Thursday, 29 February 2024 - Volume 773 Sitting date: 29 Feb 2024 THURSDAY, 29 FEBRUARY 2024 The Deputy Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m. KARAKIA/PRAYERS DEPUTY SPEAKER: Almighty God, we give thanks for the blessings which have been bestowed on us. Laying aside all personal interests, we acknowledge the King and pray for guidance in our deliberations, that we may conduct the affairs of this House with wisdom, justice, mercy, and humility for the welfare and peace of New Zealand. Amen. BUSINESS STATEMENT Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Leader of the House): Next week, the House will consider legislation under urgency to complete the final stages of the Government's 100-day plan. Legislation to be considered will include the first reading of the Road User Charges (Light Electric RUC Vehicles) Amendment Bill, the Firearms Prohibition Orders Amendment Bill, the Gangs Legislation Amendment Bill, the Courts (Remote Participation) Amendment Bill, the fast-track consenting bill, and Business Payments Practices Act Repeal Bill; and the remaining stages of the Legal Services Amendment Bill and the Land Transport Management (Repeal of Regional Fuel Tax) Amendment Bill. There will also be two maiden statements during the week. Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Labour): Could the Leader of the House please tell us when we can expect a piece of legislation to go through a full and proper process, with no urgency, no instruction to the select committee, and, hopefully, with a regulatory impact statement being published? Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Leader of the House): Some of the legislation I've just read out is exactly that—the fast-track consenting bill will go to a committee. The Courts (Remote Participation) Amendment Bill go to a committee. The Gangs Legislation Amendment Bill will go to a committee, and the Firearms (Prohibition Orders) Amendment Bill will go to a committee. This is a very hard-working Government—we've got a lot on. Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Labour): Will they be going to committee for a full time without instruction from the House? Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Leader of the House): That will be over to the House at the time. PETITIONS, PAPERS, SELECT COMMITTEE REPORTS, AND INTRODUCTION OF BILLS DEPUTY SPEAKER: No petitions have been delivered to the Clerk for presentation. A paper has been delivered for presentation. CLERK: 2023-27 statement of intent for the Independent Children's Monitor. DEPUTY SPEAKER: That paper is published under the authority of the House. No select committee reports have been delivered to the Clerk for presentation. The Clerk has been informed of the introduction of a bill. CLERK: Road User Charges (Light Electric RUC Vehicles) Amendment Bill, introduction. DEPUTY SPEAKER: That bill is set down for first reading. BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon Chris Bishop, is there a motion? Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Leader of the House): My apologies. I seek leave to allow the whip or leader of another party to cast votes on behalf of any other party despite Standing Order 144(5). DEPUTY SPEAKER: Is there— Hon Grant Robertson: For today? DEPUTY SPEAKER: —any objection? Yes, for today. Is there any objection to that course of action being followed? There is none. ORAL QUESTIONS QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS Question No. 1—Finance 1. TIM van de MOLEN (National—Waikato) to the Minister of Finance: What recent reports has she seen on the economic outlook? Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance): Yesterday, the Reserve Bank released its February Monetary Policy Statement. The bank's monetary policy committee, which makes its decisions about interest rates independent of the Government, left the official cash rate unchanged at 5.5 percent. The bank clearly considers that inflation is coming down at an appropriate pace. Inflation has declined from a peak of 7.3 percent in mid-2022 to 4.7 percent in the December quarter, and the bank's forecasts show it falling towards the 2 percent mid-point of the target band. Tim van de Molen: What did the Reserve Bank say about the state of the New Zealand economy? Hon NICOLA WILLIS: The Reserve Bank noted that capacity pressures have eased significantly over the past year, largely as a result of restrictive monetary policy. Aggregate demand is now better matched with the supply capacity of the economy. These are positive developments, but the Government is also conscious that New Zealanders with a mortgage or a business loan are feeling the effects of high interest rates. When inflation is under control and interest rates start to come down, people can spend more of their money on things that make a difference to them and their families. Tim van de Molen: What did the Reserve Bank say about the state of the global economy? Hon NICOLA WILLIS: The Reserve Bank says that global economic growth remains below its trend. That has affected demand for New Zealand's exports, but it also means that inflation in many of our trading partners has declined more quickly than expected, reducing the global prices for imports to New Zealand. The bank highlights the fact that geopolitical and climate conditions remain a risk for inflation and mentions the recent conflict in the Red Sea and the drought affecting the Panama Canal as contributing to delays and increased global shipping costs. Tim van de Molen: How should monetary and fiscal policy interact? Hon NICOLA WILLIS: That is a very good question from the member. Fiscal policy, which the Government determines, should not trample across monetary policy, which is set by the Reserve Bank. Unfortunately, in recent years, that is precisely what happened: the Reserve Bank was trying to fight inflation while the Government was busy fuelling it— Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order. Madam Speaker, the Minister of Finance knows that questions from the Government side should not be used to make an accusation towards a previous Government. It would be regrettable, I think, if she were to be trying it on because you happen to be in the Chair today. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yeah, I will uphold the Hon Kieran McAnulty's point of order. That is correct that there will be no—we'll make it clear to all Ministers who are answering questions this afternoon that it is not an opportunity to attack the Opposition. Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Madam Speaker, perhaps I could— Hon David Seymour: Speaking to the point of order. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Is this speaking to the point of order? Hon David Seymour: Yes. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Because the Hon Nicola Willis was on her feet first. Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Speaking to the point of order. The member asked a very good supplementary question about how monetary and fiscal policy should interact—a very fair question for a member of the House to ask. I talked about the interaction between fiscal policy and monetary policy and, in order to explain that fact, pointed to contemporary events. DEPUTY SPEAKER: OK. So let me just say it wasn't a serious breach of the Standing Order, but we'll give a general direction to the House for this afternoon and we will carry on with the— Hon David Seymour: Madam Chair. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Is this a new point of order? Hon David Seymour: Well, I would like to speak to it, Madam Chair. DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, I'd like you not to speak to it, thank you. Hon David Seymour: Well, actually— DEPUTY SPEAKER: Mr Seymour, I've said it wasn't a serious breach of the Standing Order. We're just making it very clear for today, and I've made a ruling. Thank you. Hon David Seymour: It's a fresh point of order, Madam Chair. DEPUTY SPEAKER: It's a fresh point of order? Hon David Seymour: Yes. Madam Chair, there is a distinction between the question being asked and the answer given. The ruling actually applies to the question; it does not apply to the answer being given, because otherwise it means that a Minister, in theory, can never actually criticise the Opposition, and that seems incredibly unfair. DEPUTY SPEAKER: I think there's a difference between criticising policy and actually attacking the Opposition, and we haven't gone over the line, so we're not going to do it now. So I'll ask the Minister to— Rt Hon Winston Peters: Point of order. Madam Speaker, the reality is that this is an environment which is a raging battle for political power, and it's been that way for decades and decades in great democracies, including New Zealand. I'm hearing— Hon Willow-Jean Prime: What's the point of order? Rt Hon Winston Peters: Excuse me, will you hear me in silence? That's what the first rule is. So keep quiet. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Would the member carry on with his point of order, please. Rt Hon Winston Peters: You know so little about this business, for a start. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Is this a point of order? Rt Hon Winston Peters: No, Madam Speaker, but she was interjecting in a point of order, and your job is to stop her. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yeah, I know that. We'll have silence during points of order. Please state your point of order. Rt Hon Winston Peters: Thank you very much. My point of order is that I believe your ruling is palpably and demonstrably wrong. You're saying that the challenge is not being taken up in terms of the point of order made; however, you're saying nobody on this side of the House can attack the other side of the House today. That, Madam Speaker, is not going to be accepted whether it's your ruling or not. DEPUTY SPEAKER: I've actually made it very clear to the House that there is nothing wrong with answers to questions criticising policy of previous Governments, but not doing the attack on the Opposition. So that is my ruling for today. Thank you. Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Can I complete my answer? DEPUTY SPEAKER: You can. Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Thank you. Hon Paul Goldsmith: What's the question? I can't remember the question. Hon NICOLA WILLIS: The question was relating to how monetary and fiscal policy interact, Mr Goldsmith. Fiscal policy, which the Government determines, should not trample across monetary policy, which is set by the Reserve Bank. Unfortunately, by way of example, in recent years that is precisely what happened. The Reserve Bank was trying to fight inflation with higher interest rates while the Government was busy fuelling it with its high spending and ever-growing debt. By way of metaphor, there's no point in the Reserve Bank being asked to put its hand on the brake if the Government's hitting the accelerator at the same time. Question No. 2—Resources 2. Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram) to the Minister for Resources: What advice, if any, has he sought or received on the implications of bonds for oil and gas companies and/or changes to oil and gas decommissioning legislation that he has indicated he is considering? Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Deputy Prime Minister) on behalf of the Minister for Resources: I've heard, time and time again, from ministry that sovereign risk is a major barrier to investment in oil and gas in New Zealand. This sovereign risk is a result of the economic vandalism threatened by some, and their woke fellow travellers, who have no comprehension at all of international business and investment. I have therefore sought advice on how to improve investor confidence, including the best way to reduce the sovereign risk and ensure that changes to the cumbersome decommissioning regime balances regulatory burden and Crown risk. I'm advised that under a former administration, gas supply could run out within the next five years. It's not because of a shortage of gas but a shortage of investment and political wisdom. Hon Dr Megan Woods: What people, organisations, groups, or lobbyists has he discussed the potential for compensation bonds for multinational oil and gas companies and/or changes to oil and gas decommissioning that puts the New Zealand taxpayer in the liable seat? Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Quite extraordinary. This is a case where I seem to have been here for a long time and learnt nothing. I've heard from ministry that the decommissioning provisions introduced by the previous Government are onerous. They are discouraging investment, and the long-term security of our gas supply is now in question. And if I was responsible for the closure of Marsden Point, thereby imperilling our very critical supply in a time of a supply emergency, I'd be keeping my mouth shut. I have asked officials to look into any changes that will encourage operators to continue to invest in New Zealand's energy security while continuing to protect taxpayers. The number of people are all those who are interested in making an investment in New Zealand but are too threatened by the regime that the previous Government left here. Hon Dr Megan Woods: Point of order, Madam Speaker. That was a very specific question that asked the Minister what people, organisations, groups, or lobbyists this idea had been discussed with. It was a very full answer, but it in no way addressed that very specific question. Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Speaking to the point of order, if that member wanted that answer, then an Official Information Act (OIA) request would've satisfied them. But if someone turned up here as a Minister and said, "I've got five pages I want to read out.", madam, you'd be stopping me. Hon Dr Megan Woods: What was the cost to the New Zealand taxpayer of having to clean up the mess of Tamarind when the company left New Zealand because we had lax decommissioning laws, that that Minister is now looking to bring back? Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: With respect, I am not going to answer a question which was in the purview of the previous administration and Minister. It has got nothing to do with this Government whatsoever. And it's unbelievable that we have Standing Orders and Speaker's Rulings, and some people have been here for all those years and seemingly have learnt nothing. Hon Dr Megan Woods: Has he sought advice whether the issuing of compensation bonds to multinational oil and gas companies would be in contravention of our international commitments to abolish fossil fuel subsidies? Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Can I make it very clear that New Zealand is dedicated to a clean energy transition and meeting our emissions targets. This Government is committed to deliver net zero by 2050, including by doubling New Zealand's renewable electricity and removing consenting barriers. On the question of the cost of bonds being somehow illegal, again, if that was the allegation by way of question, why wasn't it supported here by some evidentiary fact rather than just a suspicion? This is not complex. Other countries have done that already, which is the reason why those countries have investment and we have lost all of it. Hon Dr Megan Woods: Has he sought advice on whether compensation bonds to multinational oil and gas companies would contravene New Zealand's free-trade agreement with the EU? Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: The answer to that question is that the Minister has made it clear—this person I'm standing in for today—that he's merely written to these people for their views and their ideas. This should not be constructed as a decision which some in the press gallery are loathe to do. Any statement of open consultation these days is construed as a final outcome. No, it's not—it's called a new administration that has come to this position in Government where we think that consultation and listening is very important. Hon Dr Megan Woods: Which people has he written to? Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Again, if that member wanted that, then they should've put in a request under the Official Information Act. If I'd have come down here with five pages of names and addresses of those people we've written to, I'd be stopped in the House for wasting the House's time. Now, please, catch up. I know it's early 2024, but this is serious, and there could be many decades waiting around to be a good Opposition. Hon Dr Megan Woods: Point of order, Madam Speaker. I'm just seeking some guidance from you. This is parliamentary oral question time, where it is the role of Parliament to hold Ministers to account by way of questions, both on notice and supplementary. Am I correct in understanding the Minister answering on behalf of the Minister for Resources is saying they will no longer be doing that; instead, only the Official Information Act will be the way in which Parliament can hold the executive to account? DEPUTY SPEAKER: OK, so the OIA doesn't replace oral questions; members are entitled to seek information through questions. But what I will note in this situation is that the Minister is answering on behalf of another Minister, and it would be appropriate if the Minister doesn't have the answer to that question—it would be best to say so. Hon Dr Megan Woods: How is it fair to New Zealand taxpayers to ask them to underwrite multibillion multinational oil and gas companies' return to New Zealand and then shoulder the clean-up and decommissioning costs when they leave without paying their bills? Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: The answer to that is that this country's supply of gas is imperilled for the next five years now, and no planning forward has been admitted—worse still, it's been stopped. And we have, at the same time, Marsden Point, which right now has been allowed to close down in supply when, in a critical phrase of non-supply to this country by tankers, we could've supplied 50 percent of the country's critical needs. So here's a country in desperate need of a forward plan, and what we've got here is someone trying to say, "The poor taxpayer's going to pay." I tell you what the taxpayer's going to be paying for: they'll be paying for a shutdown economy brought about by people who came to Parliament with no idea how business works. Question No. 3—Police 3. JAMES MEAGER (National—Rangitata) to the Minister of Police: What reports has he seen recently on the policing of gangs? Hon MARK MITCHELL (Minister of Police): Recently, as reported, I was present as six gold-plated Harley-Davidson motorcycles, formerly the prized possessions of the Comancheros, were shredded into scrap metal. This is consistent with this Government's approach to the gangs and their ill-gotten gains. [Interruption] DEPUTY SPEAKER: Silence while questions are being asked, please. James Meager: What message does it send to the gangs when police crush six of their gold-plated Harley-Davidsons? Hon MARK MITCHELL: It sends the message that police will keep crushing pressure on gangs; their illegal, nefarious, and violent activities; and assets. James Meager: Have there been any gang convoys recently, and, if so, did police's response meet his expectations? Hon MARK MITCHELL: Yes. The policing of gang convoys is much tougher now, with police controlling the convoys and protecting the rights of law-abiding Kiwis over and above those of criminal gangs. Hon Ginny Andersen: Can the Minister please outline what legislation was used for both the confiscation of the vehicles mentioned and also for the policing of the convoys that the Minister has mentioned? Hon MARK MITCHELL: I think it was probably legislation that Stuart Nash brought in, because, actually, he was a very good police Minister, unlike the three that followed him. James Meager: Are there any recent Government announcements that will help police ramp up their crackdown on gangs? Hon MARK MITCHELL: Too good. Yes. On Sunday, Minister Goldsmith, Minister McKee, and I announced part of the coalition Government's proposed crackdown on gangs, including banning gang patches and insignia in public, dispersal notices, non-consorting orders, and making gang membership an aggravating factor at sentencing. Gangs destroy lives and communities, and the free ride is over under this coalition Government. Hon Ginny Andersen: If 12 frontline police officers have gone public to say that this gang patch ban is unworkable and that they are not resourced to enforce it, how does he justify to the New Zealand public introducing this legislation? Hon MARK MITCHELL: I can justify it because, unlike the Labour Party, who are gang apologists, we have a deeply capable New Zealand police force that is motivated and wants to go out there and protect the communities that they serve and clamp down on gangs. Question No. 4—Housing 4. Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Labour) to the Minister of Housing: Does he stand by all his statements on social housing? Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister of Housing): Yes. Hon Kieran McAnulty: Does he agree with National MP Tama Potaka, who said on 9 September 2023 that "National will increase the number of social housing places funded by Government"? Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Yes. Hon Kieran McAnulty: How many social housing places will the Government fund on top of that already funded by the previous Government? Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, the member will have to wait until the Budget. Hon Kieran McAnulty: Will he commit to providing for new public housing places of at least the same level of funding that currently exists beyond 2025? Hon CHRIS BISHOP: The member will have to wait till the Budget, but what I would say is that this is yet another fiscal cliff left to us by the—[Interruption] DEPUTY SPEAKER: I'd like to be able to hear the answer, please. Interjections are fine, but it's a little loud. Hon CHRIS BISHOP: I think the member who's yelling out, who's a former Minister of Housing, will recall that the funding for social housing places ceases after June 2025, so that is indeed a fiscal cliff. The reality is the last Government didn't fund places beyond 2025, into 2026 or 2027, because they wanted to create the illusion of a surplus later on. Hon Kieran McAnulty: Will the Minister permit Kāinga Ora officials to meet with me to provide a briefing in person on the current state of social housing? Hon CHRIS BISHOP: The member's written to me, so I'm not quite sure why he needs to ask an oral question about it. I'm happy for the member to meet with Kāinga Ora, as I am indeed happy for all members of Parliament to meet with Kāinga Ora to get a briefing on what they're up to in their particular local areas, or indeed the Opposition spokesperson. I would also say the member should wait for the independent review chaired by Sir Bill English that's coming back. I suspect he will be interested in the answers to the review questions. Question No. 5—Small Business and Manufacturing 5. SUZE REDMAYNE (National—Rangitīkei) to the Minister for Small Business and Manufacturing: What recent announcement has he made relating to small businesses? Hon ANDREW BAYLY (Minister for Small Business and Manufacturing): Thank you, Madam Chair. Last week I announced that the Government will repeal the Business Payment Practices Act 2023. This piece of legislation was an ineffective, costly solution to the problem of large market players paying invoices late, and evidence from abroad supports the repeal of the Act. To address the issues of paying small to medium sized enterprises (SMEs) quicker, this Government has announced a range of measures to focus on ensuring Government agencies and large firms pay on time and encourage a much wider uptake of e-invoicing. These alternatives will effectively support small businesses and unlock productivity benefits for the New Zealand economy. Suze Redmayne: What reports or evidence has he seen that supports the repeal of the Act? Hon ANDREW BAYLY: Back in 2020, Australia implemented a very similar scheme named the Payment Times Reporting Act. A recent independent review of the scheme's effectiveness found that despite imposing significant IT compliance costs on businesses, overall payment times had not reduced. Suze Redmayne: How will he ensure that Government departments and Crown entities pay small businesses in a timely manner? Hon ANDREW BAYLY: I'm working with the Minister of Finance to ensure Government departments—and, in time, some Crown entities—meet the 10-day payment time target. Furthermore, we will incentivise SMEs to adopt e-invoicing by reducing Government entity payment times to an expected target of five working days, thereby significantly improving their cash flow. We will also proactively publish payment times on the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment website. Helen White: What does the Minister say to my constituent who worked as a sole trader for one of our biggest companies and had his payments consistently and mindfully delayed by three months? Is that fair and reasonable practice? Hon ANDREW BAYLY: Thank you for the question. No, it's not fair. But we will be working with an industry code, which I'm just about to talk about, with Business New Zealand to make sure that large businesses do meet their requirements. That's the biggest focus. And, also, we think it's important that the Government takes a lead in terms of showing good payment-time practices, and that's why our reforms are focused on that in the first instance. Suze Redmayne: What measures will he take to ensure large firms are promptly paying small businesses? Hon ANDREW BAYLY: As I've just noted, I'm working with Business New Zealand to establish an industry-wide, voluntary code similar to the Business Council of Australia's supplier payment code. I intend for this to be part of a broader commitment by large firms to adopt payment practices that benefit smaller firms, and particularly to encourage e-invoicing, because we want to see greater digitisation of small businesses. Question No. 6—Education 6. Hon JAN TINETTI (Labour) to the Minister of Education: Does she stand by all her statements and actions? Hon DAVID SEYMOUR (Associate Minister of Education (Partnership Schools)) on behalf of the Minister of Education: Yes, and I'm particularly pleased by this Government's rapid response to the state of school property by the announcement of a ministerial inquiry. I was dismayed to hear of the mould situation at Sommerville School and of projects up and down the country that have not been delivered in a timely manner for schools. I read recently in media that Macleans College in Auckland had funded and built five new classrooms in nine months after being advised by the Ministry of Education that it would take three years to deliver the same learning spaces. They did it for $2.5 million, and the ministry then commented they were surprised it could be done so cost-effectively, thinking it should have cost over twice that. This Government is committed to improving the delivery of school property for the benefit of teachers and learners up and down the country, and an inquiry into how it went so wrong is the first step in that. Hon Jan Tinetti: Does she stand by her guarantee of 27 February that there will be no cuts to school property capital expenditure; if not, why not? Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: On behalf of the Minister, yes, absolutely she stands by that statement. But I think the Opposition is going to have a real problem here in that they have confused spending money with delivering results, because if spending $100 billion of borrowed money on every problem actually worked, this country wouldn't have any problems after the last Government. That's why this Government is conducting a review: not to ensure that we spend a huge amount of money, but to ensure that the kids and the teachers get the classrooms they need to do the learning this country needs. Hon Nicola Willis: Has the Minister heard an interview between one Mike Hosking and the outgoing Minister of Education, Jan Tinetti, in which she claimed that if more funding was needed for education, you simply appropriated it, because— DEPUTY SPEAKER: Excuse me, that's out of order. The question is out of order. The Minister has no responsibility. Hon Jan Tinetti: Does her guarantee include the Ministry of Education's school property team, given that the Secretary of Education has said that we wouldn't have built the thousands of classrooms that we have if we didn't have it? Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: On behalf of the Minister, I'm in possession of correspondence from well-respected Auckland property engineering firms who say that you could easily get rid of 75 percent of the Auckland Ministry of Education staff and be better off. However, this Government takes a much more benign view of the role of public servants, and we will be ensuring that those people who are productive and useful for delivering outcomes for the teachers, the kids, and the parents are well employed and properly guided to do the job properly, which may initially be a surprise to them after the last six years of Chris Hipkins and Jan Tinetti, but I think they're up for it. Hon Jan Tinetti: Will she guarantee that the requested 7.5 percent cuts to the education budget will have no impact on kids and their learning, and, if not, why not? Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: Yes, absolutely, and it might be worth putting a little bit of historical context here. Madam Speaker, I'm mindful of your ruling that questions cannot be used to attack the Opposition, but what do you do when the Opposition asks a question that invites an attack on the Opposition, because we have seen the number of bureaucrats employed at the Ministry of Education increase in the past six years from 2,500 to 4,400, and yet fewer kids are going to school, fewer— Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order. DEPUTY SPEAKER: I have a point of order from the Hon Kieran McAnulty. I'm going to anticipate, but I'm going to let you ask the question. [Interruption] Silence—points of order will be taken in silence. Hon Kieran McAnulty: I mean, the clue was in "I'm mindful of your ruling, but", and everything after that was in direct contradiction to the ruling you gave the House. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yeah, look, I get that, but there's also—at times some of the questions actually are encouraging of a bit of feedback as well. So I ask the Minister, was the Minister—have you completed your answer? Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: Not even close, Madam Speaker. DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, keep it short, but complete what you need to say. Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: Well, the question is a good one: will the fiscal pressure this Government finds itself under with its fiscal inheritance affect teaching and learning for students? And the answer, I can unequivocally say, is absolutely not. The reason that's possible is that there has been so much waste in the past six years that you can reduce expenditure by 6.5 percent very easily—hell, some of our coalition partners in this Government would go a lot further. Hon Nicola Willis: In taking this course of action, in which the Government works to drive more value from every dollar it invests in the education system so as to improve achievement, has he considered an alternative approach in which the Government simply appropriates money from the magic money tree at the end of the garden? Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: On behalf of the Minister— Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Point of order. I would rarely rise to my feet, but that's the second occasion that that member has flaunted the rules of this House, and it's grossly disorderly. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Just a moment. I'm just going to ask for a piece of advice on that question, please. Yeah, the question is not in order, and we'll move on to the next question. Ingrid Leary: How is it value for taxpayers' money for Andersons Bay School in Dunedin to sink five years and $750,000 into plans for four new classrooms, only to have the Minister suddenly cut that to two new classrooms—in other words, cut in half? Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: I hope that the students at Andersons Bay primary go on to learn economics better than that member has. You see, there's a thing called the sunk cost fallacy, and just because money has been spent on something in the past does not mean that continuing to waste money is a good idea. Andersons Bay primary will have its property needs catered to by this Government, and it will be done in a much more responsible and prudent way than they might have expected over the last six years. Question No. 7—Police 7. Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour) to the Minister of Police: Does he stand by his statement, "we're going to make sure that the front line are resourced properly"; if so, do Police have adequate staffing to enforce the banning of gang patches? Hon MARK MITCHELL (Minister of Police): Yes and yes. Hon Ginny Andersen: Does he expect the gang patch ban will be enforced in Wairoa, Ōpōtiki, and Te Kaha? Hon MARK MITCHELL: Yes, I do. Hon Ginny Andersen: Given that Ōpōtiki has only two fulltime front-line officers and also covers Te Kaha, how will they remove the jackets of the approximate 1,400 gang members who live in the area? Hon MARK MITCHELL: Well, the Police have got the capability and the will to enforce a gang ban that this Government is passing. The Opposition and Harry Tam may not like it, but that is what is happening. DEPUTY SPEAKER: It wasn't related to the question. Hon Ginny Andersen: Madam Speaker, I don't think that was even addressing the question. DEPUTY SPEAKER: I do think that the first part of the question actually did address the answer. As I had previously called out to the member, the last part of the question went a bit too far. Thank you. Hon Ginny Andersen: Given the concerns that have been publicly outlined by front-line officers on enforcing the gang patch ban, how does he explain to the New Zealand public a 6.5 percent cut to the Police budget? Hon MARK MITCHELL: Well, the Government's going through a cost-saving exercise because of the vandalism, the economic vandalism, of the previous Government, and I've got full confidence in our New Zealand police and their capability. On this side of the House, we back them to go out and do the job, and the police officers that I talk to—and there's a lot of them—they're very keen to get out there and use these new tools. Hon Ginny Andersen: Given the Western Australian gang patch ban simply displaced gangs over the state border, does he consider that this law change will simply displace gang members—[Interruption] DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hey, quiet—quiet during questions please. Would the member please start that question again. Hon Ginny Andersen: Given the Western Australian gang patch ban simply displaced gangs over the state border, does he consider that this law change will simply displace gang members to parts of New Zealand where police are not resourced to enforce the law? Hon MARK MITCHELL: Well, I think— Hon Grant Robertson: Point of order. Madam Speaker, you ruled when the member rose to ask her question that the question needed to be done in silence. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes. Hon Grant Robertson: Immediately afterwards, the Deputy Prime Minister began interjecting on the question. I would ask that he be called to account for that and asked to withdraw and apologise. DEPUTY SPEAKER: I actually think that it wasn't only the Deputy Prime Minister. There were more people over that side of the room that actually didn't follow that instruction. So, thank you for the point of order. I'm going to be watching very carefully from here on in. Tim van de Molen: Point of order. Thank you, Madam Speaker. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Is this a new point of order? Tim van de Molen: Yes, it is. Yeah, it's in relation to a series of questions we've seen asked now where they're not actually starting as a question. They start with a statement, which is clearly out of line with Speakers' rulings. "Given" is the example—"Given this … etc." So, unsurprisingly, that's elicited a response, which I accept is outside of Standing Orders in terms of speaking during questions. But it's because the question itself was out of order. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Right. Look— Hon Kieran McAnulty: Speaking to the point of order, I appreciate Mr van der Molen accepting that they were speaking during the question. Could we have an extra supplementary for the Hon Ginny Andersen, please? DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, but I will invite the Hon Ginny Andersen to ask that question again—not start with the word "given"—and that members on this side will be quiet and then the Minister might be able to answer the question. Hon Ginny Andersen: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Does the Minister consider that the gang patch ban will simply displace gang members to parts of New Zealand where police are not resourced to enforce the new law? Hon MARK MITCHELL: No, but I hope that the example she gave, with Western Australia, shows that the gang patch ban was working because they wanted to leave. And I hope that our gang patch ban forces them over the border as well! Question No. 8—Biosecurity 8. CAMERON LUXTON (ACT) to the Minister for Biosecurity: What announcements has he made recently which demonstrate the Government's commitment to biosecurity? Hon ANDREW HOGGARD (Minister for Biosecurity): Thank you, Madam Speaker. On Friday, I announced a $5 million boost to the upper North Island community's fight against the invasive seaweed Caulerpa. This exotic pest arrived in 2021, and has now been found in five locations across Northland and greater Auckland. This thing spreads fast, forming thick meadows on the seabed, potentially impacting native species and changing the marine ecosystem. It is affecting some unique and important areas of New Zealand. That's why we are committed to action. Cameron Luxton: How will this additional funding support the fight against Caulerpa? Hon ANDREW HOGGARD: It will support a range of new and scaled-up actions. In particular, it will be used to develop suction dredge technology, currently being tested in Northland. Innovative people are trialling some gear that suctions up the seaweed off the floor with a barge, avoiding the need to put divers in the water. My parliamentary colleagues Mark Cameron and Grant McCallum, and I, got the chance to go out on the barge and look at the equipment. Results so far are promising, and indicate that with some technical tweaks, it would work at large scale. This will allow us to further test local elimination in areas such as Omakiwi Cove. Cameron Luxton: What are the next steps in the fight against Caulerpa? Hon ANDREW HOGGARD: Full eradication of a marine pest like Caulerpa, that takes hold in the seafloor and spreads so fast, is difficult. Technical advice so far has been that fully eradicating it from New Zealand will be extremely challenging and unlikely, with current technology. But this investment will still make a difference for the environment and for the people affected. I equate it to controlling Californian thistles on farms. You may not get to a point where you completely eradicate them, but you can get to a point where you've minimised the impact on the farm. Question No. 9—Foreign Affairs 9. Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) to the Minister of Foreign Affairs: Has he agreed to find savings of 6.5 percent in the spending within the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade (MFAT)? Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Minister of Foreign Affairs): As that member will well know, all conversations with all colleagues—including the Prime Minister and, most importantly, the Minister of Finance—are confidential. However, we are pressing on to ensure that on Budget day that member will know, and so that then the only uncertainty at that point in time will be whether or not he is rightfully the leader of the Labour Party. DEPUTY SPEAKER: That last but was a bit unnecessary. Hon David Parker: There's no risk of that. Did the request— DEPUTY SPEAKER: OK. We're having a question in silence, please. I know that was called for, but we'll have quiet silence. Thank you. Hon David Parker: Did the request for savings encompass expenditure by MFAT on overseas development assistance (ODA)? Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: As that member will know by past experience, over the years it's been enormously difficult for this country to replicate what happened under Norman Kirk where that was most properly addressed but still less than 0.7 percent. Now, my point here, right now, is that in past times enormous struggles, but successfully twice—and he was here at the time—we did get the turnaround of respect as a consequence. Like every person running this portfolio, then—and focusing offshore and knowing that our very recoveries depend upon our success as an export nation and that such expenditure, of course, is anti-inflationary—we look forward with confidence to a very positive outcome. Hon David Parker: It sounds like the Minister is aware that during the period when he was Minister of Foreign Affairs under the Prime Ministership of Helen Clark from 2005 to 2008, and again from 2017 to 2020, those Governments lifted ODA as a percentage of gross national income (GNI); is he also aware that during the intervening period it dropped, and, if so, what will he do to resist efforts to drop ODA as a percentage of GNI during this Government? Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I am very pleased that member's raised that issue because when he said "the intervening period", he means 2020 to 2023. Hon Grant Robertson: No! Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Oh, yes, it started to go to 0.23 now. We left it at 0.34 when we left. Hon Grant Robertson: No, you didn't. Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Oh, yes, we did. Oh, yes, we did. Now, I can say under Helen Clark it wasn't so difficult—she understood foreign policy. But in 2017, and Mr Parker knows that, it was desperately difficult to try and extract out of people what was critically needed for this country's long-term image offshore and to gain the respect we possibly need. Hon David Parker: Has he seen reports this week that the Governments of the Federated States of Micronesia, Palau, and the Marshall Islands have written to the USA Government about the destabilising effect of uncertainty with USA ODA, saying this plays into the hands of other actors in the Pacific? Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Thank you to the member for that, and he's quite right. Yes, I have. But on two counts—first of all, I've also contacted the United States myself with respect to those three beautiful countries; and the second thing is I'm in discussions with this Government to ensure that when it comes to our turn, first known in Budget 2024, we are doing the right thing. Hon David Parker: So, then, can he confirm that, given the crucial importance of New Zealand's ODA into the Pacific both to unlock the potential of our Pacific neighbours and to guard against other influences, it is crucial that New Zealand's aid as a percentage of GNI does not drop? Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Well, I thank that member for that very insightful question as well. Because it has dropped. It is targeted to go to 0.23. This is shocking, and in 2017 we were facing it going to 0.21. Now, I shouldn't have to come back time after time and try and save an industry, but we are. That member knows more about it than anybody else because he was the Minister for trade at the time. Unfortunately, the COVID circumstances stopped us making any progress in India. But we're back doing all the same things this time, though, with the assistance of this budgetary money. It is our intention to get a result in India as fast as we possibly can. Question No. 10—Courts 10. GREG O'CONNOR (Labour—Ōhāriu) to the Minister for Courts: Is she concerned that the impact of Government policy combined with the 6.5 percent reduction in funding will exacerbate the pressure on the courts? Hon NICOLE McKEE (Minister for Courts): No, but what I am concerned about is resolving the growing court backlog that was allowed to persist under his party's watch since 2017. Greg O'Connor: How does the Minister intend to reduce the backlog of court cases while also delivering a 6.5 percent cut in funding? Hon NICOLE McKEE: This Government has inherited backlogs caused by more recent unpredictable events, such as Cyclone Gabrielle and the flooding in Auckland, which caused some of our busiest courthouses to close. We are actively working on developing law which will increase the efficiency and effectiveness of court services and address the backlog that the Labour Party left behind. DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, the last bit of that answer we would probably be better without. Greg O'Connor: What initiatives has the Minister introduced to reduce the backlog in court cases since 24 November 2023? Hon NICOLE McKEE: This Government is actively considering policy and legislation to reduce the court backlog that Labour failed to clear. In the year since January 2023 alone, there's been a 3 percent increase in the District Court criminal backlog, rising to a total backlog of 37 percent of active cases. Our 100-day plan includes commitments to increase the efficiency of court proceedings and clean up the mess left behind. The member can expect an announcement on this soon. Greg O'Connor: Point of order, Madam Speaker. The question was quite clear—what initiatives? She's outlined the problem. What initiatives has she introduced? DEPUTY SPEAKER: I believe the member did talk about initiatives in the 100-day plan. Does the member have a further supplementary question? Greg O'Connor: Well, I'm keen to know what those initiatives are. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Would the member like to expand on those— Hon NICOLE McKEE: Was that another question, Madam Speaker? Was that another supplementary? DEPUTY SPEAKER: It's a point of order. Hon NICOLE McKEE: Speaking to the point of order, Madam Speaker, you already said that I addressed the question, so if he wants to ask another supplementary, I'm quite happy to answer that. DEPUTY SPEAKER: No—I actually said that you'd addressed the 100-day plan. The member now raised a point of order. Did you want to extend on that or not? The choice is yours. Hon NICOLE McKEE: I believe I answered the first part of his question. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you. Greg O'Connor: What initiatives has the Minister introduced to reduce the backlog in court cases since 24 November 2023? Hon NICOLE McKEE: I'm so happy to let that member on that side know that early next week this Government is going to be releasing, as part of our 100-day plan, our initiatives to address the mess that was left behind for us to fix. Hon Paul Goldsmith: When can we expect her to announce new policy which will provide effective solutions for reducing court backlogs? Hon NICOLE McKEE: I thank the honourable Minister of Justice. I am pleased to inform him that we can expect this announcement outlining how this Government plans to address the court backlogs left behind by the Labour Party very early next week. Greg O'Connor: Can I thank that member for saving me a supplementary question. What is the projected increase in the number of court cases as a result of the Government's proposed legislation banning gang patches? Hon NICOLE McKEE: Legislative changes to crack down on the gangs are the responsibility of my colleague the Minister of Justice, the Hon Paul Goldsmith. We work closely to ensure that the system-level implications of such policies are well understood and accounted for in our decision making. Question No. 11—Media and Communications 11. REUBEN DAVIDSON (Labour—Christchurch East) to the Minister for Media and Communications: Does she stand by all her statements? Hon MELISSA LEE (Minister for Media and Communications): Yes, including the clarification I made yesterday. Reuben Davidson: Does she stand by her statement that New Zealanders can just watch Sky News, and is she aware of who produces Sky News' New Zealand content? Hon MELISSA LEE: Plurality is really important to me—that people actually have choices. Despite the Warner Bros. Discovery announcement, I'm confident that New Zealand news media continues to have a diverse range of voices and perspectives available on multiple platforms. We know audience's behaviour is changing. New Zealanders now access media in a variety of ways, including on their phones. All media outlets are facing similar changes, and that is why my focus is on wider broadcasting reforms to modernise our media systems and streamline the regulatory environment. I'll be closely monitoring the impact of the Newshub proposal over the coming months. As I said yesterday, even with, potentially, the diverse range, we do need to look after to make sure that New Zealand news is fair and New Zealanders actually have New Zealand news online as well as broadcast. Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yeah, I think I'm picking up on the point of order. I'd just like to ask the member to repeat—there was a clear question. Is that the member's point of order, about— Hon Kieran McAnulty: Do you know what, I couldn't have said that better myself, Madam Speaker. DEPUTY SPEAKER: All right. Could you just repeat the—there was a specific question in your question about— Hon Member: Sky. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yeah, Sky. Reuben Davidson: I'll repeat the question in full. Does she stand by her statement that New Zealanders can just watch Sky News, and is she aware of who produces Sky News or Sky News' New Zealand content? Hon MELISSA LEE: As I said, I have actually clarified my comments as well. When I said that— DEPUTY SPEAKER: I think, for the member, if it's helpful, it was really just about the production of Sky—that was the piece of the question that the member was looking for. Hon MELISSA LEE: Sky News, that I was referring to, actually is produced by Newshub. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Does the member have another question? Reuben Davidson: Who does she support: some of the most powerful and profitable companies that have ever existed, or the local producers of online news, such as the Gisborne Herald and the Ashburton Guardian, and what, if any, plans do the Government have to support local media? Hon Chris Bishop: Point of order. Madam Speaker, the Minister has no responsibility, whether she likes it or not, for the Gisborne Herald. Hon Kieran McAnulty: Speaking to the point of order. As has always been the case, members are able to ask supplementaries that directly relate to an answer provided by a Minister. Now, in the answer given by the Minister, she talked about her support for the New Zealand media. It's entirely appropriate for the member to seek some clarification on what she meant by that. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yeah, and look, there is an answer—if the Minister has no responsibility, that's an answer as well. So I would encourage—because if the Minister has no responsibility, it's quite OK for the Minister to actually stand up and say that. That's fine. Hon MELISSA LEE: I have no responsibility for the production of the news, but I can actually say, as a former journalist, I am very supportive of New Zealand's production of news. Reuben Davidson: What commitment, if any, can the media industry expect from the Government, given that there were no commitments to media in the National Party manifesto or the 100-day plan? Hon MELISSA LEE: Thank you very much for that question. Considering the fact that when the Warner Bros. Discovery came for help to the previous Government's Minister of broadcasting and they said no, I can say that that is a very rich question coming from the member. Perhaps that is actually new. Everyone actually understands that the media sector is struggling. This is a world-wide issue, and there is no silver bullet that can solve this problem. However, this Government is committed to working with the sector on ways to ensure sector sustainability while still preserving the independence of the fourth estate. There is a range of work under way that aims to ensure the media can continue to function in the current changing landscape. Hon Chris Bishop: What reports, if any, has the Minister seen into how much money the previous Government spent on the failed RNZ-TVNZ merger? Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order. As was covered in great detail yesterday by Speaker Brownlee, such questions—points of order in silence, as well, so that's the second point. The first point is that Speaker Brownlee made it very clear that those sorts of assertions, particularly from Government members asking Ministers, are totally out of order. Hon Chris Bishop: Speaking to the point of order. Well, firstly, the question is most definitely in order in the sense that, if questions about the Gisborne Herald and the so-called most powerful people in the media—which was Reuben Davidson's supplementary about three ago—are in order, a question about a policy of just three years ago is most definitely in order. Secondly, it is a matter of fact that the merger failed. It started, then the previous Government decided not to continue with it. That is not an assertion. It's not political. It is a matter of fact. In fact, the leader of the Opposition at the time almost described it in those words. DEPUTY SPEAKER: OK, so having had that discussion and those points of order, I rule that the Minister has no responsibility for the previous Government. Does Reuben Davidson have— Hon Chris Bishop: Speaking to the point order. The question was about reports the Minister had received into that. I would have thought, Madam Speaker, as the new Minister of broadcasting, she may have well received a report. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yeah, well, I've ruled. We're going to move on. Has Reuben Davidson got supplementary questions? Reuben Davidson: Given the immediate crisis, will she commit today as Minister of broadcasting to fast-tracking the Fair Digital News Bargaining Bill to ensure our independent media entities can survive? Hon MELISSA LEE: Thank you for that question. The bill is currently being considered by the select committee, and I don't want to pre-empt their report. However, the Government's position on this legislation will obviously take into account these latest developments in terms of wider media landscape. This Government is committed to working with the sector on ways to ensure sector sustainability while still preserving the independence of our fourth estate and avoiding market interference. Question No. 12—Prime Minister 12. TANYA UNKOVICH (NZ First) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his statements and actions? Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Deputy Prime Minister) on behalf of the Prime Minister: Yes, in particular the actions we have taken to fulfil our coalition agreement commitments as a Government of progress— DEPUTY SPEAKER: Can I please clarify if this is on behalf of the Prime Minister? I'm just asking for an "on behalf of the Prime Minister", please, thank you—just for the House. Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Yes. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Just to keep the House in order, I want to— Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Well, you could have said that, Madam Chair—"Mr Peters on behalf of the Prime Minister"—but you left it to me. So I'll say it myself: On behalf of the Prime Minister—. Hon Dr Megan Woods: That's convention. It has been for the last few decades. Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: There's no use trying to get you to catch up now. So on behalf of the Prime Minister, in particular, the actions we've taken to fulfil our coalition agreement commitments as a Government of progress and delivery to undo the damage caused over the last three years. Tanya Unkovich: What updates can he provide on the progress of the Government coalition agreements? Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: In this Government's very first week, we reserved a decision against the International Health Regulations. We have also stopped all work on the separatist agenda called He Puapua, kept secret by the last Government; repealed the Natural and Built Environment Act and Spatial Planning Act; abolished the failing Māori Health Authority to ensure we focus on the delivering of better healthcare for all of those who need it most, including Māori and non-Māori, based on need, not some woke concept. In addition, we're focused on the three Rs of reading, writing, and arithmetic, with one hour on each day, subject— Hon Willow-Jean Prime: What? Reading, writing, and arithmetic? That's two Rs. Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Did you hear what she said? "That's two Rs.". See what the problem is? She doesn't even get the great theme; all around Western society where they spoke English it was three Rs, but genius over here knows better. Tanya Unkovich: Thank you, Madam Speaker. What other coalition agreement commitments are still to come? Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Well, already come and coming, but we've increased the minimum wage, repealed the— Hon Willow-Jean Prime: By how much? Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Well, we were the ones that put it up in the first place, not Labour. We all know that. They forgot all about it. We had to push it there in the first place. It's all there, it's all a fact, and Grant Robertson knows it. So now we're on the second matter. We could be here all day. We repealed the hopeless Clean Car Discount, repealed fair pay agreements, and expanded 90-day trials to apply to all businesses so that more workers can get a job. And we've also gone on to ensure this Government's 100-day plan. We're excited about these following commitments, and that is: fast tracking the consent bill which will seriously supercharge development in this country, and, most excitingly, 60-square-metre homes can get, with an engineer's report, permission to build. This is the kind of stuff that Peter Fraser and the great Labour Party that understood workers would understand, but they have utterly forgotten. Tanya Unkovich: Thank you Madam Speaker. What update can he provide on the coalition's commitment to a COVID inquiry? Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: We're at the stage where we are examining a wider set of terms of reference for the royal commission of inquiry into COVID-19. What we know is that the existing terms of reference are currently inadequate and that this Government is seeking public submissions to expand those terms on the basis that we need, at the end of this inquiry, to have public confidence in the process and in the outcomes. So my message to submitters is to visit the website and make a submission. And they have until 24 March before submissions close. And for those who are protesting over there, how on earth did they think they'd ever get a proper inquiry if they didn't have proper terms of reference? An inquiry designed to cover your derriere is not an inquiry. Hon Dr Megan Woods: To the Prime Minister, will he commit to finally visiting with the Christchurch Muslim community prior to introducing amendments to the gun legislation? Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I can tell that member that, better than that, I was down there with— Hon Dr Megan Woods: No, no. The Prime Minister. Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Sorry, yes, yes. DEPUTY SPEAKER: I'm glad we clarified that earlier. Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I was so upset by the allegation, I forgot my—well, can I say that question is better put to someone who can answer it, because on his behalf it's the kind of question I can't answer, and that member should surely understand that. Of course, if she was in my place, you'd make her answer it anyway, but that's not the way we roll over here. Hon Nicole McKee: Thank you. Is the Prime Minister aware that members of the Muslim community actually sit on the Minister's Arms Advisory Group and are part of the solution to the Arms Act repeal? Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: On behalf of the Prime Minister, I am totally excited to have learnt that great information. GENERAL DEBATE Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram): I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business. The countdown is on—the 100-day finish line is nearing. And when we look back, what has our new Government achieved over the last 100 days? A whole lot of going backwards—going backwards as far as they can. Repealing this, chucking that, doing that all the way through, with no sense that if you're going to repeal, you're meant to replace as well. And what we have not heard in these 100 days is a positive agenda from the new Government. We have not heard what they are going to do. All we've heard is what they're not going to do. So much of that is because of the promises that were made in the election campaign—promises that do not stack up when it comes to paying for the unfunded tax cuts that this Government have cobbled together. We are seeing broken promises laid bare everywhere. What we are seeing is the fact that the Minister of Finance has made promises that she cannot bank. And we're hearing from some of our agencies what the 7.5 percent cost savings that are being asked for are meaning. I did note in question time today, though, that David Seymour must have got so excited when he heard about 7.5 percent cost cuts, he read that as 75 percent at the Ministry of Education. It was like every Christmas morning for David Seymour rolled into one. But what are we seeing from Defence? We're seeing Air Marshal Short saying that the 6.5 percent cuts from Defence would mean they had to divest themselves of capability. We're seeing from Police that the budget starving would see front-line services being cut. We are seeing from Education—and I think this is a particularly telling one, given what we've heard over the last few days from the Secretary for Education that if they had to find these savings, then it's possible there'd be further delay or stopping of capital works. And what have we heard from the Minister of Education this week? An inquiry to cover up the fact that they simply do not have the money to pay for what has already been promised to schools around this country. I was reflecting on a news article that appeared only a couple of weeks ago, and it was an article that was entitled "Lobbyists are back at Parliament - with a new privacy measure hiding their identities". This was from 12 February. Well, I'll tell you what it's called. That new privacy measure hiding their identity is called a crowd, because you cannot move around the Beehive without stumbling over lobbyists. We've got the tobacco lobby, the oil and gas lobby, the fishing lobby, the forestry lobby, the mining lobby, the gun lobby. They're all in the building, and they are the ones setting the agenda of this Government. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Can I please just call a comment with that statement. It's OK to say that lobbyists are influencing and speaking with the Government, it's not OK to say they're dictating—you didn't say the word "dictating"? Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: Far be it from me to say dictating, Madam Speaker. DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, but it's not—and I'll find the correct Speaker's ruling shortly, but you can't say that they're doing the job of the Government. Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: OK. They are in the building and they are active. They are doing the rounds and they've got their swipe cards and they're active. But what we have seen is just how active and in the building this group are and the kinds of powers they have. They have powers to magically make papers apparate into Minister's offices. They have this power that a Minister can walk in one day and find some apparated papers sitting on her desk, with very, very clear suggestions of the kinds of measures that should be put into place. So I guess there are some ways of achieving cost-cutting measures. Cut out the middle person—we used to call them officials—and just look to other places for where your policy advice is coming from and who is telling what the Government should do. I think one of the things that we have seen this week is just how serious this is. We have seen this week the repeal of a policy that was going to do real and meaningful work around saving the lives of New Zealanders—the work around the smoke-free legislation that was world leading. And what did we see? We saw a Government that repealed it under urgency at a point where lives will be lost. That is not the New Zealand we want. Hon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): Well, thank you very much, Madam Speaker. Here we are, we're in the closing part of the third week of a four-week sitting block and we are rapidly approaching 100 days of this new coalition Government. In fact, this time next week we will be very close to the hundred days. My late-mother was a nurse. I remember growing up as a child, one of the good, sage pieces of advice that my mother gave my brother, sister, and I was that if we ever had an accident where there was a need to stem the flow of blood and we'd stub a knee or make a cut or something like that, her advice was always: first, stop the bleeding—first, stop the bleeding. That's what this coalition Government has had to do during its first hundred days: stop the bleeding, the wasteful profligate spending, the arrogant assumption that they know best on every issue, and the arrogant assumption that New Zealand voters use in the democratic ballot box available to them have made a decision about the future direction of this country, and it wasn't the direction that was being taken by that Government over the last six years. Speaking of stopping the bleeding, it's only just started on the Opposition side. This afternoon, we saw a line-up of potential new leaders—a line-up of them. First, there was Kieran McAnulty. Now, odds are on that he's the favourite. He's a bookie by profession and he'll be counting the numbers and doing the odds; that's what he will be doing. Then we had Ginny Andersen, unlikely running mate—unlikely running mate; could be a leadership partner in a coalition of the Labour Party. David Parker has been speculated a lot as being a potential. Now, David Parker is a man of extreme talent and experience and long standing in this House— Carl Bates: Too sensible. Hon SCOTT SIMPSON: —and David Parker—"Too sensible." My colleague Cameron Brewer makes the point "Too sensible.", because David Parker ruled himself out of the blood-letting challenge that is about to happen. Carl Bates: What about Phil Twyford? Hon SCOTT SIMPSON: Well, Phil Twyford maybe. He's a quiet one on the bench at the moment. He's a quiet one. He's got a glint in his eye—a glint in his eye again. But the real outsider today was Greg O'Connor. Now, Greg O'Connor used his question to make his mark on the leadership bid for the Labour Party. It's only a question of time, and Greg O'Connor will be there. Not quite sure who the running mate will be— Carl Bates: Stuart Nash. Hon SCOTT SIMPSON: —but he will almost certainly be there. Well, Stuart Nash, maybe he will do a comeback. We heard a little bit from Stuart Nash this week. Then, there was a late entrant in question time today, a bloke by the name of Reuben Davidson. Now, I'm not quite sure what his aspirations are, but he showed some potential. He's asking a question, and he got a very satisfactory answer from the Minister. But as we approach the completion of this coalition Government's first hundred days, I want to remind the House about the 49 points of action that we will have completed by this time next week or next Friday. It's actually 8 March which is the day that we will celebrate the first hundred days of this administration. So it was only a week or so ago that the Prime Minister gave his state of the nation speech. In that speech, he went through a list of the actions that we have already completed as a coalition Government, and he highlighted many of the remaining actions that we have to do. But he highlighted, also, the fragile state of the country's economy, the perilous state of the Government's books, and indeed the profligate wasteful spending that had taken place by the previous Government. But he cited a number of the very good initiatives that have already taken place by the Government to stem the flow of blood and the bleeding that was occurring under the last Government. So one of those was to abolish the ute tax. That was a very good initiative. Now, many people will know in this House that I'm a committed electric vehicle (EV) driver and a fan. I don't understand why people wouldn't be driving an EV. But I do understand the negative impacts of putting in place a policy that would punish those who aren't able to, for a variety of reasons, use EVs. That time will come at a point in the future; it's not right now, but it will come in the future. Then, of course, this Government has already stopped that mind-bogglingly wasteful experience called the Auckland light rail. So as we come to end of this week, the third week of this four-week sitting block, next week we will have completed our 49 projects, and our hundred days of Government will be there. New Zealanders can look forward, then, to the next 100 days. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Just before I call the Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall, when the Hon Dr Megan Woods was speaking, I was referring to Speakers' ruling 55/5—this is for the House; not for the intended Speaker—where "It is in order to say that the Government is influenced, but … not in order to say that in the carrying out of its administrative and governmental duties, apart from the formulation of its policy, … [that] the Government is dictated to by an outside body." So I just wanted to clarify that. Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Labour): We knew National's tax cut plan didn't add up, and now the country is paying the price. Those tax cuts proposed in the election were reckless; they did not add up. They did not answer questions posed to them, including by many excellent journalists at Newshub. Lloyd Burr followed Christopher Luxon for two whole weeks asking him to explain the tax cuts, and he couldn't. Nicola Willis couldn't account for how she was going to make the books balance. Rebecca Wright took Chris Luxon to task for 20 minutes pre-election, and all she got was bloviation back. These are reckless, reckless cuts for a Government who never intended to be able to deliver. And post-election, that's why we've seen the scope of the Public Service cuts grow to include non-departmental expenditure. And for the people listening at home, that means the things that Government pays to others to deliver the services that they depend on. It includes housing services, and it also includes the education buildings. Pre-election, we were told not to worry about this, because Nicola Willis said Ministers would be going through line by line to find savings and instances of wasteful spending. as if the Ministers in that Government were financial whizkids! But post-election, it's a different story. There's no line by line; it's just blanket cuts. Responsibility is sheeted to the CEOs instead, and we see that these are untargeted cuts as well. Let me give you the example of Customs. The hard-working people in Customs have been asked to take voluntary redundancy. Now, that is the definition of an untargeted cut. There's no looking across the service to see whether there could be spending. It's totally unstrategic from the point of view of developing the organisation or making sure there are the services New Zealanders need to keep drugs out, to allow visitors to come through our border in an efficient and safe way, and to keep out the meth that is a scourge on our society. They're just going to have untargeted cuts. People will be asked to take voluntary redundancy. There is no example of waste that I have heard put forward in Customs by the Government; it's just cuts. These cuts are to services that New Zealanders need and depend upon. They are across education, they are across the courts, they are done by public servants who are some of the most committed people I have ever met. I was very proud to work with New Zealand public servants in the COVID-19 response. I saw them behave in a way that was absolutely professional, working overnight and on weekends to come and save our country in a time of crisis. They are dedicated, and yet just this question time, we had David Seymour call them bureaucrats. Public servants shouldn't be the soft target in this Government's war on Wellington. They are people who serve our country every day, and incredibly well. You've got to ask why. Why is this Government doing it? I wonder that a lot. I think my colleague Megan Woods touched on the answer there. Maybe there's an ideology to shrink the State, but I think there's more to it than that. These cuts create the opportunity for private profiteering off public services, don't they? They create the opportunity for others to come in and contract for services that could be delivered in the public interest instead. And that contracting out has happened multiple times whenever there have been Governments formed by the National Party. They're manufacturing the conditions to allow public services to be hocked off so that the legions of lobbyists that are circling the Beehive have more opportunities to make money. Public services working across education have led to the building of 2,000 new classrooms during the last Government. The education secretary at select committee said that work and that programme would not be possible without people employed to do that work. These cuts will be to the sorts of things that New Zealanders need to have their rights upheld in the court, to have their kids go to classrooms, to have their roads built—all of these