THURSDAY, 30 JULY 2020
The Deputy Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.
Prayers.
BUSINESS STATEMENT
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): Next week will be the final sitting week of the 52nd Parliament. On Tuesday, 4 August, the Appropriation (2020/21 Estimates) Bill will have its third reading. I've informed the Business Committee of my intention to move urgency on Tuesday. Bills to be passed under urgency will include the COVID-19 Public Health Response Amendment Bill, the COVID-19 Response (Further Management Measures) Legislation Bill (No 2), the Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill, the Fuel Industry Bill, and the New Zealand Public Health and Disability Amendment Bill. The Land Transport (Drug Driving) Amendment Bill will receive its first reading, and there will be a motion to extend the COVID-19 Public Health Response Act 2020. On Thursday, 6 August, all things going according to plan, the House will close its proceedings with the adjournment debate.
CHRIS BISHOP (National—Hutt South): Can I ask the Leader of the House whether or not the Government will give consideration to picking up the Adverse Weather-affected Timber Recovery on Conservation Lands Bill, a member's bill in the name of Maureen Pugh, that has just been drawn from the members' ballot, and sending that to a select committee in the time the House has before we rise for the election.
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): Of course, the Government has a lot of legislation to try and get through over the three remaining sitting days we will have next week, and so we have no intention to pick up any of the members' bills. 





ORAL QUESTIONS
QUESTIONS TO MINISTERSQuestion No. 1—Prime Minister
DEPUTY SPEAKER: The House comes to oral questions, and the first is in the name of the Hon Gerry Brownlee.
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Nice to see you in the Chair.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: It feels good!
1. Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) to the Prime Minister: Does she stand by her explanation in Parliament yesterday of the rationale for the Government's proposed regime for charging some people who return to New Zealand part of the cost of their managed isolation, and is the proposed regime an example of good public policy?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Deputy Prime Minister) on behalf of the Prime Minister: Yes. This is a policy decision which has invited a mixed response across the political spectrum, and for only the second time in this Government, the "agree to disagree" provisions of the coalition agreement have been invoked, which reflects how important this policy is to the political parties and, dare I say it, the New Zealand people.
Hon Gerry Brownlee: What is the public policy justification for managed isolation charges applying to people who visit New Zealand for only a short period but not charging people who decide to return home long term, having previously chosen to live in another country?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: On behalf of the Prime Minister, that is one of the matters which, despite the law being introduced, which is the base for it, has yet to be clearly articulated or enunciated. That's a work in progress, and it means that, just like the National Party, whose previous leader, and the third leader in the last four years, has said that he was utterly opposed and the National Party was opposed to any charging regime—just five weeks ago. That's what that means. It's still a work in progress, Mr Smith.
Hon Gerry Brownlee: Does that mean that her Government will be passing legislation next week not knowing what it's going to do?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: No. On behalf of the Prime Minister, the Government knows entirely what it needs to do in terms of establishing—
Hon Dr Nick Smith: He just said the opposite!
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Well, I'll get a cartoon to go with it, Mr Smith, if you'll just be patient.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Order!
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Well, Madam Speaker, you know he's been out there sitting on the front bench, out of his seat. That's against the Standing Orders, as you well know. He's moved from the back, where he belongs, to the front—
DEPUTY SPEAKER: Just answer the question.
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: —and he's misusing his position. Right?
DEPUTY SPEAKER: Answer the question.
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Well, that's in the Standing Orders as well. But back to my point: the Government is establishing the legislative regime and then it becomes triggered by, of course, the regulations, which are yet to be written. That's what it means.
Hon Gerry Brownlee: Can she confirm that costs of managed isolation out to the 31 December this year are budgeted to be $479 million, taking the annualised costs close to $1 billion, and, if so, does she think that a 2 percent contribution from that fraction of returnees is fair to the New Zealand taxpayer?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: On behalf of the Prime Minister, that was the position that the Opposition took just five weeks ago. It is the case at the present time that there are governing parties that have differing views, and we're just being honest and direct with the population out there. The people who will prevail on this issue no doubt will be those who are here to write the law post - 19 September.
Hon Gerry Brownlee: Madam Speaker—
Tim van de Molen: Won't be that member!
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I'll be here long after you're gone, son.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: First of all, there was a question being asked. So interruptions are not to be made, and then that invokes a response, which doesn't help the order of the House.
Hon Gerry Brownlee: If the Government's policy advice was that only $125 million of the $479 million could be collected in border charges, is it good public policy to reject $125 million in income for less than $10 million in income?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Look, on behalf of the Prime Minister, that is the issue which has had variance within the coalition Government and, dare I say it, the support party, the Greens. It happens to be the circumstance now that we find that the last leader and present leader of the National Party agree with a charging regime, and, as I say, long term I can see this issue will be decided post the 2020 election. But I want to say, with respect to the National Party's latest stance, where it fits with New Zealand First, that it puts me in mind of Winston Churchill's famous comment: "The trouble with being on the side of right is you keep so much dubious company."
DEPUTY SPEAKER: I just say to the member who's resuming his seat that that actually puts me in mind of Speaker's ruling 159/4 from Speaker Wilson that the Prime Minister is not responsible for the decisions of another party, and can address questions as long as she does not address the other parties' attitude on it.
Hon Gerry Brownlee: Will the Government release today, or before the House debates the bill, all of the Crown Law advice and other legal advice that is alleged to warn against managed isolation charges?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: On behalf of the Prime Minister, I would like to answer that question, but I think that would be more rightly placed with the Minister handling this, namely my colleague the Hon Megan Woods. In the meantime, if the member had given me more notice, I would have come down with the answer.
Hon Gerry Brownlee: When the Prime Minister negotiated the managed isolation payment scheme with Winston Peters, did she find that he was—and I quote him—"a lamb in Parliament and a lion in the electorate", and is that why New Zealand First has now rolled over their boat for this?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: On behalf of the Prime Minister, it's above my dignity to try and even answer that stupid question.




