Tuesday, 27 February 2024 - Volume 773 Sitting date: 27 Feb 2024 TUESDAY, 27 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. PETITIONS, PAPERS, SELECT COMMITTEE REPORTS, AND INTRODUCTION OF BILLS SPEAKER: Petitions have been delivered for the Clerk to present. CLERK: Petition of Andrew Munro requesting that the House introduce legislation requiring cat owners to stop their cats from killing our local bird life. Petition of Alistair Reese requesting the House legislate to recognise the oral agreement "4th Article" as part of the Treaty of Waitangi. Petition of Alisha Riley requesting that the House to urge the Government to increase the GST threshold in its 2024 tax policy work programme. SPEAKER: Those petitions stand referred to the Petitions Committee. A paper has been delivered for presentation. CLERK: 2022/23 annual report of the Nursing Council of New Zealand. SPEAKER: That paper is published under the authority of the House. There are no select committee reports. I present the report of the Ombudsman, entitled Children in care: complaints to the Ombudsman 2019–23. Those papers are published under the authority of the House. No select committee reports have been presented—no bills. ORAL QUESTIONS QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS Question No. 1—Health 1. JAMIE ARBUCKLE (NZ First) to the Associate Minister of Health: What updates can she provide, if any, on the repeal of the Therapeutic Products Act 2023? Hon CASEY COSTELLO (Associate Minister of Health): The Government has committed to begin work to repeal the Therapeutic Products Act 2023 within its first hundred days. I will be taking a paper to Cabinet next week seeking approval to progress this work. Jamie Arbuckle: Why does the Minister want to repeal the Therapeutic Products Act? Hon CASEY COSTELLO: The Therapeutic Products Act was not fit for purpose. Appropriate regulation of medicines and medical devices is vital to ensure that these products do what they claim, are high quality, and that product approval pathways do not make them inaccessible or unaffordable. We also know that the current fragmented and outdated approach to the regulation of natural health products means that New Zealand is missing out on a significant proportion of opportunity to grow jobs and the economy. We need to develop a fit for purpose regulatory system for both. Jamie Arbuckle: Will repealing the Therapeutic Products Act adversely impact medical safety or health outcomes of New Zealanders? Hon CASEY COSTELLO: The Act has a commencement date of 1 September 2026, so no changes are required from the health sector or industry. I have received advice that implementing the changes required to meet the commencement date would've been extremely challenging. This poses the real possibility of poor outcomes for New Zealanders. Jamie Arbuckle: How does the Minister intend to progress work on replacing the Therapeutic Products Act? Hon CASEY COSTELLO: The Government has an opportunity to replace the Therapeutic Products Act with legislation that protects consumers without creating unnecessary red tape on industry. We know that communities, the health sector, and industry have concerns, and we intend to listen to those concerns as we develop new proposals. Rt Hon Winston Peters: So, will big pharma, that's tried to control this part of the market in New Zealand for the last 2½ decades, be finally, again, put back in its place? Hon CASEY COSTELLO: We are confident we will have effective legislation that will deliver good outcomes. Question No. 2—Prime Minister 2. Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all of his Government's statements and actions? Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON (Prime Minister): Yes, I do. In particular, I stand by the Government's action to conduct a ministerial inquiry into problems within the school property system—problems driven by a culture of mismanagement under the previous Government's Ministers of Education, which have resulted in hundreds of projects facing huge escalations in both cost and scope. And I also appreciate the member's most recent supportive remarks correcting earlier comments from Jan Tinetti denying there was even a problem. This Government stands by all of its actions to address the shocking educational outcomes delivered by that member's Government. Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Is it correct that school property capital expenditure for the Botany electorate increased from $3.7 million in 2017 to $11.9 million in 2022; if so, which of those projects does he believe were of low value? Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: If the member would like to ask a specific question, I'm sure I can give him a proper answer for that. But what I would say to you is: 350 schools were misled by the previous Government: "We're going to rescope your school; we're going to redesign it." Twenty before Christmas; 250, now 350; billions of dollars, lots of promises, no delivery, underfunded—a pattern of behaviour we've seen many, many times. Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Does he agree with Christopher Luxon on the smokefree law changes made by the previous Government: "We've been really supportive. Anything to remove, you know, smoking harm I think is a good thing."? Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Absolutely. Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: When he stated, "We believe … we can lower smoking rates with the legislation that exists today.", had he seen the Treasury advice that repealing the Smokefree Environments Act changes will net the Government $500 million a year in extra revenue with more people smoking for longer? Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: What I have seen is the results from the last year, which has seen daily smokers go from 8.6 percent to 6.8 percent just in the last 12 months, with the legislation that we're going to readopt. Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Did his Associate Minister of Health advise Cabinet that the Ministry of Health estimated rolling back smokefree law changes would cost the health system an estimated $5 billion and that smoking currently contributes to an average of 12 deaths per day in New Zealand; if not, why not? Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Our Associate Health Minister is very committed to lowering smoking rates. The smoking legislation that we've seen over the last decade has actually halved daily smoking in this country. We are very confident that this will continue to lower smoking rates across this country. Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. My question was about the advice that Cabinet received from the Associate Minister of Health. The Prime Minister didn't address that. SPEAKER: Well, I'm sure that he will if he's asked again. You can ask him again with no penalty to you. Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Did his Associate Minister of Health advise Cabinet that the Ministry of Health estimates that rolling back smokefree law changes will cost the health system an estimated $5 billion and that smoking currently contributes to an average of 12 deaths per day in New Zealand; if not, why not? Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Our decision is very clear: we're going to adopt the existing legislation—that previously existed just a month before the election—that has driven smoking rates down. Smoking rates are going to continue to fall under the existing legislation that we're going to readopt. Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. It wasn't a difficult question; it asked what the Associate Minister of Health had advised Cabinet with regard to the cost and the number of people who die per day from smoking, and the Prime Minister hasn't addressed either of those issues. SPEAKER: Well, I don't think so. I assumed that that was part of the advice that he had got that lead to the answer. Why doesn't the Prime Minister—[Addressing Rt Hon Winston Peters], that's not you—answer that one more time. Sorry, my apologies. I apologise to the member because I realise he's only at the midpoint in his career, so it could happen. Anyway— Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Unlike the previous Government, we don't discuss stuff that happens in Cabinet—unlike Stuart Nash. Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. Prime Ministers have regularly in this House been asked what advice Ministers have provided to Cabinet and have given answers on that. SPEAKER: Yes, previously. He just said they don't do it. Rt Hon Winston Peters: Is the Prime Minister aware that the legislation that's seen the most dramatic change in the decrease in smoking levels in this country—that law was written by New Zealand First, and not these people over here that are screaming about it right here, right now— SPEAKER: Yeah—first part of the question's good. Hon David Parker: Point of order. In respect of your most recent ruling, sir, there's a difference between advice that a Government— SPEAKER: Could you speak more into your microphone, if you wouldn't mind. Hon David Parker: I think the microphone might be off. SPEAKER: I don't think it is, it just needs to be up a bit. But carry on. Hon David Parker: As to your point of order, sir, there is a difference between advice that is provided to Cabinet and Cabinet discussions on what is before it. There is no obligation on the Government to disclose the discussions in a Cabinet made by different Cabinet Ministers, but Ministers can be asked what information was provided to Cabinet. SPEAKER: They can, and in due course they're likely to release it. They don't have to release it here in the House. And further to that point, it wasn't my point of order. Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. Your intervention, there, may well have been an acceptable answer for the Prime Minister to give; it's not exactly a ruling, though. The Prime Minister is, effectively, refusing to answer the question. SPEAKER: Well, to the part of your point of order, you're quite right—I'm an unrecognised talent. You've got another sup? Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Why did his Associate Minister reject proposals to stop tobacco being sold near schools? Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, because, as I heard Ayesha Verrall—Ministers take a range of advice on a range of topics, and she's free to do that. We have a clear programme forward: we want to lower smoking rates across this country and we're going to do it with the existing legislation. Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Why did his Associate Minister of Health reject proposals to raise the purchase age of tobacco to 25, given the advice from the Ministry of Health: "there is strong evidence that starting smoking after 25 is uncommon." Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Ministers take a range of advice on a range of topics. Question No. 3—Finance 3. DAN BIDOIS (National—Northcote) to the Minister of Finance: What recent reports has she seen on the cost of living? Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance): Kiwis are continuing to be hit by high inflation and high interest rates. According to Statistics New Zealand, inflation in New Zealand was higher last year than in the US, the UK, Australia, Canada, Japan, and the European Union, which would suggest that claims made by previous Governments that this was all a home-grown problem—sorry, that this was all an international problem, are not borne out by the data. Inflation is a big challenge. That's why we are taking urgent steps through our 100-day plan to beat inflation and rebuild New Zealand's economy. Dan Bidois: What impact has this inflation had on low-income people? Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, inflation is a thief in every one's pocket but has hit our lowest-earning New Zealanders particularly hard. According to Stats NZ, Zealand, living costs for low-income households, as measured by the household living-costs price indexes, rose by 20 percent in just the three years between the end of 2020 and the end of 2023. That compared to growth of just 18 percent over the whole nine years that National was in Government. So it's no surprise, then, that last week we learnt that more children were growing up in material deprivation and poverty thanks to the last Government's disastrous economic mismanagement. That's the price of Labour: more tax, more spending, and more families struggling with the cost of living. SPEAKER: Just remember that there is a rule that says you don't use Government supplementaries to attack the previous Government, and I will be very vigilant on that from this point on. Dan Bidois: What recent trends has she seen on inflation? Hon NICOLA WILLIS: In good news for Kiwis at the checkout, food price data released earlier this month showed food prices are increasing at their slowest annual rate since 2021, at 4 percent. Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: All our own work. Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Compared to this time last year, there have been big drops in the price of tomatoes, Mr Hipkins, down 52 percent, and cheese, down 27 percent. But it's very early days. We know beating inflation won't be an easy fight, and that's why we're working hard in our 100-day plan to bring down costs on business, clear out the wasteful spending, and unblock the regulatory bottlenecks that are suffocating economic growth and putting more pressure on the price of everything. And we're not stopping after 100 days; there'll be plenty more coming after that. Dan Bidois: What actions is the Government taking to support Kiwis with the cost of living? Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, just this week the Government is legislating to end the Auckland regional fuel tax, delivering Aucklanders relief at the pump from the start of July after years of being fleeced to pay for projects they don't want, like cycleways and speed bumps. And there will be more to say later this year on our plans to deliver tax relief for New Zealanders. But this is a fantastic early announcement to support Aucklanders with the cost of living and let them keep and spend more of their own money. Question No. 4—Finance 4. Hon BARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana) to the Minister of Finance: What advice, if any, has she received on the proportion of the Budget operating allowance that will be required to meet cost pressures in Budget 2024? Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance): Can I first congratulate the honourable member on her appointment as Opposition finance spokesperson. I look forward to our exchanges in this House. I know that the member opposite has had enough experience in the Beehive to know that the calls on the Budget operating allowance are both Budget-sensitive but also subject to change on a weekly, if not daily, basis. However, I am able to be helpful in saying to the member that I received Treasury's briefing to the incoming Minister in November, which has been released, as has the accompanying slide pack. That slide pack contained a paragraph which stated: "Current budget allowances are expected to be sufficient to fund critical cost pressures only, with limited room for new spending in the absence of reprioritisation and savings". What's clear is that future Budgets are under significant pressure because of the previous Government's woeful fiscal and economic mismanagement. Fortunately, this Government is committed to reprioritisation and saving. Hon Barbara Edmonds: Is it correct that 79 percent of the new operating allowance in Budget 2023 was for cost pressures, and does she expect Budget 2024 will require a similar percentage to meet cost pressures? Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, the definition of "cost pressure" depends a little on who's doing the defining. Say, Mr Robertson would probably define the urgent need for more back-office bureaucrats as a cost pressure. I wouldn't see it the same way. So I'd be reluctant to endorse the figure that the member has used. However, what I would share with her is that what we know is that even before this Government formed, the previous Government had pre-committed 68 percent of this year's operating allowance, and we know that the sum of the fiscal cliffs they'd left behind, at $7.2 billion, would more than have evaporated the entire operating allowance before we funded another single cost pressure. Hon Barbara Edmonds: So therefore does she regret calling the money that has been set aside for cost pressures a "buffer" that could be used to pay for tax cuts if she cannot find other sources of revenue? Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I am both confident and happy about the fact that we have elected a coalition Government that is doing the hard and essential work of reprioritising low-value spending across Government. Members opposite may have been happy that on their watch the amount spent on consultants and contractors boomed, the number of people hired in back-office roles boomed, and there were low-value programmes, but our Government makes no apologies for being on a drive to ensure that dollars spent go to front-line services, go to delivering on our commitments such as more police, and go to ensuring New Zealanders can have more income in their back pockets. Hon David Seymour: Would the Minister's definition of "cost pressures", then, include discovering the books were nearly $2 billion short of funding the pharmaceuticals New Zealanders have been led to expect? Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, the member makes a very good point, because we had a Government that was prepared to short-fund funding for essential pharmaceuticals, leaving a fiscal cliff that we, as a responsible Government, are committed to filling. They managed to hide the commitment to the Crown in the books by doing that kind of time-limited funding, and that is a practice that we won't be continuing. Hon Barbara Edmonds: In light of that answer, is she committed to meeting the cost pressures required to deliver core public services such as health and education? Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Yes, because our Government is committed to front-line services, and not backroom bureaucracy. Hon Barbara Edmonds: Why, therefore, is she prioritising tax cuts over providing Kiwi kids with healthy classrooms they can learn in, properly paid teachers, nurses, and police, and the indexation of benefits to wage growth that would support our most vulnerable New Zealanders? Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, the member is going to have to keep up with the changing position of her leader, because this morning, as he detailed, he acknowledged that if he had been faced with the property situation inherited by our Minister of Education, then he too would have said, "Actually, that's not affordable. We're going to have to reassess it.", because that actually—as the member should know—is a responsible way to approach things. What I can say about this Government is that we want to ensure that we are delivering the classrooms needed for roll growth and the schools needed for roll growth and that we're ensuring that the school property programme is well funded, that it delivers good value for money, that it's fair, and that it's proportionate. And we're going to be doing that while at the same time ensuring there is funding for schools and for hospitals, and—by eliminating waste—tax reduction for working Kiwis. Rt Hon Winston Peters: Could I ask the Minister as to whether or not the $55 million Public Interest Journalism Fund started in December 2020, and still existing now, is a cost pressure, and are there many other programmes far more worthy than this woke stupidity? [Interruption] Hon NICOLA WILLIS: The Deputy— SPEAKER: Just a moment. Hon NICOLA WILLIS: The Deputy Prime Minister raises— SPEAKER: Just a moment. The questions are being asked in silence. Rt Hon Winston Peters: I'll ask it again. SPEAKER: Yes, you can ask it again. Rt Hon Winston Peters: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker—you're getting better at the job every day. Could I ask the Minister of Finance as to whether or not the Public Interest Journalism Fund started in December 2020, and still going now—costing a colossal $55 million—is a cost pressure that could have been far more worthily spent on schools and hospitals, and not some woke programme supported by the other side? Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, the Deputy Prime Minister raises a very good point, which is that the outgoing Government was extremely creative in their definition of cost pressures and essential spending. I well recall the COVID money that was used to fund consultants delivering a three waters plan and the COVID money used to rent offices to include those three waters consultants in. So on the other side of the House, we have people who claim that everything is essential. Well, on this side of the House, we know the value of New Zealanders' money and we're going to ensure they get to keep a bit more of it. Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order. Hon James Shaw: Point of order. SPEAKER: Point of order, Mr McAnulty. Hon Kieran McAnulty: Thanks, Mr Speaker. The concern I have here is that already you have pulled the Minister up for using patsy questions to attack the Government. In that instance, you waited until the end of the question, which is fine—fair enough. But it was very clear very early on that that was the intent of that answer, and she wasn't pulled up. SPEAKER: Yeah, well, I apologise for being a bit slow. Another point of order over here? Hon James Shaw: Oh, it's the same one, Mr Speaker—just sort of noting that the Deputy Prime Minister appears to have a standing exemption from the Standing Orders. Rt Hon Winston Peters: Speaking to the point of order, the first member that raised that point of order talked about "patsy questions to attack the Government". Now, surely he got that wrong, so therefore the second point of order must fail as well. SPEAKER: Yeah, I'm not quite sure I follow that. But I take your point, Mr Shaw. Rt Hon Winston Peters: Well, follow the Hansard. SPEAKER: No, I don't— Rt Hon Winston Peters: Follow the Hansard. SPEAKER: Yeah, I will. I'll have a wee look. Rt Hon Winston Peters: Yeah. SPEAKER: Yeah, good—thank you. Question No. 5—Prime Minister 5. Hon JAMES SHAW (Co-Leader—Green) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his Government's statements and actions? Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON (Prime Minister): Yes, I do, in the context they were given. Hon James Shaw: Does he agree with Christopher Luxon, who said to the Bluegreens conference in 2023 that "National in government will use the best scientific, financial and environmental information available to us to chart a responsible, fair and sustainable way forward on environmental matters."; and, if so, how is this consistent with proposals for the new fast-track consenting process for permits to be approved by Ministers rather than expert panels? Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Yes, I do. I do stand by those statements I made earlier. Hon James Shaw: Does he stand by his statement that "This is a Government that's going to be focused on lowering emissions and making sure that we meet our climate change commitments"; and, if so, can he rule out supporting any new fossil fuel projects, such as the Te Kuha coalmine, in the proposed fast-track legislation? Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, we're going to be a Government that's going to deliver on our emissions commitments, and also grow our economy. We're not going to turn off growth opportunities in sectors across this country when we've had three of the last four quarters left to us in decline by the previous Government. Hon James Shaw: Can he rule out supporting any new fossil fuel projects, such as the Te Kuha coalmine, in the proposed fast-track legislation? Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, we have been on the record to say that we actually want to overturn the oil and gas ban, because we need gas as a transitory energy source as we make the transition to clean, green energy going forward. Hon James Shaw: Can he rule out supporting any new fossil fuel projects, such as the Te Kuha coalmine, in the proposed fast-track legislation? Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I'll just say to you: no projects have been brought forward to Cabinet yet. Rt Hon Winston Peters: Supplementary question—supplementary question. Hon James Shaw: How— Rt Hon Winston Peters: Mr Speaker— SPEAKER: I'll let him finish his run. Rt Hon Winston Peters: Point of order. With respect, I mean, that questioner has had his primary question with three following questions, and somebody rises to their feet to try and make this thing more factual and doesn't get a chance to get his point away before the next question is given to that side. SPEAKER: Yeah, but I can't know that because I haven't heard your question, but I'm hearing his first. Rt Hon Winston Peters: Yeah, but you heard my request for the next question. SPEAKER: I have, yes. Hon James Shaw: How will he, as the Prime Minister, ensure that any potential conflicts of interest for the listed projects that are proposed to be approved by Ministers are raised and discussed to meet expectations in the Cabinet Manual? Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Again, we have not had fast-track consenting legislation come before the Cabinet and it has not yet been discussed. What we have is a very good process to make sure we're managing potential conflicts of interest, real or perceived. We have clear processes around that that make sure that we're compliant with the Cabinet Manual. Rt Hon Winston Peters: Has the Prime Minister and his Government considered the fact that there is a preference in using New Zealand coal rather than to be importing inferior Indonesian coal, which was the practice of the former Government? [Interruption] SPEAKER: Question No. 6. Question No. 6—Health 6. Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Labour) to the Associate Minister of Health: Does she stand by all her statements and actions? Hon CASEY COSTELLO (Associate Minister of Health): Yes, in particular my statements that I'm absolutely committed to the Smokefree 2025 targets, and to providing practical, targeted help so that smokers who are addicted to nicotine can stop. Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Was she advised by officials that repealing the 2022 amendments to the Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products Act would mean that the Smokefree goal would not be met until 2061? Hon CASEY COSTELLO: I received a range of advice from officials, and we're continuing to develop good legislation and programmes to achieve the Smokefree 2025 targets. Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Point of order, Mr Speaker. It was a very simple question. Was she advised: yes or no? SPEAKER: You can't ask for a yes or no answer. Hon Dr Megan Woods: She could address it. SPEAKER: Well, I think it was addressed, by saying that a range of advice was sought. Hon Dr Megan Woods: I don't think it was. SPEAKER: I know you don't think that, but I'm here and you're not, so— Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Was the Minister advised by officials that repealing the 2022 amendments to the Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products Act would mean that the goal was not reached until 2061? Hon CASEY COSTELLO: As I said, I've received a range of advice. Some of that advice was based on statistical data that was not current. In the last three years, we have seen 219,000 people have stopped smoking, with vaping playing a key role. Importantly, 79,000 of those who stopped smoking—36 percent of those who quit—were Māori. We are now receiving statistics where we have a smoking rate of 6.8 percent of New Zealanders daily smoking, which is down from the 8.6 percent, which was one of the statistics that that data was based upon. Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: How does she justify repealing the 2022 amendments to the Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products Act when she was advised that that bill would substantially close the difference in life expectancy between Māori and non-Māori? Hon CASEY COSTELLO: We were absolutely committed to achieving the Smokefree targets, and we are going to implement systems that target addicted smokers, and not generalist, virtue-signalling approaches that are unproven. Andy Foster: Has she received reports on the tobacco black market? Hon CASEY COSTELLO: There has already been a substantial black market for cigarettes and crime attached to tobacco retailing, and Customs are seeing a high volume of seizures of tobacco, both large and small, and through multiple channels, and an increase in large seizures. It is noted that the previous Government invested $10 million in the 2022 Budget for a dedicated tobacco enforcement team in Customs, and we will continue with Labour's unworkable, woke, virtue-signalling plans. This experimental prohibition regime will make this problem even worse. Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Why does she refuse to be interviewed on why she is repealing a law that would save $5 billion in health costs, and don't New Zealanders deserve to know the answer to that? Hon CASEY COSTELLO: I have been interviewed on numerous occasions on this issue, and I am looking forward to having media interviews on the effective legislation and regulations that we will introduce to ensure that people who are addicted to nicotine smoking will have the tools to quit, and that youth vaping will decline. Question No. 7—Prime Minister 7. DEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER (Co-Leader—Te Pāti Māori) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all of his Government's policies and actions? Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON (Prime Minister): Yes, in the context they were given. Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: How can he justify introducing legislation to abolish Te Aka Whai Ora two days before the Waitangi Tribunal's urgent hearing into Te Aka Whai Ora when his Government has known since 19 January that an inquiry was set to take place? Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Because we opposed it from its very conception, we spoke about it extensively in Opposition and opposed it in Opposition, we campaigned on it in the election campaign, and we put it into our 100-day plan as part of forming a new Government. It's been very well signalled that we do not believe that bureaucracy is the way in which we drive better health outcomes for Māori. Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Does he agree that by ignoring the tribunal's request to introduce legislation to abolish Te Aka Whai Ora after the inquiry has been completed, his Government is bypassing judicial process and oversight? Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: No, the tribunal will again have the jurisdiction to consider a claim after the legislation comes into effect. But we have been very, very clear in our opposition to the Māori Health Authority. We do not believe it's the way in which we deliver better health outcomes for Māori—period. Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: How can he justify dismantling the Māori Health Authority in the same week as repealing smokefree legislation when Māori die seven years earlier, on average, than non-Māori and smoking is our leading cause of premature death? Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: We have seen tremendous halving of smoking rates amongst Māori—from memory, something like 37 percent down to 16 percent in the space of a decade—under the legislation that we're supporting putting back into law. So we're going to continue to drive smoking rates down for Māori and for non-Māori, and we're going to continue to get better health outcomes for Māori by using local iwi providers—localism and devolution not centralisation and control—and I thought that member would appreciate that. Hon David Seymour: Is the Prime Minister trying to say that New Zealand is not actually governed by the Waitangi Tribunal, but instead by a Government elected by the people at democratic elections? SPEAKER: Well, that was a really interesting statement. We'll move on to another supplementary. Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Does he consider a Government's use of urgency to progress a political agenda without public scrutiny to be an abuse of the democratic process? Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: In Opposition, we opposed the Māori Health Authority from its very conception. We have opposed it in Opposition. We went to the election campaign and said we would dismantle it. We formed a Government; within a matter of days, we had a hundred-day plan to dismantle it—49 actions in 100 days. That's what we're doing. Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Point of order. Look, I— SPEAKER: We'll just wait for a bit of silence. Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Tēnā koe, te Pīka. The question was the use of urgency— SPEAKER: Point of order, the Rt Hon Chris— Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Oh, sorry— Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: She's raising a point of order. SPEAKER: Oh, were you raising a point of order? Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Yes. SPEAKER: Oh, sorry. Point of order. Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: My question was addressing the use of urgency, not the campaigning spiel. It was to address: "Was the promise in the 100-day to utilise the use of urgency?" That's the question that was asked. SPEAKER: Well, OK, the Prime Minister doesn't have direct responsibility for the use of urgency. The Government may move it, but the House decides. So the Prime Minister may want to make a comment, but the question is not quite in line with the primary. Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: As I've said before, it's entirely—well, it's been incredibly well signalled by our Government that we want to dismantle the Māori Health Authority. Why? Because we believe in actually delivering better health outcomes for Māori. We're going to do it in a different way. Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. Just wanted to check with you whether the rules around talking on cellphones in the debating Chamber have changed, or whether in fact the tobacco lobby should wait until after question time to contact the Deputy Prime Minister with their feedback. SPEAKER: Now, I just think— Rt Hon Winston Peters: Speaking to the point of order. Mr Speaker, that's a disgraceful insinuation, especially when somebody's going to be out of this House within a few weeks. But the real point is: no, I was pursuing a lawyer that acted illegally and I'm going to make sure I win against him. That's what the phone call was about. SPEAKER: No, you can't use cellphones now. Question No. 8—Social Development and Employment 8. RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green) to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: Does she agree with the deputy chief executive of MSD, who told the Social Services and Community Committee, "They do not get punished, that's unfair—they do not get sanctions. They do not get sanctioned, they do not get sanctions for not coming to our work seminars"; if so, will she commit to ensuring people do not face sanctions for not attending work seminars? Hon PENNY SIMMONDS (Associate Minister for Social Development and Employment) on behalf of the Minister for Social Development and Employment: I thank the member for his question, and on behalf of the Minister and in answer to the first question, yes, because the discussion at select committee on this topic was incomplete as the committee abruptly adjourned and the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) made clear in a later answer to the committee that those who failed to turn up to work seminars can be sanctioned. I understand that MSD thought the member's question at select committee referred to job expos and work seminars. To clarify, job expos do not automatically result in a sanction for non-attendance. For the vast majority of job seekers, attendance is encouraged and voluntary. In some circumstances, MSD will require attendance at expos, which can result in a sanction. To answer the member's second question, no. This Government has reset the welfare system's expectations, including applying sanctions where job seekers refuse to comply with their obligations. We expect job seekers to attend work seminars as part of the reasonable steps they must take to become work-ready and find work. Ricardo Menéndez March: Why is she able to quantify how many people get sanctioned for missing work obligations, such as failing to attend work seminars, but she can't quantify how many people enter employment as a direct result of engaging with work obligations? Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: The information is collated on an individual basis, so those that attend work seminars will then have noted in their files whether they got employment from it or not. But MSD doesn't collate all that information up and have one source of information about how many got into employment from attending job seminars. Ricardo Menéndez March: How then can she be confident that the work obligations she wants to impose on people will help them get into jobs when she can't show any evidence of these work seminars meaningfully supporting people into stable, secure employment? Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: There are 190,000 people on jobseeker benefits. That's a 70,000 increase under Labour. So, clearly, nothing was working previously and it behoves us to ensure that we try a variety of means to assist people into employment, including work seminars, including job expos, and, as I explained in my previous answer, that information about whether attending a work seminar got someone into employment is kept for that individual; it's just not collated up across the country. Ricardo Menéndez March: How can she be confident that work seminars support people into employment when the people in charge of running them could not be upfront with select committee members about the consequences of not attending these seminars and she is refusing to present evidence on whether they support people into employment? Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: I don't believe that the people were refusing or misleading in any way. They made it very clear that they had misunderstood the question at select committee, that they thought it was both job expos and work seminars. We know that the job seminars do assist people in getting into employment. We know that it helps with getting their CVs together, it helps with learning interview techniques, and we know that, for example, at a recent seminar in the top of the South Island, 82 Kiwi job seekers turned up and 64 received interviews from that. Ricardo Menéndez March: Will she commit to reporting outcomes of these work seminars, and, if not, why not? Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: As I explained, those outcomes are reported and are recorded on an individual basis; they are just not collated right across the country. So on an individual basis, someone turning up to a work seminar, it will be recorded whether it was successful in supporting them into employment or not. Ricardo Menéndez March: If these outcomes are not collected nationally, how does she know that forcing people to attend work seminars to avoid facing sanctions is supporting people into meaningful, secure employment? Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: We know that there's a range of things that have to be done to assist the 190,000 people to have a really good chance to get into employment. Obviously, things like getting help in putting CVs together, getting help in interview techniques, getting help with getting their driver's licence—all those things assist towards it. We know that the fact that an extra 70,000 going on to the jobseeker benefit since the previous Government was in power has meant that it hasn't worked. So we should be trying every single thing we can to assist people into employment. Question No. 9—Justice 9. PAULO GARCIA (National—New Lynn) to the Minister of Justice: What recent announcements has the Government made about restoring law and order? Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister of Justice): On Sunday, the Government announced a raft of measures aimed at addressing harm caused by gangs. Gangs' insignia will be banned from public display, gang gatherings will be disrupted by police-issued dispersal notices, gang associates separated by court-issued non-consorting orders, and, finally, we're giving greater weight to gang membership as an aggravating factor at sentencing. This Government is serious about restoring law and order. Paulo Garcia: Why is addressing the harm caused by gangs important? Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, because gangs cause serious harm. They spread violence, deal in drugs, and create intergenerational drama. For too long, they've been allowed to behave as if they're above the law—they are not. Paulo Garcia: What statistics has he seen on law and order in New Zealand? Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: In the past five years, gangs have recruited more than 3,000 new members and there has been significant escalation in gang-related violence, public intimidation, and shootings. Violent crime has increased by 33 percent; gangs play a significant part in this. Hon Dr Duncan Webb: What is the purpose of his non-consorting orders when sections 112 to 123 of the Sentencing Act already have a comprehensive framework for non-association orders? Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, the purpose of the non-consorting legislation is to stop serious gang offenders meeting with particular other serious gang offenders to create crimes. That is a piece of legislation that we've learnt from some of the Australian states, and it's making a real impact on disrupting the gang activity. So the real purpose is to make it more difficult for the gangs to operate effectively in this country. Paulo Garcia: What impact will the ban on gang insignia in public places have on freedom of expression? Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, it will have an impact on gangs' freedom to intimidate and create fear. Gang members want all the rights of being a New Zealander but none of the responsibility that comes with it. Expressing fear and intimidation is not a form of expression that this Government supports. Hon Dr Duncan Webb: What is the purpose of his reforms around the sentencing of gang members when section 9 of the Sentencing Act already makes it clear that being a gang member is an aggravating factor? Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, the purpose of this legislative change is to also remove the need for a connection between being a gang member and that specific crime that has been caused. We want to make the broader point that gang membership has an impact on the overall wellbeing of this country in terms of law and order. The other point of it is this very simple idea that a political party would campaign in Opposition to do something and, when elected, they do it. That's what we're doing in this legislation. Paulo Garcia: How are the commitments to restore law and order progressing as outlined in the Government's 100-day plan? Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Oh, well, thank you—this Government is making excellent progress. We've abolished the prison target reduction, we're stopping taxpayer funding for section 27 reports, we'll soon introduce legislation to implement our package to tackle gangs, and my colleague Minister McKee will have further announcements to make on restoring law and order very soon. Hon Nicole McKee: How would incorporating gang affiliation as an aggravating factor during sentencing enhance the safety of our communities throughout New Zealand? Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, by giving greater weight to gang membership as an aggravating factor in sentencing, courts will be able to impose more serious punishments on to an individual who has an association with gangs. We're restoring serious consequences for crime and delivering on our commitments as set out in the coalition agreement between both ACT and New Zealand First and the National Party. Question No. 10—Health 10. Hon PEENI HENARE (Labour) to the Minister of Health: Does he stand by all his statements and actions? Hon Dr SHANE RETI (Minister of Health): Yes, in the context they were given. Hon Peeni Henare: Does he stand by this answer regarding the repeal of the Māori Health Authority: "we'll take on board all discussions and all dialogue from all parties.", and if so, why did his Government bring forward the disestablishment of the Māori Health Authority, bypassing the urgent inquiry by the Waitangi Tribunal? Hon Dr SHANE RETI: We'll always remain open to any dialogue from any parties and from any citizens, from Māori, from anyone who wants to help us advance the cause of Māori health outcomes. Hon Peeni Henare: Why, then, could the Minister's bill not wait two more days for the urgent claim to be heard by the Waitangi Tribunal, or is it this Government's intention to avoid the Waitangi Tribunal on all matters? Hon Dr SHANE RETI: The Waitangi Tribunal will still be able to critique the legislation after enablement, so we're very comfortable with the position that we've taken. What we've also wanted to do is give some surety to staff with the Māori Health Authority so that they can see a vision and a pathway forward. Hon Peeni Henare: Does the Minister accept that this Government's breach of Te Tiriti o Waitangi will lead to further claims before the Tribunal and further court litigation, or will he just simply do the right thing and remove his bill? Hon Dr SHANE RETI: What I accept is that we will involve Māori in the monitoring and the delivery of health services to improve Māori health outcomes. SPEAKER: Question No. 11—a point of order? Hon Chris Bishop: A question. SPEAKER: Oh, OK. Away you go. Hon Chris Bishop: Does the Minister accept that given the Māori Health Authority did not exist until two years ago, the abolition of it cannot possibly be a breach of the Treaty? Hon Dr SHANE RETI: What I accept is, as the member says, that the Māori Health Authority has been challenged, and we seek to do a better job with Māori health outcomes. SPEAKER: Yeah, I should have been a bit quicker there. That question did seek an opinion that's outside of the Minister's scope of responsibility. Hon Chris Bishop: It followed on from the primary. SPEAKER: I beg your pardon? Hon Chris Bishop: It followed from the primary. Question No. 11—Education 11. KATIE NIMON (National—Napier) to the Minister of Education: What recent announcements has she made about school property? Hon ERICA STANFORD (Minister of Education): Yesterday, I announced a ministerial inquiry into the Ministry of Education's school property function. This review will address the challenges the Ministry of Education face in not being able to deliver the current pipeline of school infrastructure projects—in particular, the failure to sufficiently implement a value-for-money approach, schools having expectations beyond what could be delivered on, and significant cost escalations. It is important to understand why these challenges have emerged in recent years to ensure we can deliver the school property our children deserve. I want to ensure that the school property portfolio is meeting the core infrastructure needs of schools. Katie Nimon: Why is this inquiry needed? Hon ERICA STANFORD: The coalition Government has inherited a pipeline of projects that were unable to be delivered on. In September 2023, the Ministry of Education began a review of property projects. In January, I was informed that up to 350 projects needed to be reviewed for cost-effectiveness. By their own admission, the ministry have advised me that these challenges are due to building-cost increases but also due to scope creep and over-reliance on bespoke designs and over-engineering add-ons, like extensive landscaping and infrastructure. A ministerial inquiry will consider how we can best achieve a portfolio that is managed efficiently and effectively and delivers cost-effective learning spaces that are functional, warm, dry, and fit for purpose. Katie Nimon: What has she heard from principals since she announced the inquiry? Hon ERICA STANFORD: I have been talking with principals about their property concerns since the day I became the Minister. Since this announcement, I have already received reports that principals are welcoming this inquiry. On RNZ this morning, Vaughan Couillault of the Secondary Principals Association of New Zealand—SPANZ—said that principals are really pleased that the Minister has listened to the sector. I also received communication from a school board member saying, "I would like to applaud the Minister for undertaking the Ministry of Education property review. It is badly needed and overdue." Hon Jan Tinetti: Will the inquiry into school property she announced yesterday look at the cuts the previous National Government made into school property and the subsequent impact on school property assets; if not, why not? Hon ERICA STANFORD: Well, I think it's brave of that member to ask a question, given that this morning on air she said that all of the properties in her portfolio, when she was the Minister, were funded and factored into the Budget. Just mere hours later, her leader had to correct her and say that he would not guarantee absolutely every single one of them. He would probably have also asked his officials to rescope the work. Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order. Mr Speaker, we waited till the end in the hope that there would be any attempt to address the question. That was certainly responded to but not addressed. SPEAKER: Well, you've also got to accept that that was a politically motivated question—and somewhat loaded—and, therefore, there's a high degree of leniency in the way it's answered. Katie Nimon: What can schools expect while the inquiry is under way? Hon ERICA STANFORD: I received an email from a principal today whose build was supposed to start in July last year and has been delayed. She stated, "All we want in this community is good, clear communication and a pathway forward." I have made it clear to the Ministry of Education my expectation for schools is to receive timely and accurate information about their projects in the coming weeks. While the inquiry is under way, I will be working with the ministry to find solutions for schools facing critical pressures in roll growth, condition, and compliance. I want to be clear that school property is a priority for this Government, and our inquiry will ensure that we deliver cost-effective, warm, dry classrooms to as many schools as possible. Hon Jan Tinetti: Will she guarantee no cuts to school property capital expenditure? Hon ERICA STANFORD: Yes. Question No. 12—Environment 12. GRANT McCALLUM (National—Northland) to the Minister for the Environment: What recent announcements has she made regarding the clean-up of old landfill sites? Hon PENNY SIMMONDS (Minister for the Environment): On Saturday, I had the pleasure of announcing that the Government is granting $6.6 million to clean up four historic New Zealand landfill and dump sites which are vulnerable to extreme weather events and coastal erosion. The Contaminated Sites Remediation Fund grants will go towards fixing former landfills and dump sites. Grant McCallum: Why is it important that these sites are remediated? Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: These sites are in low-lying coastal areas and near river margins, leaving them at risk of being compromised by storm surges, rainfall events, high river levels, and flooding. This funding will address the risk of the sites being breached by a natural event, exposing waste materials and contaminating the surrounding land and waterways. Historic landfills can become a threat to communities and the environment through the effects of extreme weather events. The Government supports local government to deal with the legacy of land contaminated by past practices, directing funds each year to sites considered regional priorities. This funding will help restore these contaminated sites so they no longer pose a risk to communities and the environment. Grant McCallum: What specific projects have been funded as a result of the Contaminated Sites Remediation Fund? Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: Starting in Southland, the Bluecliffs land site is situated on a former gravel pit located within Te Waewae Bay. Coastal tides and the Waiau River mouth flooding have eroded parts of the site and surrounding areas. That council has been granted $1.35 million for its remediation. The St Andrews Beach landfill project will focus on developing a remediation plan led by Environment Canterbury. They have been granted $135,000 towards this planning project. Nelson City Council is leading a remediation project after sawdust contaminated with arsenic and other chemicals was exposed by erosion in a car park at Tāhunanui Beach in June 2023. That council has been granted $134,000 towards the planning of this project. And, finally, Gisborne District Council is receiving $4.98 million to develop a remediation plan and carry out remediation works at the former Tokomaru Bay landfill. The retired land site area is susceptible to flooding— SPEAKER: Good—this is really good. What about you table it? Hon Penny Simmonds: Recent— SPEAKER: Sorry, just, that's it. Hon Penny Simmonds: Enough? SPEAKER: Yeah, well and truly. Grant McCallum: What else is the Ministry for the Environment doing to help local communities with historic landfills? Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: The ministry is now working with regional councils to refine the assessment tool and use it to evaluate landfills that have not yet been assessed. These assessments will help councils make decisions on how to manage the risk associated with the vulnerable landfills and contaminated sites, such as reducing the level of contamination, better containing the sites, or removing the contents of landfills. I wish to thank the ministry and councils up and down the country for their continued work in this space. Hon Rachel Brooking: Will the Contaminated Sites Remediation Fund be spared the 6.5 to 7.5 percent funding cuts? Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: The remedial contamination fund will be used in the way that it's going to be best used to help the environmental and community outcomes of this country. The 6.5 to 7.5 is being concentrated, as we have been asked to, on the backroom functions, not on the funding that we get out to the grassroots where the work is being done. URGENT DEBATES DECLINED Use of Urgency SPEAKER: Members, I've received a letter from Debbie Ngarewa-Packer and Rawiri Waititi about seeking to debate under Standing Order 399 the use of urgency. An urgent debate can only be held about a particular case of recent occurrence. An accumulation of information or a series of leads does not constitute a particular case of recent occurrence—Speakers' rulings 221/2 and 221/3. More importantly, it is the House that decides whether urgency will be held. While Ministers may move a motion for urgency, Standing Order 58 requires the House to agree before urgency can be held. Urgent debates are not a mechanism for debating decisions of the House. The proper forum for that is the Standing Orders Committee. The application is therefore declined. Hon JAMES SHAW (Co-Leader—Green): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Just in relation to that ruling, by my count, the Government has put 16 bills through urgency and one item of Government business not through urgency. So recognising your point about the accumulation, there has to be a point at which we're able to debate whether it's appropriate for a ratio of 16 urgent items to one to go through the House, because the Government has the majority and is essentially railroading the House. We're at the point now where they can't argue that just because there was an election means that they can overturn parliamentary democracy. SPEAKER: Well, I think there are a couple of points. The first thing is all Governments have a majority—that's just a fact of the way the Westminster system works. All Governments, from time to time, use urgency, and, as I have just ruled—just ruled—it is a matter for the House. Now, the public will make a decision about how they view these things, but that is a calculation for the Government. Hon James Shaw: So it's OK to use urgency for the next three days— SPEAKER: Sorry, if you want to stand and take a point of order to debate the ruling, then go for your life. Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Point of order. SPEAKER: In the meantime, point of order, Debbie Ngarewa-Packer. DEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER (Co-Leader—Te Pāti Māori): The point is, of the 16 bills that have come through this House, a large proportion are affecting communities who are made up of tangata whenua, who are denied the right to come in and be part of an open, transparent select committee, an open, transparent consultation. This is affecting Māori more than anyone else in Aotearoa, which is why we have put this request for an urgent debate. SPEAKER: I appreciate the fact that you have taken the opportunity to make the point, but it is not relevant to decisions of the House. So urgency is a matter for the House to determine, and if the motion is put today, the House will vote on that and the outcome of that will determine whether we have urgency or not. URGENCY Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Leader of the House): I move, that urgency be accorded the continued second reading of the Legal Services Amendment Bill, the introduction and passing through all stages of the Pae Ora (Disestablishment— Ricardo Menéndez March: Point of order. SPEAKER: Sorry, just a moment. You can start again in a moment. We've got another point of order from Ricardo Menéndez March. Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, I'm in the middle of— Ricardo Menéndez March: It's a new point of order. SPEAKER: I've called him because he's called a point of order, OK? RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): Sorry, this is a new point of order—if I may. I was waiting for this to conclude so— SPEAKER: That's good—get on with it. It's all right. RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH: —that I could raise it in relationship to question time. So this is in relationship to Speaker's ruling 23/6, and I've raised Speaker's ruling 24/2 in relationship to occurrences that happen during question time, particularly from interjections from the Deputy Prime Minister, particularly around that a point of order should use absolutely objective language and not accusatory language, and the language involved when raising points of order is very different from the language involved in debate, as well as constantly raising trifling points of orders being itself disorderly. I just want to reflect that there has been throughout several question times, constant interjections from the Deputy Prime Minister which they themselves don't amount to legitimate points of order. And what I want to get a sense of understanding and reflection about is the standards that we're setting for the rest of us in terms of us also therefore being allowed to make interjections which they in themselves don't actually— SPEAKER: Well, that's a very good point. I'll take that under advisement. I will come back to the House on that. It's not something that— Rt Hon Winston Peters: Point of order, Mr Speaker. SPEAKER: A separate point of order? Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Deputy Prime Minister): It's a separate point of order, but it has insight with respect to what was just said, because that objection is being raised long after the time he should have raised it, and for that reason you should have ruled it out. We've got people who don't understand Speakers' rulings here, or Standing Orders, and they're getting up and showing their ignorance every day— Hon Member: Thank you—sit down. Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: –and he gets offended by it. But that should have been ruled by the fact that when he saw objection—[Interruption]. And by the way, points of order are heard in silence. SPEAKER: That's right; they are, but there has to be a point of order. Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Yes, my point of order has been succinctly made. If he had any point of order, it had to be raised at the time he saw offence, not some time later. That's the old Standing Order. Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Leader of the House): I move, that urgency be accorded— Rawiri Waititi: Point of order. I move, that this House hold an urgent debate on the appropriate use of urgency. The manner in which this Government has used urgency to progress its agenda, including the disestablishment of the Māori Health Authority, is an abuse of power. SPEAKER: Well, that would be great if it were down on the Order Paper or if you had sought leave for such a motion; you simply cannot move it. RAWIRI WAITITI (Co-Leader—Te Pāti Māori ): I seek leave of the House to hold an urgent debate on the appropriate use of urgency. The manner in which this Government has used urgency to progress its agenda, including this disestablishment of the Māori Health Authority, is an abuse of power. SPEAKER: The leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is. RAWIRI WAITITI (Co-Leader—Te Pāti Māori ): Point of order. The Government's use of urgency has deprived this House and the public the ability to scrutinise significant legislative measures— Rt Hon Winston Peters: Sit down! SPEAKER: Sit down. You can't use a point—sit down. Rawiri Waititi: Oh, I'll sit down because you said sit down; not because he said sit down. SPEAKER: Yes, sit down because the Speaker stood. Rawiri Waititi: Yes, but not because he told me to sit down. SPEAKER: No, of course not—you wouldn't listen to him; you'd be focusing on me. So the thing is, you can't use a point of order to make a statement, it has to relate to a point, and the House has made it very clear to me that I must now no longer indulge, on the basis of his seniority in this House, the Rt Hon Winston Peters—and I won't—but you cannot do that today. RAWIRI WAITITI (Co-Leader—Te Pāti Māori ): Point of order. I move, that the Pae Ora (Disestablishment of Māori Health Authority) Amendment Bill— Hon Members: No! You can't do that. RAWIRI WAITITI: Well, I seek leave from the House that the Pae Ora (Disestablishment of Māori Health Authority) Amendment Bill is out of order while it is currently subject to an inquiry by the Waitangi Tribunal as of Standing Order 116. SPEAKER: Well, I hate to, you know, keep on getting pedantic about the rules here, but the bill that you're talking about is not on the Table of the House. Therefore, the leave cannot be put. Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Leader of the House): I move, that urgency be accorded the continued second reading— Rawiri Waititi: Point of order. I'm just wanting clarification from the Speaker that the Pae Ora (Disestablishment of Māori Health Authority) Amendment Bill is not going to be discussed in the House through urgency. Is that what you're telling me? SPEAKER: That's not what I said. Hon David Seymour: Mr Speaker, point of order. SPEAKER: No, sit down please Mr Seymour. What I said is quite simply, (1) you cannot move without leave of the House; (2) you can't seek leave of the House to effectively discharge a bill that at this point is not tabled. It may well be tabled later today, but it is not tabled currently. Hon DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Point of order. Mr Speaker, I suspect I speak for quite a few members who are having their patience— SPEAKER: Well, it would be good if you had spoke to yourself and made it a real point—[Interruption]. Enough! Thank you. Rawiri Waititi: You speak for yourself! SPEAKER: Hey! Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: Mr Speaker, with respect, I think I have a right to raise a point of order without you interrupting. I think it's probably not just me, but it's certainly me, who is a little bit tired of repetitive trifling points of order from someone who hasn't taken the time to understand the rules, and I'd like you to take a tougher line on him because we're all getting a little tired of it. SPEAKER: It's an interesting view, but the Speaker will always make his own decision about what advice he might give anybody in the House any time they might need it. DEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER (Co-Leader—Te Pāti Māori ): Point of order. I'd like to record our—and take that particular Minister to task—is that it is inappropriate to give a personal reflection which puts one of the parties in disrepute because we are using the Speakers' rulings in a way that he doesn't think is appropriate. SPEAKER: I'm sorry; it's an interesting point, but it's a debating matter. This is the end of this. I'll now call on the Hon Chris Bishop. Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Leader of the House): Mr Speaker, I move, That urgency be accorded the continued second reading of the Legal Services Amendment Bill; the introduction and passing through all stages of the Pae Ora (Disestablishment of Māori Health Authority) Amendment Bill; and the Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products Amendment Bill; and the passing through all stages of the Land Transport Management (Repeal of Regional Fuel Tax) Amendment Bill. Mr Speaker, there's been a bit of debate about urgency in the House, and can I just say to the House the reason why the Government is seeking this urgency motion is to progress the necessary stages of our 100-day plan. The coalition parties, collectively, campaigned on repealing the Māori Health Authority not because we have an objection to improving Māori health outcomes—in fact, quite the converse—but we campaigned on it because we don't think a giant new bureaucracy is the right way to go about doing that. We also campaigned on repealing the Auckland regional fuel tax. The National Party—and I think I'm right in saying that the ACT Party said the same thing—at two successive election campaigns sought a mandate from the New Zealand people to repeal the Auckland regional fuel tax, going all the way back to early 2018 when it was introduced. And news flash for the Opposition, at the election in October last year, that mandate was delivered by the New Zealand people, and we have pulled together our 100-day plan and we are now proceeding to implement it. Members opposite cry crocodile tears about urgency, because I've sat where they sit for six years and I realise it's grim times, and I know exactly what they are going through. Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour): Mr Speaker, point of order. I refer you to Speakers' rulings 14/3, 14/4, and 14/5 around the need for reasons for moving urgency, and I won't invite you, Mr Speaker, to reflect on whether or not Mr Bishop's moving of this motion is in the spirit of those Speakers' rulings, given that such a motion is not debatable. He is introducing debatable material into this, he is failing to actually fulfil his job to give specific reasons for the bills; rather, he's attacking the former Government, the Opposition, for actions that he believes have been undertaken. That is not within the spirit of moving an urgency motion. Hon Chris Bishop: Mr Speaker, point of order. SPEAKER: I have been listening to the contribution or the reasons being given by the Hon Chris Bishop who now may want to participate in the—point of order is it? Hon CHRIS BISHOP: I'll speak to the point of order and say I think that's fair enough. I'll bring it back a bit. SPEAKER: Yeah, well, thank you very much for your generosity in that regard. I was going to direct you that way. Carry on. Hon CHRIS BISHOP: The very simple reason for urgency is that the coalition parties sought, at the election, a mandate to implement these policies. Two of them—in fact, all three bills in this urgency motion— Hon James Shaw: Point of order. I mean, it is interesting hearing his justification for the over-use of urgency, but, given that it is not a debatable motion, if he is going to make those points, we do feel that we ought to have the ability to respond to those points, because they're not valid. SPEAKER: Well, the problem is that Standing Orders don't provide for that. I recall at the time that the Standing Orders Committee made the determination that there should be reasons given with no debate. I opposed that at the time. I wasn't listened to. I'm now obliged to follow what Standing Orders require of us. I would ask Mr Bishop to conclude his commentary as quickly as possible. Hon CHRIS BISHOP: The next point I was going to make is that all three of these bills are repeal bills—in other words, they wipe from the statute book bills that the Parliament passed. Many of them have been through select committees previously. The Government considers urgency is more than justified in this case, and we therefore move the motion. Chlöe Swarbrick: I seek leave of the House for a debate laid down immediately on the Government's use of urgency. SPEAKER: Well, we're actually in the middle of considering a motion, so you might want to think about putting that at a future point. Procedurally, we now need to go to the vote. A party vote was called for on the question, That urgency be accorded. Ayes 68 New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Noes 54 New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 6. Motion agreed to. Hon JAMES SHAW (Co-Leader—Green): Point of order. I seek leave of the House for a debatable motion on the Government's use of urgency. SPEAKER: Leave is sought. Is there any objection to that? Hon Members: Yes. Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Labour): Point of order. Mr Speaker, I request a personal vote on that motion. SPEAKER: You can, but I'm not granting it, because the numbers are overwhelming. There's no question about how the outcome can be interpreted. That's the basis for a member requesting a personal vote. Hon James Shaw: Point of order. SPEAKER: Beg your pardon? Hon James Shaw: They were very even. SPEAKER: I read them. I read the results. It also would require that there was some belief that votes cast weren't legitimately cast. Hon JAMES SHAW (Co-Leader—Green): I find it difficult to predetermine how you can rule on a use of a personal vote given that until it happens, you don't actually know whether it's overwhelming or not. SPEAKER: Well, you do, because the Clerk hands you a bit of paper that says 68 to 54. That's the basis of it. That is a large, substantial majority of the House making a decision. If there was a question about whether or not someone had appropriately or inappropriately cast their vote or whether outside of a party's leave allocation there was a misquoting of a vote, those would be reasons, but simply calling for one is not enough. RAWIRI WAITITI (Co-Leader—Te Pāti Māori): Point of order. I take leave from the House to move that the Pae Ora (Disestablishment of Māori Health Authority) Amendment Bill is out of order while it is currently subject to an inquiry by the Waitangi Tribunal as to the Standing Order 116. SPEAKER: Leave is sought. Is there any objection to that? Hon Members: Yes. SPEAKER: Thank you very much. HŪHANA LYNDON (Green): Point of order. I move that the orders of the day for the first reading of the Pae Ora (Disestablishment of Māori Health Authority) Amendment Bill be postponed until after the urgent claim before the Waitangi Tribunal regarding this bill can be heard. SPEAKER: There's a small problem here. So there is a sequencing that goes on in any of these moves by the House, and you can't have a successive number of leave applications that vary from a decision that the House has made in the current session. The House has made its decision that it's in order, and, therefore, any other moves to defeat its progress under the urgency bill are, unfortunately, not permitted under Standing Orders. Hon David Seymour: Unfortunately? SPEAKER: Well, unfortunate for the member. Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Labour): Point of order. Thank you, Mr Speaker. It's very clear that there are many members of this House that feel very strongly about the bills that were contained within the Government's urgency motion. It is possible that members from all parties were moved by those contributions. In order to clarify whether that is the case, I seek leave of the House to hold a personal vote on that motion. SPEAKER: That's not sufficient reason. Your belief doesn't trump the fact that people have cast their vote, effectively, by holding their proxy with the whips. Hon Kieran McAnulty: I am seeking leave, however. SPEAKER: Oh, are you seeking leave? All right. Leave is sought for a personal vote on—do you want to say what it is again so we get it all correct on the Hansard? I seek leave— Hon Kieran McAnulty: Mr Speaker, I seek leave of the House to hold a personal vote on the Government's urgency motion just voted on as a party vote. SPEAKER: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? Hon Members: Yes. RAWIRI WAITITI (Co-Leader—Te Pāti Māori): Point of order. Mr Speaker, can you clarify for this House that Standing Order 116, "Matter subject to judicial decision: (1) Matters awaiting or under [judicial] or suppressed by an order of [a] New Zealand court may not be referred to in any motion, debate, or question, including a supplementary question, subject always to the discretion of the Speaker and to the right of the House to legislate on [a] matter or to consider [delegated] legislation." Standing Order 3(b) of that "takes into account the constitutional relationship of mutual respect that exists between the legislative and judicial branches of government, and the risk of prejudicing a matter awaiting or under [the court system or under judiciary] in any New Zealand court, including one awaiting sentencing." The tribunal meets on Thursday, and this goes against that particular standing order. Can you just give us some clarification around that, please, Mr Speaker? SPEAKER: Well, the simple clarification is that the tribunal is not a judicial body, and, for that reason, the Standing Order does not apply in this case. INTRODUCTION OF BILLS SPEAKER: I understand that it is the Government's intention to introduce two bills. CLERK: Pae Ora (Disestablishment of Māori Health Authority) Amendment Bill, introduction Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products Amendment Bill, introduction. SPEAKER: Those bills are set down for first reading presently. LEGAL SERVICES AMENDMENT BILL Second Reading Debate resumed from 20 February. CAMERON BREWER (National—Upper Harbour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I stand in support of the second reading of the Legal Services Amendment Bill, defunding—urgently defunding—the section 27 reports. In fact I just got a text from the last bastion of front-bench common sense in the Labour Party, Stuart Nash, and he says, "[The previous Government] was not responsive [enough], [not] fast enough to nail the crime issue. [In my view] the gangs need to be taken down. We need to give police…every tool." That was a text from Stuart Nash; no sorry, that was an interview he had with TV ONE last night. These section 27 reports have cost taxpayers millions of dollars, and done nothing for victims of crime; in fact they've led to further sentencing discounts. So, in the immortal words of Karen Carpenter, when it comes to law and order, we've only just begun. I commend this bill to the House. LEMAUGA LYDIA SOSENE (Labour—Māngere): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Labour opposes this bill, the Legal Services Amendment Bill, which affects section 27 reports. We oppose it for a number of reasons, and I want to bring those to the House to help viewers at home understand the reason why Labour opposes this bill. This is a Government that is mean-spirited. It does not care about its lowest socio-economic citizens, and so people at home, who are not in the Chamber, will understand that this particular section—section 27 of the Sentencing Act—was to assist judges when they are considering sentencing. The cultural value reports are put forward because the offender may not necessarily be able to be in a position to have a background report. Especially, we understand that Māori and Pasifika offenders may not necessarily have the resources, whereas this funding is being repealed by this Government—the mean-spirited Government—to fund their tax cuts. They are picking on individuals and whānau and aiga and families who need necessary funding. The option to put it forward is still there. However, offenders that are in a situation where they do not have the financial means will not be able to have this section 27 report. It is not an excuse; it is to provide a report that provides further explanation for the sentencing judge to consider those circumstances. More importantly, the sentencing judge will have further intel or insight or extra information, providing good research, that could probably give a more purposeful report that could provide extra weight and have further information to be considered. We have heard that Māori and Pasifika offenders are overrepresented in the criminal justice system. This section 27 report, as I've said, will bring about social values with the why, with the what, and with the who, and it will also provide some extra psychological information that could or may assist with that offender's rehabilitation programme. So section 27 reports help provide a better alignment specific for Māori and Pasifika and low socio-economic offenders who have found themselves in a situation where they need the section 27 cultural value reports. It is the chance for the average person who may not necessarily have the funds and don't have the ability to pay that for themselves. I come from a community in South Auckland where there is an overrepresentation of some of our most vulnerable citizens in the community who have found themselves in front of a sentencing judge and who actually want to change their offending behaviour. This Government is mean-spirited. It wants to find funding so that it can fund its tax cuts and not care about those who need a hand up. Labour opposes this bill. It does not want to have a mean-spirited Government who does not care about some of the offenders, so Labour opposes this bill. Thank you. RIMA NAKHLE (National—Takanini): When we consider the fact that taxpayer-funded section 27 reports—the amount spent on them—has increased by at least 190-fold; when we think about $40,000 in 2017 to $7.7 million in the last financial year, I'm pretty sure that most Kiwis would agree that this money is better spent on victim services. I support its progression. Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): This is a vile little bill that the Government once again is sneaking in through urgency. Here we are at the second reading, and what does the public have to say? Well, nothing, because they haven't been given an opportunity. Why? Because this Government doesn't want to hear what the public has to say. The Government doesn't want to hear the concerns of the community. It's obsessed with its 100-day plan, and it's doing violence to the parliamentary process and riding roughshod over democracy. You know what this Government's really afraid of? Evidence. There is no lawyer, no academic, no criminologist, no psychiatrist, no judge—there is no expert at all who thinks that defunding these reports is a good idea. Even the Minister's own officials think it's a bad idea. We know what the Law Society has to say about cutting funding for these reports for the poorest New Zealanders: "With funding for these reports removed,"—it said—"the only way a person facing sentencing will be able to access them is by paying privately. Those who can afford this would then have a greater level of representation in Court than those receiving Legal Aid. [This] is a significant breach of fundamental rights"—that's what the Law Society's got to say. And what does the Bar Association have to say? "there are significant risks that it will make it harder for judges to impose appropriate sentences, undermine rehabilitation and adversely impact reoffending rates."—that's the Bar Association of New Zealand. And Joe Williams of the Supreme Court, what does he have to say about these reports? "Understanding background and context is not only a key to addressing asymmetry in incarceration but the key to achieving justice,"—the key to achieving justice has just been thrown away by this Government. I asked the Minister of Justice by parliamentary question: what are you basing your actions on? What's the evidence you've got? His reply, in short: none, nothing, nada. He is basing it on his reckons; what his 100-day plan is; and what he hears, I imagine, down at the Epsom Bowling Club. The Minister of Justice is basing his policies on dogma and dog whistling. The truly horrific thing is that by appealing to the basest basic instincts, by generating fear and loathing, by driving policy by hate over evidence, fear over facts, he's creating real and lasting harm. Of course, the Minister has received some good advice, and that can be found in the very Cabinet paper that he presented. It noted that the savings of the costs of these reports will be wildly offset by the costs of court delays and the costs of psychiatrist reports, and that's not even mentioning the increased incarceration rates. And we know that this will have a disproportionate impact on Māori, especially rangatahi and tamariki. And if you don't care about that, you shouldn't be in this House. We know that children who have parents in jail are much more likely to end up in jail themselves. This is a step towards future incarceration. How the Attorney-General concluded that this was not in breach of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act by being both discriminatory and not providing adequate legal representation, I do not know. The derisory two pages she wrote don't address any of the real issues. In the regulatory impact statement, it provided five options. And what did it say about this one? It said it was the worst—the least likely to achieve the objectives. It was more expensive and less effective than many of the other options, including simply accrediting the report providers. So what we have is a Government that has no interest in actually achieving real policy objectives, no interest in engaging with evidence, and no interest in undertaking genuine policy work to get the best outcomes for New Zealanders. It's interested in its dog whistling to its mates and pandering to the basest instincts of New Zealanders. Let's be clear—and the Minister knows this—this will lead to more people in jail for longer; people who, if they had the money to pay for such a report, a judge would know all the facts and wouldn't have imprisoned them in the same way. That's bad for everyone. So here we have it: a Government not interested in evidence and is prepared to actually waste taxpayer's money and ignores advice. It's prepared to take the worst option available because of their election slogans. The lie spread about these reports is that they lead to light sentences. As if, in some way, they mislead a judge. This Minister shouldn't have his office. Only last week he was in this House suggesting that home detention was some kind of not real consequence for crime. This Minister is embarking on a programme of undermining the ability of judges to make good decisions. Depriving the court of useful information by defunding these reports is just one of the spiteful things he's doing. He's also going to reduce the discretion of judges in sentencing. And, of course, now the judges won't be able to look at these reports and understand what the victim's views are in terms of reparations, in terms of a restorative process, in terms of the offender cooperating with an investigation. But don't worry, Minister—he's got nothing to worry about. His kids and my kids will be fine; they can afford these reports. All of the facts can be put in front of the judge for children of people who have salaries like we do, but it's the kids of those people on low salaries, or the workers on the minimum wage who can't rustle up enough to get an effective report done to put before the judge. That is discriminatory; it's wrong. And let's talk about reducing the number of victims of crime. Is that the policy objective of this legislation? If so, it will do the opposite. I want to give judges the tools and information they need to impose the right sentence on the offender—a sentence that reduces the likelihood of crime in the future, based on evidence and on expert advice, not a reckon and an election slogan. What does this Government really want? It wants to blind one ear and block one ear. It actually wants to shackle the judiciary. Does it want to enable the judges to stick with their oath to do right by all manner of people? I don't think so. They want judges to be able to listen to people who can afford to be listened to, and they don't care about those that can't. So the National Party policy is, basically, to fill up our jails—to put people away. They don't care that home detention is useful; that supervision and alcohol and drug rehabilitation actually works; that mental health treatment can be effective; and care in whānau, by whānau can be effective. Those are the things that come out of these reports, but the people who need these reports most now can't have them. We want to solve the problems that create offending, and this includes a rehabilitative approach as well as punishment where appropriate. They don't care that the voice of the victim in these reports is going to be shut out. Section 27 looks at information about processes that have been tried to resolve or are available to resolve issues relating to the events involving the victim or victims of the offence. That information is no longer going to be in front of the courts in most of these cases. So the National Party dogma, it's not going to be without consequences. As our already pressured prisons fill—prisons that are already not resourced to give basic services to prisoners—they won't be able to meet their legal requirements. These offenders will be putting their first foot on the conveyer belt of disenfranchisement. If they weren't already gang-connected, they will be soon. If their connections to whānau were tenuous, well, they will be broken. And if their sense of community was fragile, it will be gone. And, as a nasty, little aside, this Minister has been calling this a cottage industry. Again, using the politics of division to gaslight the people who diligently try to inform the judge of important context of offending: the family, social, and cultural background in which it occurred. I wanted to know the basis of this allegation so, again, I asked the Minister who was paid by the legal services agency to prepare these reports? Who and how much? Who are these cottage industry people? What did he say? "I don't know. I don't have any information on who's been getting these reports." Once again, he made it up. This bill is just one of the wedges that the Government is driving in our society. One of the ways they are making our society less just, one of the ways in which they will create more victims and more offenders. This policy and the others aren't based on evidence or thoughtfulness— ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): The member's time has come to an end. PAULO GARCIA (National—New Lynn): The use of section 27 reports are to inform the judicial system—the judges—in the process of sentencing, the background and family information of the accused. So the process for going through the allegations and the charges and the defence of them has already passed. At this stage, section 27 reports have to do with sentencing—there is no removal of the right of anyone for evidence to be presented in their favour throughout the whole process. What is being abolished is the funding for section 27 reports. Because it was created to allow family and people who knew the accused to provide evidence in support of their background. Section 27 reports are not being abolished by this amendment. I commend this bill to the House. A party vote was called for on the question, That the Legal Services Amendment Bill be now read a second time. Ayes 68 New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Noes 54 New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 6. Motion agreed to. Bill read a second time. ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): The bill is set down for committee stage next sitting day. PAE ORA (DISESTABLISHMENT OF MĀORI HEALTH AUTHORITY) AMENDMENT BILL First Reading Hon Dr SHANE RETI (Minister of Health): I present a legislative statement on the Pae Ora (Disestablishment of Māori Health Authority) Amendment Bill. ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): That legislative statement is published under the authority of the House and can be found on the Parliament website. Hon Dr SHANE RETI: I move, That the Pae Ora (Disestablishment of Māori Health Authority) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. This is a narrow bill focused on the changes needed to disestablish the Māori Health Authority. Disestablishment was agreed to by all three governing parties in their coalition agreements and mandated by the results of the 2023 general election, where it was canvassed at length on the campaign trail. Substantively, this bill meets our hundred-day commitment and delivers on our intent. I want to acknowledge those who embarked on the Māori Health Authority dream and say to you that this bill is in no way a reflection of you or your good work. It is a reflection of an approach that failed to put health needs for all at its forefront and a reflection of an implementation plan that faced significant challenges from the beginning. I acknowledge that some people have a different view, and I respect that. However, I want to reassure them that this Government will remain committed to improving Māori health outcomes. While the particular version of the dream that the Māori Health Authority laid out is coming to an end today, I want to paint a different dream, one that will be outcomes driven, providing greater devolved decision-making that will deliver care as close to the home and the hapū as possible. There is organisational expertise in the Māori Health Authority, and I want to retain that. I say to Māori Health Authority staff to please join me, guide me, and help us together to row a different waka towards better health outcomes. This bill enables that. Structurally, the intent of this bill is that the Māori Health Authority staff and functions will transfer mostly to Health New Zealand, with a few to the Ministry of Health. Retaining the expertise needed to drive better health outcomes for Māori is important. We will do this transfer with dignity and respect for fellow health professionals. However, this is not simply a rehoming of the Māori Health Authority within Health New Zealand and the Ministry of Health. There will be less funded positions transferred across from unfilled positions especially. These are being covered to date by expensive consultants. Across health, we are reprioritising funds from the bureaucracy and into the front line. I want to speak to Iwi Māori Partnership Boards and the Hauora Māori Advisory Committee. Iwi Māori Partnership Boards and the Hauora Māori Advisory Committee will remain in place. Their voices may evolve as both will have a continuing role in the future of Māori health, and they will be very important as we press into communities to deliver care, to monitor care, as close to the home and the hapū as possible. Localities will be paused under this bill while their place in the reforms is reconsidered. We have inherited a health system facing a significant number of challenges following major reform. The system continues to perform poorly across many metrics. Access to healthcare varies unacceptably. There are increasingly long wait times for treatment and substantial workforce shortages. Much of this is as a result of poor leadership and decision-making by the previous Government. Decision making has mostly been centralised in Wellington, with family and whānau not having as much input into services delivered as is desirable. This needs to change. I want to paint a vision for Māori and all New Zealanders. My vision is that all New Zealanders will have timely access to quality healthcare. That is the mission statement. To achieve this, I will be setting clear health targets. These will bring attention, resources, and the accountability that's needed to deliver quality care in a timely manner. The Hauora Māori Advisory Committee will help drive our health targets and will be informed by the work already done in Pae Tū and the Whakamaua action plan. Iwi Māori Partnership Boards will be encouraged to have more of a say in their local communities in a manner not permissioned in Pae Ora. This bill, then, is necessary not just to support an election mandate but to undo an ideology that was struggling to produce tangible results. Many will say that the Māori Health Authority was still in its infancy. I would refute that statement. After 18 months in transition, under the guidance of a transition unit, before enablement in July 2022, and then given a further 18 months after that, this infant needed to be up on its feet and walking—despite the best efforts of staff, it was not. It is not clear to me that the Māori Health Authority was ever actually supported properly by the previous Government, who, in my view, were distracted by wider structural reforms to other parts of the health system. I believe the transition unit and previous Government has much to answer for in this failed implementation. Often in politics, there is near universal agreement on the destination, what needs to get better; it is often how we get there that varies. This bill signals the beginning of a different journey. We acknowledge inequities. We acknowledge long waiting lists. At a macro level, this bill commences a journey that is different in three key ways from the previous Government's approach. One: we believe in decentralisation and not a centralised, "Wellington knows best" approach to decision making and resourcing. Two: targets will be brought back and be at the forefront of our health policy. Unlike the previous Government, which said targets would not be at the forefront of their health policies, it will be at the forefront of our health policies. Three: health workforce shortages are the biggest hurdle facing our health system, despite what the previous Government stated and put on record. To conclude, what we are putting on the table today is a start to enabling the delivery of care as close to the home and the hapū as possible. I look forward to expanding further in other stages of this bill, but at this point I commend it to the House. ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): The question is that the motion be agreed to. Hon PEENI HENARE (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I stand on behalf of the Labour Party to oppose the Pae Ora (Disestablishment of Māori Health Authority) Amendment Bill. Can I first acknowledge the many hard-working New Zealanders—Māori and Pākehā—who work in the health system at large, but in particular at Te Aka Whai Ora. Many make the assumption that it's just Māori workers who work at Māori health providers, and indeed Te Aka Whai Ora. That's simply not the case. There are many people right across this country who are passionate about Māori health outcomes. What we've just heard from the Minister in describing this bill can only be described as the absolute opposite of that. The Minister, in his opening remarks, has said that this delivers on the intent of the three-headed taniwha otherwise known as the coalition Government. It sure does, if that intent is indeed a regressive Māori policy agenda—and that's what's happening here today. I was fortunate to be the Minister responsible for the building of Te Aka Whai Ora, with strong support from our then Minister of Health, the Hon Andrew Little, and subsequent Ministers of Health who continued to reshape a health system that needed to be reshaped. I want to be very clear—and there are members on that side of the House who are new to the House and I want to say to them that inequities in Māori health have been in Māori communities for decades. Now, I want to remind the members on that side of the House that they were cruelly exposed during COVID-19. In fact, one of my jobs as a Minister—it was one of the COVID Ministers—was to travel to each and every one of the districts of the members in this House to literally wring the district health board by the neck and say "You must provide better outcomes for Māori because right now you're failing—right now you are failing." That is why the work to reshape the health sector was particularly undertaken, because COVID sorely—sorely—exposed the holes in the health sector to show that there are further inequities that are suffered by Māori, in particular in times of crisis. Māori right up and down this country stood up to deliver during COVID-19 and, in fact, Te Whānau o Waipareira in West Auckland delivered over 70,000 vaccinations in Tāmaki-makau-rau alone. And guess what? Only 14 percent of those were to Māori. The rest of them were to everybody. This is the lesson I want that side of the House to remember: I want that side of the House to remember Te Aka Whai Ora was here not just for Māori but for the betterment of this entire nation. What we are going to delve into as this bill progresses is clear evidence from many members on this side of the House who witnessed first-hand the decentralisation approach that was taken when we built Te Aka Whai Ora. I challenge the Minister and members on that side of the House who talk about a Wellington bureaucracy: tell me where their office is. Did any of them come to the opening of Te Aka Whai Ora? I can tell you I did. It was opened in Tāmaki-makau-rau, Auckland, where the largest Māori population is in this country. It wasn't run out of Wellington; in fact, it was put back into the hands of our people. We established the Iwi-Māori Partnership Boards in order to make sure that we can fund and commission those outcomes directly in community. Now, the Minister has spoken about keeping part of that function. We will be challenging the Minister as we interrogate this bill about: what does that look like? What does that actually mean for the Iwi-Māori Partnership Boards? How do those Iwi-Māori Partnership Boards continue to be supported by Health New Zealand as they look to make sure health outcomes for Māori improve right across this country? I am passionate about Māori health. My uncle Rob Cooper; my father Erima Henare were instrumental in the early Māori health days, looking towards how we fund the inequities properly in order to turn around Māori health outcomes for this country. In my final 45 seconds, as we interrogate this bill, I want to say to all the whānau out there and to all of the kaimahi who have worked hard for Māori outcomes: tai timu, tai pari. The tide has turned for now, but I say to them: we will tie our waka up onto the shore because, inevitably, the tide will turn again and our waka will be set out to sea to go towards the aspirations that our people have dreamed of for years. I encourage that side of the House to read Sir Mason Durie, Order of New Zealand, one of the greatest living New Zealanders currently, in his approach to Māori health, and then come back and argue the merits of Te Aka Whai Ora. We oppose this bill vehemently. HŪHANA LYNDON (Green): I stand in this House, wearing the kākahu taratara [mourning cloak] of te Rōpū Kākāriki [the Green Party] as we mourn the loss of our dear friend and colleague Fa'anānā Efeso Collins. I pay tribute to him today, and to my matua Mikaere Povey, tamaiti of Dame Naida Glavish, who also fell on that same day. They were far too young and taken too soon. Nō reira moe mai rā. Hoki mai anō ki a tātou ngā waihotanga iho a rātou mā, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, kia ora tātou katoa. [So rest in peace. I return now to us who have been left behind by them, greetings, greetings and thanks to us all.] I stand on behalf of te Rōpū Kākāriki to speak on the Pae Ora (Disestablishment of Māori Health Authority) Amendment Bill . Today is day one of the recolonisation of hauora Māori in Aotearoa New Zealand. Why? Because this Government is scrapping Te Aka Whai Ora, the Māori Health Authority. As Janice Kuka, the lead claimant in the current Waitangi Tribunal urgency in the disestablishment for Te Aka Whai Ora, shared, this is the closest model of tino rangatiratanga in hauora Māori in history. Today, we stand outraged that this Government would seek to scrap an organisation which was established through the important work of the 2019 Wai 2575 Health Service and Outcomes Kaupapa Inquiry and the full Health and Disability System Review that took place in 2019 and 2020, which included the DHBs, health providers, community, and stakeholders. This review reinforced the Waitangi Tribunal findings and set the scene for the major changes required. The review confirmed that Aotearoa has unacceptable Māori health inequities. We have institutional racism. The general health system has not improved Māori health outcomes, and approaches to design, purchasing, and contracting of health services have worsened these inequalities. We now have a Government who wants to send us back to the future, moving a focused independent hauora Māori voice back into the mainstream machine known as Te Whatu Ora. E te Minita Hauora, kei hea te tino rangatiratanga o tēnā? [To the Minister of Health, where is the sovereignty in that?] We've heard the Minister share in the media that the disestablishment of Te Aka Whai Ora will be done gently, with great care and great respect, and that the Government wants to propose an alternative that is more effective and that will deliver outcomes that Māori need. Where are the gentle hands of this Government? What engagement has this Government undertaken with te Iwi Māori and hauora Māori on the proposal to scrap Te Aka Whai Ora? Did Māori tell you that we need this? The Government is proposing that this legislation will come through the House under urgency—and we're here right now. But where is the justice and due process for our people to have input? Where are the gentle hands in allowing the urgent claim before the Waitangi Tribunal, scheduled for this Thursday and Friday, to be heard? Now, undermined by this Government. Nā wai i teka, this Government supports te tino rangatiratanga o te iwi Māori ki roto i ngā take hauora? E kī, e kī. [Who lied that this Government supports the sovereignty of the Māori people in health issues? Well, really.] There is no respect of this Government who actively silences the thousands of voices that contributed the establishment of Te Aka Whai Ora, further oppressing te Iwi Māori when it comes to our hauora solutions. We have heard from the Minister of Health that Te Aka Whai Ora is a bureaucracy managed out of Wellington. I argue that Te Aka Whai Ora is a really small workforce—not even 300 kaimahi. And it's not centrally driven as a bureaucracy but, rather, a group of committed health professionals connected to kāinga, based largely in the regions and in hospitals, who are focused on improving Māori health outcomes. The Pae Ora legislation provides the road map that was heralded as a game changer in fixing a public health system that for far too long had failed Māori and many others in our community—we had been left out. There is a strong feeling in our kāinga and within iwi that we've been ripped off by this Government. Disestablishing Te Aka Whai Ora now—we've never got a chance to see the waka grow and reach its full potential. Te Iwi Māori are ripped off. This Government undermines the Waitangi Tribunal. Knowing full well that the urgency is this week, I ask again: where is the justice? The Prime Minister said at Waitangi, "I want Te Aō Māori to thrive. When Māori [thrive], we all know [that] New Zealand [will do well as well]." Well, te Iwi Māori, did we consent to scrapping Te Aka Whai Ora? No, we didn't. In fact, this is a gross breech of Te Tiriti o Waitangi. Kia ora. TODD STEPHENSON (ACT): I rise on behalf of ACT to indicate we will be supporting this bill, the Pae