things are opportunities that we have to develop public services for the good of the people, and not to allow them to be opportunities for others to profit. We will all be poorer as a country if these cuts go ahead. Well, the National Party and the Government have options. They can come clean about the fact that their fiscal plan never added up, and they can stop using this as an opportunity to make our country all the poorer. CARL BATES (National—Whanganui): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It is my absolute privilege to stand here and talk about the response that I'm getting from rural and provincial New Zealand as they witness this Government deliver on its 100-day plan. It is my privilege as well to acknowledge the Multicultural Council of Whanganui-Rangitīkei who are here in the gallery. I had a kōrero with them prior to question time about the feedback they've got on having a great local working MP who's seen out in the community and a Government that is delivering, as I say, on its 100-day plan. Madam Speaker, over the weekend I was at the Egmont A & P Show, a show that you and I both know well. The feedback from rural and provisional New Zealand was overwhelmingly in favour of the progress that this Government is making. They are pleased with the repeal of the ute tax so that they can buy the vehicles required to deliver the economic productivity this country requires to pay for the sort of services that we are going to ensure are not just delivered but delivered well. I must say that over my short time in this House and in this place, I'm starting to get a bit sick of the Opposition and their view that you can just spend more money to achieve an outcome and that every dollar that they seem to have spent, committed to, and over-committed to magically delivers an outcome. So as we've engaged and, as I say, as I've been out and about talking to real New Zealanders who are doing the mahi that enables us to operate here, it's been great to see that they understand the intention of this Government to get New Zealand back on track. I'm looking forward to my attendance this weekend at the Taranaki regional dairy industry awards because it is important that we that we demonstrate our support for the agricultural industry. In a couple of weeks' time, I'm looking forward to witnessing the focus this Government has on mental health in the Whanganui electorate when I host Minister Doocey. We have arranged a kōrero with mental health leaders across the Whanganui electorate, because the Minister has said to me that he is wanting to engage. He literally said to me that he doesn't want to come along and stand in front and lecture the providers about what he's doing, like maybe they would have had under a previous administration—of course, they couldn't have had that because there wasn't a Minister for Mental Health under any previous Labour Government—and it's great to be hosting him for the first time in Whanganui. We're going to be doing the same for the tourism industry, because the wonderful Whanganui electorate has showcased a range of events that have supported the increase in our domestic tourism over the course of the last 12 months, including the Whanganui Vintage Weekend in January, an outstanding weekend that demonstrates how creative regional New Zealand can produce domestic and international tourism activities. Currently we have New Zealand's best women's festival, La Fiesta, going on in our rohe until 10 March. It's the biggest yet and it's another example of great work to bring domestic tourism in and around the country. And, of course in a few weeks' time—and I invite all members join us between 15 and 24 March—we will have the Artists Open Studios, another example of great domestic activity for tourism. I'm looking forward to the work that the Minister will be doing in this space to continue to support and grow our tourism sector. Last week I also had the opportunity to showcase the work of our great telecommunication providers and the launch, or rather the turning on of, a new cellphone tower on State Highway 4 that Minister Lee has advised me of. And today I'm sharing that I'm launching a petition focused on connectivity in Pātea and on State Highway 3 to ensure that rural and provincial New Zealand have the sort of access to wireless connectivity to do the work we do to keep this country going. As the Prime Minister indicated in the state of the nation address last week, we face an immense challenge left by the previous Government, and it's great to see the progress that's already been achieved in the last 100 days as we count down to 8 March next week and getting those 49 actions done. Thank you, Madam Speaker. Hon PEENI HENARE (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. First, as I gaze to my left here in the House, I think of our colleague, good friend Efeso Collins, being farewelled today. Of course, with members of the House, our thoughts continue to be with his family, his lovely wife, and his two daughters at this time. More than 700 doctors have asked this Government to justify the decision to scrap the Māori Health Authority. More than 700 experts right around the country, and indeed offshore, have continued to press why the Government is removing the Māori Health Authority. In fact, Al Jazeera yesterday even reported on the loss of indigenous rights and indigenous health outcomes by the deeds and actions of this Government. It disappoints me greatly that over the past three days, through urgency, kaupapa like the Māori Health Authority was disestablished. We hear from the other side that outcomes in health are really important. I want to highlight to the Government that the outcomes they speak of are things like surgery waiting lists, emergency room waiting lists. Yes, that's true. That's the job of Health New Zealand; that's not the job of Te Aka Whai Ora. The job of Te Aka Whai Ora was to be the fence at the top of the cliff so that Māori didn't need an ambulance at the bottom. They were there with a clear focus on public health outcomes, good messaging to bring better health outcomes to Māori, encouraging rangatahi Māori to pursue a career in health and to make sure that we continue to support communities to look after communities so that there wasn't a need to have an ambulance at the bottom of the cliff. Sadly, though, that fence has now been removed. When we launched the Māori Health Authority in Waitangi—and it was symbolic in Waitangi because it was about a Crown and Māori relationship. That hasn't played out in the disestablishment of the Māori Health Authority, but I return back to that day in Waitangi. I said at the end of my contribution that day, ina mate ahau, kua tutuki katoa aku mahi—that means, "Should I pass away suddenly, my job here is done." Well, I stand here today to say clearly there's lots more work to be done and that on this side of the House—and indeed myself and the many health experts and health workers around this country—will continue to push for the case for clear Māori health outcomes to make sure that they don't fall to the bottom of the cliff and they don't require the ambulance; that we can indeed put a fence at the top. Now I'm sure all members across the House will agree to that. Of course, we've heard all week how disappointed we are that, through urgency, no public consultation has taken place for such important pieces of legislation: the disestablishment of the Māori Health Authority and the smokefree repeal. The country has already made their view clear that the smokefree targets—making sure that future generations are smokefree—was something that we all believed in. Sadly, though, those were overturned without the kind of consultation that we need and we require in a good democracy. It's really disappointing when we hear from the other side that they have a mandate from the election—and, of course, that's how this works and that's why they're on the Treasury benches and we aren't; I understand that. But also, with that power comes huge responsibility: the responsibility to allow the public to have their voice on all matters that actually relate to them and are important to them. I'm sad to say that not only this week did the Māori Health Authority get repealed, not only did important smokefree legislation—world-leading smokefree legislation—be repealed, also that a part of democracy died with the urgency that was put forward by this particular Government. I want to return back to what I said at the launch of the Māori Health Authority: should I die, my work here is done. Clearly there is more work to be done and I want to say to the members on that side of the House, and indeed to the public out there listening today: Ka whawhai tonu mātou, āke, ake, ake. Hon MARK PATTERSON (Minister for Rural Communities): Thank you. Just on behalf of New Zealand First, I would also like to follow up on the words of Peeni Henare in passing on New Zealand First's condolences for Efeso Collins' family, particularly his wife and two young daughters—what an absolute tragedy—and to our colleagues in the Green Party. I'd also like to—possibly not to converge the two, but also the situation yesterday with the Newshub staff, those 300 employees, and particularly the press gallery here, who coexist in this strange ecosystem. We're all feeling for you as well. It is a foreboding day for our democracy. It is one of the reasons why New Zealand First has always been sceptical about foreign ownership of key strategic assets. We see Warner Bros. Discovery ruthlessly lopping off a key limb of our fourth estate without a second thought—is so disappointing indeed, and a blow to our democracy. So New Zealand First won't have the wool pulled over its eyes; we will always be vigilant to what is in the national interest. But we will find wool is back in Government buildings. New Zealand First, in our coalition agreement with National, are proud to have secured that and reversed that travesty. There will be no repeat of the shameful situation where rural schools had been forced to put synthetic carpets—in a kick in the guts to the farmers that send their children to school there, and to those rural communities that rely on that wonderful fibre. It has been a sad demise of this proud legacy industry. New Zealand was literally built off the sheep's back. It is a wonderful, natural, sustainable fibre. Fortunately, the cavalry has arrived with this Government. We are going to take this industry very seriously. I'm very honoured—within my Ministry for Rural Communities, and as Associate Minister of Agriculture—to have a delegation for wool. I'm pleased to report that I've been out and about around stakeholders all around the country, actually—the manufacturers particularly. It's very encouraging to see an incredible amount of innovation going on in a number of areas in fabrics. Carpets, obviously, are making a comeback—wool carpets, as people look to more sustainable fibres. Some incredible stuff being used around acoustics. They're actually now using wool and 3D printing products—it is quite extraordinary to see. So we will be working with the industry to help return that international demand as well as our local demand—and being led by the Government with that wool in Government buildings policies. Myself and the Hon Todd McClay have announced that during April we will be going round the country in wool sheds up and down New Zealand to engage with farmers to seek their feedback as we look to rally this rather disparate industry where farming leadership has got a little bit fragmented. We're looking to help to pull that together, but we want to take farmers with it. We've learnt the lessons from the previous Government: you cannot impose central control. So we want to hear what they're saying; we want to communicate what we're seeing. Together, along with the industry, along with our work in the trade space, we are going to bring this wonderful fibre back, contributing to the New Zealand economy, contributing to our rural communities and our farmers. So I'd like to pick up also on the point that Carl Bates made in his speech. What I have been absolutely overwhelmed by—and I know that members on the side of the House up and down the country are feeling it—is the wave of sentiment behind us out there in rural and regional New Zealand. They are pleased to have a Government that understands what they're about, what their key drivers are, how to deal with them, and how to engage with them. They are so pleased, and it has been a weight off their back. We have been really concerned about the mental health of our farmers and our rural communities, and I know that this is only one small aspect of it, but it is an important component that they have confidence in their Government and that the Government understands their issues. So it's great to have the adults in the room. It's great for us in New Zealand First to be in this coalition—back in Parliament, back contributing, and we look forward to getting New Zealand back on track. KATIE NIMON (National—Napier): I just want to start by acknowledging the passing of Fa'anānā Efeso Collins. I know that we've had a lot of acknowledgment of his passing; today, obviously, is his funeral. And I just want to make it known that he was a fantastic contributor alongside us in select committee, specifically the Education and Workforce Committee. And we do feel his loss across the House. Look, what I want to talk to today is the fact that the last month has been a real time for commemoration for Hawke's Bay. We have very publicly had the year anniversary of Cyclone Gabrielle, but more than this and less commonly reported on in the news is the 93rd anniversary of the 1931 Napier earthquake. So that was on 3 February at 11 a.m. Myself and colleague Catherine Wedd attended commemoration across the region. I wanted to make a first mention of a very spritely 99-year-old named Veronica, who was the oldest at the Napier commemoration—the oldest living survivor from the 1931 earthquake. Incredible that she was 99, because we were looking around the room, trying to work out the youngest and the oldest. And they did this little thing where they said, "All right, who was born before here and who was born after this time?" And nobody could work out that she was the oldest one in the room—incredible for her. But what I loved is the fact that her name is Veronica, and Her Majesty's Ship Veronica was the ship in port at the time that the earthquake happened. And if it wasn't for the New Zealand Navy in Napier at the time, we would not have had the immediate support that we did in 1931 to help all of those people. So we celebrate every year with the ringing of the Veronica Bell four times and then another four times at the changing of the shift. That is something that is very special to our region. Actually, at the time, my great grandfather was the chair of the Harbour Board, so he was the one responsible for ringing the Veronica Bell in the years passed. So, look, as a result of the 1931 earthquake, in the years gone by, we have had a fantastic celebration called the Art Deco Festival. Now, for a number of years recently, we have had a sad disruption for this, being COVID—the many COVID lockdowns and various categories; whether it's red or three or orange or whatever it was called at the time—and, of course, weather events. It has been a huge event for our region, both for heritage and for tourism. It has been disrupted year on year, but this year in 2024 was the first year it came back, and what an event it was. It was absolutely special. I invited my colleague Tim Costley, the MP for Ōtaki, out. He joined me and Catherine Wedd at some fantastic events, hosted by the Art Deco Trust, who is a brilliant trust that restores and maintains heritage in Hawke's Bay—something that's very important to our culture. But what I want to point out is the massive work that they did, but not only that, the continued support of our Defence Force. We had the great privilege of going on HMNZS Manawanui. We had a tour from the captain, just to hear about the fantastic work that they're doing, the struggles that they're having, and what fantastic work our Minister of Defence is going to do for them. However, the air force also provided a brilliant set of displays. The Black Falcons, led by squadron leader Stuart Anderson and display director, the legendary Jim, was something that crowds flocked for. This event is not an exclusive, paid, ticketed event; it is a public event for everybody. And the thousands of people that came into Napier and Hastings for the weekend from all around the country and from outside of New Zealand were absolutely wowed by the spectacular things that our region could put on for them. But one thing that was noticeable and one person that was notably missing was Pat Benson. He passed, sadly, a week prior. His funeral was on the day before the Art Deco Festival. Now, Pat Benson was a very notable figure in our region, not just for his support for art deco heritage but also for sport, surf lifesaving, many other things, software technology. But Pat, in the days before he passed away and a couple of days after the earthquake commemoration, wrote a message that I want to share. Pat and his brothers owned a great number of art deco building in Napier, including my family's Daily Telegraph building. They spent millions of dollars maintaining them for businesses around the region, but at great expense to restore them to absolutely unworkable earthquake-strengthening regulations. In his last message, he asked for some practical, pragmatic consideration of an unworkable law that means that these buildings rely on kindness and generosity. I want to share that with the people in this room. Thank you for your time. Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Labour): Madam Speaker, thank you very much. I too would like to acknowledge in this somewhat sad and sombre House—and I know we're not allowed to refer to people who are not here, but we have to acknowledge that many members from all parties are up at Efeso Collins' funeral. For someone who spent his life—certainly in public life—advocating for the disadvantaged and for his people and the Pasifika and all of those in Auckland, it's great that we have been able to acknowledge him. But I think he may, too, feel, looking down from up there, somewhat sad about what has happened in this week in the House. He had one chance to have a speech, to contribute, and it was to speak out for those who didn't have the same opportunities that many of us have had. But this week, in this House, this coalition Government, through this Parliament, have doubled down on so many dumb and stupid things that go completely against everything that he stood for. We should be ashamed of ourselves—double standards. Quite frankly, it's not a "back on track" Government. Sorry, Mark Patterson, and good luck with wool. Not back on track; it's a back-track Government, nothing more than backtrack. We've not heard anything in the first 100 days—it's not 100 days, you know; it's a hundred nights. If it was 100 days, there'd be some enlightenment, there'd be some light on what the Government's doing. It's been 100 nights, because we have no idea what they're going to do. We know what they're not going to do. They're not going to follow through in the set-up of the Māori Health Authority. They're not going to have a petrol tax in Auckland to pay for vital infrastructure. They're not going to have world-leading smoke-free environment legislation. They're not going to have a control on the level of nicotine in cigarettes that will be sold around this country. It's outrageous. And the question is why? Well, there are always changes across our country; in fact, we've grown up very quickly. People expect change. We hope for change for the better. You always ask, "Well, why are we having change? Why is change occurring?" Well, let's be clear here. It's to help your mates. The coalition Government wants to help its mates—the people who funded it into Government. So we'll give tax cuts to wealthy landlords. We'll give tax cuts to rich people, because they are always the beneficiaries of a tax regime designed to be cut for people at the top and shift the impost to people at the bottom. That's the why. People will make the judgment of whether they think the cuts to public services, the cuts to protections for those who might smoke, because there'll been no levels of nicotine control—or we need more infrastructure in Auckland. And they certainly do. Safety—it's not just about more busways and more walkways and more cycleways, or that they are good; it's about basic road safety, preventing people from getting killed. And then the ultimate insult to the life and objectives of Efeso Collins is to take away and destroy and remove the Māori Health Authority—set up to address the real issue in our country, and it's been there for a long time: the disparities and longevity for Māori and for Pasifika versus people like me, who live on average now about eight years longer. I'm grateful for that, but I have a responsibility to help address that disparity. And this Government has just destroyed a good initiative to help us move down that path. It wasn't going to be perfect; I'm sure. But it was moving us down that path. The hundred nights of darkness that we've almost got to have shone no light on what this Government intends to do, to the point that the removal of the Three Waters legislation says that Standard and Poor's now is downgrading many councils and they will pay higher rates of interest. That darkness and the uncertainty—the darkness and the uncertainty across our economy are starting to lead to international implications. Our soft power index all starting to be degraded by a coalition Government that cares for nothing but its wealthy mates. ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): The member's time has expired. TIM COSTLEY (National—Ōtaki): E ngā mate, e ngā parekawakawa o rātou, otirā o tātou, ka tangihia, ka mihia e tātou i tēnei wā. [To the dearly departed, the veils of grief of those passed, indeed of all of us, we grieve for them, we acknowledge them at this time.] Rest in peace, Efeso. Well, today marks, officially, the last day of summer. Fun fact: I was due to be born on 29 February—irrelevant, but fun. But it's the last day of summer, and what a summer it has been for the good people of the Ōtaki electorate. It was a bright summer, not just because they've got a National Government and a National MP, but because of the great events we have had, like the Kāpiti Food Fair, and I should acknowledge Helene and her team; the Kāpiti Strawberry Festival, with Julie and her crew; the royal show; the Horowhenua AP & I Show, with Kyle and Jill and their team. They hosted the royal show outside of a big centre for the first time ever, on their centenary year, and they put on a world-class event. Then, of course—I'm sure everyone's got it in their diary—there's the Medieval Market, a big event in the Levin town that Anna and her team put on. It was a fantastic family day out, and who can forget the Ōtaki Kite Festival? What a weekend that was that Cam and the team put on. I reckon it was one of the best beach festivals in New Zealand, bringing out families and kite enthusiasts—is that their name?—from all around the world, and the best kite-makers in New Zealand from James Meager's Ashburton. But there are two to go. They are on this week, and I look forward to joining Alice and Angelina at Fale Pasifika. I'll miss Deb and her Cook Island doughnuts this year, but I'm looking forward to a day there, and then finishing the night at the Waikanae Movies in the Park. They must love having me as their MP, because the late-night movie this year is Top Gun: Maverick—what a weekend we have to wrap up summer. But there is one even better thing that we have had this summer: the ban on cellphones in schools. Now, I know that, technically, it doesn't come into effect until the start of term 2, but the smart principals—which is most of them—and the school boards are already bringing it in. They can see that this is a great direction to head in, and I am pretty excited about it. I'm one of those mean dads: I wouldn't let my kids have a cellphone until they got to high school. I get up in the morning and I thank the late great Steve Jobs for inventing Screen Time so that I can shut down those phones. I can cut off their internet at the push of a button. They get only half an hour on social media, not just because it's not real life, but because I like actually talking to my kids when I'm home, and I just think that kids are way better and do a lot better when they're off those screens. What are we going to get them to focus on instead? We're going to get them to focus on the basics brilliantly. Do you know what? Some teachers have even said to me, "Well, we don't feel comfortable having to take kids' phones off them."