Question No. 2—Prime Minister
2. Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) to the Prime Minister: Does she stand by her reaction to job losses at The Warehouse, "I'm angry"; if so, is she also angry that more than 65,000 other New Zealanders have lost their jobs since March?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Deputy Prime Minister) on behalf of the Prime Minister: In regards to the first part of the question, most definitely yes. We regard any loss of livelihood a personal tragedy for the individual involved and for their families and their loved ones. In regards to the second part of the question, the member is incorrect. According to the Stats New Zealand filled jobs measure, for which there are charts, total job numbers are up 38,000 on the same time last year. I have the data for 2019 and 2020 right here, and the member's welcome to see it. Budget 2020 forecasts our investments will save 140,000 jobs over the next two years and support the creation of 370,000 jobs over the next four years.
Hon Gerry Brownlee: Can she name one policy that she has implemented, beyond anger, that's aimed at creating new jobs or new businesses for the 210,000 New Zealanders currently on Jobseeker Support or the many others who are on wage support or those who've lost income or those who've lost part-time work, so that they can get back into the workforce?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: On behalf of the Prime Minister, the very suggestion that she can't name one when she can name countless numbers of projects all around this country, growing all over the place—
Chris Bishop: Away you go.
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Well, 13,000 in the Provincial Growth Fund for a start—yes, that's the long-range forecast. When, for example, the biggest mussel farm in the world and the border get going and we put pharmaceuticals around that, I can see burgeoning industries all over this country, because this party and this Government have got commitment and a vision, a real vision, of where we're going into the future—not spend and hope.
Hon Gerry Brownlee: Is the Prime Minister, then, aware that quite often pestilence and other atrocities for humans occur when there is too much emphasis placed on long-range forecasts?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: On behalf of the Prime Minister, yes—I'm looking at one.
Hon Gerry Brownlee: Does she think that her Government's policies, such as lifting the minimum wage during the middle of a lockdown, have contributed to the closure of more than 70 retail outlets this year and the associated job losses?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: On behalf of the Prime Minister, against the growth of great economies like the Nordic economies; like, for example, Singapore; and dare I say others—they were all predicated on the need for higher wages to drive productivity and changes. We understand that. We don't subscribe to the neoliberal philosophy that the few and very few should get the privilege of being in the economy and the rest pay the price for it.
Hon Grant Robertson: In light of that last supplementary question, does the Prime Minister believe that the presence of a virus and its resulting one-in-100-year economic shock may have a greater influence on job loss than any other factor the members opposite might raise?
Hon Gerry Brownlee: Well, not according to him.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: I don't think the question was asked of you.
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: On behalf of the Prime Minister, I am a woman, not a "him". Answering for the Prime Minister, it is clear as daylight that this tragic visitation of a plague from offshore, which the rest of the world is wrestling with and which we've been privileged by careful management to be possibly the most successful country in the world at, or one of the most successful ones, is something that has rapidly beset wealth in business and, dare I say it, employment. We're very much focused on that, but had we failed, the circumstance would be so much worse and the prospect of recovery almost hopeless.
Hon Gerry Brownlee: What employment effect will there be from 32,000 returning New Zealand residents to date who have been through the managed isolation system, and how does that compare to the employment effect of 32,000 migrants coming here for the first time?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: On behalf of the Prime Minister, I get the first part of that equation. The second part, seeing as the immigration figures are the lowest since 1959, seems to have been plucked out of mid-air with no factual base whatsoever.
Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. That wasn't the question that I asked. May I repeat it?
DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes. I'm not sure that it was answered, yep—that it was addressed; I beg your pardon.
Hon Gerry Brownlee: Thank you. What employment effect will there be from the 32,000 returning New Zealand citizens and residents who have been through the managed isolation process so far, and how does that employment effect compare to that of 32,000 migrants coming here for the first time?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Again, on behalf of the Prime Minister, the first part of the equation is a fact. The second part by which we are meant to make the comparison does not, given that we are in the lowest immigration statistics since 1959, even resemble the facts. Where are these 32,000 migrants that you say are coming?
Hon Gerry Brownlee: No, it's what's the economic effect? That was the first part.
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: On behalf of the Prime Minister, come down with your mind organised to ask questions.
Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. The question asks about the effect of the people coming in on employment.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes, I understand that, but—
Hon Gerry Brownlee: If it was the same number coming through immigration, would it be the same effect?
DEPUTY SPEAKER: I understand that, but the—
Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, I don't need any help, because—
Rt Hon Winston Peters: Yes, you do, Madam Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, I don't need any help. What I'm saying is I think that the question was addressed by the member actually disputing the figures that were used in the second part of the question.
Hon Gerry Brownlee: Well, I'll perhaps ask it a different way: what is the employment effect that 32,000 returning New Zealanders or residents who've been through managed isolation up to this point will have, compared to a similar number, had they come in as immigrants?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: On behalf of the Prime Minister, these are the actual employment figures: the 32,500 actuals who are also coming back are people who have been facilitated by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, who moved 80,000 people back to this country. The offshore number, in total movements—150,000, without impairing our economy. But as for this abstract 32,500 replacing actual New Zealanders and being immigrants, we have no idea what the member's talking about, because it's not a fact.
Hon Gerry Brownlee: Does the Prime Minister think that perhaps because she doesn't know what ordinary New Zealanders are thinking about, it's time she did get in touch with the thousands who are out of work and losing jobs on a daily basis?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: On behalf of the Prime Minister, these are the facts, not wanton misrepresentation cast in terms of parliamentary questions by somebody who should know a whole lot better.




Question No. 3—Health
3. ANAHILA KANONGATA'A-SUISUIKI (Labour) to the Minister of Health: What recent announcements has he made about upgrading vital infrastructure at Auckland City Hospital?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Health): Yesterday, I visited Auckland City Hospital to view the infrastructure upgrade programme that they have been progressing using Budget 2018 funding of $275 million. 
Chris Bishop: Budget 2018!
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: This includes upgrading and replacing key infrastructure—just hold on for a moment—including lifts, fire protection systems, boilers, electrical substations, and water systems. They have been making such good progress that the Government is now able to help fund the second phase of this very important work, so I was able to announce an additional $262 million for Auckland City Hospital that will help to fund new central plant and service tunnels, new tanks, pumps, and air handling systems.
Anahila Kanongata'a-Suisuiki: Why is this investment required?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Most of the infrastructure at Auckland City Hospital is almost 50 years old, and the majority of the site relies on services from a central plant building. Infrastructure failure could compromise the entire hospital system's network and its ability to provide care that New Zealanders need. Unfortunately, this is a risk for many of our hospitals up and down the country, and that's why we're improving hospital infrastructure in DHBs with a $3.5 billion allocation of funding for this purpose so far to date. The funding I confirmed yesterday brings this Government's investment in core Auckland DHB assets to more than half a billion dollars in just two years as we make up for a decade of neglect.
Anahila Kanongata'a-Suisuiki: When will the second phase of infrastructure upgrades at Auckland City Hospital get under way?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: More good news: the work is already under way. Initial work, like site investigation, surveys, and testing are progressing well, and the physical work is due to begin in October. This is a significant piece of work, and, at its peak, the project will require as many as 350 extra workers on site. Confirmation of this project sends a strong signal to the construction sector that the Government has a rolling maul of major construction work to provide confidence and support to the businesses and their workers.




