this evening, I'm mindful of the many young people who are navigating these at times treacherous and unsettled waters in life, filled with so much potential, energy, and hope, yet too often misunderstood. In my time as a youth worker in South Auckland, I've spoken with hundreds of young people with massive dreams for the future. We need youth workers, we need social workers, and we need mentors to walk alongside our young people, and, yes, we want our youth to be responsible and caring and considerate. So it's our job in this House to resource the people and organisations who will model the behaviour to them that we expect, but who also won't give up on them and won't come with a saviour mentality. Many of our societal challenges are driven by poverty. We can achieve greater social cohesion and lift our sense of belonging by addressing poverty. I've been honoured to run youth mentoring programmes for nearly 25 years—that's about how old I am—and to this day I mentor young people. When we undertook and published research on youth gangs some years ago, the youth we spoke to had the solutions and just needed the means to make it happen. Too many of our young people are filling our prisons, and it is wasted human potential. Give them the tools, the resources, and the means to make a meaningful contribution to the world, and they will. I was at a conference recently about the threats to democracy and an attendee spoke about their work in developing nations and used the familiar retort, "You can't eat democracy." And I couldn't agree more. This House, this centre of democracy, needs to do more to engage our people, all of our people, so that they can see this House is not just relevant but an essential part of their lives. The greatest challenge facing our generation is climate change. The Pacific Islands nations are among the most vulnerable to climate change in the world. The world's continued reliance on fossil fuels, loss of coral reefs, rising sea levels, and increasing severe weather patterns means that our extended whānau in the Pacific are in immediate danger. We, as a collective, must do all we can to do as we say out south "flip the script". Truth is, those who've done the least to create this predicament are being the hardest hit. Our challenges, whether ecological, geopolitical, or cultural, are diverse, but we're bonded by the inextricable ties we have to our lands and our oceans. We've inherited philosophies, knowledge systems, and profound ecological wisdom that holds the answers and drives our collective resilience—from West Papua to Hawai'i. Our fight for a climate resilient, nuclear-free and independent Pacific remains as strong as ever. We are not drowning; we are fighting. I haven't come to Parliament to learn—learning happens as a matter of course through reflection. I've come to this House to help. Helping is a deliberate act. I'm here to help this Government govern for all of New Zealand, and I'm here to open the door, enabling our communities to connect better with this House. During the election campaign, I spoke to people frustrated about their lot in life, scared for their and their children's futures, and feeling their dreams were slipping away. The people I spoke to expect the Government to do more and move faster. And I know that there are some in this House who believe Government is not the answer to these challenges and that less Government is better. But here's the thing: the Government cannot be a bystander to people suffering confusion and disenfranchisement. New Zealand must close the divide between those who have and those who have not, because the reality for my community is that those who have more money often wield more power, more health, more housing, more justice, more access, more canopy cover, more lobbyists with swipe cards, and more time. And the opposite is true for those who have fewer resources. It's hard to be poor, it's expensive to be poor, and moreover, public discourse is making it socially unacceptable to be poor. Whether it's bashing on beneficiaries, dragging our feet towards a living wage, throwing shade on school breakfast programmes, or restricting people's ability to collectively bargain for fairer working conditions, we must do better to lift aspirations and the lived realities of all our people. To that end, I want to say to this House with complete surety that the neoliberal experiment of the 1980s has failed. The economics of creating unemployment to manage inflation is farcical when domestic inflation in New Zealand has been driven by big corporates making excessive profits. It's time to draw a line in the sand, and alongside my colleagues here in Te Pāti Kākāriki, we've come as the pallbearers of neoliberalism, to bury these shallow, insufferable ideas once and for all. And this, sir, is our act of love. Paolo Freire, in his seminal work Pedagogy of the Oppressed, said love is an act of courage, not fear; love is a commitment to others. No matter where the oppressed are found, the act of love