Ora (Disestablishment of Māori Health Authority) Amendment Bill. ACT opposed the establishment of the Māori Health Authority. We also campaigned on that in last year's election and we also put that into our coalition agreement, which became part of the Government's 100-day plan. We think that having a Government department predicated entirely on race is wrong, and it really is a simplistic way of looking at how we should deal with healthcare in this country. Dividing New Zealanders into two ethnic groups to receive public services does not help us deliver better public services, and, actually, it's a poor analysis of the causes of poor health outcomes. It creates division, and, really, isn't the way we want to go forward. Also, the report that was done on the authority's lack of progress—it actually said that concerns are being erased about staff transfers not being focused on critical skills and expertise needed to actually deliver the health outcomes that were promised. The report also found that the authority was tracking behind the Government's commitments, and under-delivering, resulting in, actually, Māori being underserved, not better served. We want to continue to ensure that our health system delivers for all New Zealanders based on need, and we are very committed, as the Minister outlined in his speech, to actually closing the gap for all New Zealanders, Māori and non-Māori. This bill also doesn't remove the ability for Māori to be consulted, and we actually want to see more Māori health providers actually providing care at the coalface. We want to get rid of this bureaucracy and actually get down to delivery. I commend this bill to the House—thank you. JENNY MARCROFT (NZ First): Thank you Mr. Speaker. I rise on behalf of New Zealand First in support of the Pae Ora (Disestablishment of Māori Health Authority) Amendment Bill. I'd like to begin my contribution acknowledging the Minister, Hon Dr Shane Reti and pointing out a number of comments that he's made in his introductory remarks which resonate well with me—that we do remain, from this side of the House, absolutely committed to improving Māori health outcomes; noting also that the staff and functions of Te Aka Whai Ora will be transferred to Health New Zealand; and reprioritising the funds from the bureaucracy to the frontline because it's at the frontline, we know, that health gain will be improved. If you have a massive bureaucracy that is all about ideology, no health gain comes as a result. Our public health system is accountable for its delivery; a public health system that is keenly focused on delivering positive health outcomes for all New Zealanders, and that's New Zealand First: we believe that equity of access for all based on need, based on clinical need, must be a core function in public health. Māori health equity is a core function of the public health sector. Māori health equity should be matrixed across the entire public health system, not ring-fenced, not put into a little box on the side, with bureaucratic capture. The delivery of Māori and, for that matter, Pacific health gain is a fundamental responsibility of our public health system. Te Aka Whai Ora is the commissioning arm of the public health system for Māori. However Te Aka Whai Ora's ability to actually deliver was very limited. It was not the vehicle for change that many people had hoped for. I will also note very briefly that the iwi-Māori partnership boards under this amendment bill will get the actual power they should have had in the first place. Currently, under the Pae Ora legislation they do not have any commissioning powers but the future for them is to really come inside the health system and be that network provider down to the grassroots where Māori health gain will be improved. I commend the bill to the House. DEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER (Co-Leader—Te Pāti Māori): Te Pāti Māori stand up and speaks in absolute opposition to what has been proposed here, not only in this bill but the way that it is coming to us. I cannot state enough that the wellbeing of your tangata w'enua, the indigenous people of Aotearoa, deserves to have more time and deserves, as Te Tiriti, to be heard in the tribunal. In fact, the efforts of those that are out on the ground making this will happen day-to-day needed to be validated and felt by the Minister before us. I want to congratulate this Government! I want to congratulate you to our Minister! From day one, you have carried on the kōrero that this is a two-tier system based on race—based on race. Your party has continued on the kōrero of this being a solution based on racial segregation. And New Zealand First, in fact, said it was about separatism. In fact, we had ACT also calling it an "act of apartheid". Well, excuse us. Excuse us for having to have a separate need to be able to have our wellbeing addressed, because we are dying earlier than everyone else. And let's just go there. Let's just go there and talk about the facts, because the reality is that we have learnt from this Government that Māori are expendable. And the politicking that is going on before the very nation of Aotearoa—and the world—is that you have determined that you know better what Māori want. And there's been a culmination of years and years of this solution. But let's just talk about it. Let's just reflect. Māori die seven years earlier than everyone else. That's not a myth; that's a fact. That's not an enjoyable position to be in. It's not something that we desire to have as separatists. Māori men die eight years earlier compared to other males. Our men die on average 73 years old. That's probably six years after the gold card. And then we, of course, have a Māori—53 percent of us die under 65 years old. Now, let's just forget—let's just remember, sorry—non-Māori men are doing an average of 83 years. So we have comparatively a poor performance of life based on the fact that we have had to endure 180 years of a health system that has completely failed us. I refuse to let you carry on the dialogue that our people are failing. The health system has completely failed my kaumātua, my own generation, and my mokopuna. We haven't failed. We never left our w'enua. We have done nothing wrong. We've had to endure the state of a system that was forced on us. So what we have now is a narrative. You have successfully conjured up a narrative that we were enjoying preferential treatment as tangata w'enua, and as a consequence, this frenzy of misinformation and racism—the fact that Māori radicals want to take over—you have completely created a narrative that has got the rest of Aotearoa and those who are not Māori, those who are not enduring this horrific health system that we're in, thinking that we deserve and we want something different based on race. I guess the other side of it too is that you can continue to tell us that you're listening to Māori, whānau, hapū, iwi communities. Yet the Iwi Chairs Forum has hit out and said there's been no communication of the alternative. So not only have we had to endure a whole revolting campaign of you being so desperate to get into power that you created a narrative that Māori wanted different treatments in Aotearoa but you have continued to also sit there and offer no alternative, no option. Just get rid of bureaucracy and don't worry about the fact what's going on in Te Whatu Ora and the fact they had 18 months. Don't worry about the fact that Oranga Tamariki is killing our people and you've got a system that's had reviews after reviews saying, "Get rid of it." No, no, no. Let's pick a moment in time and focus on what you want to focus the rest of Aotearoa, and that is you have gone on and you have conjured up a narrative that Māori deserve to die earlier; we deserve to be unwell; we deserve to have a system that's designed by you all who have got no experience. We saw the most horrific racism during COVID. None of you have talked about that. But, thankfully, we've got a second reading and a third reading where I continue to take our people on the enjoyment of what it is like to have a Government that puts urgency before it puts the wellbeing of tangata w'enua. I am ashamed to be in this House debating this bill. It is not a moment to be proud of, Minister, but we will carry that on in the second and the third reading. Kia ora rā. SAM UFFINDELL (National—Tauranga): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise in support of the Pae Ora (Disestablishment of the Māori Health Authority) Amendment Bill at its first reading. We have said that we campaigned clearly that we were going to disestablish the Māori Health Authority. We were voted in by the people of New Zealand with a clear electoral mandate, and we are delivering on that mandate as part of our first 100 days in coalition agreements with coalition partners. We know that the solutions for Māori communities come from Māori communities, not from Wellington bureaucracies. This Government is committed to lifting outcomes for Māori and non-Māori alike, and it's not about the shape of the system; it's about making sure that it actually delivers for all New Zealanders. That is what this Government is committed to doing—lifting the standards of healthcare for all New Zealanders—and this bill is a step in that direction. I support it. Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Labour): Madam Speaker—Mr Speaker. ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): You're allowed to look up when you make the call, Ms Verrall. Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: What a challenge for our country, the unacceptable inequities that Māori face in health—the fact that Māori, as has been outlined by my colleague, die seven years earlier, in the 21st century, when we have been working on this issue for about a century, since the birth of our health system. There is no good reason for it. We must not accept it. As a health practitioner, I have seen many health practitioners be confronted by that. In fact, it's not uncommon, working in a hospital, to go and see your patients' data audited and to have your colleagues look over at you and point to the fact that the outcomes you are achieving are not good enough for Māori. That has been something I have seen my colleagues go through, and many of them have recognised that they, despite being totally committed to the health of each individual in front of them, have none the less worked in a way that has been unable to see those benefits translate into health gains for Māori. For my colleagues, for whom the idea that they are caring for each person to the best of their ability is the centre of their professional identity, this cuts them to the core. I have watched many of my colleagues go through that realisation and that process of understanding that things had to be done differently slowly, sometimes painfully, sometimes with a lot of confrontation between activists within our profession or our health services and the professionals concerned. But our country has come a long way, and when we consulted on the review of the health system in the first term of the Labour Government, there was strong support for the development of a Māori Health Authority in order to make sure that the multiple ways in which the system was failing Māori could be systematically addressed. What is so disappointing is that something which is the culmination of so much study and work and consultation in Aotearoa is now being removed by a Government who refuses to listen, under urgency, with no opportunity for select committee and no opportunity for the Waitangi Tribunal to be able to comment on this thing of critical importance to Māori. It is shameful, and, Dr Reti, my view is that your conduct in this is cowardly. It is a moral challenge for us to address health outcomes for Māori. We have heard repeatedly that Dr Reti has a dream for Māori, but I don't see any evidence of a plan. I don't see any evidence of anything that will actually change things. I see evidence of populism, actually, of sacrificing the needs of the minority in order to gain a majority and to take up power. I think it's a disgrace. I want to turn to the issue of how we could make substantial health gains for Māori and for non-Māori, and that is in community and primary care. That was the purpose of the localities which I see in this bill. Their roll-out is now deferred. That is the importance of the relationship between Iwi-Māori Partnership Boards and localities. Unless we get that right, we will not be able to generate the positive outcomes we want for the health of everyone. We will continue to have an uncoordinated, messy system of primary care where the bits don't join up and people can't access what they need. Such an important change. I cannot believe the Government is sleepwalking into this without a select committee process. Dr HAMISH CAMPBELL (National—Ilam): I stand to speak in support of the Pae Ora (Disestablishment of Māori Health Authority) Amendment Bill. We're committed to improving health outcomes for all New Zealanders, including Māori. We recognise that communities know best what works for them. We'll continue to work with all population groups to improve outcomes. We don't want a health care system that will deliver more bureaucracy than bandages, more paperwork than peripherally inserted central catheter lines, more heartbreak than heart health. So therefore, I commend this bill to the House. Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour): E te Māngai o te Whare, kua tae mai te rā. Ka nui taku riri ki tēnei kāwanatanga, engari he nui kē atu taku pōuri.ki te tū i tēnei rā ki te kōrero e pā ana ki tēnei pire. Ko te kaupapa ko te whakakahore i Te Aka Whai Ora He pōuri nā te mea ko tētahi o aku whanaunga e ārahi ana i tēnei pire i roto i tēnei Whare, e haukoti ana i te nohoanga o te Taraipiunara. Ko tana hapū tētahi o ngā kaikerēme, ko Te Kapotai tētahi o ngā kaikerēme o te whakakorenga o Te Aka Whaiora. Ko taku whanaunga te tangata arero rua. I roto i tēnei Whare, i whakautu ia i te pātai a Peeni Henare mehemea ka noho ia, ka kōrero ia, ka whakarongo ia ki ōna iwi Māori, ki ngā hapū, ki ngā iwi, ki te Taraipiunara. Ko tana whakautu i tērā wiki, "āe. Āe, ka noho au, ka whakarongo au, ka āta whakaaro au i ngā kōrero." Engari i tēnei rā kua tau mai tēnei pire ki roto i tēnei Whare, hei te mutunga o tēnei rā, āpōpō pea, kua whakakorengia tēnei. E kī, e kī! Āe, e tika ana te kōrero, nā wai i teka? Nā te Minita i teka i tērā wiki. Ka āta kōrero ia, whakarongo ia; kahore. Kahore. E taku whanaunga, e mōhio ana ahau e poho kererū ana ō whanaunga. [To the Speaker of the House, the day has arrived. I am very angry at this Government, but my sadness is much greater to stand here today to speak about this bill. The subject is the disestablishment of the Māori Health Authority. I am saddened because it is one of my relations that is leading this bill through this House, and cutting off the sitting of the tribunal. His hapū is one of the claimants, Te Kapotai is one of the claimants of the disestablishment of the Māori Health Authority. My relation is a two-faced man. In this House, he answered the question of Peeni Henare whether he would sit with, discuss with, and listen to his Māori people, to the hapū, to the iwi, to the tribunal. His answer last week was, "Yes. Yes, I will sit, I will listen, I will carefully consider the discussion." But today this bill has arrived in this House, at the end of the day, maybe tomorrow, this will be disestablished. How dare you! Yes, that statement is true; whose lie was it? It was the Minister that lied last week. He will carefully discuss, he will listen; no way. No way. To my relation, I know your relations are very proud.] ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): Ms Prime, I realise that I'm subject to the translation, but just be aware that you are running close to the line with some of these personal comments. But carry on. Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME: Ehara koe i taku whanaunga, e te Māngai o te Whare. E kōrero ana ahau ki te Minita, ko ia taku whanaunga. Nō reira e hāngai ana ahau ki ngā kōrero, e mōhio ana ahau ki tō kōrero. [You are not my relation, Speaker of the House. I am speaking to the Minister. He is my relation. So I am in alignment with the statements. I know what you are speaking about.] ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): I repeat my comment, Ms Prime. Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME: E te Minita, e mōhio ana ahau, tō iwi e poho kererū i tō mahi hei tākuta, nā te mea kei roto i ō ringaringa, e te Minita, kei roto i ō ringaringa te pae ora o wō tātou whānau; tamariki, mokopuna. Engari kei konei i tēnei rā me te mau mai i tēnei pire i te whakakāhore i Te Aka Whai Ora. Ō rātou wawata mō te pae ora, mō wā tātou tamariki, mokopuna. E hoki ana ōku mahara ki te wā o taku matua, a Kevin Prime, i tīmata i te Ngāti Hine Health Trust, i te taha i a Uncle Erima Henare, i a Rob Cooper mā. Tō rātou hiahia kia whai i te oranga mō wā tātou tamariki, mokopuna, whānau Māori, e tautoko ana i tēnei kaupapa o Te Aka Whai Ora kia whakatutuki i ngā wawata o rātou mā. Ngā mea e ora tonu ana i tēnei rā, pērā i a Aunty Moe Milne, ko ia tētahi i tū ana ki mua i te Taraipiunara me te whakahē i ō mahi, me tana tino pōuri ko koe, he whanaunga, e mau mai ana i tēnei ki roto i tēnei Whare. Ko taku kōrero ki a koe, e taku whanaunga, e tino whakamā ana ahau i ō mahi. Āta whakaarohia, kei roto i ō ringaringa te oranga mō wā tātou whanaunga, tamariki, mokopuna. [To the Minister, I know that your iwi is very proud of your efforts as a doctor, because in your hands, Minister, in your hands is the healthy future of our families; children, grandchildren. But here you are today bringing this bill to disestablish the Māori Health Authority; their aspirations for a healthy future, for our children, grandchildren. My memories return to the time of my uncle, Kevin Prime, who started the Ngāti Hine Health Trust, alongside Uncle Erima Henare, and Rob Cooper and others. Their desire was to pursue wellbeing for our children, grandchildren, and Māori families, and were in support of this initiative, Te Aka Wha Ora, to realise their aspirations. The ones who are still alive today, like Aunty Moe Milne, she is one of the ones that is standing before the tribunal and opposing your efforts, and her deep sadness that you, a relative, is bringing this into this House. What I say to you, my relation, is that I am very embarrassed by your endeavours. Consider carefully that in your hands is the wellbeing of our relations, children, and grandchildren.] ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): Ms Prime, direct your comments to the Chair. Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME: E te Māngai o te Whare, e kōrero ana ahau ki te Minita. Ko ia taku whanaunga. Ko tāku e inoi ana ki a ia, āe. Āe. [Speaker of the House, I am speaking to the Minister. He is my relation. What I am asking of him, yes, yes.] ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): Ms Prime, you direct your comments through the Chair, and you do not use the first person. Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME: E te Māngai o te Whare, e kōrero ana ahau ki taku whanaunga, me te pātai, me te inoi, me te tono, me te tohe, aha rānei ki a ia, me tana mahi whakahē, whakamutu i tēnei, Te Aka Whai Ora, me taku kōrero ki a ia e tino pōuri ana ahau i tana mahi, e tino riri ana ahau i tana mahi. [Speaker of the House, I am speaking to my relation, and asking, and pleading, and requesting, and disputing, and whatever else of him and his efforts to condemn and bring an end to this, the Māori Health Authority, and my statement to him that I am deeply saddened by his efforts, and I am very angry at his endeavours.] DEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER (Co-Leader—Te Pāti Māori ): Point of order, e te Pīka. Our whanaunga is never one person. We don't speak in Māori individually; we speak collectively. Our whanaunga is a hapū and an iwi. ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): Well, I'm not going to rule on that. I'm ruling on the language that was being used that came through my translation that Ms Prime was using, and that was what I was ruling on. So— Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: E te Pīka, point of order. ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): Is this a new point of order, Ms Ngarewa-Packer? Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: It's speaking to the previous point of order. If we are going to be— ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): Well, I'm sorry, but I've ruled on that already. Dr CARLOS CHEUNG (National—Mt Roskill): I rise to support this bill. This Government is committed to lift health outcomes for all New Zealanders, including Māori. Disestablishing the Māori Health Authority in no way means an end to this Government's focus on Māori health for those who need it. It presents an opportunity to identify more efficient ways to work together with Māori to deliver solutions; a saving which can go back into better health outcomes. This bill strikes the right balance between service delivery on needs not race, while ensuring Māori continue to have their voice being heard. Therefore, I commend this bill to the House. A party vote was called for on the question, That the Pae Ora (Disestablishment of Māori Health Authority) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. Ayes 68 New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Noes 54 New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 6. Motion agreed to. Bill read a first time. ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): This bill is set down for second reading immediately. Second Reading Hon Dr SHANE RETI (Minister of Health): I move, That the Pae Ora (Disestablishment of Māori Health Authority) Amendment Bill be now read a second time. We have laid out a plan for Māori health in the context of an overarching strategy with priorities that include decentralisation, the importance of health workforce and targets. We have heard how Māori health providers often service non-Māori, sometimes even more than they service Māori. I recognise and venerate this and, in fact, have already moved from just those nice words to putting it into action with the announcement in December of a $50 million immunisation programme that utilises the special actions that Māori health providers can provide, and what mainstream cannot or will not; their ability to reach into remote and vulnerable communities as part of the expertise that they have. In that announcement, which at $50 million was not inconsequential, we funded Māori health providers to deliver to a universal audience. We backed them. These are tangible actions, not just words. Yes, I did say transition would be in my kind hands, in reply to a previous speech. What I would suggest is ask the staff: is there any time in this process when there has not been respect and consideration? In my first reading I asked Māori Health Authority staff to join me—hardly demeaning but more encouraging and collaborative and hopeful. I have enjoyed engaging with Māori health providers and leaders as I've sought to find a way forward for what might deliver better health outcomes, including meeting with iwi-Māori partnership board chairs and a Zoom meeting on or around 6 December, as I recall, and others who have contributed wisdom to the position we find ourselves in today. To conclude, briefly, I've described the changes that this bill brings about: (1) Māori Health Authority staff to repatriate to Health New Zealand and the Māori Health Authority; (2) uplifting of the Hauora Māori Advisory Committee; (3) uplifting of iwi-Māori partnership boards; (4) reconsideration of localities. The plan is clear and we believe this plan will deliver better health outcomes. Kia ora mai tātou. ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): The question is that the motion be agreed to. Hon PEENI HENARE (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. We said, on this side of the House, that we will continue to interrogate the words in this bill and we will oppose this bill all the way through the stages of the House. Now, I want to touch on a number of those clauses within this bill that we will be looking towards interrogating as we come to the committee of the whole House. I also want to state here it plays into what's already been made clear—well, actually, it's quite unclear from this Government—and I want to draw the House's attention to clause 6 in the bill. The reason I want to do that is what we've heard from the ACT Party in this House is a Treaty principles bill, and that they want to have this discussion and then we hear from the Prime Minister that they won't be supporting that bill beyond a particular stage. But what we read in this particular bill that we are debating here this evening is subterfuge. We are reading in here that this Government is already tinkering with Te Tiriti o Waitangi and its principles, and it's laid out clearly in clause 6. This is a Government where the Prime Minister stands up in Waitangi and in front of everyone in this country and says to everybody, "No, no, we won't be supporting the Treaty principles bill; we are here to work with Māori and we will continue to support Te Tiriti o Waitangi." Clause 6 of this particular bill that we are debating here tonight is clear subterfuge and straight out play by this particular Government to make sure that they can continue to tinker with Te Tiriti o Waitangi. When we were in power, we made it clear that Te Tiriti o Waitangi must continue to lead the Māori health aspiration. It's riddled all the way through the Whakamaua, which the Minister has already referred to this evening. It's already in the GPS, the Government Policy Statement, and we wanted to make sure that it was throughout the entire system. What we are seeing from this bill and this Government is a clear play to change Te Tiriti o Waitangi without even going to the community to talk about it; without even allowing whānau right up and down the country to have their say on this particular bill. Andy Foster: What are you talking about? Hon PEENI HENARE: Now, the members on that side of the House say we are talking about it right now. No, they're not: they're only taking one-minute calls. I encourage them to get up, let's debate these clauses in detail, Mr Foster—in detail—and make sure that we can have that robust conversation. Because I can tell that side of the House: all of us on this side of the House have spoken to the communities who these changes impact the most: Māori communities—Māori communities—even Pasifika communities. A known fact amongst our people: for those aged under 25, just over 50 percent of those people who are Māori are also Pacific. It impacts our communities right up and down this country, and this side of the House knows the sentiments and the feelings and, indeed, the wisdom towards this bill far better than the other side of the House. We heard it already, that "We received the mandate in the last election." Well— Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Not from Māori, they didn't. Hon PEENI HENARE: —not from Māori, they didn't; not from Pacific, they didn't. That's clear as day to each and every one of us on this side of the House. That side of the House might choose to sit in ignorance and choose to sit there with blinkers on to the actual needs of Māori. I want to reiterate that point. The Prime Minister has stood up publicly in this House saying he will vote down a Treaty principles bill, yet right here is a clear example of this Government tinkering and changing Te Tiriti o Waitangi to suit their aggressive Māori policy agenda. Dana Kirkpatrick: We're not changing Te Tiriti. How is it changing Te Tiriti? Hon PEENI HENARE: Read clause 6—read clause 6. I encourage those members to get up and speak to it and explain why they are going to be changing this. This lends itself further to the need for the Waitangi Tribunal to be able to prosecute this case and indeed offer recommendations for the consideration of any policy and anything to do with Māori health moving forward. It's clear from this Government that they choose not to listen to those experts. Some people think that the Waitangi Tribunal is simply there to make recommendations and even—I've heard calls from the other side of the House that they are biased. I can speak to much of the work of the Waitangi Tribunal and say this: not only are their recommendations well considered; they also act as a body to store knowledge, to store information, to store statistics relevant to the points that we are making here today with this bill and the cases in front of the tribunal. What we're not seeing from this Government is a commitment to looking towards those recommendations of the tribunal. Yet we heard just now from the Minister that he has met with whānau and iwi right across the country. Well, I put to the House that that actually hasn't been the case; that when we established Te Aka Whai Ora, very soon we'll be rolling out the list of all the people we met with from Māori health providers, communities, experts—not just Māori health experts but health experts from right across the world, in fact—who all called for Te Aka Whai Ora to be built. Yet when we look towards the diary programme of the Minister and even his colleagues with respect to this matter, we can't find the kinds of connection that they claim to be making here in the House. We're going to go further into the bill as we look towards some of the words that are changed and have been changed or will be proposed to be changed. We were quite clear when we established Te Aka Whai Ora that it had to be a "must"; that it had to be driven to make sure that they deliver for the people that they serve. What we've read in this particular bill are some changes to "may". Now, for most people, that might not sound like much, but "must" and "may"—there are huge differences there. The Minister, in his speech for the second reading, also spoke about the Iwi-Māori Partnership Boards and supporting decentralisation. In this repeal bill, what it's proposing is that the Iwi-Māori Partnership Boards can only be constructed or approved by the Director-General of Health. Under the current bill as it stands right now before this repeal, actually there was a process there to go through Te Aka Whai Ora—the Māori Health Authority—to continue to consult and to make sure that in order for it to be recognised, it had to go through that process. What this bill is proposing to do is cut out the voice of Māori and the recognition of themselves to be able to say, "I am an iwi and I want to be an Iwi-Māori Partnership Board to continue to serve my people."—and this is the right process to be able to do that. What this bill does, however, is actually just say, "No, no, we're going to put it in the hands of only the Director-General of Health." Now, while I respect the Director-General of Health—the current one and indeed the one that we worked with in order to establish Te Aka Whai Ora, Sir Ashley Bloomfield, who was hugely supportive of the work that we did for the health reform and of course for Te Aka Whai Ora. What we're seeing here is a continual silencing of the Māori voice as we look towards things like the Iwi-Māori Partnership Board that the Minister and that side of the House pretend to commit themselves to and pretend to support. It's just not true, and it was playing out only in their words, because it's contradictory to what's being proposed here in the bill. We will also go on to interrogate the Minister, in his speech, talking about the simple repatriation of Māori staff or staff into the health system again—or into Health New Zealand or Te Manatū Hauora. What the Minister just described there is the status quo. It's simply the status quo. It's going exactly back to where it was. What happened when it was like that? The health statistics for Māori continued to be poor. The outcomes for Māori continue to be poor. The Minister in the House here has just told everyone it will go back to the status quo. I can tell the Minister who claims to have met with the whānau to say that he will care for them and look after them, I can say that actually many of them left the status quo because it wasn't working. They were going to something new and to try something new that will continue to provide for the aspirations of Māori health. Now, sadly, from the other side of the House, all we've heard is the status quo. The status quo on steroids can only tell me one thing: that it's going to go backwards even faster. The status quo on steroids tells me it is going to go backwards even faster. The other side of the House talk about targets. We will continue to hold this Government to account. The Minister himself spoke about a $50 million fund to lift the rates of immunisation across the country. When I asked him about that matter not a couple of weeks ago, he spoke about a data system. That's all he spoke about, a data system. He didn't tell us how and how much we are going to lift the immunisation rates of our tamariki—in the House, on record, when asked about it, he talked about funding a data system. Tell me how that lifts, in a practical way, the immunisation rates of Māori. We continue to oppose this bill and we will continue to interrogate clause by clause. HŪHANA LYNDON (Green): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. I'd like to take the opportunity as an uri of Te Tai Tokerau to invite the Minister of Health and his colleagues to stand on Mōkau Marae in Whangaruru and address the people of Ngāti Wai, to come to Ōtīria Marae in Moerewa and address the people of Ngāti Hine and talk to us about this reform—talk to us around why Te Aka Whai Ora isn't good for our people, as we mobilised hundreds of people to attend locality meetings. Hundreds came to Moerewa to talk about their local health priorities. Whether it's Matawaia, Waikare, te Rāwhiti, vanloads of whānau arrived to talk about their health goals and aspirations, because that's what localities provided. It's an opportunity for our local voice, whānau, hapū, marae, community, local government, and the sector to come together and talk about what is best for their communities. Let's be clear that successive Governments have breached Te Tiriti obligations through the generations by failing to protect the health and wellbeing of te Iwi Māori. In 2019, the Waitangi Tribunal report for Wai 2575 confirmed the view and states that our primary healthcare legislation and policy breaches Te Tiriti and fails to care for Māori health and wellbeing. The system has failed to look after Māori, and we know this because Māori die at twice the rate of non-Māori from cardiovascular disease. Māori tamariki have a mortality rate of 1.5 times more than non-Māori children. Māori are more likely to be diagnosed and die from cancer. Nau mai ki Te Taitokerau. [Welcome to Northland.] Māori die, on average, seven years earlier than non-Māori in this country. The Waitangi Tribunal report into Hauora found that the legislative framework of the New Zealand primary healthcare system should recognise and provide for the Treaty of Waitangi and its principles. The report recommended the following principles for primary healthcare: te tino rangatiratanga, the guarantee of tino rangatiratanga, which provides for Māori self-determination and mana motuhake in the design and delivery and monitoring of the health and disability services; equity, the principle of equity, which requires the Crown to commit to achieving equitable health outcomes for Māori; active protection, the principle of active protection which requires the Crown to act to the fullest extent practical to achieve equitable health outcomes for Māori; options—I'm big on options; I love a bit of options. And there's a principle of options from the Waitangi Tribunal which requires the Crown to provide for and properly resource Māori health and disability services. But, furthermore, the Crown is obliged to ensure that health and disability services are provided in a culturally appropriate way that recognises and supports the expression of hauora Māori models of care, aka mātauranga. Partnership: the principle of partnership, which requires the Crown and Māori to work in partnership in governance, design, delivery, and monitoring of health and disability services. Māori must be the co-designers with the Crown in the delivery of primary health systems for Māori. That's what Te Aka Whai Ora was doing; it was designing the health system alongside Te Whatu Ora as partners. Now, let's look at Te Aka Whai Ora. They were there to ensure that the planning and delivery of services responded to the aspirations of whānau, hapū, iwi, and Māori in general. They were there to design and deliver and arrange for services that were in accordance with the Act, Te Pae Ora, our pathway, our road map, and to achieve the best practical outcomes for whānau, hapū, and iwi in general. And then to promote Māori health and prevent and reduce and delay the onset of ill health for Māori, including collaborative approaches with other agencies, organisations, individuals to address the determinants of Māori health. I hark back to localities. Bringing local government into the conversation. Hauora is everyone. We're all in this together—localities provided for that. So I question: where is the good faith of this Government in working with us as te Iwi Māori to address the well-documented evidence of Māori health inequalities? Now, in the urgent hearing which is before the Waitangi Tribunal, the Crown opening submissions shared on 23 February 2024 "For completeness, the Crown does not intend to raise the issue of whether engagement with Māori carried out by the current Minister of Health while in Opposition met a standard of consultation required under Te Tiriti and its principles. Accordingly, it does not intend to adduce evidence from the Ministry of Health." So I guess the question is: did the Minister engage with te Iwi Māori while on the campaign trail in 2023 on the proposed scrapping of Te Aka Whai Ora? Because we've heard it's been promoted for quite some time. Did he engage with te Iwi Māori on his proposal? Now, as the Minister of Health, did he carry out any engagement with te Iwi Māori on the proposal since becoming the Minister? And if he has, who's it been with and when was it and what response has he received? It's been reported that Te Aka Whai Ora will lift and shift into Te Whatu Ora. So indicating that somehow it's just simply pick up the team—nearly 300 kaimahi—and put them into the mothership of Te Whatu Ora. Now, I have to query the transition plan for our Te Aka Whai Ora team, because you're moving a Te Ao Māori perspective into the mainstream ecosystem of Te Whatu Ora. And they may not have the capacity and competency to understand the Ao Māori world view that our team has. I question what work within Te Whatu Ora has been undertaken to uphold Te Tiriti o Waitangi and address the recommendations of the Waitangi Tribunal report 2575. In the Te Whatu Ora Health Status Report 2023, Te Whatu Ora will meet the requirements and expectations of the Pae Ora Act by enabling Māori to exercise authority over health, in accordance with Māori philosophies, values, and practices. Can the Minister confirm how Te Whatu Ora is going to enable Māori to exercise our authority over Māori health in accordance with our Māori philosophies and values and practices? He pātai miriona tāra tērā. [That's a million-dollar question.] I ask this because it's a fundamental question as to how this Government believes it knows best in terms of how to deliver health services for Māori. Te Whatu Ora is required to have capacity and capability to understand kaupapa Māori services, cultural safety, and responsiveness of services. Now, I query the board of Te Whatu Ora. There are currently two Māori members of Te Whatu Ora. And with the ending of Te Aka Whai Ora, the chair comes off that board, meaning that there's only one Māori board member. So with only one Māori board member, does the Minister believe that the governance of Te Whatu Ora have enough Māori capacity and capability? What is the plan to increase the clear capacity and capability gaps on the board of Te Whatu Ora? Now, if we look at the scrapping of Te Aka Whai Ora and shushing out community voice and te Iwi Māori voice, I reflect back on the submissions received on the Pae Ora legislation from November 2021 to August 2023—some 4,685 submissions. It's an amazing thing to see the voice of our community come through the process. Now we're sitting in urgency, we've blocked out community voice, our people have no say on what's happening right now. The creation of the 15 iwi-Māori partnership boards is a step in the right direction, and we know this—providing perspectives for whānau, hapū, and iwi in the design and delivery of healthcare. Now, that's the mechanism for mana whenua to have a say. E te Minita, I ask and seek that we power up the iwi-Māori partnership boards, that we enable commissioning of services. Let's go—let's go. But I do worry about the Hauora Māori Advisory Committee, because in the new legislation it's not clear what their purpose is. Are they just an advisory board for the Minister of Health on hauora Māori as requested? How are the members to be appointed to this committee? Do iwi-Māori partnership boards have a role in nominating and appointments, or is it just purely a ministerial appointment process? The Hauora Māori Advisory Committee is a strong group; they're health leaders, they're professionals. Surely they could input and support the whole system: Te Whatu Ora, Ministry of Health, and the wider health ecosystem. Can we not power them up also? I wish to note my observations around the Director-General of Health, because it appears that powers have been delegated back to that role in the new legislation to confirm iwi-Māori partnership boards. That's interesting because, in my mind, surely the iwi-Māori partnership boards should be approved— ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): The member's time has expired. CAMERON LUXTON (ACT): Thank you, Madam Speaker. There have been many societies in history who have seen their citizens based on something as flat as race, and often they regret it as they lose sight of the beauty of each individual. Whether the other side wants to hear it or not, this Government isn't creating division; it is trying to restore trust in the society which the last Government trashed. There will continue to be support for Māori, by Māori health providers. This is about removing duplicate, expensive bureaucracy, whether in Wellington or Auckland. Shanan Halbert: You say you're colour blind. CAMERON LUXTON: For the benefit of Peeni Henare, I invite that member to finish his sentence on why he doesn't have faith in the director-general. We will continue to work—sorry, iwi Māori partnerships will continue to work with Health New Zealand to develop priorities to improve hau ora Māori. Staff and structures will move to the Ministry of Health and Health New Zealand, and ACT supports this bill. Thank you very much. JENNY MARCROFT (NZ First): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise on the second reading of the Pae Ora (Disestablishment of Māori Health Authority) Amendment Bill, and I'd just like to begin my contribution by noting the passion in this House today. That is because we all care very deeply about the health of New Zealanders, whether it's our family, whether it's people in our community, it is people right across the country. That's why the contributions today are so passionate, so acknowledging our passion and also, too, acknowledging that there is a different way of getting to the same health outcomes. We all want to see increased health gain for all New Zealanders, and it is on that that New Zealand First stands by the health Minister, the Hon Dr Shane Reti, alongside our coalition Government, to be committed to improving Māori health outcomes. We're doing this in a different way: as the Minister noted, decentralisation is a key way we're focusing on this; absolute health targets where we ensure that the outcomes will be positive not just for Māori but Pasifika and all other communities as well; and also addressing the huge workforce pressures right across the health system. It is our public health system that will deliver for Māori, it will deliver for Pasifika, and it will deliver for our vulnerable communities. But we must ensure that our public health system ensures that they are powered up in the right way. We believe that Te Aka Whai Ora—and if we go back to the report that was written, the high-level assessment of Te Aka Whai Ora, the progress against Cabinet expectations, just a small note here: overall there had been insufficient internal capacity and capability to deliver. That's the problem: it was not delivering health gain for Māori. I just want to point to the Hon Peeni Henare's comments relating to perhaps pretending to commit to the iwi-Māori partnership boards. Well, if I could draw his attention to replacement section 15, inserted by clause 15, "Health New Zealand must support and engage with iwi-Māori partnership boards", under the previous legislation, the iwi-Māori partnership boards were nothing more than a token gesture. They didn't have any commissioning powers to deliver health services for Māori. So this way, under this Government, under this Minister, we will ensure that the health services will go down to the flax-roots. I commend this bill to the House. DEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER (Co-Leader—Te Pāti Māori ): I stand to speak to this bill, the reo—oh no, that was the other week. Beneficiaries—no, that was last week. Smoke-free—yet to come. The meth—sorry; this bill that is to do with the dissolution of our Māori Health Authority. I guess my point is that with 16 pieces of legislation coming through urgency, it's really hard to keep track of which one you're actually doing, because in an 18-month run—in an 18-month run; let's not forget and lose sight of this—the Government keeps carrying on as if it has evidence. This is the fastest ever dissolution we've ever seen of anything in our lives. We've barely had our feet hit the ground, and, actually, we're insulted by watching politicians stand up and speak for one to two minutes about kaupapa that are dear; not passionate. They're about life and death for our communities. Eighty-three percent of Māori didn't vote for this Government, which is why there is such a comfort in what is being rolled out. So what we have here, in this whole whakaaro, we've had to not only endure listening to politicians that haven't got the time to put any effort into this whakaaro but we also have to hear ourselves called "Marri" the whole time through this. I've got to tell you, there's nothing more aggravating than actually not having ourselves respected, not only for who we are but how we feel about what is before us. You have allowed limited avenues for our people to be able to stand up and give their— ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): I assure you, I have not. DEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER: —well, the Government—to be able to give our people the right to stand up, and I guess what we want to do is also remind ourselves. So while Māori were out there, defending this nation and looking after everyone, we had a leader of this Government who was out making sure that he shared the Māori vaccination code. We are being deliberately corralled into a pocket of desperation and destitution, and I want to remind and reflect on the words of Sir Mason Durie, who is a Māori health expert—unlike anyone else that is in this House at the moment. Sir Mason Durie shared that the Māori Health Authority—Te Aka Whai Ora—was an "important step for Māori with implications far beyond the healthcare sector". This is an expert with 40 years of experience, with not a political bone in his body, who is really only worried about the wellbeing of our people. Instead, here, what we've got is an era of Government that won't be transformational because it is seriously comfortable in an old system, using dollars as justification for change. Pumping chests, patting yourselves on the back, because you've given dollars—given millions of dollars—to something that, actually, is business as usual. That is what the Government's job is to do. It's to get the money out to the communities that need it the most. So let's reflect on this. So in 1982, we had 55 doctors—55 Māori doctors. Now, we have 55 Māori doctors graduating a year, and I guess the hope that I have as I speak to our people is that if we were to put all our Māori health workers and authorities together, we would have a powerful vehicle for change. It is not going to come from this Government. Iwi Māori partnerships: now they were put in, and I was always really critical of the fact that they had to have twice as many hui with half as much resourcing. What we want to ask and want to see from this Government—which we haven't seen—is what was the Māori commission's outcomes for a blueprint for Aka Whai Ora? How is it being upheld? How are they going to ensure that things are going to transfer back to Te Whatu Ora? What is your alternative model? What are you and how are you resourcing? How are the locality plans working, given that you have no data to say how they're performing, no outcomes, and we haven't seen any data outcomes since the DHBs were wound up? So what my point is is that you cannot guarantee that we will not have more health inequities for Māori as we see this flip-flopping from a Government that wants to distance itself from the 100 days from the Government before it, and it really is worrying when we hear kupu about the commissioning agency and the approach, because Te Pāti Māori knows full well what's required to get that up and running. Have you got the fortitude, the resourcing, and the commitment to let your non-Māori voters—again, remembering that 83 percent of Māori didn't support this Government, I doubt very much that you have. But I will take real caution and remind our people that we are, amongst ourselves, able to take on a Government that supposes that it knows more about us without us. This is not the first time we've had to contend with this type of approach to our wellbeing. I urge that we all work together, stand strong, and stand united as we continue to take this Government on with its anti-Māori agenda. Kia ora rā. STEVE ABEL (Green): To be frank, our heart is still aching for the loss of our brother Efeso and it's hard to speak to this bill to do with Māori health—many of the issues that are faced by Māori are also faced by Pasifika. We have a sense that his big heart gave out at age 49, and that is a, sadly, too common fact amongst our Māori and Pasifika people in this country. So, fresh in this loss that we experience as a party and as a House and as a nation, it is galling that in two days' time, on the day that we will bury Efeso Collins, there is a Waitangi Tribunal being heard on this very question, and that this House and this Government is not willing to wait a mere two days. It is yet another insult upon insult upon injury upon injury to our Treaty partners, tangata whenua Māori. Māori are twice the rate of non-Māori in terms of cardiovascular disease—twice the rate. The 2009 report and the Wai 2572 Health Services Outcomes Kaupapa Inquiry revealed that our primary healthcare legislation and policy breaches Te Tiriti and fails to care for Māori health and wellbeing. So we take action to correct that failure. We take action with Te Aka Whai Ora. The Waitangi Tribunal, in the hauora report, found that the legislative framework of the New Zealand primary healthcare system should recognise and provide for the Treaty of Waitangi and its principles. That is self-determination for Māori. "People with greater experience of negative health outcomes than most want more power in their decision making." That's from Taimi Allan and the Mental Health and Wellbeing Commission board. Tino rangatiratanga, which provides for Māori self-determination and mana motuhake in the design, delivery, and monitoring of health and disability services—that is what was put in place by Te Aka Whai Ora. Two years—and only one year really functionally operational. To give you some context, Madam Speaker, colonisation is bad for your health. A Pākehā fellow showed up 254 years ago, an English fellow by the name of Joseph Banks. In 1770, he observed that among Māori he saw many very healthy old men, and in general the whole of them—forgive the term—are "as vigorous a race as can be imagined … indeed these people are blessed with [sound health] in a very high degree … I do not remember a single instance of a person distempered in any degree that came under my inspection." "Among them I have seen very [many] healthy old men … in general the whole of them are as vigorous a race as can be imagined."