Question No. 4—Finance
4. Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National) to the Minister of Finance: Does he agree with the Prime Minister, who said yesterday, "My advice would be, to anyone who finds themselves currently unemployed and wishes to start their own business, don't for a moment think that you need to gamble with your retirement savings"?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): I agree with the Prime Minister's full statement that continues after the words in the question, "when instead, through the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) someone can access the Flexi-wage subsidy to start their own business and to support themselves as a self-employed person. They can also access through MSD a business start-up fund that can give them up to $10,000 to start up their own business."
Hon Paul Goldsmith: Does he think that starting a business in New Zealand under his Government's policy settings is the equivalent of rolling a dice down at SkyCity?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: No, on this side of the House we understand that it's important that when you start a business you've got the full support of the community around you, of the Government. When it comes to SkyCity, the gambling approach is that of the Opposition, if I recall, last term.
Hon Paul Goldsmith: Does he think that starting a business under his Government policy settings is the equivalent of buying a Lotto ticket, and, if so, what's he doing to reduce the odds?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: No. What I think we're talking about here is a risky uncosted policy put forward by the Opposition that puts people's retirement savings at risk.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: Could I ask the Minister of Finance as to whether the analogy of rolling the dice is one that comes to mind in a report to him where, at the end of the rolling of the dice, we end up with a smaller convention centre?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: That's right. All references to SkyCity should be directed to Steven Joyce.
Hon Paul Goldsmith: Does he accept that everyone starting a business is taking a calculated risk—will he find customers or will she find customers, or not—but that we won't advance as a country unless more people are prepared to take that risk?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Every single person who decides to start a business is making a courageous decision and one that we should back. That's why we have facilities through MSD and elsewhere to support that. What should not be put at risk is their retirement security, which, unfortunately, the Opposition seems to want to do here, because they've decided they don't want to contribute to the super fund.
Hon Paul Goldsmith: What's wrong with allowing people who have lost their jobs during a one-in-100-year event, as he himself describes it, to draw on their KiwiSaver funds to start a business if they back themselves to have a go?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: We will back them to have a go, but what we will not do is risk up to $60,000 worth of their future retirement income that they need.
Hon Paul Goldsmith: Doesn't he agree that we'll get more jobs created if we focus on making it easier for businesses to succeed by keeping taxes low, by pushing back at regulation, and by allowing investment to flow, and when will he do that?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: We're very focused, on this side of the House, on helping businesses succeed, and I invite the member to take a look at the Xero Small Business Insights report that has been released, that shows that Kiwi small businesses are recovering better than those in the UK and Australia.
Hon Stuart Nash: Is the Minister aware of any initiatives this Government has put in place over the COVID period to help small businesses succeed through the COVID phase?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Madam Speaker, many, and I don't think you'll let me run through them all.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: No.
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: But, for example, the Small Business Cashflow (Loan) Scheme and the wide variety of tax measures that have put money back in the pockets of New Zealanders—thanks in part to the Minister of Revenue.
Hon Paul Goldsmith: Does he think that small-business owners around the country should be thanking their lucky stars that he is the Minister of Finance every day, and that all the progress that has been made is due to the hard work of his Government?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The progress that has been made is due to the hard work of the team of 5 million and, in the case of myself, the kūmara does not speak of how sweet it is.




Question No. 5—Social Development
5. WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour) to the Minister for Social Development: What recent announcements has she made about putting children first as part of the Government's welfare overhaul?
Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development): Yesterday, I announced that this Government is putting children first and making our welfare system fairer by removing the punitive subsequent child policy. The subsequent child policy was introduced in 2012. The policy has meant that parents who have a subsequent child whilst on a benefit have work obligations imposed on them earlier, from when their youngest child is just one year old, and, depending on the age of their next oldest child, this can also affect their eligibility for the sole parent support benefit. This is a policy that has furthered inequities in the welfare system for parents and their children, undermined the value of parenting, and exacerbated stigma and stress for many families.
Willow-Jean Prime: What difference will this make for parents and children?
Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: The subsequent child policy has a disproportionate effect on Māori women. By removing the policy, we can further our commitment to improving outcomes for Māori and valuing the role of carers, who are predominantly women. The first 1,000 days of a child's life are critical for their long-term development. It is not fair that these children might not be given the same time and support simply because they were born while their parents were on a benefit. Removing the subsequent child policy will give the estimated 9,000 parents affected the flexibility to be carers. However, the removal of this policy does not preclude parents who are able to work from getting access to the employment and upskilling support from the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) that this Government has significantly bolstered investment in.
Willow-Jean Prime: Why is the subsequent child policy being removed?
Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: MSD has found no evidence that the subsequent child policy has positively impacted financial or social outcomes for those affected. This highlights, for me, how punitive policies, underpinned by judgment of those in our welfare system, are ineffective and only serve to stigmatise people who, in this case, have been disproportionately Māori women. Under our confidence and supply agreement, this Government has committed to creating a fairer and better welfare system and removing excessive sanctions, and this—
DEPUTY SPEAKER: I think the member has answered the question, thank you.
Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I'd like to finish my answer—
DEPUTY SPEAKER: I'm sorry, but I think the member has already answered the question—
Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: Point of order, Madam Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: No—
Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: Actually, my word count is—
DEPUTY SPEAKER: I'm sorry, sit down. Sit down. It was a very long answer. It was a very simple question, much of which in the member's answer had already been stated. I think the answer has been completed.