is a commitment to their cause, the cause of liberation. The most recent election campaign left many in our Māori communities bruised and targeted for the perceived privileges supposedly bestowed upon them. Shared governance is a rich concept about how we include those who've been excluded for far too long in the work of this House and the democratic institutions that are fundamental to our collective wellbeing. We are Tangata Tiriti and we have nothing to fear. As a New Zealand - born Samoan living in South Auckland, I've experienced, written about, and spoken about racism in this country. I've also been on a well-publicised journey in understanding the needs and views of our rainbow communities, and I have a long way to go. And my message to whānau who often experience the sharp end of discrimination—disabled, ethnic, rainbow, brown, seniors, and neurodiverse—is thank you for trusting us with the responsibility of facilitating a new discussion on how we move forward together and make possible what was once deemed impossible. The American civil rights activist James Baldwin said, "Not everything that is faced can be changed, but nothing can be changed until it is faced." We commit to working across this House as a nation and with each other irrespective of our post code, income bracket, skin colour, or level of qualification attained. But, in order for that work, we must come with humility, the desire to listen, and dare I say it, maybe speaking last. If I was to inspire anyone by getting to this House and my work over the next three years, I hope that it's the square pegs, the misfits, the forgotten, the unloved, the invisible—it's the dreamers who want more, expect more, are impatient for change, and have this uncanny ability to stretch us further. Finally, may I take this opportunity to thank those who've assisted with my most recent campaign: [Names to be inserted by the Hansard office.] And to the coolest people in the Greens—dare I say it, the South Auckland branch of the Greens—and the Pasifika Lived Experience Network, thank you. Te Pāti Kākāriki, my friends, my colleagues, who opened the door to me and warmly welcomed me into your whānau, thank you. To all our family and friends who've made the journey to Wellington and are here in the gallery this evening, thank you. Finally, to my family, [Samoan text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.] To my dad, Tauiliili Sio, and my brother Thomas, who are both watching from Heaven, and my mum, Lotomau Collins, who is here in the gallery, thank you all. To the most amazing woman in my life, with whom I'd like to wish a belated "Happy Valentine's"—to my beautiful wife Fia, Kaperiela, and Asalemo, I love you. Kaperiela and Asalemo: a quick reminder that I will be your Valentine's for ever, because in true Samoan fashion, you can't get married till you're 50! My favourite part of the Mass on Sunday is when our parish priests will rise and say, "The Mass has ended." It's about that time that I start to think about what we're going to be having for lunch! But our priest continues, now with his arms outstretched, and he will close with this charge to the congregation: "Go now in peace to love and serve the Lord." Mr Speaker, it is with that spirit, the spirit of peace and love and service, with which my extended family who are here today come to this House. Nō reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā rā tātou katoa. [Applause, hongi, and harirū] Waiata—"Fa'afetai i le Atua" STEVE ABEL (Green): Kia ora koutou. Thank you, Mr Speaker. I acknowledge the local iwi—Te Atiawa, Ngāti Toa Rangatira, Ngāti Raukawa ki te Tonga—on whose rohe we stand. Bish, boom, bish, boom, bish, boom, bish, boom, bish, boom, bish, boom. That's the sound of my heart. I have a damaged mitral valve. That wooshing sound "bish" is the sound of a little blood flowing back the wrong way, which in part explains my attitude to the world perhaps. When I was an infant, we lived in the best home our parents could afford, a typical damp, cold weatherboard house in Mount Albert that backed on to the railway tracks. And when I was three years old, I fell very ill. A doctor came to the house late one night and listened to my chest for a long time and sent me straight to hospital. I had rheumatic fever. I survived with a lifelong heart murmur, thanks to penicillin and the public health service. But when anyone asks why an environmentalist cares so much that every child in this country should be raised in a warm, dry, affordable, accessible, secure home, I carry that belief in my heart with every beat. When I was four, we moved to another house, and my sister Kate came along—and, Kate, you are there with Isabel and Sophie. I planted a tōtara seedling in our backyard when I was seven years old that had come free from the school fair. E noho ana au ki raro i te maru o Maungawhau. I planted it in the rich volcanic soil on the lava flow of Maungawhau. The seedling has grown, now, far taller than me. I can't even get my arms