—254 years ago. What is the state of Māori health now? What is the state of Māori health now? Māori die twice the rate of non-Māori from cardiovascular disease. Māori tamariki have a mortality rate 1½ times the rate of non-Māori children. Māori are more likely to be diagnosed and die from cancer, and, as many people have said, die on average seven years earlier than non-Māori. This specious and gross doublespeak which suggests that taking special focus on those in need of that focus is somehow a race-based privilege, is revolting—it is revolting doublespeak. This is an effort to address the injustice and the harm caused by, frankly, 253 years of another health system. And one year of letting Māori take care of their own health—you're going to kill it. One year. Not you, Madam Speaker; this Government. It is appalling, it is shameful, it is a breach of Te Tiriti o Waitangi, and it is anti-Māori, frankly—as this Government expresses it wants to be. SAM UFFINDELL (National—Tauranga): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Look, we understand that the health system is under significant challenge, and the reality is, under the last six years, the health outcomes for New Zealanders have gone backwards. New Zealanders haven't been able to get the care they need. Our wait-lists and times have soared. I have constituents telling me that it's been so difficult to get meetings with specialists and with surgical staff. Immunisation rates have plunged, and this Government is committed to lifting the health outcomes for New Zealanders. And as part of doing that, we will disestablish the Māori Health Authority and merge the functions of the Māori Health Authority and transfer the rolls into the public health system. We believe, through doing that, that we will have the expertise there that we need to deliver improved health outcomes for all New Zealanders—Māori and non-Māori alike. We support this bill. Hon WILLIE JACKSON (Labour): Kia ora, Madam Speaker. Tuatahi he tika ki te mihi ki tō tātou rangatira, a Efeso. Nō reira e te rangatira, e kore mātou e wareware i tō kaha ki te kōkiri i ngā kaupapa i ngā wā katoa. Nō reira e te rangatira, moe mai, moe mai, moe mai rā. [Firstly, it is appropriate to acknowledge our noble friend, Efeso. So, noble leader, we will never forget your strength in progressing initiatives at all times. And so, noble leader, rest in peace.] I sympathise—empathise—with are our friends in the Greens. I was listening to Steve Abel there, and I think we're all still a bit stunned with the death of Efeso. He was very close to a number of us, and if things had gone right, he would have been with the Labour Party, but he ended up with the Greens, and I spoke at the tangi yesterday for our team, and it was lovely to give the whānau some aroha and some support. It's such a loss, and I'm thinking of him at this time, because this is a kaupapa he supported 100 percent—100 percent. He was that type of person—a great advocate for people right across the spectrum, not just Greenies or Labour people, Pākehā, Māori, working class people. But he was absolutely aware of how important this sort of kaupapa was, particularly within the system. I look across at Dr Reti over there, who is someone who we have some respect for, because we're aware of his mahi in the north, as his whanaunga over here are also, and I'm stunned by what's happened here. I'm stunned because a man like Dr Shane Reti should respect—and I know he has said a number of times he respects the work of a lot of our professionals, but when you have people of the ilk—I was going through Dr Rawiri Jansen's submission to the tribunal. These are people who have given their lives to our people not just in the medical side. They advocate actively for the political rights of our people, and I was looking at Dr Rawiri Jansen's submission to the tribunal, and it's so clear, and you heard the Hon Peeni Henare talking about the Treaty. I was looking at one of the paragraphs that Rawiri was talking about, and he summarises it well. He says, in short, "The Te Tiriti - based approach, where engagement is not an afterthought and partnership decision making is in evidence, which elevate and reflect the voice of Māori, will be lost. The Crown's proposal to proceed without having made any effort to develop an alternative or to engage with Māori to develop an alternative is a clear breach of Te Tiriti o Waitangi." That is from Dr Rawiri Jansen. We know him well. We appointed him to a number of boards, and he gives his heart and soul to this kaupapa. I asked Dr Reti to consider that. I asked him. Also, I heard the co-leader of the Māori Party Debbie Ngarewa-Packer talking about Mason Durie. You're talking about one of the most brilliant minds of the last generation, without a doubt. And he's not political, despite who his son-in-law is. Hon Member: He is; I just said he wasn't. He said he is— Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Oh, he is political, but he's not a person who misuses that political standing at all. Shanan Halbert: He tells it straight. Hon WILLIE JACKSON: He tells it straight. He's a good man—a good man—brilliant, brilliant, brilliant, brilliant. And there's a solidity and stability about him, and he's given great direction to many of us—to many of us. I know when Peeni Henare was the Minister, he sought his counsel. These are not radical extremist Māoris, like Debbie—oh, no, I won't go down that track. Ha, ha! But this is the thing: this argument has been turned into some sort of race debate. That's the sad thing here. We hear some of these idiots from the ACT Party, you know, who run these lines of "separatism" and "apartheid" and "it's all your fault, you Māoris in the Māori caucus and you Greenies and you Māori Party." That's got nothing to do with it. These are pragmatic people who are leaders in our society, like Dr Mason Durie, Dr Rawiri Jansen, Dr Papaarangi Reid. And this is mana wahine absolute—absolute. Papaarangi challenges everyone, not just the National Party. She'll challenge Māori males; she'll challenge the Labour Party. And I say to this doctor over here, you are ignoring exceptional people who know about this kaupapa much more than the people you have consulted, who seem to only be his mates in the National Party, the Rednecks—I shouldn't go that far; the right wingers—in the ACT Party and the lost lot of New Zealand First. These are the people that Dr Reti has consulted. They wouldn't have a clue. I've got to ask. Hon Member: Sit down. Hon WILLIE JACKSON: I've got to ask—no, you sit down and you stay down, because you've got no right to speak on this kaupapa. We are being patronised by idiots, you know. Who are the experts that these people are talking about? I've just named three. What about Dr Anthony Jordan? He's another brilliant and exceptional young man. Shanan Halbert: Yep, he's a lucky man, too. Hon WILLIE JACKSON: I don't know if he's a lucky man. I don't know about that, Shan. But he's an exceptional young doctor who worked with us in the roll-out in the vaccination process. What about Dr Lily Fraser at Turuki Health? Dr Lily, who's also one real guns amongst the doctors. We really love her work, particularly in South Auckland in Māngere. She works at Turuki Health, an organisation that was set up by my uncle Syd Jackson and by my first cousin Ramari Jackson. That's been part and parcel of our South Auckland community for the last 30 or 35 years. I asked Dr Reti, who are your people who you have consulted with? Give me two, three, one Māori professional who supports this. Is he rolling out this—does he really believe in this? Because our people have waited decades for this. Tureiti Moxon, my dear friend Tureiti Moxon, who is the chairman—the chairperson, I should say—of our National Urban Māori Authority—a bit of a thorn in our side sometimes. Hon Peeni Henare: Good lady. Hon WILLIE JACKSON: A good lady. A bit of a thorn in our side sometimes, my dear friend Tureiti Moxon, who actually took my position as the chair of the National Urban Māori Authority. But she has constantly—constantly—talked about how Māori needed an opportunity within the system. So these are just some of the experts that I was rolling out. I was going to also talk about Lance O'Sullivan, who's another expert— Shanan Halbert: He wanted to be a National Party MP. Hon WILLIE JACKSON: That was the problem with Lance, but he's still a good man. They're all saying the same thing, but who are the experts that the other side can quote? That's my challenge. And when we get into the question time, I want to hear—apart from Winston Peters and Jenny Marcroft and Shane Jones, who did Dr Reti talk to? Name some professionals. It's like David Seymour—who the heck is he consulting with his Treaty principles bill? Oh, that's right: Elizabeth Rata. Oh my goodness! Such an expert on Māori race relations! There's an arrogance that has come from this Government that really upsets us, because our experts have said, "We want this set up within the system." And so I'm proud that our party was able to set this up, led by my friend and brother over here, Peeni Henare, who set this up within the mainstream system. We never dreamt that we could have a Māori Health Authority within the system. We've done that. We're proud of it. Our people love it. The other side want to destroy it. We're looking forward to going through question time and finding out who the experts were that they spoke to. Kia ora, Madam Speaker. Dr HAMISH CAMPBELL (National—Ilam): I rise to speak on the Pae Ora (Disestablishment of Māori Health Authority) Amendment Bill, for the second reading. This Government is committed to finding more effective ways to work with all communities for better outcomes and to deliver solutions, as well as finding savings through disestablishment which may actually go to better health outcomes. You can build whatever structures you like, but till you focus on outcomes, you're going to have increasing health inequities, and patients will suffer. Merging the functions of the Māori Health Authority and transferring its roles in the public health system means health systems keep its experts and expertise it needs to improve the outcomes for all New Zealanders, including Māori. So, therefore, I recommend this bill to the House. CUSHLA TANGAERE-MANUEL (Labour—Ikaroa-Rāwhiti): Tēnā koe. Tuatahi māku he tautoko i ngā mihi a Hōnore Jackson i tēnei rā ki te whānau o Efeso, otirā ki a koutou hoki, tana pāti e noho tonu ana i raro i te kapua pōuri. He mihi hoki ki tōku ake whānau e noho ana i raro i te kapua pōuri, arā ngā whānau Horran, ngā whānau Reedy. Kei te tangi te ngākau ki a koutou. Heoi anō ki ngā mahi huhua o te wā, haere, haere atu rā koutou. Huri noa ki a tātou o tēnei Whare, tihei mauri ora. Tihei mauri ora. [Thank you. Firstly for me is support for the acknowledgements of Honourable Jackson today to the whānau of Efeso, indeed to you also, his party that remain under the cloud of sadness. An acknowledgement to my own family also that sit under the cloud of sadness, i.e. the Horran families, the Reedy families. My heart cries for you. However, the many recently departed, go forth, rest in peace. And to us all around this House, the breath of life.] Tihei mauri ora—behold, the breath of life. That is what Te Aka Whai Ora represented to us—an opportunity that we may, ourselves, breathe the breath of life into our people, Aotearoa whānui [wider New Zealand], utilising our traditional knowledge and our modern expertise in the area of medicine as well. That hope is being dashed today as we stand here to disestablish Te Aka Whai Ora. I'm reminded of an experience I had about 20 years ago while studying. A century on from the Tohunga Suppression Act, it came up in our studies. A woman, a bit more senior than myself and a dear friend, said to me, "Now I know what's wrong with me." I said, "What do you mean?" She's someone we would characterise as a kaimahi rongoā, or, indeed, a tohunga. But for many years, because she was deprived of our traditional models and the knowledge of our tikanga and our practices, she thought something was wrong with her. She had nobody to teach her. It impacted her mental health. She turned to alcohol and drugs, and finally she knew why. So I think this serves as a precautionary tale to us, all these years later. We take that risk again. I had every intention of coming into this calm and speaking about some of my family experiences, but I can't help but sit here and feel insulted—insulted by that side of the House who are telling us that they understand what's best for us, they want what's best for us. Excellent; let us tell you what that is and help us put that into action. I'm furthermore insulted, such is the arrogance that when the Hon Willow-Jean Prime was making her case for hauora Māori, the wellbeing of Māori in our language, barely half of that side put in their earpieces to hear what she was saying. Heoi anō, I want to acknowledge the presence today of some kaimahi hauora Māori in our area. Tēnā koutou. Nau mai, haere mai. I want to acknowledge the amazing mahi you do, not only for whānau Māori; I know for a fact that the services these people represent cater to all people in their region—Māori mai, Pākehā mai, Pasifika mai, ahakoa nō hea [including Māori, Pākehā, Pasifika, wherever they are from]. No matter who they are or where they are from, these services help them and their whānau utilising the unique and impactful kaupapa Māori practices that we have. Tēnā koutou. Be assured that I and this party will continue to advocate for you to be able to do the unique mahi you do for the benefit of all New Zealanders. Heoi anō, another reason this Te Aka Whai Ora is so important to me is as a daughter who wonders what would have been had my mother's belief in rongoā Māori been honoured. She was told, "One or the other." There was no balance sought. You know what? We wanted her to be able to treat her body as tapu, but when she declined surgery, she was told, "You'll be back in a box.", and treated inadequately because she believed in rongoā Māori. I'm pleased to report my mother did live for another 10 years, but we can only wonder what would have been if her beliefs were honoured and she was provided mainstream care to go alongside that. Heoi anō, just this afternoon, the Prime Minister said, and I quote, "We believe in better outcomes for Māori." Sadly, it appears that's only if Māori behave in the capacity of committee members and advisories, not as authorities on a subject that is literally us. So I'm sad to say that this bill represents the dashing of hope, because it was something that was Māori-inspired, Māori-led, and all-inclusive. Tēnā rawa atu koe, e te Māngai o te Whare. [Thank you very much, Speaker of the House.] Dr VANESSA WEENINK (National—Banks Peninsula): I rise in support of the Pae Ora (Disestablishment of Māori Health Authority) Amendment Bill. It is my great pleasure to do so, because one of the reasons that I came to this House was because of my incredible anger at the destruction of our wonderful health system, wrought upon us by the previous Labour Government. The Māori Health Authority seemed like such a great idea and I held out such hope, as did so many of my health colleagues but, unfortunately, the causes of Māori health poor outcomes have got nothing to do with the health system. It's to do with colonisation, it's to do with the impacts of poor, it's all about the fact that economic decisions and social policy have more impact than anything to do with the health system. So trying to restore and improve health outcomes for Māori through health policy is going to be useless. I remember my friend Dr Marcia Walker, who is the granddaughter of Ranginui Walker—she was on the committee with me for the council of general practitioners— Shanan Halbert: What would she say to what you're doing today? Dr VANESSA WEENINK: —she said that she hoped that the board would stand up and say, "All of this money should be used to house Māori, and we will actually put the money towards things that will make a difference to Māori health, and the Māori Health Authority will do nothing at all." The thing that we hoped for that would make a difference was the iwi-Māori partnership boards however the previous Government actually watered down the recommendations for that and they were going to be completely toothless— Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Is that why you're taking away their voice? Dr VANESSA WEENINK:—and now we're keeping the iwi-Māori partnership boards and actually making them effective. You've talked about primary health care— ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): Please don't bring the Speaker into the debate. Dr VANESSA WEENINK: I beg your pardon. She knows nothing much about primary healthcare. I really hoped that primary healthcare was going to be improved but, unfortunately, the previous Government used their mandate on primary healthcare to upset the entire system in a time of a pandemic, and destroyed the morale of our absolutely blasted workforce and by doing this. So this is one thing that we can do to try and restore some form of health outcome improvement, and I commend this bill to the House. ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): Madam Speaker, tēnā koe. I also want to join with my colleagues around the House in acknowledging our colleague, Efeso Collins, and to mihi to him and his whānau today. This bill is incredibly disappointing and the speeches we have heard this afternoon have reflected that—both on this side of the House, with a very moving contribution by my colleague the Hon Willow-Jean Prime in her reo rangatira to share her personal reflections about the impact that repealing this will have on her communities and her family, and also on the contribution of Cushla Tangaere-Manuel when she spoke about the impact of the long history of health inequality for Māori in New Zealand on her mother and the way that inequitable access to not only advice but medicines impacted not only her health but the health and wellbeing of her entire family. That has been met with incredibly disappointing speeches on the other side from practitioners, some of whom were previously practitioners in general practice and supposedly experts in health, who know that the status quo never worked for Māori and appreciate the deep inequities which have delivered health outcomes for Māori that would not be fixed by going back to that system. More Māori die from avoidable deaths than non-Māori. Māori die seven years earlier than any other group. Māori are twice as likely to die of a cardiovascular or heart disease. These are things which returning to the status quo will not improve, and the pae ora healthy futures reform allowed a once in a generation opportunity to address those things. Instead of building on those reforms, instead of continuing the work that was happening not only at the community level but within families themselves, which Cushla Tangaere-Manuel and Willow-Jean Prime have spoken about, we are walking back to a system which is more centralised, which leaves iwi Māori out of the system where we had worked so hard to bring them into it. It leaves out the voices of those people who have systematically been left out for generations but who for the first time had a seat at the table—and not only those Iwi-Māori Partnership Boards but in the Hauora Māori Advisory Committee and in the Māori Health Authority itself. This is a huge regression for Māori, and it represents a huge lost opportunity for a new generation of New Zealanders. Now, we know that the old system underperformed. It underperformed for a number of practical reasons, and I'll get on to those, but I would point out that speakers on this side of the House have already underscored the fact that the Minister knows that, appreciates the underperformance of the system, but that this is part of a wider political narrative. And we keep hearing it from the other side when they stand up and say, "We have an electoral mandate to do this." The electoral mandate is there because it was won in a furore of his wrong-headed idea that Māori were getting special rights and special treatment, and, in fact, that debate was whipped up by members on the other side of this House. That electoral mandate was won not from Māori who suffer the worst and most inequitable health outcomes in our entire country; it was won by people who were afraid of the kind of narrative that politicians on that side were feeding them. Labour had the courage to stand up and say there are practical fixes we can do for this that will make the health outcomes for Māori more equitable. There are practical ways that district health boards (DHBs) haven't been able to deliver on their promises, and so a nationalised health system that has a mandate to get in there, roll up its sleeves, and deal with Māori health outcomes will actually be able to do that. But it did take courage. It did take telling the story, and for the most part I think New Zealanders appreciated that there was a long-standing inequity here that the system could not solve if there wasn't substantive change. I think it's really disappointing now that we are standing in this House and not only are we repealing the Māori Health Authority but there are also a number of changes in this bill, which I will be asking the Minister questions about in the committee stage, which take away the voice of iwi, of Māori, and of appointed experts in Māori health within the system and replace them with people who are appointed directly by the Minister and who can be dismissed by the Minister at any time. This is not localisation in any way. This is taking away the power of iwi and local entities to work with Māori communities, and it is essentially a power grab for the Minister to take all of those devolved powers back into the central ministry. This is bureaucracy for Māori health outcomes. This is not only returning to the old system that did not work for Māori, it's bureaucratising the system that was actually successful for Māori, that generated a number of successful initiatives like the iwi-led MMR vaccines drive, which was which is so effective and we want to see more of. There is no consistency around the way that we localise these things in the way that works. Madam Speaker, I said I'd talk about the practical implications of these changes. One of the good examples of this was the Counties Manukau DHB. That DHB, which dealt with the health concerns of South Aucklanders and provided health services for South Auckland for many, many years, carried a burden of diabetes and heart disease unlike any other DHB in the country. The number of cases of diabetes, and particularly type 2 diabetes, that were presenting in the public health system in that DHB was unlike any other DHB. What that meant was that other services had to be provided at a lower level so that the DHB could continue to provide for those services. Dealing with that locally, if you lived within Counties Manukau, meant that at the DHB you might have, say, a longer waiting list for a certain procedure or, say, you might be eligible for a certain service at 65, where in Auckland central you would be eligible for that service at 60. The reason for that disparity was because it had a high prevalence of Māori in the area, and the needs of Māori were so great that this locality was dealing with a deeply underserved population for many, many reasons which have been made clear in this House. And so that localised system simply didn't work for the entire population because there was this deep need for Māori health services. So when the pae ora reforms proposed to solve that problem, it wasn't just that localities would be done away with; it was that these problems that had been besetting DHBs like Counties Manukau would actually be dealt with head on: that things that the Māori population needed to enjoy longer and healthier lives would be done in an equitable way, not only in Counties Manukau but all over the country; that these systems that had been dealt by that DHB to create efficiencies in the system would be shared with everyone. That is a good thing. It is not a woke kind of reform because we believe in it or because the Treaty obligations require the Crown to; it is simply something practical which meant that everyone in the population can get a better health service. There's also a practical example around historic underfunding of hospitals and communities with large Māori populations. Essentially, for the same kind of logic that these towns and areas and localities with high Māori populations have always had high health needs, they haven't been able to develop the infrastructure in the same way as other communities that do not have those high-needs populations. So, because of this historic underfunding, the way that the capital programme works and the way that the Crown invested in its hospitals, meant that hospitals were successively underfunded more and more over time. And so the pae ora reforms actually, again, dealt with that problem by disestablishing the DHBs, and it meant that underfunded populations would not continue to lose out on the kind of infrastructure they need in the health system. Those are two practical examples of how the pae ora reforms addressed that. It's really sad to see that now we won't have a Māori Health authority that is charged with continuing on those important gains which we all want to see in our health system for the benefit of everyone, not just Māori within the health system. A quick observation, before we get to the committee stage, on the consistency with the Government's Treaty of Waitangi obligations. I want to speak here about the departmental disclosure statement which found that there was not necessarily any obligations that were being breached, when in fact, Crown Law's own advice, in its memo to the Waitangi Tribunal dated 31 January, found that "The Crown confirms that, procedurally, no formal consultation was planned or occurred by the Crown before Cabinet confirmed the decision to disestablish Te Aka Whai Ora. On a