Question No. 6—Environment
6. JAN LOGIE (Green) to the Associate Minister for the Environment: Is regulated product stewardship useful for reducing waste to landfill; if so, why?
Hon EUGENIE SAGE (Associate Minister for the Environment): Yes, regulated product stewardship helps put the responsibility for waste and what happens to products at the end of their useful life on manufacturers, brand owners, retailers, and users rather than on communities, councils, neighbourhoods, and nature. Regulated product stewardship schemes for challenging products such as agrichemicals and their containers; tyres; refrigerants; farm plastics; and computers, TVs, and other electronic goods will help ensure that these products currently lost to landfill or sometimes dumped irresponsibly are recovered and the materials in them reprocessed or reused. Regulated product stewardship asks businesses to be responsible producers so we can all be responsible consumers.
Jan Logie: Why were the priority products chosen?
Hon EUGENIE SAGE: The Ministry for the Environment consulted with the public and stakeholders to identify products which harm the environment through poor disposal, products which would benefit from resource efficiency and from a regulated scheme. Industry readiness and active engagement of stakeholders to ensure a successful scheme was also considered. The six product types I announced yesterday—tyres, electrical and electronic products, agrichemicals and their containers, refrigerants, farm plastics, and plastic packaging—can all cause environmental harm, and the relevant sectors are actively engaged in either planning or developing product stewardship schemes. That's what we want—to work in partnership with businesses and stakeholders for robust schemes which create jobs, make our economy more efficient, and reduce waste to landfill.
Jan Logie: How does mandatory product stewardship create jobs and innovation?
Hon EUGENIE SAGE: Businesses like E-Waste Services in Porirua in the heart of the Mana electorate, which I visited yesterday, is just one example. What started as one person in a home-based business recovering computers has recently expanded to employ 12 people and they anticipate doubling their staff in 12 months. The business employs people like Wayne, who used to be a truck driver. He loves his job pulling apart TVs and computers, separating out screws and other metals and circuit boards to send away for reprocessing to recover precious metals such as gold and helping the planet.
Jan Logie: How does this help fulfil the confidence and supply and coalition agreements?
Hon EUGENIE SAGE: When it comes to tyres, all parties of Government agree that product stewardship is an important part of reducing environmental harm. The Greens' confidence and supply agreement commits to minimising waste to landfill, and New Zealand First's coalition agreement commits to tyre stewardship. Moving to mandatory product stewardship for these six product streams helps fulfil both these commitments.




Question No. 7—Infrastructure
DEPUTY SPEAKER: Question No. 7 is in the name of Chris Bishop. 
CHRIS BISHOP (National—Hutt South): Oh, I sort of wanted that one to keep going. OK, thank you, Madam Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: That was unnecessary. 
CHRIS BISHOP: OK. It's the spirit of Thursday, Madam Speaker, but thank you. 
7. CHRIS BISHOP (National—Hutt South) to the Minister for Infrastructure: Will the full list of the more than 150 shovel-ready projects be announced before Parliament dissolves, and how many of these projects are currently scheduled for announcement by Government Ministers or under-secretaries?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance) on behalf of the Minister for Infrastructure: On behalf of the Minister, yes. While there may be one or two exceptions, the vast majority will be announced before Parliament dissolves. In answer to the second part of the question—as the member would know from having worked in a ministerial office—announcements are scheduled once the subject of the announcement is finalised. As several Ministers have told the member, some of the projects agreed in principle are still being finalised and will be announced in due course. Yesterday, we had announced 79 projects. Today, that number is up to 84, and several more will come over the coming days. 
Chris Bishop: How many of the 70 signed off but unannounced shovel-ready projects are currently scheduled for announcement, in light of three projects being announced by three different Ministers in three different locations since I asked this yesterday? 
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Well, I think the member's answering his own question there. The announcements are being rolled out over the coming days, as I said. Almost all will be announced by the time Parliament dissolves, and they are being welcomed widely in the community, particularly today in Naenae. 
Chris Bishop: When was due diligence completed on the Paihia waterfront project that he announced this morning? 
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The member would accept, I think, with a fairly general question, that asking a very specific matter like that, I'll have to get back to him on it. 
Chris Bishop: Why did it take nine days to announce the Paihia project this morning, when invitations to the launch event went out on 21 July? 
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I think this is where the member is misunderstanding the whole fund here. Communities want announcements for these projects because they're a cause for celebration, and they want to make sure the whole community can be invited along to celebrate that there's a Government that backs them. 
Chris Bishop: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Well, that was a very interesting answer, but the question was about the gap between 21 July, when the invitations were issued for the Paihia project, and today, which is 30 July, and why there was a nine-day gap. 
DEPUTY SPEAKER: Right, I think the Minister did address that, though, by referring to the fact that if you want a lot of people there, you need to give them a lot of notice. 
Chris Bishop: How many further shovel-ready projects will be drip-fed to the public over the coming weeks, in the light of three Ministers making three announcements in three different locations this morning? 
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: As I answered in the previous several answers, all of the projects, perhaps bar one or two, will be announced before Parliament dissolves, and I thank the member on behalf of the Government for his efforts to publicise these excellent projects all around New Zealand. 
Chris Bishop: Can he assure the House that the availability of Ministers and their diaries has in no way impeded or delayed any possible announcements, given the Prime Minister has said "we are moving as swiftly as we can."?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: There is no sense of this Government impeding infrastructure. We're the ones promoting it. 