around it. And for me to stand in the shadow of something that began no taller than a child's thumb and will, if let survive, far exceed a human lifespan is to feel the awe of my early wonderment of nature, which I believe all of us experienced in our childhoods. And for the sake of liveable cities and a liveable planet, I am prepared to work with Chris Bishop to bring back general tree protection. We can do this, Chris. Mana rākau. When I was eight years old, I came home from school believing I was dumb, in the terminology of the day. I couldn't read. Mum found a teacher Margaret Hooten, who assessed dyslexia and taught me to read through phonics, but school had already lost me. It is a matter of mental survival for a child in that if the system doesn't believe in you, you cannot believe in it. I had a distrust of the education system and a cynicism towards authority, which has never really gone away. One thing I will support this Government in is use of structured literacy in the classroom and debunking this failed system of whole-language learning that has harmed so many through illiteracy in this country. In 1981, I was 11, and my parents took me down to Fowlds Park to assemble for the protest against the Springboks playing the All Blacks at Eden Park. The organiser said I was too young, and I had to walk home. But at that age, I had a strong sense of the need to be part of this movement against our country playing sports with an apartheid state. I joined a march against nuclear weapons when I was 13. I understood the existential threat of nuclear holocaust and the vile nature of US hegemony. When the audience stood and applauded as David Lange completed the Oxford Union debate in February 1985 on the moot that nuclear weapons are morally indefensible, I remembered the distinct feeling of pride at being represented by this articulate leader taking this principled stand on our behalf as a small nation. Lange's retort to the pressure of the US to accept nuclear weapons was, "It is self-defeating logic, just as the weapons themselves are self-defeating; to compel an ally to accept nuclear weapons against the wishes of that ally is to take the moral position of totalitarianism which allows for no self-determination, which is exactly the evil we are supposed to be fighting against." I am dismayed that as the United States descends further into genocidal hegemony, we are so quickly willing to burn that hard-fought nuclear-free independence by signing away our status out of ANZUS and putting us back into AUKUS. New Zealand belongs as a nuclear-free, independent South Pacific peacemaker. When I was 15, I learned how to play David Bowie's "Space Oddity" on guitar: "Ground Control to Major Tom". David Bowie is still my spiritual guide. It would set me on a path of music making and songwriting that is a profound salve and sanity in my life. Into the abyss we stare, and art draws us out into pure air. At the New York Metropolitan Museum of Art many years later, I saw a 40,000-year-old Chinese flute exquisitely crafted from an ostrich bone. Music and art are a much more ancient and universal necessity of being human in the constructs of industrialism, capitalism, consumerism, individualism, and money. Any society that wants to be healthy and intelligent supports the arts. A shout-out to my beloved friends paying their rent in the "Tower of Song". When I was 16, some kids brought the petition against homosexual law reform to Mt Roskill Grammar. A group of us went around telling other students not to sign it; that it was a bad thing. Even as I was just discovering who I was, I knew that no one should be made illegal for expressing their sexual identity—and that goes for gender identity too. My mum was raised in the provincial Bay of Plenty in the 1940s and 1950s. Her mum, Kathleen, had lost her first husband in the Napier-Hastings earthquake. Mum's was a disrupted upbringing. She fell pregnant out of wedlock in the late-1950s; the options were adopting the kids out, or illegal and dangerous abortion. In the convent where she was sent, unmarried mothers were expected to give birth to their illegitimate children in shameful silence, and the babies were taken without ever being seen or held by their birth mothers. When I was 19, my sister Kate and I were able to meet our sister Chris and our brother Stephen. It's great to have you here today, Kris—where have you gone? You were there, and now you've gone! Mum said there should be some place on Earth that you can walk in the front door and make yourself a cup of tea without asking anyone permission. That was her definition of home. My father was courageous and loving. He adored his children and he would spoil us to a fault. He was a rower, a computer systems analyst, and won a seat on the Auckland Council in 2004 as a City Vision Green opposing drinking-water privatisation. Mum had been a land girl and a herd tester. She worked six years in the Norwegian Merchant Navy, visiting 42 countries in 1960s before she met Dad. She