—this was last year—"We don't really want to be the bad cop." So I'd just say, "Look, let me be the bad cop. Let the great education Minister we finally have after the last six years"—the Hon Erica Stanford—"be the bad cop with me on this one issue." We'll focus them instead on learning the basics brilliantly, and it's something that I really believe in. You might find the odd teenager that says they don't like us for taking off their phones, but, actually, most of them say to me, "We don't like you taking our phones away, but we acknowledge that it's actually probably the best thing for us." You might find someone that doesn't like losing their phone at school, but I'd challenge you to find many parents that don't think it's a great thing to get their kids off the phones and focused on learning the basics, like in primary schools, where they'll be spending an hour every day learning maths, an hour every day on reading, and an hour every day on writing. I've had firsthand experience of this. When we were living in the UK, one of my daughters did the first year of her primary school there, and it was light years from where we have been in New Zealand. That was not because I believe their teachers are better than the great teachers we have in New Zealand and not because I believe that their kids were any better—I think our kids are fantastic, with all the potential to achieve great things in this world—but they got taught phonics. My mother-in-law, who's a resource teacher: learning and behaviour, has espoused the value of phonics for such a long time, and she's absolutely right. My mum, a maths teacher, used to lament that these kids would have to get their calculators out to do basic addition and subtraction. Well, now, they're getting out a phone to get the calculator app, but they're also opening up their music, they're chatting, and they're playing games. Let's get them back on what they should be focused on, which is learning the basics brilliantly, because our kids have a great future, but they need to achieve in school. They actually need to achieve and be set up to succeed in life. I'm proud of my family. My parents, my in-laws, and my brother are all schoolteachers—you can't avoid them. I think the kids are fantastic, but by giving them the tools to succeed and to train up, that's the best future, and I'm proud to be part of this Government, which has been relentlessly focused in the first 100 days on educational achievement for our kids. Steve Jobs and Screen Time have a great place at home, but at school, I'm glad my kids and everyone else's kids will be focused on learning the basics brilliantly. Hon NICOLE McKEE (Minister for Courts): Well, well, well, what a run it has been for criminals over the last six years under the Labour Government—a soft on crime, former Government so self-obsessed that it wrapped criminals in cotton wool and blamed the rest of New Zealand for their offending. In the last five years, gangs have gained over 3,000 new members— Tom Rutherford: How many? Hon NICOLE McKEE: —3,000—elevating them up to nearly 10,000 in membership; an untold 51 percent increase. Last year, New Zealand experienced half its yearly average gun deaths in just 17 days. During this time, there has also been an increase in violent crime of over 33 percent. Well, I'm pleased to tell New Zealand that the smooth run for criminals is over. This coalition Government has announced in the last week a comprehensive package on crime. That package will allow police to issue dispersal notices requiring gang members to immediately leave the area and to not associate with one another for seven days. It's also going to allow the courts to order non-consorting orders to stop specified gang members from associating or communicating with each other for up to three years. We are going to ban all gang insignia in public places. I am particularly proud of the inclusion of ACT's policy to give greater weight to gang membership as an aggravating factor at sentencing, in this package. Making gang membership an aggravating factor during sentencing— Hon Dr Duncan Webb: It is already—it is already. Retread. Hon NICOLE McKEE: —will enable courts to impose more severe punishments on gang members. You may be thinking, at this point, Mr Webb, "What more could this National, ACT, New Zealand First Government do to tidy up the utter mess that Labour left behind?" Well, I am pleased to let you know that we are not done yet. We will be giving police further powers to search gang members for illegally held firearms, we will be bringing back three strikes to ensure that repeat offenders who do the crime will most certainly do the time, and we will introduce legislation to tackle money-laundering by organised criminals—we will disrupt their financial networks and hit them where it really hurts. This Government is wholly committed to targeting the gangs, taking back our streets for everyday Kiwis, and letting criminals know that if they want to do the crime, then they most definitely will be doing the time. The joyride is over. Labour is out; the coalition Government is in. If you are a gang member or a criminal offender, you better have a long, hard think about it, because, under this Government, I assure you that you will be punished for your offending. Dr TRACEY McLELLAN (Labour): Sorry, I was taken by surprise. I was expecting that Minister McKee had so many fabulous things to say that she was going to take the whole five minutes, but she stopped very abruptly and I still had a lolly in my mouth—that's how unprepared I was. Hon Dr Duncan Webb: It's the 7.5 percent cut. Dr TRACEY McLELLAN: Yeah, gosh, it was—exactly. The theme of today has been the hundred-day plan—hasn't it—as we gallop towards the finish line of the coalition Government's hundred-day plan. Those 49 bullet points that—somewhere deep inside Christopher Luxon, when he first talked about it with such enthusiasm, he said things like, "Our Government is going to start the way we mean to go on." I think he probably meant that in a positive way, but as we get close to the finish line, as we get close to the end of that hundred-day plan, I think most New Zealanders would be thinking, "How much more can we take of this?" He wasn't joking—he does mean to go on the way he started. Somewhere deep inside Christopher Luxon, I'm sure there's also a little dream that's slowly dying, you know, a little inspiration that's slowly wizening. I don't imagine he thought that he would be in the position he now finds himself in. I imagine that when he became Prime Minister, he literally gave that speech, talking with pride about his first hundred days, thinking it would be full of things he was going to do, full of things he was going to actually achieve. But what happened? Nicola Willis' campaign promises to give Kiwis tax cuts is really beginning to bite. And hasn't that changed the whole tone of that hundred days? National promised there would be no cuts to front-line services. But the reality is they now have to scramble to find money to fund what was always reckless tax cuts that they could not afford. And they're trying to sneak in much, much larger cuts to the public service than I'm sure that even they intended when they first started on this hundred-day journey. We don't have to take my word for it. On The AM Show back in August, end of August last year, Ryan Bridge said to Nicola Willis, "Will you promise no cuts to front-line services?" What did she say? "I make that promise, and that will be clear in our tax plan. What's more, Ryan, every Budget that Chris Luxon and I deliver will include more spending for health and for education." How did that turn out? Yesterday, we were in this House, and we, unfortunately, witnessed the repeal of the smoke-free legislation That is just one example of quite extreme measures that I'm sure this coalition Government didn't envision themselves doing. But under the pressure of having to fund tax cuts, this is what they've done. They've literally repealed world-leading legislation so they can fund tax cuts, and that is shameful. What about education? This week, we've heard the fact that thousands of classroom bills—many, many schools throughout the country—will now have those plans put on hold because they're just choosing not to fund it. They can give all the excuses in the world, but that's what it comes down to. There is a clear choice about what their priority is, and this Government has said that schools and health is not theirs. The other theme of this week, apart from the fact that we're galloping towards the finish line of what is a pretty abysmal hundred-day plan— Simon Court: Just wait till we get to the next hundred days. Dr TRACEY McLELLAN: —is the fact that everything—well, we can only imagine—is about reversing. What was it that their campaign slogan was all about? "Getting back on track." I think we have to really acknowledge the fact that the "back" part was doing a lot of heavy lifting in that campaign slogan, wasn't it. Everything is about going backwards. I feel sorry for some of the new members of Parliament who have had to sit in this House, over the last few days in particular, with straight faces and pretend that they're on board with some of these measures when clearly they're not. Some of them have been under immense pressure, particularly in relation to the repeal of the smoke-free legislation. I feel bad for them, but they had a choice as well, because everything is about choice, and politics is about choice. They had a choice last night to cross the floor and do the right thing and say, "No", they weren't going to go ahead with that piece of legislation just to fund tax cuts, and they absolutely chose not to.We've heard lots of little anecdotes from members on the other side of the House today about plans in their local electorates and little bits and pieces, which is absolutely their prerogative, but I really do wonder why they're not talking about the things that matter to all New Zealanders. Dr VANESSA WEENINK (National—Banks Peninsula): Thank you Madam Speaker. It's a delight for me to be here today to be able to talk about the fire response in the Port Hills. Just a little over two weeks ago, I had a text as I was about to come into the House telling me about the fires, and I advised the House about the that it was going on, and I reflected on the fire in 2017 and I was quite worried about the Port Hills and the people down there. As Minister Mitchell and I flew into Christchurch that night, there was a glow over the hills and we could see the flashing of the lights of the fire engines on the hills. It was quite dramatic. But I'm happy to report that as of today there are only five little hotspots left, the Fire and Emergency response has been absolutely outstanding. There are some facts that I'd like to share with the House. At the height of the fire, it got to nearly 700 hectares. We had about 110 properties that had been evacuated. Helping to fight the fire at any one time, we had up to about 130 firefighters from all around the country. They were supported by 27 trucks, up to 15 helicopters, and two fixed-wing planes. So that was an absolutely incredible response and our firefighters should be absolutely thanked from the bottom of our hearts. I'd also like to make sure that we thank police and other emergency responders. The response from the community was really helped by the police reassurance, especially those who were asked to evacuate their properties. They were previously asked to evacuate in 2017, and having done so, they had the experience of not being able to get back into their properties for two weeks. So it was a really difficult time for them. But the amazing thing was that this time we had great leadership from two mayors, from Phil Mauger and Sam Broughton, who made the decisive decision about declaring the state of emergency early so that it brought all of the resources straight in, and I think that was a really useful lesson that was learned. I also want to thank the Hon Mark Mitchell for coming on down as well, because having his reassurance and experience and ability to be there to make decisions should they be needed was very reassuring. We had countless community members who I also want to name, who helped out in the. Kellie Horne from Craythorne's Hotel very generously offered hotel rooms for evacuees at very short notice. I also thank the Halswell Bakery, the Halswell MetroMart, and Domino's Pizza. They all provided food to the community and to the emergency responders. Thanks also to the Halswell scout group for their support as well. This was a huge combined response, which, I think, shows the textbook way that things should be done. When we walked down into the emergency evacuation centre, they literally had the document of lessons learnt from 2017 that they were going through. They were checking off all of the different aspects that hadn't been done so well last time. and they made sure that it was improved on this time, particularly the community engagement. That was very important, and I know that the community responded very well to having regular community updates and meetings, most of which I was able to go to along with the Minister. So that was a huge change. Having the combined emergency management response in the Justice precinct where they all worked together on a daily basis was helpful. They already had those pre-existing relationships, so everybody worked together well. So this was an example where under an emergency response, having one organisation in the centralised command and control actually makes a huge difference and everybody understands who has the rights and roles and everything worked very well. So I really commend particularly our firefighters. Some of those teams were fighting the fires continuously through that week. But then just last weekend we also saw the Amberley fire brigade as well as the Governors Bay fire brigades holding a fundraising event for I Am Hope. What amazing people we have in our country. On behalf of all of us in Banks Peninsula, I just want to thank the firefighters in particular for the outstanding work. The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed. JAMIE ARBUCKLE (NZ First): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak to the Local Government (Facilitation of Remote Participation) Amendment Bill. This actually kind of touches a little bit on my heart, because, actually, I'm still a local government member at the moment, so, obviously, some of what I will speak of today will is actually stuff that I am dealing with daily. But firstly, how did this come about? It came about through COVID times. I remember being on the Marlborough District Council and being able to participate, and it was probably the first time in my local government career where we were actually participating daily and weekly on Zoom meetings, and it was something that was new to us. It was something that probably prior to COVID, being a local body member, we had always turned up to the meeting, and if we couldn't turn up to the meeting, well, that was just hard luck. But through COVID, we had that opportunity to do the Zoom meetings, and, I must say, for a period of time it was very, very useful. The former Minister who spoke before on the other side of the House also mentioned around emergency situations, and in emergency situations around cyclones and different weather events, being able to participate through the Zoom meetings is also really, really useful. But the one insight I would like to give everyone in the House is that when you're participating daily and weekly on Zoom meetings, you very quickly lose the relevance of what's happening in the room. It's like anything in life: face-to-face meetings are so important, and face-to-face contact, and also face-to-face with your community, because often in our chamber, at the Marlborough District Council, we have constituents that come, and actually to be able to eyeball them and see the motion of the meeting as you're discussing things, it becomes really, really important. I must say that when you're Zooming, and I guess the new thing these days is Teams, you lose that interaction with the room and what's happening. It is really important, when you're debating, to actually be able to physically see someone and actually see them and actually talk to them. The one important thing about this bill is it's talking about the quorum; it's talking about making the numbers. The one thing that we all should recognise pretty quickly is that most councils have more than one, two, three members—most councils I'm aware of have at least 10, 12 members. The council I'm involved in has 15; that includes the mayor. So one person does not make the difference. But what this bill is saying is, basically, you want to be also counted in the quorum of that meeting, saying that you were there and that your vote counts. What I would say back to that is that, in my experience on council, I always represent—if you can participate, and you can still participate through this bill. You can still go on a Zoom meeting, you can still go on a Teams meeting, you can still talk, and you can still hear what's happening; just your vote will not be counted. The one thing you do learn on local government— Hon Willow-Jean Prime: That kind of what you're an elected member for, though, right? JAMIE ARBUCKLE: No, it's not, because the one thing is getting a point of view across. If you can't trust the rest of your councillors to make the right decision, then you actually aren't making a very good debate in the first place. The other thing is the types of meetings that we're talking of. So in local government, you have full council, where, basically like here in the House, everyone turns up, but you have a lot of subcommittees, and a lot of times in subcommittees there may only be two or three members. In those meetings, you only need a quorum of one under Standing Orders. In most meetings, under Standing Orders, you will need four out of seven or four out of eight to make the quorum, so that shouldn't be too hard to actually achieve. So from this point of view, I can understand maybe from some people that are in the rural community, they may be in, like in my community, they live in the Marlborough Sounds. It does take commitment to actually travel to the council and to participate, but that is something that you put your hand up to be a local member for. So what I say to this House today is New Zealand First does not support this bill, because you already have the ability to participate and you should rely on the rest of your council— DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member's time has expired. LOCAL GOVERNMENT (FACILITATION OF REMOTE PARTICIPATION) AMENDMENT BILL First Reading Debate resumed from 14 February. Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Labour): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. I'm very pleased to be able to speak to this, the Local Government (Facilitation of Remote Participation) Amendment Bill, for my good friend and colleague the MP for Ikaroa-Rāwhiti. I think it's entirely appropriate that she has taken on the sponsorship of this bill, because it is the remote nature of her electorate that stretches from Wainuiōmata in the south all the way to Gisborne and the East Cape up north—all along the East Coast, essentially, of the North Island. And, of course, we do know that it was predominantly—not exclusively, but predominantly—the East Coast of the North Island that was impacted by Cyclone Gabrielle. We know that local government plays a crucial part in the civil defence response in a severe weather event. And we know that, regardless of the classification of that response—be it a local emergency, a regional emergency, or, in this case, only one of three times in our country's history where a national state of emergency is declared—it remains local government and local civil defence at the fore of that response. And included in that response are local district councillors. They play a pivotal role—some of them taking on specified civil defence roles and others obviously playing a critical link between the council and the affected areas. And what we knew at the time was that if it were not for the ability to connect with council through remote participation and be included in the quorum, then many of the affected councillors would not have been able to participate. That, of course, is on the assumption that in those areas where they maintained connectability. Of course, we do know with Cyclone Gabrielle, regrettably, that so many areas got cut off entirely for that initial period. But, nevertheless, what that demonstrates is that the rules that are currently in place around remote participation in local government aren't actually fit for purpose. If councils have amended their standing orders to allow remote participation, many of them require good reason. Many of them require two days' notice. Well, of course, in the context of a severe weather event, how on earth are you going to be able to do that? Could it really be conceded by this House that a council, bound by its standing orders, prevents a local councillor from participating in its meeting, because they happened to be cut off because of a severe weather event but they didn't happen to give two days' notice in order to do so? Well, that to me seems bizarre. Of course, the issue of remote participation first rose around COVID when a law change had to be made on a temporary basis through regulations and order in council to allow remote participation to be considered part of the quorum. That, then, was extended, and this bill would make that change permanent. And I think it is the right thing to do. I think it's logical. In fact, when I was Minister, I tried to get a permanent change included by way of leave of the House, and the National Party opposed that leave. I thought that was a shame, because it was very clear from the local government sector that this is what they wanted. This was something that Local Government New Zealand said that their members wanted. They asked us to do it. We tried to find a creative way that would have just done it quickly, and the Opposition of the time opposed leave, because of the rules of the House, that was the only way in which we were able to do that. It happens from time to time. I remember Ian McKelvie had a member's bill that fell foul of Parliament's rules. It was a good idea and had support, but because the rules said it couldn't happen, it couldn't happen. But by way of leave of the House and the grace of the Minister, the Hon Andrew Little, at the time, we were able to do it, and that's why we have provisions for leave to allow for these sorts of things. So we could have avoided this if they just went through with it then. Nevertheless, here we are, and I know the National Party aren't going to support it, and I think that's a shame. I've seen their position on this. I disagree with that. I don't think that the current settings are adequate, and I think this bill will address that. Hopefully after considering the contributions to this and hopefully after engaging with their local councils, they will have a change of heart, because it's not too late until we get to the end. If they really don't think that it is necessary, why not just put it to the test and put it to select committee. Now, we've never seen any instance, so far, from this Government that they like select committees. But for those that are new and haven't experienced a bill going through select committees, it's actually a fruitful exercise. And perhaps it is one way around this to hear from the local government sector and push this idea forward. I think it's a good one. SIMON COURT (ACT): The ACT Party won't be supporting this bill to continue. While we recognise that there was a period during the pandemic where the former Labour Government locked entire cities like Auckland down, told us to stay home, and put a teddy in the window, that time has passed—that time has passed. I'll tell you what: the member asks whether we were part of a team of 5 million. In Auckland, we felt like we were a million in a prison, of the former Labour Government's making. Now, having go that off my chest—you can tell it's still a bit of a sore point for Aucklanders—I want to make it clear why the ACT Party won't be supporting this bill. While there are occasions, whether it's following a sever weather event, where local government - elected members may not be able to travel to hold meetings, it is possible that by exception, in the future, there may be occasions where there's a need for remote participation. This should not become a matter of course. This Parliament, which facilitated remote participation when the COVID-19 controls were in place so that members like myself, who were relegated to be the second-class citizens of New Zealand, stuck in Auckland, could participate—that is no longer the case. This Parliament has adapted to the return of the normal situation, and so has local government. Therefore, we won't be supporting this bill and we do not believe it should proceed. Thank you. Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Kia ora, Madam Speaker—thank you very much. I'm surprised at that member, Jamie Arbuckle, actually, because, as I understand it, he's double-dipping with the Marlborough District Council. And Marlborough District Council's one of our largest territorial authorities. What's more—and the former member has left, but I understand that it's still struggling with the aftermath of heavy weather events from a couple of years ago. In fact, Kenepuru Road, which, as you can imagine, goes up to Kenepuru Sound and out to the outer sounds is still impassable. So what are we saying to the people who live in the outer sounds? We're saying, well, "You can't participate in democracy because you're stuck out there. So if you wanted to stand for local body election, we're not going to make it easier or possible, even for you to attend meetings remotely. You can't go and cast your vote as a representative that's been democratically elected. You're going to have to get a chopper to come in or jump in the boat and manage to navigate into Blenheim, where the meeting is held." So I'm surprised at that member, whose district does face the challenges of being geographically difficult, spread out, subject to difficult conditions, and still suffering from the effect of a natural disaster. So I challenge him to think carefully. Because it's all very easy for me, as a member of Parliament for Christchurch central, to simply say, "Well, if you want to stand for Christchurch City Council, jump on your bike and get to the meeting.", because that's what you can do in Christchurch central. And our friends from Te Pāti Māori aren't here today, and a lot of those members would absolutely be wanting to say, "What about spread out, rural communities? What about people who have whānau commitments?" What are we saying about our access to democracy for people like that? What about people who suffer from a disability? What about people who have to organise transport, a wheelchair, and whatever other equipment their disability might require? We're saying, "Well, sort it out, get into the council chamber." That's not the kind of representative democracy I think we should have, and particularly at local government level, where it's really important that everyone can access it. So the other side of the House are doing what they always do. They say, "Well, let's have the same rules for everyone, because everyone should be a bit like me." But, no, they haven't thought about this. And I'm surprised that the so-called champions of farmers over in the corner there haven't thought about that as well, because we know that farmers actually have a lot to say in local and regional governance, and yet they also have significant demands on their time. If the storm's coming, they can't simply say, "Hang on, just hold off. I've got to go to a council meeting and jump in the new ute I've just bought and get into town for this meeting." But if this kind of rule was in place, the amount of time that would be taken getting into town would be much less. So I'm surprised that you're not promoting participation in democracy for rural people, including farmers and others. This is just a common-sense bill. It makes no sense to say, "You can participate, you just can't vote." The reason we get elected to democratic positions is to vote. Tom Rutherford: Is to go to the meetings! Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: Well, you might go for morning tea, but a lot of people go because they want to actually be a decision maker to exercise the power that's been conferred upon them responsibly and carefully. I would like to see a much more diverse group of people from all walks of life, all places of New Zealand. So I'm disappointed that the parties on the other side of the House have chosen to once again take a narrow view of democracy—an exclusive view of democracy—and not try to use the very tools we've got at our disposal to have a more inclusive, more effective, and more robust democratic framework. So I'm disappointed in the approach from the Government. INGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri): I'll add to those words from my good friend Dr Duncan Webb—along with "narrow view" and "exclusive view"—"backward view". I mean, this is just bizarre that the Government, which is holding itself out to be wanting to get New Zealand moving, to look after rural communities, is suddenly saying, "Oh, except when it comes to local democracy. No, you're gonna have to get in your car or get in your chopper, if you're far away or whatever it is you need to do." It is absolutely a backward step when we have the technology now to have robust democratic processes that allow more people to participate. I know in my electorate, the electorate of Taieri, we start in South Dunedin, but we go down Clutha, right down to Kaka Point, beautiful rolling farmland there, across to Middlemarch. Middlemarch is so remote that there used to be a ball, an annual ball, there every year to try and get women to come in on a train so they could matchmake them with farmers so they could keep the population of Middlemarch going. Sadly, that ended when the trains ended. I don't know how they're keeping the population going, but that is how remote some parts of my electorate are. To have people from those communities be enabled to participate in regional councils and in those fora would just be a game changer. For women, for people with disabilities, for people who have got children, who are juggling things, this is just a no-brainer. We know that when we have more participation, we get better decisions. The other thing I found very bizarre from one of the speakers opposite was them saying that "It's OK to participate; just don't vote and trust the other people on the regional authority to vote for you." Well, I wish the people in the territorial authorities in my area got on that collegiately, but they are hammer and tongs against each other and I think that's a sign of a good robust democracy. So I'm not sure what's happening in Marlborough. I can tell you that out of the 78 councils—so you've got four out of 10 of the regional councils by land, the biggest ones are based in the South Island, and for territorial authorities nine out of 10 of them. So this is a really good thing for the people of the South Island. Once again, this Government—interested in Auckland, interested in building roads up north, interested in everything that happens in the North Island—is not thinking about the consequences for the people of the South Island. It's just such a shame because the standing orders could be amended to enable them to make sure that participation is done in a really fair way. I don't understand the kind of strange arguments coming from the other side, and in fact, if I look at the bill, if we go to clause 4 inserting new clause 25A(6) in Schedule 7 of the principal Act—it's just a short bill, but subclause 6 says that when a local authority is including things in its standing orders, it can also add any other requirements that it considers are "appropriate to maintain public confidence in the transparency and integrity of decision-making processes and the conduct of members". Now, there's the safeguards, but what is incredible is the bizarre interjections from Simon Court over there talking about democracy, saying it's anti-democratic, when all we've seen in this House over the last 100 days is legislation getting ran through with no due process, under urgency, no select committee hearings. And suddenly on this day, the last day of February, leap year, I have to say, they've suddenly woken up and said, "Oh, we're interested in democracy; we're interested in transparency." Oh, put the handbrake on; let's go back 50 years, because that's what this Government likes to do. They are so backward, and what they are missing out on is a chance to impress their rural communities, the ones that they say they champion, the ones that are wanting them to go into bat for them. But no, no, no, no. They're more interested in looking after the urban centres, maybe Auckland—people that are like them. As my colleague said: let's forget about disabled people, let's forget about women, let's forget about rural communities that have got long tracts of roads to get through—that just makes them rule themselves out of the democratic process and local government—and let's just stick to people like us, to what we know, make assumptions that everybody can get there, because that's how we've always done it; we are a bit fearful of the technology, perhaps, and maybe we go for a cup of tea and if we can't vote, that's all right because we trust our council colleagues anyway. Just a house of cards, in their arguments. This is a great bill and the Government should be supporting it. TIM COSTLEY (National—Ōtaki): I found it. I've found the answer. Here it is: the Local Government (Facilitation of Remote Participation) Amendment Bill. This is the answer. The problem is: what the hell is the question? What's the problem that this is trying to fix? We hear the pleas from the other side saying, "Oh, if only—if only there was a way that the poor people that can't get there, that have to hire Ingrid Leary's friend's helicopter to fly to their meeting, if only they could participate." They can. I point you to Local Government Electoral Legislation Act 2023. It's already given them the ability to do this. All they have to do is change their Standing Orders. There's Duncan Webb, on the other side, saying, "Well, look, we shouldn't have one rule for all; we should let people choose." They can choose. That's the law that they passed last year. It lets them choose. It's already their decision. If the community want it, so they don't have to take their friend's helicopter, to ride their bike, or whatever that analogy was meant to be—and I tell you what: if Ingrid Leary's worried about bizarre comments, she should take hers, wrap them in cellophane, and put them on a plinth; I haven't heard anything so bizarre in a long time. But there's already a mechanism to do this. All we have to do is the council change their Standing Orders, and they can do it tomorrow if they want. We have absolutely no problem, on this side of the House, with that; in fact, we believe in it. We believe in local solutions to local problems. We absolutely believe that they should have the freedom of choice, but we don't believe in this age-old, from-the-left "Wellington knows best. We'll tell you how to do it. We've got all the answers. What we decide in Wellington is the way to do it." We heard it from them not just with this; we heard it from three waters, "Give us all your ratepayer assets, we'll take control of them, and we'll decide what you're going to do with them." We heard it with Te Pūkenga: "We'll centralise everything. Wellington knows best. We've got the answers." We saw it with health. Nothing gets better. Actually, the mechanism is already in place. The bitter irony is it went through last year—it went through when they were in Government. I don't blame the new member whose name this bill goes through in. She's been shafted with this and told she has to just push it through, I'm sure. But, actually, the answer is already in place. This is just an excuse to waste more of the House's time. There is nothing good—there is nothing new, even—that will come out of this. So if we want to have not one rule for all, but, at the same time, they want "Wellington knows best", if we want to let local people choose, then let's let them choose. Absolutely, at a time of civil emergency it might make sense to do that. But I don't think its unreasonable that a local community, a local council would actually take the time to consider what is best for them and their situation and to amend their Standing Orders accordingly. There will be bespoke solutions for different communities; for different subcommittees, as we heard from New Zealand First; for council meetings; for different settings; for emergency management group meetings; for the different things. Of course there should be some different solutions for each one of those and for each council around the country—city council, I don't think it's unreasonable that we expect our local mayor to actually turn up in the building once or twice; maybe the place would be in a better state if we did. But maybe we should let them decide. There are Standing Orders that they have full control to change to decide how they want to run this. So I don't support this bill, because I just don't fundamentally believe in the concept of (a) Wellington knows best and we're just going to tell you how to live your life. Geez, we had it during the last one; you were getting told how long you're allowed to stay in the shower. I don't like the thought of Grant Robertson inspecting me in the shower, quite frankly! But this is the attitude they've just purveyed from that side of the House. But I also don't support this, because it's just so unnecessary, because it is, like I said at the start, it is an answer, it's something that's been dreamt up and then given to someone, "You're now in charge of this.", looking for a problem, trying to create a problem, trying to find a question that it can answer. Perhaps the shortness of it speaks to the fact that it's not really needed. It duplicates stuff that's already there. All we have to do is empower our local communities. I love supporting our local councils: Horowhenua Council, Kāpiti Coast Council, we've got great people in our community; I trust them to make the decisions that are best for them, the decisions that are best for their council. They are welcome to change their Standing Orders if they want to change; they don't need us in Wellington to tell them how to do it. That's why we're not supporting this bill; we're supporting our local communities instead. REUBEN DAVIDSON (Labour—Christchurch East): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise to speak in support of the Local Government (Facilitation of Remote Participation) Amendment Bill. I'd like to acknowledge my colleague Cushla Tangaere-Manuel, whose name this bill is in. It's a great bill. Before I came to this House, I was an elected member on a Community Board, and a Community Board in what is now the second-best electorate in New Zealand, Te Pātaka o Rākaihautū / Banks Peninsula. I can say that, as I'm now the proud MP for, and proudly a resident in, Christchurch East. So I'd like to speak for a little in acknowledging my fellow board members in Te Pātaka o Rākaihautū / Banks Peninsula and also the amazing team of staff who supported those board members, myself, and the communities that we were privileged to serve on that Community Board. We were quite a range of people and quite a range of opinions on that Community Board. The one thing that everybody had in common that were members of that board is that they were incredibly busy people. They were very active in their communities. They were running businesses from homes, they were juggling commitments with full time jobs. Some were parents with young kids, and some had mobility or accessibility issues and that made it difficult for them to attend every meeting. This bill serves those people and those people serve our communities, and they are amazing communities to be able to serve, and we should empower those people to be able to do it properly. So I actually think this bill is about digital democracy, because it removes barriers to participation and it will make it easier for people to be involved in the decisions that are directly affecting them. Madam Speaker, one huge advantage for you would be that you'd simply be able to mute the likes of our members who like to interject— DEPUTY SPEAKER: That's fine, but for new members, you're not supposed to bring the Speaker into the debate, so yeah. REUBEN DAVIDSON: Thank you, and I'll note that. I also bring with me a piece of evidence, which is a destination management plan that was generated by that Community Board that I was on, in consultation with the community. It's so thick that it requires a bulldog clip to hold the pages together, because a stapler won't do it. The reason that it is so thick—the reason that it is so thick—is that there was so much community participation in shaping and guiding the Community Board to create this plan for the environment, for the community, and for visitors to that part of New Zealand. Hon Member: Have you got a bigger version? REUBEN DAVIDSON: I'll blow it up and deliver one to your office. I'd like to give another example. Environment Canterbury is our largest regional council. It's over 44,000 kilometres squared. That's bigger than Denmark. It's four times the size of Jamaica. It's 20,000 times the size of Monaco, which gives you an idea of just how small Monaco is, rather than anything else particularly relevant, but you get my point. It's very, very big. Your repeal of Three Waters won't help with that. But it also has a city in it and it has a large number of rural communities. Rural communities have a lot of farmers who live in them and who want to be involved in the decisions of those regional councils for their future. Hon Rachel Brooking: They don't want to drive into town. REUBEN DAVIDSON: They do not want to drive into town, as that member states so clearly. They really can't drive into town, because they're so busy doing the important work that they do and this very bill empowers them and gives them the ability to be involved in participatory democracy at regional council level, and taking that out will prevent that from happening. So I think that there's a real risk here in not doing this and that is that representation becomes a luxury for those who can afford it. People won't seek office. People won't be able to represent their communities, because they can't take the time off work, off family, off study, off their other life commitments to stand up and represent their communities. I don't think we can walk around proudly in this House if we prevent that from happening. So I think the aim of local democracy is to remove barriers to participation. This bill does that. I think the aim of local democracy is to make it easier for people to be part of the very decisions that directly affect them. This bill does that. I think the aim of good local democracy makes participation one of the many things you can do in a day; not the only thing. This bill does that. TOM RUTHERFORD (National—Bay of Plenty): Thank you, Madam Speaker. As we were sitting here just prior to a couple of speeches, I said to my colleague the Hon Chris Penk sitting next to me, "If there's one thing that excites me in this House, it's talking about standing orders." The change that the Local Government (Facilitation of Remote Participation) Amendment Bill does is exactly what local councils already have the power to do through their standing orders. Going back on to my local government experience prior to being a member of Parliament here, I thought, "Why don't I dive into a couple of standing orders for some of my local councils from the Bay of Plenty?" I actually brought receipts to prove it [holds up document], so let's have a look. This is the standing orders for 2022-2025 for the Bay of Plenty Regional Council. I just had a quick skim through—I know it off by heart, but I wanted to bring it in anyway. Standing order 13.11, "Conditions for attending by audio or audio-visual link". "[The] Chairperson may give approval for a member to attend meetings by electronic link, either generally or for a specific meeting. Examples of situations where approval can be given include: (a) where the member is at a place that makes their physical presence at the meeting impracticable or impossible, (b) where a member is unwell, and (c) where a member is unable to attend due to an emergency." So the Bay of Plenty Regional Council has this provision already in their standing orders. So I thought, "OK, I've got one local council from the Bay of Plenty that's got it in their standing orders. It can't possibly be the case that another one has it." So I dived into the Western Bay of Plenty District Council standing orders for the 2022-2025 triennium and I thought, "Oh, now this will take a bit of reading. I used to work at this council, so, goodness me, this will be interesting." Standing order 13.7, "Right to attend by audio or audiovisual link". "Provided the conditions in Standing Orders 13.11 and 13.12 are met, members of the local authority and its committees (and members of the public for the purpose of [attending as well]), have the right to attend meetings by means of an electronic link, unless they have been lawfully excluded." Then it goes on. I could go on for the other 2½ minutes about reading these provisions, but what I actually thought would be the case is this simply shows a Wellington-knows-best approach to how local government and how local communities should be operating. So we've got two standing orders from two local Bay of Plenty councils saying they've got this provision already. Simply said—and as my colleague Tim Costley said previously—this bill is a solution in search of a problem. Councils already have the ability to meet remotely. Local councils have already been empowered to set their own rules about remote attendance. Similar changes to remote participation at local authority meetings were made in August last year. The Local Government Electoral Legislation Act 2023 made permanent the ability for elected members to meet remotely if the council's standing orders allow this. You'd go, "Oh, how often do councils review their standing orders?" Hey, it's one of the first things they do after they're elected in the triennium. So National, and this side of the House, believes in localism and supporting local communities to make decisions about what works best for them. Legislation like this is just another example of Labour's Wellington-knows-best approach to local government, which imposes rules on councils instead of allowing them to do what works best for them. This Government—this Government—supports local decision making rather than a prescriptive top-down approach like this bill is proposing. One of the best examples of this is our move to restore local control and ownership of water assets by repealing Labour's divisive and unpopular three waters plan. This bill demonstrates how out of touch the other side of the House are, and the National Party does not support it. DEPUTY SPEAKER: I have been advised that the member who has the right of reply is not taking the reply call. A party vote was called for on the question, That the Local Government (Facilitation of Remote Participation) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. Ayes 54 New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 6. Noes 68 New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Motion not agreed to. PAROLE (MANDATORY COMPLETION OF REHABILITATIVE PROGRAMMES) AMENDMENT BILL First Reading TODD STEPHENSON (ACT): I move, That the Parole (Mandatory Completion of Rehabilitative Programmes) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Justice Committee to consider this bill. Before I talk about the bill, I do just want to take a moment to acknowledge that today was the funeral of our parliamentary colleague Efeso Collins. I didn't know Efeso well, but, obviously, we came into the House together. I remember meeting him in our orientation days in those first exciting few days of being here in Wellington and then enjoying a number of short interactions with him. I do think he would have made an amazing contribution to this House. I just wanted to say that my thoughts, and those of ACT, are with his family, friends, and especially his wife and daughter today. I also want to just say in relation to this bill that I want to thank Toni Severin, the former ACT MP. This was her bill that I've picked up. It has been longstanding ACT policy that we'd actually like to do something in the prisoner rehabilitation space. Now, I know that might seem counterintuitive to some people or their perception of ACT, but we do believe in actually giving people a fair go and trying to help them back into the community. I am looking for all parties to support this bill to the first reading. It may not be the perfect solution, but I hope that we can have a constructive debate about it and have the select committee look at it. What we are intending to do is provide hope for those incarcerated to rehabilitate themselves and actually reintegrate back into society. We know that is difficult. If you were listening to my maiden speech, some of you may know that I did spend a very short time at the bar practising in Dunedin with Judith Ablett Kerr KC. Hon Rachel Brooking: Great city! TODD STEPHENSON: Go Dunedin! And, yes, I was obviously educated at that wonderful university, which I understand is getting a new vice chancellor soon. In that short time, I did get some insights into our criminal justice system and the types of people going through that system. What this bill really wants to