Question No. 8—Regional Economic Development
8. Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National) to the Minister for Regional Economic Development: Does he stand by his statement about the number of jobs the Provincial Growth Fund will create, "10,000 as an estimate over the life of the fund"; if so, what is the source of the information that informed his answer?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Deputy Prime Minister) on behalf of the Minister for Regional Economic Development: On behalf of the Minister, may I pass on my congratulations for his new-found spokesmanship. Over a year ago, we set the record straight after the National Party used numbers that were not correct with respect to the amount of jobs that would be generated by the Provincial Growth Fund (PGF). At that time, we estimated that 10,000 jobs would be created.
Hon Paul Goldsmith: Complete mess!
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: This was the information we had at the time from the applicants. I know you're a complete mess; you can look at that every time you look in the mirror. The kinds of rural businesses that the Opposition—
DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: —claims to support just are not correct.
Hon Michael Woodhouse: Well, which number is correct: the 10,000 mentioned yesterday, the 2,727 on the PGF website, or the 13,000 quoted by the Prime Minister in Question No. 2 today?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: The Prime Minister will just have to be more up to date than some Ministers. On behalf of the Minister, initial work done by applicants as part of their submission to the Provincial Development Unit (PDU) showed that over 10,000 jobs may be created as result of the PGF investment, and this includes jobs created in the construction and delivery of projects and across the wider economy. I can say that there is a stocktake being done right now so that the figures can be given out very, very soon, and what we are certain of—
Hon Simon Bridges: So you don't know.
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: No, no—not knowing is the speciality of that member and has been the whole time since he arrived in Parliament—
DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: —and shouting out and making a fool of himself is his penchant every day he arrives at Parliament. 
DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Can I just interrupt the member. We will not have personal reflections, thank you. Just answer the question.
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. We won't have interjections like that either, without you stopping them, Madam Speaker, with the greatest respect. That's what your role is. This is about information which is entitled to be heard by other members without five or six people shouting out constantly. Surely that's the way this Parliament should be run.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Standing Orders do allow interjections while the member is answering a question. I would ask the member to get on with answering the questions and stop personal reflections.
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: The Standing Orders talk about being reasonable.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: Are you arguing with me?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: No, I'm not arguing with you; I'm just telling you the facts. Ha, ha! Can I just say further we are doing a stocktake. It looks like the figures will be far greater than we ourselves imagined, and only the conservativism and modesty of getting it wrong in terms of understating the tremendous performance inclines me not to answer the question now. But in a matter of days, as the Provincial Development Unit personality Robert Pigou said, these figures will be out, and they'll be a matter of enormous credit to the Government.
Hon Michael Woodhouse: Does he believe the PGF is good value for jobs created when the best estimate, depending on which number we use, is between $300,000 and $900,000 per job when the jobs in the broader economy come at about $116,000 per job?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: On behalf of the Minister, the fact is the member is now starting to quote figures from a former spokesmanship which were wrong as well. The truth is the Provincial Growth Fund and the PDU know with precision what the numbers are going to be, and they're looking to be far greater than we ever thought ourselves.
Hon Dr Nick Smith: Three years and you don't know.
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Oh, Mr Smith—this is a member who got another member into trouble. He quoted 31,000 houses—
DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: That member—
DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I'm not going to remind the member again. Can he just focus on answering the question. I appreciate there was an interjection, but the member does not have to respond with personal abuse.
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. For the second time, I point out to you the longstanding impropriety of a member moving their seat to get a better position to heckle. I've asked you once. I'm asking you again. Are you going to act on that or not?
DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, I'm not going to act on a member interjecting during the answer to a question. I'm asking the member not to get involved in personal reflections; just, simply, to answer the question and ignore any interjections.
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I raise a point of order, Madam Chair.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: Madam Speaker.
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Madam Speaker—I'm not going to stand here and have a barrage of criticism and be told I can't do what every other parliamentarian has been allowed, down through, dare I say it, over a century in this country, which is the chance to respond to unreasonable behaviour.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: Just because you've done something many times, it doesn't make it right. In this Parliament, we are not going to have personal reflections. Have you finished your answer?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Yes.
Hon Tracey Martin: Can the Minister confirm that when one is working out the amount per job that would be created by the Provincial Growth Fund, one must take into account the original investment of the Provincial Growth Fund, the lifetime of the project, and the number of people who would be employed over the lifetime not only of creating the project but then working, for example, in the largest aquaculture factory in Ōpōtiki, to be able to come up with a figure per job?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: On behalf of the Minister—
Chris Bishop: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I think there are about six legs to that question, and Mr Speaker has ruled that supplementary questions can have two legs to them—and there were about six in there.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: It is my responsibility to make that decision. He can answer. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: On behalf of the Minister, I want to thank that member for enunciating with precision and exactitude exactly how you calculate the workforce derived from such magnificent investment.
Hon Michael Woodhouse: Does the PGF give priority to projects that will create more jobs; if not, why not?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: On behalf of the Minister, of course the PGF gives priority for jobs, because we don't have any projects without jobs.
Hon Michael Woodhouse: Given that answer, is the reason he isn't able to provide a better estimate of the number of jobs created by the PGF that the application form doesn't even require applicants to provide that information?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: On behalf of the Minister, it is taken as read that anybody who has got any commercial understanding knows that every business has jobs. There is no business I know in the world with no work, no workforce, and no jobs. I mean, it's axiomatic, and why members over there are laughing is beyond me.




Question No. 9—Environment
9. Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central) to the Minister for the Environment: What announcements has the Government made regarding reform of the Resource Management Act 1991?
Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): Yesterday, the Government published the most comprehensive review of the resource management system since the Resource Management Act (RMA) was passed in 1991. The independent review was chaired by a former Court of Appeal judge, Tony Randerson QC, and it proposes that the RMA be repealed and replaced with two main Acts. We agree with the panel that this reform is needed. The RMA has doubled in size from its original length. It's become too costly, takes too long, and has not adequately protected the environment. If we're fortunate enough to be re-elected, we're committed to implementing many of the recommendations in the report.
Dr Duncan Webb: What does the review panel propose should replace the RMA?
Hon DAVID PARKER: The main recommendation is the replacement of the existing RMA with two pieces of legislation—a natural and built environments Act (NBEA) and a strategic planning Act. The proposed natural and built environments Act would address urban issues like housing and enhancing the quality of natural environments to achieve better outcomes for present and future generations. The proposed strategic planning Act would set long-term strategic goals and help integrate legislative functions across the resource management system, including the proposed NBEA, the Local Government Act, the Land Transport Management Act, and the Climate Change Response Act. This will ensure better planning, including for infrastructure and housing investment. The panel also recommends greater use of natural direction by the environment Minister, a more streamlined process for council plan making, and more efficient resource consent processes.
Dr Duncan Webb: What changes are proposed around district plans?
Hon DAVID PARKER: The panel proposes that there be a single plan for each region, encompassing rules for each district in that region. This would reduce the number of RMA plans from over 100 to 14. The report recommends alternative dispute resolution mechanisms to resolve boundary disputes, such as the heightened proximity of adjacent buildings. 
Dr Duncan Webb: What is recommended to improve environmental outcomes?
Hon DAVID PARKER: A common criticism of the existing RMA is that it has not dealt well with cumulative effects, which have worsened since the RMA was enacted, especially in water and climate change. To remedy this, the report recommends a change in focus from effects to outcomes, and those outcomes will be underpinned by environmental bottom lines set out in national direction. 
Dr Duncan Webb: How does this plan compare with other plans to reform the RMA?
Hon DAVID PARKER: This Government is comprehensively redesigning the resource management system to deliver better outcomes for the environment and housing, to help people and the economy as well as protect the environment. The review and recommendations are wide-ranging, and I would like to thank the panel members for their constructive and dedicated work in providing solutions for the next Government to implement. I understand the other side of the House also wishes to repeal the RMA and put out a press release mistakenly claiming this proposed reform—
DEPUTY SPEAKER: I just bring to the attention of the member the Speaker's ruling that I referred to before, and there is another Speaker's ruling that says it's unreasonable to use questions from the governing party to attack the Opposition.
Hon DAVID PARKER: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Whoever is the next Government, they will have the opportunity to implement this review inside three years, compared with nothing done over the last nine by the prior Government.