was part of the playcentre movement, the Child Poverty Action Group, and was a silver grand master bridge champion. Just weeks before her death in 2010, she arrived at the bottom of Queen Street in her wheelchair, she was riddled with cancer. She came to the 40,000-strong march against mining that I had helped to organise, and Dad wheeled her all the way up Queen Street; she wouldn't have missed it for the world. For my values, who I am, and my compass on life, I'm so much indebted to my parents. I travelled in my twenties. At 27, a site of extensive rain forest destruction for palm plantations in Malaysia set me on the path of the last 27 years of my life, advocating for the protection of nature. I returned to New Zealand. On the wall of a friend's flat, I saw a poster of someone standing in the canopy of a giant rimu tree. It was Pat McNamara, and the banner said "Haere mai! N F A welcomes those who respect the forest". I found my band of likeminded brothers and sisters at Carlaw Park on Waitangi Day in 1998. When we stood in those ancient West Coast forests as young people and saw the blood-red sap on the freshly cut stumps of centuries old rimu, we sometimes felt helpless, but we learnt the art of campaigning under the tutorage of Nicky Hager. When 137,000 hectares of native forest was eventually protected, we experienced first-hand that through organised political action you can change the course of history. I'm blessed to have subsequently played a part in movements that stopped coal-fired power at Marsden B; kept our food production GE-free; protected our oceans, coasts, and climate from offshore oil and gas exploration; undid plans to mine our most valuable conservation land; save sea life from plastic bags; and, most recently, advocated that rural people should not be exposed to nitrate-contaminated drinking water. Shout-out to Native Forests Action Council, Greenpeace, and Mana Rākau friends here today—crikes, the time is terrifying, Mr Speaker. I believe in an interconnected world. We are nature; it is us. If the rivers are sick, the people will be sick. The absurdity of industrial progress is that it promises a better life through destroying the only world in which we can actually live. For the few to degrade and pollute what is a necessity for all—clean water, abundant oceans and forests, a stable atmosphere—is more than merely an injustice to people; it is an act against all species and against the viability of life itself, and, therefore, the most monumental harm that could be committed. A Parliament that is not able to meaningfully address existential risk threats itself risks irrelevance. If this House has a just purpose, it must be to protect the common good from the ruthlessness of vested interest, rather than, as it so often does, facilitate those vested interests to harm the commons. We make a grave error in not seeing Te Tiriti o Waitangi, in the words of Moana Jackson, as a profound, visionary base upon which to build a country. The Treaty should be seen as a sacred bond. When I was a kid, there was a black wall on Dominion Road with the words painted, "Honour the Treaty." I didn't know what it meant. They didn't teach us anything about New Zealand history at school. On the inside cover of the school journal was Goldie's painting of Māori arriving in a sailing waka in despair and starvation. A vivid image like that is a powerful lie to load into a child's brain. I cannot stand the wilful sowing of ignorance, particularly by those with political power. To quote Charles Dickens in A Christmas Carol, on ignorance he said, "Slander those who tell it ye. Admit it for your factious purposes, and make it worse. And abide the end." To still suggest Māori ceded sovereignty is an audacious erasure of history in actual texts, let alone a betrayal of human relationships. People do not cede sovereignty. Not my ancestors the Scots, not the Irish, not the West Papuans, not the Palestinians, and not tangata whenua, Māori. Self-determination and autonomy are deep human needs. Any nation that truly believes in freedom does not want that only for itself while denying that same freedom to others. As tangata Tiriti, I will uphold Te Tiriti o Waitangi and tino rangatiratanga for Māori. That is the Pākehā price of citizenship. As climate change bites with ever greater ferocity, it will be the society that we hold together and the values of that human society that matter more and more. What is the foundation of the life we make in this earth? As a culture, it must be based on plurality, on justice, on respect and understanding, and, ultimately, love. The most useful line in our otherwise pretty average national anthem is "in the bonds of love we meet"—in the bonds of love we meet. Thank you all for being here. It's wonderful to have you here. Special mention to the Greens, and particularly the awesome west Greens. The south Greens are quite good, but the West Greens, and Sinéad and the voters who got me here—I'm stoked to be part of this amazing caucus. My