conventional assessment of impact and importance, the Crown deciding to make this decision without consultation can be expected to result in a finding by the Tribunal that Treaty principles have been breached and that prejudice has resulted." It's important for the House to fully appreciate that the Crown's own advice is that the introduction of this bill would, on the face of it, constitute a breach of the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. Dr CARLOS CHEUNG (National—Mt Roskill): There's no denying that, really, we could improve Māori health outcomes in New Zealand, and this Government is working hard on it. I heard the Opposition side of the House mention inequity, a failed health system, racism, discrimination, etc., but I haven't heard any members from the opposite side mention the word "self-responsibility". As a diabetes and cardio specialist, I can tell you that with self-responsibility and discipline, some of the health issues we're facing in New Zealand can be prevented. This Government will continue work to work together with our Māori community to deliver a solution. But creating an unequal system based on specific race is not a solution to our health system. People in New Zealand want a health system based on needs, not race. This bill is about equity, not inequity, therefore I commend this bill to the House. A party vote was called for on the question, That the Pae Ora (Disestablishment of Māori Health Authority) Amendment Bill be now read a second time. Ayes 68 New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Noes 54 New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 6. Motion agreed to. Bill read a second time. In Committee Part 1 Amendments to Parts 1 to 3 CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Members, the House is in committee on the Pae Ora (Disestablishment of Māori Health Authority) Amendment Bill. Members, we come now to Part 1. Part 1 is the debate on clauses 4 to 37, "Amendments to Parts 1 to 3" of the principal Act. The question is that Part 1 stand part. Hon PEENI HENARE (Labour): Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for the opportunity to open with a contribution, of course, analysing Part 1. I mentioned in the first reading and in the second reading that we will be going through clause by clause to make sure that we can interrogate properly the Government's intentions and actions, as set out in this particular bill, and we will challenge them as we will continue to oppose this. But those views have been well articulated across the House and it brings me to my first question—and I mentioned it in my first and second reading—which relates directly to clause 6. It says here that clause 6 amends section 6, which describes how the Act provides for "the Crown's intention to give effect to the principles of te Tiriti o Waitangi (the Treaty of Waitangi)", to reflect changes made by the bill. Well, the first question I have for the Minister is in considering this particular clause, one can't help but question, as we look across all of the clauses in Part 1, what this one sets out in clause 6, how it's trying to divorce itself from the rhetoric throughout the entire bill. For example, one of the principles here is, of course, the principle of partnership. Yet we see later on, in clause 19, "Section 35 [being] amended" and with respect to the preparation of the Government Policy Statement (GPS), it removes a Māori voice. In fact, if you look across section 35, the preparation of the GPS, it silences the Māori voice there. My question to the Minister; the first instance is: does he see clause 6 sitting separate or intertwined throughout all the clauses we'll be debating in Part 1? That's the first question. The second question is, as we look across the principles of Te Tiriti o Waitangi, the principles of partnership, acting in good faith, don't seem to be apparent as we look towards the changes that this bill is making. I've already highlighted clause 19, the section 35 amendment. We can also go on to give another example here: clause 15, "Section 30 amended", and it goes down to the bottom there, clause 15(5), which repeals section 30(1)(g) and that's about iwi Māori getting to have a say on appointments. Now, when we think of the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi, it's quite clear to me that (1) their voice isn't being heard, so, therefore, one can argue here that partnership isn't being met there; and (2) it's a clear, once again, breach of good faith as Māori are expected to only serve part of their consultation and part of their duty within this particular bill, and across the entire Pae Ora legislation, yet are being silenced in other areas that are key to the successful execution of the Pae Ora bill itself. So just to reiterate: the first one is around whether or not the Minister sees that clause 6 stands alone or whether or not he sees it intertwined throughout the entire bill. I've already given the examples of where those changes, I believe, are in contradiction to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi—and I'll state them again: clause 19, "Section 35 amended (Preparation of [the] GPS)". I wonder if the Minister can then explain to the House and answer this question, then: where in the GPS is the Māori voice heard? For some of the newer members across the House, they might not understand how the structure of good health policy and health legislation works. The GPS is one of those important documents that continues to drive the policy of health in this country. Yet what we're seeing here is a complete breach of clause 6, which says about the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi—and here, once again, is another example of how this particular bill continues to silence the Māori voice on such important matters and important documents that will continue to drive health policy in this country. I now turn to another part which continues to do this—contradict the principles of Te Tiriti o Waitangi. When I look at clause 11, where it says here: "Health New Zealand must support and] engage with Iwi-Māori partnership boards" and then it goes down to say. "Health New Zealand must—(a) take reasonable steps to support Iwi-Māori partnership boards". One of those reasonable steps, one would expect, is actually consultation up-front. What this sets out to do is give somewhat of a backdoor exit, if you will, for the Government to give a bit of a clause to escape out the back door when we look towards whether or not the engagement by Health New Zealand with Māori is appropriate; is timely. I'd like the Minister, with respect to that particular clause, if he can explain to us in his mind—and indeed the mind of the Government—what do "reasonable steps" look like to support Iwi-Māori partnership boards to achieve their purpose in section 29? It does go on further to say part of that is by including "administrative, analytical, or financial support where needed;". It would be remiss of me not to indicate to the House at this point in time that the Iwi-Māori partnership boards in their establishment—some are ahead of others, some are far better equipped, some have better infrastructure to be able to look towards a proper functioning Iwi-Māori partnership board within their region. I can describe one of those: it's where a number of us in the House come from, in Te Tai Tokerau, Te Kahu o Taonui already has pretty good infrastructure across the Māori health provider network and it has already proven really great outcomes—COVID-19, which I elaborated on through the first and second reading of the bill—is why I want to make sure that the Minister and, if he can answer this question, if he understands where those Iwi-Māori partnership boards are with respect to their ability to provide their function. Because what he's proposing here is to include by "providing administrative, analytical, or financial support where needed". Well, I've already indicated some are ahead and some aren't quite as far ahead as others. So is the Minister committing, then, to making sure he can support its administrative function and its analytical function and so on, as it says in clause 11? The other one is sufficient and timely information. The other side of the House—and this is the question I put to the Minister—were rather dismissive of the COVID-19 pandemic that hit the world. One of the key arguments for the case of Te Aka Whai Ora was made by Mr John Tamihere in the timely release of analytical data in order to serve our communities. That community was the Māori community. In fact, he took that case all the way to the High Court. In clause 11, I'm asking the Minister: what then does "sufficient and timely information" look like? Is it the kind of data that will allow Iwi-Māori partnership boards and Māori health providers and iwi to make decisions in order to serve those communities in a timely fashion and in a very targeted fashion? We heard the Minister talk about it's important to target, set targets, and hone in on where the need is. While it's clear to us—and all of the data that's presented by health professionals—that the need sits with Māori. So to reiterate, for that particular question: what does "sufficient and timely information" look like? What does it look like? Is it structured in a way that allows Māori to have input on what it is that they're looking for in order to get the outcome that the Government might look towards? Or is it simply another case of paternalistic central bureaucracy telling iwi what to do. In the last minute-and-a-half of this particular contribution, I want to come back and circle back to clause 6. Clause 6, in reference to the principles of Te Tiriti o Waitangi, in order for that particular clause to work, we made it clear, as the Government of the time, to make sure that all of the steps throughout the entire Pae Ora legislation would continue to reference back to the principles and allow it to be successful. I want to remind the Minister that as we scroll through the proposed changes in his bill here, we can't help but see the stripping away of a Māori voice, of a Māori presence, and the ability for Māori to contribute meaningfully not only to the outcome but to the planning, to the discussions, and to everything that it takes in order to get a successful outcome. Just finally from me, you'll hear from the members on this side of the House with those with significant community experience, with significant health experience, a continual prosecution of the clauses within this particular bill proposed by the Minister in order to get some clear definition. It's important that we get that clear definition for our Māori communities, who have been silenced on the progress of this bill. Madam Chair, thank you very much. ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): Tēnā koe, Madam Chair. Thank you for the opportunity to make a contribution in this committee stage. I have a number of questions for the Minister of Health about the way that the function of the Iwi Māori Partnership Boards and the Hauora Māori Advisory Committee will work without the assistance of the Māori Health Authority. My specific questions are also to do with a number of amendments which I have tabled which are seeking to clarify the role of those bodies, given that the Māori Health Authority will not be playing the role that it was set up to perform, for the benefit of Māori health outcomes and for stewardship of those outcomes within the system. So my first question to the Minister is: given that the Iwi Māori Partnership Boards, under the Minister's proposals, will not be able to appoint people to the Hauora Māori Advisory Committee, I'm interested in how the Minister sees the Iwi Māori Partnership Boards having conversations within the health system at a top level about the priorities within their locality. This relates to my second question, which is that Iwi Māori Partnership Boards, under the Minister's proposal, would no longer have an ability to feed into the development of those locality plans. That is being expressly written out of the legislation but was something which was a subject of the select committee's inquiry into the bill, in the Pae Ora Legislation Committee, which was set up as a special committee, about how Iwi Māori Partnership Boards and how iwi themselves would need to feed into that locality planning, and would be a really good way of localising the planning that needed to happen in the health system, given that we would now have a broadly nationalised system. So that question to the Minister is about how Iwi Māori Partnership Boards can continue to have that local focus and feed into what needs to be a deeply localised planning model at that level. My third question to the Minister is about who he intends to appoint to the Hauora Māori Advisory Committee, because under the Minister's new proposals he would be the only appointer of eight new members of that committee. Just for the benefit of the committee, that committee would not have been something which was appointed only by the Minister before. This in fact represents a major centralisation of power here. It represents Ministers taking on a role that was previously devolved to local communities, to representatives of local communities who worked hand in glove with organisations like their local councils, their local providers, their local people on the ground actually seeing and distributing these health services. So the question to the Minister is: is it his intention to appoint people who will fulfil that role of local leadership, local stewardship, from iwi Māori groups, and if he could give the committee an indication of the eight people who he intends to appoint—because their appointments are due on 30 June—that would assist the committee greatly in understanding how that local voice will be preserved. It would also be very useful for the Minister to clarify for the committee what criteria he's using to make those appointments, what advice he has taken to make those appointments, the considerations that he has taken into account to achieve a balanced representation when he is considering those appointments. You know, there are a number of factors that any Minister will go through in considering what sort of advisory group he or she will be appointing, and so it is really beneficial for the committee to understand that, because those are not outlined in the primary legislation. Unlike many of the ministerial appointments where there is a clear guidance for the type of skills, there is none of that, because it is not an established process and is not outlined in the primary legislation. So we need to appreciate that before we can go forward on that. My next question to the Minister is: will the Hauora Māori Advisory Committee have a secretariat? Under the new proposals by the Minister, this group would fulfil a role which is unlike its current role, and so it's important that that is a group that is resourced to be able to make the kind of recommendations which this set of proposals to repeal the bill would require of it. So, whether there is a secretariat, what kind of resourcing will be available to it, whether it will have its own staff, whether it will be set up to succeed or whether it will be set up to fail. That is the question I'm asking here, because currently it is not doing the kind of job that is envisioned by these reforms, and so it's really important for the committee to appreciate whether there is a protection for it to continue to do that work. The next question I have for the Minister is: will it be able to proactively advise the Minister, because as it is worded in the current reforms, it is for the Minister to establish it but then there is no requirement on the Minister to consult it on any matters. This is different from what existed in the legislation before, where the Minister was required to engage with certain bodies within the health system on outcomes for Māori. Essentially, this was about creating ownership—rangatiratanga—over outcomes for Māori, by Māori. It was about establishing leadership within the health system of experts who are appointed by people who supported them and saw them as leaders within the system to make proactive points to the Minister. Those powers have been taken away, so we need an assurance from the Minister that he will allow this board to proactively advise him on his decisions and decisions being made in the health system which will have an impact on Māori health and Māori health outcomes—things like resourcing decisions, things like legislative decisions, which my colleague Cushla Tangaere-Manuel talked about, that historically have been made without Māori involvement and should be going forward, because I have no doubt that everyone in this House believes in some degree of people being involved in the decisions which affect them. My next question to the Minister is specifically about the locality plans. If Iwi Māori Partnership Boards, as is proposed in these reforms, do not have the ability to contribute to locality plans, how will locality plans represent the interests of Māori within them? How will the entities that are tasked with providing the Ministry of Health with the locality plan be sure that they have taken population concerns for everyone into account, knowing that there is this particular equity concern for Māori, and how will those locality plans be responsive to the needs of Māori and to addressing the Māori health outcomes going forward? The final question that I have for the Minister is: under the new model, there is no legislative backstop for the Hauora Māori Advisory Committee to be able to give proactive advice which the Minister doesn't like. There is no legislative backstop for that group of people to say something publicly that is challenging for the status quo. That was a large part of the strength of the Pae Ora reforms: it was to create a way for Māori health to be prioritised systematically to enable continuous improvement in the way that we address inequity for Māori. So my question to the Minister, finally, is: what happens if they say something he doesn't like? How will we ensure that all advice, not just good advice, is what makes it to the Minister when he is the sole appointer, has the sole power to dictate their resourcing and their ability to provide that advice going forward? It's in everyone's interest, not only Māori, to have a health system that works for everyone and to make sure that resources are spent in the most efficient way that's actually going to work for people. So those are my questions about the way that this works, and I will, if I may, come back to the amendments which I think would more effectively achieve some of the changes to the way that Māori participate in the system in coming speeches. I have 40 amendments in my name—I would love to have 40 calls in this debate. Hon Dr SHANE RETI (Minister of Health): Thank you, Madam Chair. I thank the members for their discourse. To come first to the member who has raised questions around clause 6. Clause 6 is a descriptive clause that reflects the changes to Health New Zealand functions to ensure that some of the Māori Health Authority functions can transfer over to Health New Zealand and the Māori Health Authority. With regards to the broader question around obligations that are contained in clause 6, I'd say several things, particularly where the member who was asking really good questions around the Māori voice. Several things: first of all, the legislation clearly uplifts the voice of the Hauora Māori Advisory Committee, so very clear Māori voice there. Secondly, health service monitoring and decision making by iwi-Māori partnership boards (IMPBs) is mana motuhake, almost by definition. Thirdly, delivery of services close to the home and hapū is consistent with obligations we have to all New Zealanders. The member also asked about the IMPB capacity, and he's absolutely right. IMPBs are at different levels of capacity and we've looked at what that will entail to bring them up to a level where they are able to analyse, to collate, to take in local information, to do local analysis of it, to then institute local actions as to how to change it, and then pass it up further for aggregation at regional and other levels where we can get a wider view across the whole sector. So those are some of the expectations, and with those expectations will need to come support to power that up. The member over here had some very good questions about the Hauora Māori Advisory Committee appointments. I'll just point out that the process that the legislation talks to is the process now, and has been for the past two years. There's nothing different to it. I'm just not instituting what was going to take into account in July later this year. Those appointments—yes, they're ministerial appointments, like, as I say, they have been for the past two years. But, of course, I will seek advice and consultation from out in the sector and, of course, from IMPBs—but one group whose voice I need to take into account. So their voice is not lost; it's just not formalised in the legislation as it was going to be in July 2024. You've asked a question around an invitation for HMAC to proactively offer advice: yes please. To offer advice that I need or offer advice that I may not want to hear—that is the privilege and the purpose of HMAC, to be in that position to be trusted advisers to the Minister, to us so that we can do a better job. So, yes, to answer that question, I do envisage the Hauora Māori Advisory Committee to proactively offer advice. There were several questions around localities. I've already indicated in the legislation that locality, through Schedule 1, I think it is, that locality plans will be paused and localities will be paused while I reconsider their position going forward. I think that answers a number of questions around localities, the relationship with iwi-Māori partnership boards—they are paused in this legislation. Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour): Thank you, Madam Chair. This may be the last call before the dinner break, and I just want to say that in the Minister's answers he was very light in addressing the questions and, in fact, didn't answer a lot of the points that had been raised by my colleagues. I just want to speak, at this point, to clause 6, which is all about the amendments to Te Tiriti o Waitangi and the principles. In the stroke of a pen and their proposed amendments, what they are actually doing, what they are effectively doing, is removing all of the things that had been put into the legislation. This is what clause 6 says: in order to provide for the Crown's intention to give effect to the principles of Te Tiriti o Waitangi, this Act will do all of those things listed. Now, what the Minister is proposing to do is to repeal paragraphs (b), (e), (h), (i), and (j), and replace all of those things with 6(c). His answer to how to give effect to the principles of Te Tiriti o Waitangi, the entirety of it is that it will require the Minister to establish a permanent committee, the Hauora Māori Advisory Committee, to advise the Minister—that's it. So in order to give effect to the principles of Te Tiriti o Waitangi as they relate to pae ora, what was outlined in that section of the Act was the establishment of Te Aka Whai Ora, all of its roles and all of its functions, and, in the stroke of a pen, the Minister's proposing to repeal paragraphs (b), (e), (h), (i), and (j), and replace it with 6(c). Now, there are unanswered questions asking for detail about that particular Māori advisory committee, and I think that the Minister needs to answer those ones, because if all of the Government's obligations and commitment to Te Tiriti o Waitangi is contained in the new 6(c), then I have some serious concerns. In the departmental disclosure report, there is a section there that says the consistency of the Government's Treaty of Waitangi obligations—the Government has done an analysis on the Treaty implications of disestablishing the Māori Health Authority and, in their own opinion, considers that it will continue to meet its Treaty obligations by simply just having a Hauora Māori Advisory Committee, Minister, appointed by yourself. You can choose whether you take their advice or not. What about all the other roles that Te Aka Whai Ora had in the delivery of pae ora? All of the mechanisms, the ones that you are taking away—for example, in (e), it will require the hauora Māori strategy to be jointly prepared by the Māori Health Authority and the ministry—that's gone; just gone straight out of the Act. So no Māori health strategy. Then we've got paragraph (h). Paragraph (h) requires Health New Zealand and the Māori Health Authority to engage with Māori partnership boards. Nope—gone; don't need that. In terms of paragraph (i), it requires Health New Zealand and the Māori Health Authority to jointly develop and implement a New Zealand health plan and to work together in the performance of specified functions of Health New Zealand—gone. Paragraph (j) includes as criteria for the appointment of the board of the Māori Health Authority that the board collectively has knowledge of and experience and expertise in relation to Te Tiriti o Waitangi, tikanga Māori, mātauranga Māori—which I point out, you also want to take reference to mātauranga Māori out—kaupapa Māori services, and cultural safety and responsiveness of services. Repeal that. Repeal all of those things. Hon Paul Goldsmith: Yes, we're repealing the bill. Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME: No; yeah, that's right. So how can the Minister say that this Hauora Māori Advisory Committee, appointed now by him with no consultation or input from Māori, none of the processes that we followed in the first place, Tā Mason Durie and others, iwi who had a role in participating in this and appointing these people who have the support, the mana, the mandate, the tautoko from te ao Māori—nope, you're going to appoint them and it's going to be their job to uphold your obligations of Te Tiriti o Waitangi principles in pae ora. So please explain how your Hauora Māori Advisory Committee— CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The member's time has expired. Members, the committee is adjourned for the dinner break and will resume at 7.30. Sitting suspended from 5.58 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.