Question No. 10—Health
10. BRETT HUDSON (National) to the Minister of Health: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Wonderful to see you in the Chair. Does he have confidence that enough New Zealanders are downloading and using the official NZ COVID Tracer app for it to be effective in the event of an outbreak of community transmission?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Health): No. But it is important to remember that the COVID Tracer app is just one of the tools that are available to us. The work of the public health units and the National Close Contact Service remain the mainstays of our contact tracing, and I have confidence in the effectiveness of their work. The more people that are using the app, the more useful it will be. I do encourage people to download it, install it, and use it every day, and I note that the latest update, which allows people to add in manual contacts where there is no QR code, is now live.
Brett Hudson: Has he sought confirmation that all Ministers are using the COVID Tracer app and that they scan QR codes they come into contact with, and, if so, are they doing so?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I can speak for myself and say that I have downloaded it, I've registered it, and I use it regularly, and I expect all other members of the House to do the same.
Brett Hudson: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. He didn't address the part that said, "Has he sought confirmation from his ministerial colleagues?"
DEPUTY SPEAKER: Do you want to just repeat your question? I'm sorry.
Brett Hudson: Has he sought confirmation that all Ministers are using the COVID Tracer app to scan each QR code they come into contact with, and, if so, are they doing so?
DEPUTY SPEAKER: I think the Minister does need to address that.
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: No, I haven't. I don't have ministerial responsibility for whether or not Ministers use the app, although I have been told by many of them sitting around me that they are using it, and I can in fact attest to the fact that the Prime Minister reminded everybody in her party, including the media, to use it this morning when we visited the wonderful Trade Kitchen in Naenae.
Brett Hudson: How can New Zealanders have confidence in the app when he can't even confirm whether members of the Government are using it?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I can't confirm that members of the Opposition are using it, either. I'm not the police in this regard. I do encourage all members to use it.
Brett Hudson: How many of the 621,400 registered users who have downloaded the app are using it to scan QR codes on a regular basis?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I did go through this with the member's colleague Dr Reti when he asked this question. We don't actually collect that data. That data is held by the individuals on their phones.
Brett Hudson: How can the public have confidence in the app if he doesn't even know if people are using it?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Mr Speaker—Madam Speaker, sorry; force of habit. A bit of muscle memory there! I think I answered that question earlier. One of the things about the app which is important is that people record their own data and they have control over their own data.




Question No. 11—Police
11. GREG O'CONNOR (Labour—Ōhāriu) to the Minister of Police: What reports has he seen about police efforts to prevent and respond to methamphetamine harm in the community?
Hon STUART NASH (Minister of Police): Before I answer this question, I just want to acknowledge the passing of an All Black great in Andy Haden, one of the game's true legends. I have seen numerous reports that affirm this Government's commitment to preventing and responding to the damage methamphetamine is causing to our communities. As referenced in the House yesterday by the Minister for Regional Economic Development, the Government has invested an additional $20 million in regional programmes to reduce the damage meth is causing.
This includes upgrades to residential facilities that support detoxification, rehabilitation, and re-engagement with the community for recovering meth users, as well as an extension to the collaboration between DHBs and police in Northland, with the Te Ara Oranga programme. Reports show that a staggering 1.8 tonnes of meth was seized by police and Customs during 2019—three times as much as the previous year—and in the first half of 2020, police busted 38 clandestine meth labs. To effectively deal with the scourge of meth, we need to attack the supply and reduce demand. This Government is committed to supporting enforcement agencies, iwi, non-governmental organisations, and the community to do just that.
Greg O'Connor: How has the increase in police numbers helped to prevent and respond to methamphetamine harm in the community?
Hon STUART NASH: Under this Government, there has been a 14 percent increase in police numbers nationwide. Seven hundred of these officers are being dedicated to organised crime. To put that increase in the context of reducing the harm from meth, this means that the National Organised Crime Group has now expanded into the districts to help disrupt meth supply. A new dedicated team has been set up in the South Island, and police are looking to set up a new team in the Waikato district. The Pacific Transnational Crime Network has been established, and is co-located with Customs in Auckland. Two United States Drug Enforcement Administration officers are also expected later this year, to further help disrupt the transnational supply of meth and other drugs. There is the establishment of a multi-agency working group that includes New Zealand Customs; the Department of Corrections; the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment; and the Institute of Environmental Science and Research (ESR) to deliver this Government's methamphetamine manufacture disruption action plan. This is what is possible when you fund an agency and rebuild their workforce after years of neglect.
Greg O'Connor: What recent initiatives has the Government announced to help protect and disrupt the supply of methamphetamine and other drugs in the community?
Hon STUART NASH: Today, police and ESR announced the development of a drug-screening solution which allows front-line officers working in our communities to carry out real-time testing of drugs. In a world-leading initiative for law enforcement, the New Zealand Police have collaborated with ESR in trialling the Lumi Drug Scan device, which has enabled officers to test for the most common drugs on the streets using a handheld device, and receive almost instant results through their work-issued mobile phones. Lumi can test for methamphetamine, MDMA, and cocaine—three of the most common and harmful drugs on the New Zealand market. I'm also pleased to have announced, with the Associate Minister of Transport, the Hon Julie Anne Genter, the—
DEPUTY SPEAKER: These are very long answers—
Hon STUART NASH: —yes—
DEPUTY SPEAKER: —to all of these questions.
Hon STUART NASH: —introduction of the Land Transport (Drug Driving) Amendment Bill today. Last year—
DEPUTY SPEAKER: Quickly.
Hon STUART NASH: —103 people died in crashes where the driver was later found to have drugs in their system.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: Ministers can actually use press releases to make an answer.