life did not lack meaning before fatherhood, but afterwards it became the meaning. My grandfather, George, of the Aberdeenshire Abels, born in Invercargill, would say that parenting was greatness thrust upon you. It's true. You are great, Quinn. Boom! Gotcha. He's going to hate me for that. Quinn was born three days after the Petrobras survey ship left te Whānau-ā-Apanui's customary waters—his middle name is Raukūmara; his age, 12, marks the years since they left. I want to thank Rikirangi Gage, Dale Takutimu, Rob Ruha and all the Apanui crew for that powerful alliance we made between Greenpeace and you. And Mike Smith and Hinekaa Mako who instigated the bond—it's great to have you here, Bianca. I met Rawiri in that struggle—I know you're not here, Rawiri; I'll stand with you any day to stop the oil drillers. I know I'm not meant to mention people who aren't here, but you are my hero. I'll stand with you any day at Rawiri to stop the oil drillers. And Megan for that matter, and any of you for that matter—join the side of life. I know people on all sides of the House; I'm not a natural partisan, I believe that dialogue across difference is vital for harmonious society. And I love you, Niamh, it's great to have you here, thanks for backing me in this crazy thing. Good to see you here too, Emmet, and all the Deighton-O'Flynns. And Glasgow in the House, Lucy Cusick—team beestaay there—let's go. Finally, on the day my mum died, she had lot the ability to speak but was still completely cognisant. Her brother John called from Katikati—he was too unwell to make her passing, and he said, "Recall to Jan when we were children we took the horses down to Papamoa Beach. We took off the saddles and the bridles and we clung to their manes, and we rode them bareback into the breaking waves, screeching with laughter. It was ecstatic; the horses loved the sea and so did we." That joy and ecstasy of interaction with wild nature, that is what it is to be a child. That is what it is to be human, and that is what we must defend for all children now and to come. Kia ora koutou, kia ora koutou katoa. [Applause, hongi, and harirū] Waiata LAN PHAM (Green): Ai lam chu dat nay? Ngāti Toa, Te Atiawa, Ngāti Raukawa ki te tonga. Kō Ngāti Aotearoa rāua ko Vietnam oku iwi. Ko Lan Pham tōku ingoa. He mihi mahana ki a koutou kua tae mai nae. Warmest greetings to you all. My name is Lan Pham. My whakapapa is of Vietnamese and Pākehā heritage, and I am so proud to stand here as the first Vietnamese MP in te Whare Pāremata. There is a saying my father, my Ba, reminded me of. "Uống nước nhớ nguồn"—"Drink the water; remember the source". Standing here today, I want to begin by acknowledging my source: my incredible family, friends, and supporters; those who are here, those afar, and those who have passed on, especially my amazing mum, Rosalie, and my mother-in-law, Natalie. I want to acknowledge the fine, proud people of Vietnam, and also the thousands of Vietnamese who, just like my Ba, have settled here, had families, lived lives, and flourished in this incredible land of Aotearoa—xin chao. So how did I get here? Te Pātaka o Rākaihautū, Banks Peninsula, was where I had the pleasure of running for election, supported by the greatest Ōtautahi dream team—you know who you are—in the greatest electorate in the motu. It includes a fair chunk of the south of Ōtautahi, Christchurch City. Mr Speaker, I want to acknowledge you for your longstanding representation for Ōtautahi, and my Banks Peninsula MP sisters Vanessa, Tracey, and Laura, and, of course, to the Port Hills communities, where, no doubt, all our hearts and well wishes are, especially today with the devastating fires. The origins of Banks Peninsula lie with the legendary explorer Rākaihautū, captain of the first waka that settled in Te Waka o Aoraki, the South Island, and the bountiful mahinga kai he and his people encountered and enjoyed. Rākaihautū story is connected to mine, as it's on these same lands that my great-great-Irish ancestors arrived in 1876, disembarking from the Waitangi in Whakaraupō, Lyttleton, settling in Akaroa. My English heritage is from my granddad, who served in Egypt and Italy alongside his three brothers, before an injury returned him home to safety. My Vietnamese heritage originates in Quang Ngai, a beautiful coastal province in central Vietnam, where Ba grew up with his parents and tribe of 11 brothers and sisters. In the midst of the Vietnam War, Ba came to Tāmaki-makau-rau as part of the Colombo Plan scholarship. It was there at Auckland Uni that he met my mum. From this rather radical pairing of a devout catholic and a zen Buddhism practitioner came love, marriage, and six kids in our Mitsubishi carriage. Our upbringing here in Te Whanga-nui-a-Tara was full of love and rowdiness. Our door was always open to make room for family and friends who needed a home or a meal. Looking back, my life, and schooling at St Mary's College—just up the hill—was a constant state of blissful ignorance. I truly believed the world