do is actually give prisoners a better chance of reintegrating back into society and building a better life for themselves and their families at the end of the sentence. As of 2023, around 56.5 percent of people with serious convictions are reconvicted within two years following release, and again another 35.8 percent are reimprisoned after two years following prison. Our recidivism rates in New Zealand are extremely high. I accept that this bill isn't the solution to everything, but I think it is an important step and I think we could actually make a real difference by focusing on this. Currently, people in prison do have some time on their hands, and we believe that we'd like to incentivise people to make better use of that time by completing courses which would give them skills and other rehabilitation programmes which would actually help their prospects after leaving prison. Today, for a large number of people—not everyone, but for a large number of people— leaving prison, we, basically, give them a small amount of money and put them out the door and say "On your way. All the best." We don't necessarily think that's the right approach, and we'd like to try and do something to actually support them more. Needing for training for people in prison is indisputable. Our own corrections department estimates that around 60 percent of prisoners have literacy and numeracy skills below that of NCEA Level 1—so that's like school certificate for 15-year-olds. One in four prisoners are two steps below the adult learning progressions, so they really can't understand basic vocabulary, everyday topics, and familiarise themselves with information. That is just setting up people for failure when they do have time and we could actually be helping them get upskilled. If you don't have basic skills leaving prison, like reading, writing, arithmetic, the ability to open a bank account, and the ability to apply for a driver's licence—and, obviously, over recent years we've identified even having an ID when you can leave prison can be very difficult—it just makes it much, much harder to look for a job and do something productive. Often then, your only option is to go back to a life of crime—hence the circle continues. Despite the clear benefits I've outlined, this time last year less than 20 percent of sentenced prisoners in Corrections-run facilities were attending rehabilitation programmes. I accept that some prions, like Mt Eden, have no prisoners enrolled in those programmes or, possibly, a lack of services. The data gets worse when we consider the approximately 3,500 prisoners on remand, and my bill does cover prisoners on remand and those who have been sentenced, and I'll touch on that again in a minute. These prisoners on remand do not have the same access to programmes as sentenced prisoners, and that means that closer to 10 percent of the onsite prison population are actually enrolled in any rehabilitation programme. Of course, being enrolled in a programme is one thing, but then you actually have to complete it. What we've done with this bill is tried to incentivise prisoners to complete the programme, with this being a condition of parole. Programmes designed to turn around serious offenders—one such programme is the special treatment unit for violent offenders—reported a 54 percent completion rate for the year 2022/23. Having a bit of compulsion will try to get that rate up. I understand a programme like that is actually extremely effective but only if you complete it. Another analysis also suggests—and this is from 2016—that Māori participants in these programmes do just as well, and in a lot of cases even better, than the non-Māori participants. These programmes can be sensitive to cultural needs and make sure that the prisoners are getting something that's relevant to them. Releasing prisoners into the community without these courses—where they do have the opportunity to identify what's been causing some of their issues or get skills to help them post-release. Obviously, a lot of the programmes look at behaviour change and also even having them confront some of the victims of their crimes. We're really wanting to try to break the cycle of reoffending and, as I said, doing it by actually providing an incentive for prisoners to take these practical steps. I will just talk a little bit about the bill and what it actually does. The bill amends the Parole Act 2002—that's the principal Act—and it adds the definition of "rehabilitative programme", which has the same meaning as the Corrections Act 2004. Again, that definition "means a programme designed to reduce reoffending by facilitating rehabilitation of prisoners sentenced to imprisonment and their reintegration into society; and includes any medical, psychological, social, therapeutic, cultural, educational, employment-related, rehabilitative, or reintegrative programme." You can see there's quite a breadth of programmes that prisoners would be eligible to do. We already are required to have management plans for prisoners under section 51 of the Corrections Act, so if a prisoner is sentenced for more than two months on remand or in custody or for a prison sentence of more than two months, then they do have to have one of these plans, and in that plan it actually identifies their specific needs, and then the programmes can be tailored to it. So we do have a mechanism for doing this, and so I think we can move it forward. The bill would then have these programmes being completed as a part of a condition before parole could actually be considered, and the Parole Board can move their parole date forward. I accept there are likely to be some capacity and operational issues in what I'm putting forward, but I believe that select committee is well placed to look at these issues and how they can be addressed and hopefully even make some improvements to what I'm putting forward. ACT is doing this because we actually want to give those in our prison system the best possible chance to become productive members of society. We're not just about the stick; we want to do something practical. That's why we're putting this bill forward, and I do commend it to the House. I hope we can have a useful debate and get some support. Thank you. CAMERON BREWER (National—Upper Harbour): Madam Speaker, thank you. I too wanted to join my parliamentary colleagues. I haven't had a chance to acknowledge the passing of Efeso Collins, our parliamentary colleague, and him being laid to rest with great honour and dignity in Manukau today. I'm very proud that the National Party sent a significant delegation led by the Prime Minister with our Pacific Island affairs Minister, Dr Shane Reti, Tama Potaka, Greg Fleming, Nancy Lu, Dr Carlos Cheung, and of course the Speaker and the many, many other friends and colleagues across the other side of the House that attended today. Efeso was someone who had that unique ability, both as a person and as a politician, to walk so well in so many worlds, and that is not easily achieved, and he did it with such good grace and with that big, wide smile. So we're all thinking and praying for his family and friends today. I just remember how well he articulated for his community in South Auckland in Ōtara-Papatoetoe when he used to front up to the Auckland Council as the local board chair as a younger version of Efeso, and we used to think, "Wow, this guy's got such a future. Who is he?"—both articulate and eloquent and passionate for the change that was required in his community. So I just wanted to remember Efeso and the great contribution he made and the big loss that he leaves the Auckland community and, in fact, New Zealand. I stand in support of the Parole (Mandatory Completion of Rehabilitative Programmes) Amendment Bill, first reading. I want to acknowledge its sponsor, Todd Stephenson. This of course, from memory, has been an ACT Party position for some time, and, of course, Todd goes back to the days—despite his youthful appearance—of the Association of Consumers and Taxpayers just about, when I was getting around with a certain leader and he was getting around with a certain party president. Hon Scott Simpson: Surely he's not that old. CAMERON BREWER: So he finally gets the chance, Scott Simpson, 20 or 25 years later to put this piece of legislation to the House, and he's done such a great explanatory effort in taking us through the many parts and complexities of this bill. Just to reiterate its purpose, Madam Chair, the policy objective of this bill was to provide a requirement for individuals in a corrections facility to complete skills and rehabilitation programmes prior to being considered for parole. As has been indicated before, it would create a real incentive for people in a corrections facility to participate in practical, educational, and rehabilitation programmes to be better equipped with the skills to lead a much more productive and positive life upon release. Madam Chair, this certainly sits—Madam Speaker at least—alongside and comfortably with the coalition Government's justice and restoring law and order policies, which are, of course, such a big key part of our 100-day plan. Justice and law and order make up a number of those 49 points that are in our law and order policies and 100-day plan. And if I can just take you through, because there is an association here, and it gives the public—the viewing public and listening public today—some context of how this could sit quite nicely with the suite of work that we're already doing in the world in and around justice. If you look at what was launched at the weekend by Minister Mitchell. "Masher Mitchell" as they call him now—not "Crusher Collins", but "Masher Mitchell"—and Goldie, colloquially known as the Hon Paul Goldsmith, was to introduce legislation to ban gang patches. And hasn't that gone down so well to stop gang members gathering in public and to stop known gang offenders from communicating with each other? There has been some issue today raised that perhaps it wasn't successful in Western Australia, but the Minister Coster—Police Commissioner Coster, at least—told the Justice Committee that the Western Australia example was working a treat and they are going to do their best to emulate it. Hon Ginny Andersen: He did not. CAMERON BREWER: He certainly did say that. We've got the Hansard, Ginny Andersen; I'll tell them about the success that the Western Australia model has had. I will send you the Hansard. Giving police greater powers, of course, is also part of that to search gang members for firearms. Our stop taxpayer funding is also part of the suite of policies that this coalition, the Government, is putting together on section 27 of the cultural reports. Introduce legislation to crack down— DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member started off well in referencing back to the bill. Can you just— CAMERON BREWER: Well, I'm trying to give this some context, Madam Chair. It's very difficult, because I can't just give this a passing sway, because there's so much to get through. To give it context as to the— DEPUTY SPEAKER: That's fine, but just link it back to the bill every now and again. CAMERON BREWER: Well, yes, and the bill—Madam Speaker, the bill was part of this, but it's just— Hon Grant Robertson: The old trick. Just start reading it out, Cameron. CAMERON BREWER: Mr Robertson, it's just such a big programme, the law and order programme, to get through that it's hard to stay on the bill when we're trying to give it context with so much there. Prison rehabilitation— Hon Scott Simpson: Back on track. CAMERON BREWER: Prison rehabilitation, Mr Whip, programmes play a critical role, of course, as Mr Stephenson has already said, in reducing reoffending rates. And rather than branding prisons as the "University of Crime" and focusing on reducing the prison population, regardless of how much crime is happening, this Government, this coalition Government, is confronting the real reasons behind crime and looking at rehabilitation as a key part of our success of overcoming repeated crime. Continuing the programmes, at least, are essential rehabilitation programmes as this bill looks at. For those that are going to be eligible for parole are essential for reducing the reoffending, as has been said by the sponsoring member Todd Stephenson, and key to breaking out of vicious cycles of criminal behaviour. And that's certainly what this Government will deliver. We are not interested in reducing the prison population by 30 percent; that's another action point that's been delivered. We're getting rid of that ridiculous goal. And, as the Minister of Justice presented today, his focus in the next few weeks and months is addressing the increasing violent crime, in particular, in youth crime, getting on top of that, and of course the widespread delays in the court system. So this bill of providing a requirement for individuals in a corrections facility to complete skills and rehabilitation programmes before being considered for parole is part of that suite. And the Opposition might not like to hear such a comprehensive—such a strategic—justice, law and order suite of ideas that are collectively going to add up to something— Mark Cameron: We've come full circle. Let's talk about the bill. CAMERON BREWER: —not just the press statements and the big announcements from the Beehive theatrette, Mark Cameron, that we heard for six years. But stuff like this is going to make a difference, Mr Stephenson. And looking at the main provisions of the bill, the clanger, I suppose, is clause 5, which inserts a new section to require that an offender who has not completed a programme, indicated in their management plan under section 51 of the Corrections Act 2004, must not be considered for parole. It's as black and white as that, and that's the ACT Party for you—black and white. Instead, the parole board must set a new date by which the offender must be considered by parole, which must not be more than 12 months after the date that they were due to be considered for parole, in order to provide time for the offender to compete the relevant programme. Hon Grant Robertson: Keep going. Skip the big words. Just do one more clause and then he will have filled it up. CAMERON BREWER: And so Mr Robertson wants me to keep going for 40 seconds, and I never thought in my wildest dreams that he'd ask me to speak for another 40 seconds. I've got 34 seconds now, Madam Chair, and we could go on. We could go on about fiscal cliffs and all sorts of unrelated things. We could go on about the crisis in the health sector and the crisis in the education sector that he left us and the economic fiscal cliffs and everything else, but we won't; we'll get back to the bill. I want to finish as I began. I pay tribute to member Stephenson for bringing this to the House. And it's a suite of policies that we're so proud of. Dr TRACEY McLELLAN (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker, for the chance to say a few words about this Parole (Mandatory Completion of Rehabilitative Programmes) Amendment Bill. I'm not going to take quite so long as the member who's has just resumed his seat, Cameron Brewer, unfortunately—unfortunately—and I know that pains you; I know. Hon Andrew Bayly: Come on! Dr TRACEY McLELLAN: I know, Mr Bayly, I know, Mr Bayly, I know it's a disappointment to you. But I do want to start my contribution by acknowledging the member Todd Stephenson, and I don't think that the member would mind me also saying that I would like to acknowledge Toni Severin, the member whose name this bill used to be under, because I know that despite the fact that you were the lucky one that had it drawn from the tin, this was something that she was incredibly passionate about and had done a lot of work on. So I acknowledge Toni for her work. The bill, as has been said, makes it mandatory for prisoners to complete rehabilitation programmes before they can be considered for parole. This change would better support their endeavours to then gain employment post-prison, which is obviously a good thing. So let me put the member Todd Stephenson out of his misery—which is not to suggest that he's miserable; he's quite a jovial person, I've always found—and say that Labour will be supporting this bill to the select committee. [Applause] Aw gosh! But why are we going to support this bill? In all seriousness, we're going to support this bill because it actually is congruent with Labour's work to support people into work and to support people into work through gaining those skills that they need and gaining that development and supporting people through a rehabilitation process, because that's a really major factor in reducing reoffending. And so we agree with you on that. The proof of the bill will be in the pudding, as well, and I do have to raise a couple of caveats. Corrections funds rehabilitation and prison-educated programmes, as the member will know. And with 6.5 percent cuts looming over the service, I don't think it's unreasonable for us to say that we certainly have some concerns as to how these pathways will continue to be funded sufficiently to support prisoners to be considered for parole, because it's incredibly important that that process isn't unduly interrupted. In the briefing to the incoming Minister in 2023, Corrections stated that they have faced some pressures retaining and recruiting staff, and I don't think that's a situation that we're unaware of. These pressures have impacts on the provision of those services in prisons, including access to rehabilitation and education programmes and training. Corrections has also noted that the capacity of prisons depends on both physical capacity and also staffing capacity to ensure those appropriate ratios are in place. So with prisoners having to complete rehabilitative programmes prior to parole, and challenges to those sorts of staffing resources, we do have to pose the question: will appropriate ratios be in place to increase the delivery of rehabilitation programmes? So that is something that we will—as I said, we're happy to support this through to select committee; that is the appropriate place to pose those questions, to gather information about that, and to pose those potential risks and follow through. So given these challenges to resources, I think it's fair to say we have some concerns that parole could be denied due to Corrections resources rather than just the merits of the parole application. But we are keen to learn more, and for that reason we commend this bill to the House. Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): [Ginny Andersen prepares to take the call] Oh, I think it's me, Ginny Andersen. [Bell rings] But kia ora, Madam Speaker. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Ooh, sorry—I pushed the wrong thing, I meant to push the mike mute. Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: Ha, ha! That five minutes flew by! Look, Tracey McLellan's let the cat out of the bag— Hon Kieran McAnulty: Oh, did you want to do that? Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: No, but we do want to see this go to select committee. But I'm aware that, you know, always—and I think I can say this on this sad day—some of our colleagues aren't here and they would want to express some reservations. Tracey McLellan has already spoken about the resourcing constraints in prisons. The Corrections annual review was had recently and we asked questions around resourcing. In particular, I asked questions around statutory prison visits—prison visits which are required by law to be provided once a week. I have since asked further questions, and resources are so constrained in Corrections that 12 out of the 18 prisons are not giving the legal entitlement of a visit a week. So that's the kind of constraints we're under. There's also, in the Corrections Act, a requirement to provide a management plan, which is mentioned in the member's bill. Of course, those management plans do have programmes, which might be drug and alcohol programmes, or there might be simple things like obtaining a driver's license, or literacy, or whatever it might be. Now, that's all well and good, and I absolutely endorse the sentiment of the member in saying that we want prisoners to embark upon those programmes. My real concern is that the programmes will be set out in a management plan and the prisoner will not complete them—not because they don't want to but because the resources to provide them, or to supervise them, are not available. Now, if there are failings in our corrections system—and it's clear there are some failings at the present time—those failings should not result in someone being denied parole. If an offender is told that they should do a violence and anger-management plan as a part of their rehabilitative process and they say, "No. I can't be bothered. I don't want to.", or, "I didn't do the offence, and I'm not going to embark on any rehabilitation.", then I can see the, you know, sensible approach of this bill. It's a corrections facility after all—we want people to correct their ways, and rehabilitation programmes are an appropriate and legitimate part of that. A refusal of someone to embark on that should absolutely be relevant at the very least—and it is, in a parole hearing. This bill elevates that to say that it's mandatory. I'm prepared to have that discussion at select committee. But what I would not want to see is someone who is ready to be put back into the community but hasn't done a rehabilitative programme—not because they don't want to but because the resources aren't there. So, at the very least, when this comes to select committee, we've got to (a) be confident that this isn't just flag waving, that it really can make a concrete change operationally. It's always a challenge for the programme of this Government to make sure that all of the things, that all the ways they want to change the world, can be changed with the resources we have at our disposal. Secondly, that for those prisoners—and there are some; I've spoken to them—who want to have a rehabilitative programme but Corrections don't have the resources to provide it, that they're not punished, not continued to be incarcerated simply because Corrections can't provide them the service that they need, that they deserve, and that they're entitled to. So with those caveats—there's going to be, you know, significant discussion at select committee. But with those caveats, we are going to vote for this bill in the Labour Party and I look forward to those discussions at select committee. JAMIE ARBUCKLE (NZ First): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak on this member's bill, the Parole (Mandatory Completion of Rehabilitative Programmes) Amendment Bill. First, I'd just like to say towards Todd Stephenson for getting this bill picked out of the cookie jar, how we all wish for that happen to all of us. It is a good bill to be pulled out, and we fully agree—New Zealand First does—that this should be put to the Justice Committee. We believe that that is the right direction for this. We are aware that prisoners on release, they face barriers—many barriers—back into society. Why wouldn't we want to try to upskill, and why wouldn't we try to promote programmes? One would have to ask yourself, why, in the situation, if you have the opportunity to upskill and to do rehab, why wouldn't someone take that offer on? From New Zealand First's point of view, we're a party of common sense. It makes common sense that if you're in that situation, that you would take the opportunity to try to improve your life. I always look at it from a simple point of view. I always look at it from the victim's point of view. Because, if a victim has been a victim of crime, and someone's being put away, and they're being locked up, if they could actually look and see that someone's making an effort to try to change their life, that actually makes you feel better. That actually makes you feel like someone is trying to put in the effort. The one thing—it's been new for myself sitting on the Justice Committee. James Meager:Great committee. JAMIE ARBUCKLE: It is a great committee, we've got a great Chair— Hon Member: Ha, ha! Don't go that far. Very good, very good. JAMIE ARBUCKLE: Got a very good committee. But the Department of Corrections came and spoke to us recently, and, in their report—and it was quite surprising going through their report that was through the facilities that are around New Zealand. What really surprised me as a new member was seeing the opportunities, and the opportunities for upskilling and education. I remember asking the Department of Corrections some questions about the uptake, and the uptake of prisoners doing those courses. That uptake, for most, is pretty high. I did ask: how could we do more? How could we incentivise that more so we get more progress? Some programmes—I was told—work better than others. One of my portfolios for New Zealand First is Horticulture. It was quite interesting hearing that is a programme that has great uptake. Carpentry: something that this country has a deficit of, at the moment, in our building industry. So why don't we teach? It makes common sense to me that people that are facing the opportunity to take on those courses and to come out and actually then be able to go back into society, actually find a job; I think this is something about this side of the House, and this Government — we want to see people back into work. If we can encourage people back into work and give them the skills, that is going to be something that is great for New Zealand, something that is great for the person that is involved because they feel like they have achieved something. It is also, as we know, building people's education around literacy and numeracy. If we can upskill those basic skills, where someone is in this situation and they can come out and be more upskilled. The one thing that I did take from the bill, and I did want to speak to it, and I didn't want to take the fame for it, but it was section 24 A. In this, it actually has, at point 3, that if people actually do these courses and actually upskill themselves, there's actually incentive—parole is actually brought forward. That is amazing, and that's the type of stuff that we need to encourage. New Zealand First will support this to the first reading and beyond. Justice Committee: we look forward to hearing it. Thank you. Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. Thank you for the opportunity to speak on this bill, the Parole (Mandatory Completion of Rehabilitative Programmes) Amendment Bill. This is a really nice bill for ACT. I'm quite impressed. So good on you. [Interruption] Good on you. I'm being nice; this is a great bill. We like it. It's a good bill. It is good to take a look at what is happening in our prisons and to make sure that we're doing everything we can to stop people reoffending, and the Labour Party fully supports that approach, as already outlined by previous members. It's really important to know that we can do this, so the issue that we have is the proposed 6.5 percent cut to all Government departments, which includes the Department of Corrections. That is a real concern in terms of how this bill will deliver upon what it sets out to be able to do. We're proud that when we were in Government we made mental health treatment, family violence counselling services, and alcohol and drug treatment all much more readily available right across prisons in New Zealand. And that's part of an approach that we're proud of having implemented over the time that we were in Government. We're really happy to have a conversation about how that can be extended in order to stop people from reoffending and to break that cycle of crime. In particular, I'd be really interested when the bill comes to the Justice Committee to have a conversation about Hōkai Rangi, which was the Corrections strategy specifically for working with iwi and Māori. Given the fact that Māori are disproportionately represented within our criminal justice system and in the prison population, making up close to half of it in some areas, we think that also bill is an opportunity to talk about how those specific rehabilitative programmes can specifically assist te Iwi Māori to reduce the recidivism rate and to enable te Iwi Māori to receive those rehabilitation programmes that actually meet their needs under Te Tiriti o Waitangi. So I commend ACT on being so progressive in identifying some of the great opportunities to work together collectively to reduce the number of offenders and to make sure that by doing that we also reduce the number of victimisations that New Zealand sees. It's really important that we think about how we reintegrate prisoners, and a big part of that is the programmes and the opportunities that are available when people are within the prison system. So this bill clearly fits within Labour's work to support people into work through gaining skills and development, and to address some of those underlying drivers of crime, which cause people to reoffend in our criminal justice system, and big ones in that space would be alcohol, drugs, and family violence. To have those areas addressed alongside mental health are factors we think would contribute to stopping people reoffending. We know that a lack of work experience and education can make getting a job after prison a real struggle, and in 2016 Corrections estimated that around 65 percent of the prison population had literacy levels that were below NCEA level 1. So that's an area we're happy to collaborate on to make sure we get some improvements. Corrections also found that 48 percent of Pākehā are below NCEA level 1 competency and 62 of Māori and Pasifika are below that level. So making sure that people have the skills that enable them to receive meaningful employment and to reintegrate once they leave prison is a great thing to be working on. In the briefing to the incoming Minister, Corrections stated that they're facing real pressures in recruiting and retaining staff. We know that this is a big issue for Corrections, so we are really keen to understand, if this bill does proceed to a third and final reading, how it's going to actually be implemented. And a warning that I think has already been made is that we would not want to see a failure of resourcing stopping someone from receiving their treatment if they accept it, and we would not want anyone to be prevented from having a fair right of being reviewed by the Parole Board. So we would not want to see this being prohibitive if the resources were not in place to enable that person to receive treatment if they wanted to receive it. Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin): Apologies, Mr Speaker, for calling you "Mr Chair". We've spent so much time in committee stage in urgency that I'm out of practice. ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): At this late stage on a Thursday afternoon, we're very forgiving. Hon RACHEL BROOKING: Thank you. Mr Speaker. Look, first of all, I want to congratulate Todd Stephenson on bringing this here today, and I acknowledge, of course, that he was a lawyer in the great city of Dunedin and went to the fabulous University of Otago Law School about the same time as the current speaker. So good times were had. On the topic of Dunedin and rehabilitation, I have grown up in a family where my parents, and my father in particular, have been very committed to the idea of the importance of rehabilitation and working with people so that they can have another and better go at life, and that often there's a whole lot of reasons and complexities for why somebody ends up incarcerated. My father, when I was growing up, was a regular visitor to the prisons and was also involved over 30 years ago in establishing Moana House, which is mainly known for being a residential programme to rehabilitate men, mainly Māori and Pasifika men, who mainly have drug issues and have been in the justice system. It works well. Of course, it doesn't always work perfectly but it's a very impressive programme. They have other programmes as well. In no way am I across the detail of all of the work that they do, except to say that I've seen and talked to many of the people who have been part of that programme, and it's incredibly powerful and impressive and the results that they get are good for the whole community, not only those men and their families but everybody who then comes in to interact with somebody who's been through it and who can then go and contribute to society, contribute to their own family and have a much better sense of themselves. During the election campaign, I was standing for the seat of Dunedin. I went to visit some of the people in this programme, as did members from across this House—both sides of the House—and had some of the most interesting conversations I had during the campaign. So I just cannot say enough how much I support the importance of rehabilitation and education for people who have been incarcerated. In saying that, I'll now go to the bill and note that it's a very short bill. A member—Tim Costley—complained before about the bills being short, but sometimes short bills are very elegant. And Todd Stephenson has talked already about the mechanism that will be used with the management plans and how that works with the rehabilitative programmes. "Rehabilitative programmes" is defined in the Corrections Act 2004, so we don't see it on the bill in front of us, but that means a programme designed to reduce reoffending by facilitating the rehabilitation of prisoners sentenced to imprisonment and their reintegration into society. That seems important. It includes any "medical, psychological, social, therapeutic, cultural, educational, employment-related rehabilitative or reintegrative"—that's not a word I've come across before, I don't think—"programme." That is a wide definition, so there are many different programmes that will be able to be used when the management plan is being considered. Of course, I agree with my colleagues as well. I think there was a very important caveat from Dr Duncan Webb about the importance that these programmes are well funded, and my colleague Ginny Andersen also expressed concern around that 6.5 percent cut that is happening to Corrections. And we would not want the lack of funding for rehabilitation to get in the way of somebody being paroled. I also want to commend my colleague Ginny Andersen's speech just before, when she went into some description of the work that has been done in this area recently and the research that shows the importance of these programmes as well. So I think that the select committee will have a good discussion around the bill. PAULO GARCIA (National—New Lynn): It's very fitting that I'm able to stand and contribute to this bill, because just this afternoon we were in the Petitions Committee and we heard two petitioners who wanted to make an impact in this space. One was asking that remand prisoners' time in prison be limited, and the other petition was to enable rehabilitation to occur even for prisoners in remand. This is a space that has been largely left unattended and that over time we see that so many offenders are in this space, in remand. In the Justice Committee, we have gone through an overview of the Ministry of Justice and Corrections, and the fact that the number of prisoners—whether in youth facilities or in Corrections facilities—are so many, and that the time that they spend there is considerable: over one year, sometimes close to two years. So this bill is timely. It's important; it addresses a concern for many and it gives hope for rehabilitation. I commend the member, Todd Stephenson, for being the member to bring this bill into the House. It is a very much-needed amendment. So the bill seeks to bring in, through clause 4, a definition of what a "rehabilitative programme" is. Through clause 5, it requires that offenders who have not done a rehabilitative programme be considered as ineligible for parole; but, conversely, for the parole board to then say to them that if they're able to do a programme within the next 12 months, then then that would be the best thing. Clause 6 also establishes a very strong incentive for offenders in that space, in that once they complete a rehabilitative programme then they would then become eligible for parole. The object of this bill is to reduce re-offending. Reducing re-offending takes many forms, but what we are trying to achieve here is to reduce the vulnerability of the offenders in this space by giving them skills—life skills—that they could use as they exit Corrections and whether they go on parole or complete sentences at the end and leave, then they would have opportunities to get back into life and have a potential opportunity for being able to get back on a path to improving their lives. Every time there is re-offending, there is re-victimisation and we want to reduce that opportunity and break that cycle as well. The impacts are great. We will reduce the prison population in the process, we will give people opportunities to improve themselves, and ensure that victimisation is itself reduced. I would like to spend the last few seconds of my call to say that my heart goes out to the wife and daughters of Efeso and that they be courageous at this time. HELEN WHITE (Labour—Mt Albert): Thank you. I'd like to begin where you ended in that tribute to Efeso Collins. I did know him rather well and it's been hard to be in the House today, rather than up in Auckland, but I paid my respects on Monday. I join the House, I think, in thinking very much that this was a man who loved his family and who doesn't get to see his children grow up and they don't get to have him there any more, and that's the bit that means the most to me in the situation. I'd also like to pay my respects to the member who's brought this bill to the House, but also to my friend Toni Severin, who I was on a course with that was all about understanding this place and using it better. One of the lessons that I think we both learnt was the power of something that crossed across the House and was bipartisan. Now, this is a piece of legislation that is, at heart—and Toni has a good heart—about rehabilitation and not abandoning people, and supporting people when they are willing to make a move. I think that we all agree with that purpose. We might have some gnarly bits to work through in the select committee, but I think we're all prepared to do that. My own concern is wider than this. I think that there is always a tendency in these areas to look at punishment—and there is a place for punishment in the prison situation, because there are victims, but there is a much greater place for making sure that people who have lost their way and hurt people, often as a consequence, are not going to hurt people in the future, and to find a way. I'd love some of the work that needs to be done around that discussed at the select committee. For example, I'd love to see—and I'm not sure if it's in scope—us look at the capacity to bring rehabilitation in as an offering to people on remand, because they sit on remand, at the present time, for far too long, lost and without those opportunities. We know our prison population suffer a lot from illiteracy. They're illiterate, often, and they're also suffering from things like ADHD. They've often had trauma. They've often had violence in their past. So anything that can be done to actually examine that and to offer solutions, I think, I am fully in support of and I think we could be liberal with the way this bill was developed. It is absolutely important that we put in the resourcing. So it is a challenge in a time when there are parts being looked at to make sure that we don't—we don't—undercut this, because this actually ends up, even in a cost-benefit analysis, as being incredibly important that we actually make sure that people who go through our prison system do not go out and reoffend, they do not become people who are unable to find work. The parole system is partly set up to do that. This seems to be a complement to it, if done sensibly. We obviously also have to look beyond the time of parole, because then people are in the situation where they haven't got the same supports in place. I, for one, am aware that there has been a member's bill about extending the clean-slate principle so that people on minor crimes actually have the capacity to work. But we also have to recognise when people have committed offences that we also need those people not to be for ever in a situation where they can't get in to high-paid work. It's so important to society that we bridge that gap and that we don't continually punish people in that area by a form of hopelessness that is low-paid work. So I see this bill as something that provides a starting point for an important conversation. I look forward to the Justice Committee working as much as they can in a bipartisan way on this bill. This week has been a really hard one for the Labour Party in this House. We found the smoke-free legislation really difficult. It has been one of those things which really hurt a lot of people. But this is, at least, a good way of healing this House on this day, which is our last day in Parliament this week. Thank you. I commend the bill to the House. TOM RUTHERFORD (National—Bay of Plenty): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It's great to stand and speak in support of the Parole (Mandatory Completion of Rehabilitative Programmes) Amendment Bill, first reading, in the name of Todd Stephenson. And congratulations to Todd—a first-term MP having his bill drawn from the biscuit tin. Luck was in his favour that day. Congratulations, Todd—great to be speaking in support of this bill to the select committee stage on behalf of the National Party. On this side of the House, we believe in a couple of things with our prisoners when they go to prison: (1) the first priority must always be to the victims and their families. And understanding the process that prisoners go through, both as a time of understanding the crimes that they committed, taking learnings from what they have done, but also preparing to reintegrate them back into society so that they can contribute to our community. That's what this bill is sort of proposing to do. Prisoners, as we know, face many barriers to gaining employment post their release from prison, such as poor literacy, numeracy, and educational underachievement. This results in many offenders unfortunately falling back into criminal activity. And that sees them back within a corrections facility. This bill is proposing to change that to get them a better shot when they come back out from prison and out of the corrections facility. Now, the National Party is supporting this to the select committee stage because we're interested to hear the feedback that we receive from the industry groups and first hand from the general public. And I understand, having sat on the Justice Committee for a few hours today—made a guest appearance—that that committee, with great representation from across the House, will piece together this bill and look to adjust it as they see fit to make it the most fit for purpose bill in law we can possibly have. This bill does create an incentive for people in corrections facilities to participate in practical, educational, and rehabilitation programmes—[Member sneezes] bless you—to be better equipped with skills to lead a more productive life upon release. We agree that the broad aims of this bill do align with what the National Party believes on this side of the House. We want to be tough and crack down on the causes of crime, but, at the same time, we also want to have strong and thorough rehabilitative programmes in place for prisoners to prepare them for release. The paramount consideration of the Parole Board when considering someone for release is the safety of the community. We must always have the community at front of mind when the Parole Board meets to make their decision on whether someone is prepared to be returned to the community. A prisoner's engagement in rehabilitation is one of the most significant factors for that consideration. I acknowledge we are coming up to nearly 6 p.m. on a Thursday evening, and my colleagues, whilst hard-working, are ready for an opportunity to return to their local electorates. So what I simply want to say is, on this side of the House, the National Party is supporting this to the select committee. We're looking forward to seeing what the public feedback and the work the select committee does on it, and we look forward to seeing it when it comes back to the House for further debate. Thank you. ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): In reply—Todd Stephenson. TODD STEPHENSON (ACT): Thank you, Mr Speaker, and thank you to everyone in the House. I'm feeling a sense of a collaboration here on this final day of the week and I want to thank everyone for the spirit, and thank them for their contributions. To the Government members who spoke in relation to the bill: Cameron, Jamie, Paulo, and Tom—I want to thank you for your comments and your support. Yes, you have nailed the intent of what we are trying to do here. It's something to actually help out people in our criminal justice system. I particularly liked Jamie's comments, actually, around how if victims can see their offenders actually making a difference, what that would actually do to victims and how that might help some of the healing process. I was actually lucky enough, earlier in the week, to talk to another great man who hails from Dunedin—he's no longer there, but Sir Ron Young, who's actually the chair of the New Zealand Parole Board. He reached out to me and generously gave me some of his time to give me some of his thoughts. He talked about the fact that the parole board is doing some of this victim-offender rehabilitation work. I think, again, there could be some things we can learn there. I also want to thank the Opposition members. Firstly, I just actually want to thank them for showing up today and providing the entire Opposition. I know you've been stretched across select committees and here in the House all day, and I know you've, obviously, been helping out the other parties that couldn't be here today, so I do want to acknowledge that. Then, I want to thank some of the members who did speak: Dr Tracey McLellan—again, she acknowledged Toni Severin's role, as did Helen White. Again, I do want to thank Toni. I think that they were both very generous about their comments in relation to Toni, and Helen even saying— ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): Can I just remind you, before you go through the whole of the House using first names, the tradition is to use full names here. TODD STEPHENSON: Sorry, Mr Speaker; you're right. Hon Member: Give the list again. TODD STEPHENSON: No, I won't do that. But the member Helen White was very generous in her thanks to Toni, and even referred to an ACT MP having heart, which is very nice. I do note that the Hon Dr Duncan Webb, the Hon Ginny Andersen, the Hon Rachel Brooking, and the other colleagues I've already spoken about did point out some of the issues we may face, and I want to be upfront and acknowledge that. We actually heard today, when we were in the Justice Committee, about court delays that could play a part in this, because if prisoners aren't getting their court dates, they're spending time on remand, etc. There are a lot of issues. I also totally accept what was said about Corrections. Again, it is, like many Government departments, one that is having trouble recruiting and retaining staff. So I do want to acknowledge those issues, and I think they correctly identified some of the things that we can discuss at the select committee. I think, actually—and I know the chair of the select committee very well; James Meager—there might be an opportunity here for the select committee to go out and see some of these rehabilitation programmes, and, yeah, find out how it's going and how it will work on the ground, because I do think the devil is going to be in the detail here, and how it will be implemented. Hon Simon Watts: What about the Hon Andrew Bayly? TODD STEPHENSON: Sorry. In a word, well, I would like to acknowledge the Hon Andrew Bayly. [Interruption] Let me finish this off because I've only got a minute and I'm sure we want to get out of here. So look, I think we can address some of these concerns in the select committee. I think that we can have a robust and productive discussion, and let's actually do something to hopefully enhance our criminal justice system, with all those caveats and concerns in place. Thank you, and—yeah. A party vote was called for on the question, That the Parole (Mandatory Completion of Rehabilitative Programmes) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. Ayes 102 New Zealand National 49; New Zealand Labour 34; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Noes 20 Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 6. Motion agreed to. Bill read a first time. ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): The question is, That the Parole (Mandatory Completion of Rehabilitative Programmes) Amendment Bill be considered by the Justice Committee. Motion agreed to. Bill referred to the Justice Committee. SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE Hon SCOTT SIMPSON (Senior Whip—National): A point of order, Mr Speaker. Given that the hour is about 10 minutes to the time when the House would normally rise and that the House has been busy this week, and it's also a very solemn day for members of this House, I seek leave for the House to adjourn 10 minutes early. ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is no objection. The House will adjourn, and can I reiterate those comments. There's been some excellent work done in the House this week by all sides of the House, against the backdrop of our late colleague. So well done, everyone, and enjoy the weekend. The House will resume on Tuesday, 5 March, at 2 p.m. The House adjourned at 5.50 p.m.