Question No. 12—Justice
12. Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) to the Minister of Justice: Would the repeal of the Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Act 2018 improve New Zealand's democracy?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education) on behalf of the Minister of Justice: On behalf of the Minister of Justice, no, and I think the rationale for that is summed up in the name of Mr Carter's bill.
Hon Dr Nick Smith: Is the repeal of the electoral integrity law consistent with the Government's coalition agreement?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The Government's coalition agreement was to pass the law in the first place.
Hon Dr Nick Smith: Does he accept a majority of this Parliament does not support the Government's Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Act 2018?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The voting record in the Parliament would suggest otherwise.
Hon Dr Nick Smith: Can he name any other occasion in the 24-year history of MMP when the Government has lost a vote on a core supply and confidence commitment?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: We didn't, and I'd point out that the bill hasn't passed. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith: It's passed its first reading. Does he agree with the statement of the Green Party that the Government's electoral integrity law is fundamentally inconsistent with democracy and free speech?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: No.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: And I'm not sure that he has any responsibility for the Green Party.
Hon Dr Nick Smith: I understand you could ask within a Minister's responsibility questions in response to the statement.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: Is this a point of order or a conversation?
Hon Dr Nick Smith: Happy to have both. Does the Minister agree with the Inter-Parliamentary Union representing 167 parliaments and 16,000 parliamentarians, including every member of this House, that laws enabling parliamentarians to be dismissed by their party or leader undermine a basic principle of democracy?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I reject the assertion that that's what the law change does.
Hon Dr Nick Smith: Supplementary?
DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, you've used them all up.





ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Hon Anne Tolley—Service as Presiding Officer
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Can I, on behalf of the House, acknowledge your role as Deputy Speaker for this term of Parliament. You have served in that role, I think, in a very impartial and fair manner, chairing the House through a number of different pieces of legislation—some have been more controversial than others. This is, of course, the first time that you have had the opportunity to chair question time, and as it may be the last, on behalf of the House can I thank you for your service in that role.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you very much.
[Applause] 





ESTIMATES DEBATE
In Committee
Debate resumed from 28 July on the Appropriation (2020/21 Estimates) Bill.
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): Just to remind members, Standing Orders provide for 11 hours of debate on the Estimates, divided into 10 separate debates covering the sectors set out in the Estimates of Appropriations for 2020/2021. There is one hour, 30 minutes remaining in this debate, and New Zealand National has one hour, 16 minutes, and 36 seconds remaining; New Zealand Labour has 15 minutes and 43 seconds remaining; New Zealand First has six minutes and 24 seconds remaining; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand has 16 minutes and 40 seconds remaining; ACT New Zealand has six minutes remaining; and Jami-Lee Ross has no time remaining. Each debate will be led by a call from the chairperson of the select committee. At the end of each debate, the question will be put that the Votes in each sector stand part of the Schedules. The Estimates debate should be relevant to the Government's current spending plans as contained in the Estimates of Appropriations. The compendium of the reports of select committees on the Votes is available on the Table.
Justice Sector (continued)
Vote Attorney-General, Vote Corrections, Vote Courts, Vote Justice, Vote Parliamentary Counsel, Vote Police, and Vote Serious Fraud agreed to.





Māori Affairs Sector
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): Members, I understand that the responsible Minister is available to speak to the Votes in Māori affairs sector volume (B.5, Volume 8). The question is that Vote Māori Development and Vote Treaty Negotiations stand part of the Schedules.
RINO TIRIKATENE (Chairperson of the Māori Affairs Committee): Thank you, Madam Chair. Tēnā koe e Te Whare. I am pleased to speak on Vote Māori Development for the 2020-21 Estimates debate. I would like to acknowledge the members of the Māori Affairs Committee for examining the Estimates. The committee has recommended that the Estimates for the appropriations for Vote Māori Development be accepted by the House. Can I acknowledge the Ministers—the Hon Nanaia Mahuta, Minister for Māori Development, and the Hon Peeni Henare, the Minister responsible for Whānau Ora—for appearing before our committee. We gave a thorough consideration to the Estimates.
The Estimates for Māori appropriations focused around Te Puni Kōkiri and the work that it does both as a departmental ministry, in its policy work and its regional presence right across Aotearoa, and also the non-departmental appropriations which Te Puni Kōkiri administers, which are moved out through Whānau Ora commissioning agencies and various other entities, such as in the Te Reo Māori space. These are very high-performing entities. I want to commend the work that they are doing.
The big focus of the appropriations this year was obviously the response to COVID19. We heard that Te Puni Kōkiri, along with the Whānau Ora agencies, were very active among the Māori communities and ensuring, especially when we were in alert levels 3 and 4, some tremendous work that was going on regionally through those entities and pushed right through into Māori communities. So we want to commend the work that was undertaken, with the leadership of Te Puni Kōkiri, through that period. But the work doesn't stop there.
So, for the appropriations, there is a significant $281 million appropriation which goes across Vote Māori Development as a whole. There is, in addition to that, through the COVID-19 Response and Recovery Fund, additional funding. So, in sum, for 202021, over $300 million is appropriated for Vote Māori Development, and that is money that is being well spent and very carefully managed through Te Puni Kōkiri.
One of the commendable aspects of the appropriations is the consolidation of many of what were a whole lot of different smaller programmes or appropriations being consolidated into one, into a larger programme, which has given Te Puni Kōkiri a lot more focus across a smaller number of bigger areas. So that was commended by the committee, in particular the strength and focus of Te Puni Kōkiri in being a leader in policy development and being well connected through Māori communities up and down the country, and being able to use the data, the relationships that Te Puni Kōkiri has, to really be a leader in promoting Māori policy. That has been given extra strength through the Budget and through these appropriations.
Just turning to the Whānau Ora side, whilst it's not captured in this 2020-21 Estimates, the Supplementary Estimates that will come will include a massive $136 million extra appropriation for Whānau Ora. That is hugely significant, and that will be focused on working intensively with whānau to help deal with the impacts, both near term and longer term, around COVID-19. We know that the impacts of that are being heavily felt across Māori communities, Māori whānau, through industries such as tourism, and in the regions—those that are heavily impacted. And Māori are no different. Likewise, they're big contributors across the economic space, and that extra money through Whānau Ora over the out years, and also the extra money that is happening this year, is going to be able to support and continue the good work that is happening across the Whānau Ora space.
So, with that, I do commend these Estimates and the good work of the Ministers to the House.