was this brilliant place—which it is—led by wise, thoughtful leaders who looked at all the evidence and made the most sensible decisions for the good of all people and the planet. There's a saying "The biggest threat to our planet is the belief that someone else will save it". Well, as a young person, I was that threat. It wasn't until I finished my undergrad degree at Massey in Palmerston North and realised that I had no real practical skills that I moved south to Dunedin, enrolled in a Conservation Corps course, and started using my brain. There I met not only my dreamboat husband, Emerson, but I began meeting and learning about our most endangered native fish species, who are most commonly encountered fried as a whitebait patty. I learned of bizarre, outdated laws, such as the fact that the one native fish with explicit protection was declared extinct several decades before the law was even made. I went on to work for the Department of Conservation as a freshwater ranger, witnessing firsthand both the wonder and degradation of our precious waterways. I began learning about the history of Aotearoa, the deep injustice of colonisation, and the faulty foundations that we've built this country upon. It was over this time I began coming into contact with some of our leaders—MPs, local councillors, and the like—and was surprised by their lack of understanding, yet the strength of their opinions, and it made me wonder: who are the people running our country? It was enough of a prompt for me to take on my Master's in freshwater ecology at Otago University. Then, with a group of friends, started a charitable trust called Working Waters Trust. We worked with awesome landowners—mainly farmers—and partnered them up with rūnanga, schools, and community groups to protect and restore native fish habitat. While I loved working in these delightful bubbles of native fish worship and habitat improvement, I was becoming increasingly frustrated by what I saw around me. Just over the fence were more wetlands drained and more land intensification on a vastly bigger scale. The work we were doing wasn't enough, and I could see that without change at scale, it would never be enough. So I sailed off on a five-day boat ride to the paradise of Rangitāhua—Raoul Island, in the Kermadecs—to take up a 12-month role as biodiversity and science manager for DOC. At this time, the global consciousness around the realities and urgent need for action on climate change was rising. People around the world were taking to the streets as part of the global people's climate marches. With this involving two of my favourite things—scientific evidence and people power—I had to join. So I ran a climate march for our island and was chuffed to hit international headlines when The Guardian reported that the entire population of Raoul Island had turned out to march—all seven of us. It got me thinking about the importance of showing up and organising to be a part of something bigger. On this active volcanic island, surrounded by land and ocean brimming with life, I realised that the boat would return me to Christchurch a week before the local government elections, and I thought, "If I need to sit behind a desk to protect and restore places like this for others to treasure and experience, then so be it. I'm going to run for council.", and I did. Working with an awesome team in Christchurch, I got to work making campaign videos from the island and spreading the word. People would contact me asking, "Why are you running? You don't have any name recognition, you don't have enough experience, you don't have X, Y, Z"—typical perceived barriers that young, diverse, or non-political people hear when they consider running for political roles. When I returned to Christchurch for the election, I got the shock of my life to discover the highest-polling candidate for Environment Canterbury was me: 55,000 people across Christchurch voted for me. Across all local government election results that year, only the Mayor of Auckland and Mayor of Christchurch received more votes than I did. It was a pivotal moment for me. I realised these elected roles are an open opportunity for people wanting to make a difference in the world. They're roles that to function require a diversity of representation, experiences, and ideas, and they're a key part we so often overlook in making change. So big ups to all members in this House for taking up that challenge by putting your hands up. Across the two terms I went on to serve on Environment Canterbury, the most powerful influence on me was witnessing the constant dedication of mana whenua in upholding their rights and, equally, their responsibilities as kaitiaki and in their exercise of tino rangatiratanga in spaces which have, more often than not, simply failed to give regard or effect to them. I want to acknowledge, in particular, those amazing rangatira whose relentless contribution to the kaupapa of upholding Te Mana o Te Wai and te Oranga o te Taiao cannot be overstated—particularly Peter Ramsden, Mandy Holme, and John Wilkie who have now passed, and the current and past chairs and whānau of Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu who I've been privileged to walk alongside, some of whom are here today. Ka nui tonu ngā mihi, ka nui tonu te aroha. All of these experiences have helped me now understand that I am shaped by this whenua—the harbour and hills of Te-Whanga-nui-a-Tara; the rivers, lakes, and oceans across the motu. I've learned lessons through the history of this land, the death of my mum, the birth of my own children, and understanding my own heritage. I've had my breath taken away by the phosphorescence surrounding Te Hoiere / Maud Island, by the breach of a humpback whale and her calf off Rangitahua, and by the glimmer of a glitter-gold kōaro gliding through a stream in the Otago high country. I am wholeheartedly committed to understanding and healing the injustices of our past and upholding He Whakaputanga and Te Tiriti as the extraordinary foundation of our path ahead. I want to make it crystal clear, as a representative of the rich multicultural fabric that makes up this country, to every person of every ancestry that justice for Māori will not take away or erode your own rights, as some may claim. Addressing the injustices of our past and moving forward to uphold Te Tiriti is something we can all be part of, and all have a role to play in. I promise you: if you engage and seek to listen and understand, you will be more enriched and feel more connected to your own place of standing on this land—that is the generosity and the invitation that Te Tiriti offers us. I'm grateful for that, and grateful that life and circumstance has given me the privilege to be here in this moment with all of you, because, ultimately, what a time to be alive, and what a task ahead of us. A time when we live in an upside-down world, where the protection of trade routes has a higher priority than the protection of human life; where the profits of corporations and banks have more sanctity than the ecological integrity of our forests, our oceans, and our children's future; where despite all our innovation and technology, we neglect to secure the fundamentals of life on earth, like clean drinking water, like a stable climate to grow food, like housing our people—the things that connect and sustain us. So we're at a crux, right? A crossroads where transformational, radical change is necessary. But what exactly is so radical about it? When I joined the Green Party, I was struck by how often people would use that word "radical". "Oh, Lan," they'd say, "why did you join the Greens? They're too radical for me." Well, let's unpack. The term "radical" is defined by the Oxford Dictionary as "going to the root or origin; touching upon or affecting what is essential and fundamental." I am so proud to be part of a bigger-picture kaupapa focused on the essential and fundamental things in life that support our earth ecosystem to function, a kaupapa focused on designing a world that prioritises the essential work of caring for each other as fellow human beings and caring for our planet as the basis of our economy and our society—not as a nice to have, not as a when we can afford it, but as an essential. It's focused on what should be a not so radical idea: that the foundation of Government decision-making should be informed by mātauranga, evidence, and long-term mokopuna decisions over short-term quick fixes, individual reckons, and Google research. Some may call this radical, but to me it's more accurately plain common sense. My hope is that we are a wise enough group of elected members that we can collectively turn our minds and our experience to what is truly essential and fundamental for this country and our future. But I've been around decision-making tables long enough to know that it doesn't matter what my or any one individual's aspiration is; what matters is our collective action, our shared plan. What matters is what we do together. A wise friend once told me, "Proceed as if success is inevitable." In this story of unprecedented global challenge, success, to me, looks like a world that recognised the true wealth of our society is based on care and connection to each other, and a world designed within the Earth's ecological boundaries, and that gets us the ultimate reward: a legacy of abundance for future generations. So let's proceed as if success is inevitable: to lead the world in waging peace, justice, and care for all life as deliberately and powerfully as those who today wage war, genocide, and destruction of our planet. Sure, we're in the thick of our own mess right now, but I want to finish with the wise of Vietnamese monk Thích Nhất Hạnh: "No mud, no lotus." The opportunity to bloom is today. It will be extraordinary, and here is your personal invitation to all be a part of it. Mō tātou, ā, mō kā uri ā muri ake nei. For us, and our children after us. Kia ora. [Applause, hongi, and harirū] Waiata The House adjourned at 6.25 p.m.