JOANNE HAYES (National): Thank you, Madam Chair. I rise to have some questions, but I also just wanted to state a position in that I am disappointed that we in Māori development and Māori affairs only get a 15-minute tranche on these appropriations. I'm disappointed because the Government advertised and went big on the $900 million that was budgeted for post-COVID Vote Māori Development, and I would have expected that, as members, we would have got more than 15 minutes to be able to scrutinise and ask more questions to the Minister around the Vote Māori Development appropriations. So I just want to put it there that 15 minutes, for me, is really too short. I want to put my questions and my colleague here, Harete Hipango, will also do the same, but that leaves very little room for the Government MPs and other MPs to be able to get up and question the Minister as well. 
So my questions will relate to administration management costs that have come in for the appropriation that has come through this Budget, especially around the Te Puni Kōkiri administration and management appropriation. We have in this appropriation just for Te Puni Kōkiri $73 million, including the regional offices, and I do query: is that enough, or is that not enough? Do we have too many regional offices? 
Of that appropriation, there was an additional $4 million that was set aside for capital expenditure, yet within the Māori Affairs Committee meeting and in the paperwork, we saw that some of that fund was actually used to buy big-screen TVs for a number of the regional offices, and I wonder whether or not the Minister can actually put hand on heart and say that it is a good investment of Government funding to buy big-screen TVs for each of those regional offices. So that's one of my questions: is that a good investment of Government funding into those regional offices? 
My next question is around the COVID-19 appropriation and how that fitted in with the Vote Māori Development appropriation announced in the Budget. So we heard from a number of Māori businesses about the disappointment that they had of not even featuring within this appropriation. That was sad, because whilst—yes—they were included in a lot of the employment funds that came out of the Government for businesses, at the end of the day, the Māori businesses were looking at the future. They made comment around that the Budget was mainly focused on welfare and education and said that that's OK for right now, but what about the future, and perhaps in this appropriation, the Minister missed the mark. So I want to know from the Minister, as another question of mine: why wasn't there more investment in the Māori economy through Māori businesses? 
I understand that New Zealand Māori Tourism got some funds to support Māori business, but at the end of the day, they were rushed off their feet, and you had to question whether or not staff of Māori Tourism actually had enough of that appropriation to put the people in place to actually help the needs of Māori business. That's why I want to know why the Minister did not appropriate more in this appropriation for Māori Tourism and for Māori business, and maybe take a little bit less for other areas. 
Finally, I just want to ask my last question to the Minister—and I understand the Minister for Whānau Ora is not here. But, as the senior Minister, I just want to ask the Hon Nanaia Mahuta questions around the four new Whānau Ora projects that the Minister had put aside: how that was appropriated, how was that evaluated, how were the four providers—and this may more than likely be an operational process. But, at the end of the day, the Minister would have had some input on the accountability and the process of selecting those four providers. How many others missed out on that particular fund? 
So I will leave my questions there on the floor for the Minister. I may have some other questions, especially around Te Tumu Paeroa and whether or not they are still fit for purpose, especially now that iwi have their own Māori land trusts and would actually benefit more from the $11 million set aside within the Budget. So my question is what the Minister intends to do over the future of Te Tumu Paeroa as more and more iwi take over their land trusts and manage them and look after all the trust fees that are part and parcel of it. Thank you, Madam Chair. 
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): Before I call the Hon Nanaia Mahuta, can I just remind the member that it's not appropriate to refer to the absence from the House of any other member.
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Minister for Māori Development): Can I thank the Māori Affairs Committee for their consideration of the Estimates. We had a full and frank conversation about the range of opportunities in front of Māori communities as they look to recover from COVID. But also I want to acknowledge, for the very first time, the way in which this Government's response to an unprecedented event, at both the central and local level, enabled iwis, Māori, to participate in a response that would be relevant to the community, that would send fair communications out about what the impact of the issues we were dealing with in relation to COVID were, and to be able to respond in a timely way. That wouldn't have happened by accident; it was a deliberate part of the Māori response to the COVID context and enabling communities to participate.
Let me say that the points raised by the chair of the select committee, Rino Tirikatene, about the consolidation of funds—to demonstrate the point: consolidating funds into the Māori development fund enabled Te Puni Kōkiri to fund, very quickly, those organisations who were able to reach deep into their community and activate an immediate response at week one and week two of a lockdown. That was really, really important, because what we knew is that they couldn't wait for three or four weeks to go through a bureaucratic process. It was very important for those organisations on the ground to be able to deliver, yes, care packs in the first instance, but that evolved into kai packs and then other types of supports as they understood the profile of their community but the profile of need, certainly, during the COVID period. That, I believe, is an approach that we can continue to build on in the appropriation. Around about $11 million going into Māori NGOs will help to build on the learnings as a result of our COVID experience.
The member Joanne Hayes raised an issue around the investment of capital expenditure into regional offices and big TVs. Yes, we have made that investment, because we know more and more that communities rely, because of distance, on technology to be able to access information in a timely way that can help them make decisions. So, to illustrate the point, if you go into any of the Te Puni Kōkiri offices, some of the work that we do to run workshops, alongside other Government agencies and using technology, enables whānau to be able to perhaps be in the office, use the technology to link to other services, and then workshop through solutions that would be relevant to them. There are all sorts of examples. Even when we think about whenua development and the access to the Ministry for Primary Industries, the Provincial Development Unit team, Te Puni Kōkiri, and others across the whenua network, having access to technology is not often the case in every community. So Te Puni Kōkiri does provide that particular resource.
Let me come to the support for Māori businesses, because we did make an appropriation of about $10 million to Māori Tourism, and that was to enable that organisation to work with the 500-odd small businesses who are, yes, in tourism, but they're actually small businesses, to be able to support them during the COVID period and moving forward into a recovery.
Can I say, though, in terms of the urgent response undertaken and led by New Zealand Māori Tourism alongside the Māori Women's Development Inc., Poutama Trust, and a few others, they had a Māori business response team. During the period of COVID, when, certainly, tourism businesses were starting to think, "Will I be able to survive this period out?", they had immediate access to the types of supports that we would want for any business. The wider supports, however, came through the general Government announcements in relation to wage subsidies and the package of supports that were delivered, particularly targeting small to medium sized enterprises.
Two last points. In relation to Te Tumu Paeroa, can I commend Te Tumu Paeroa, who announced on the back of the loan scheme that they had a targeted scheme for Māori land owners. They contributed $10 million towards this. It was recognising the hardship that would be felt amongst some landowners as they tried to reposition or pivot their business. That was done based on an assessment of need, of Te Tumu Paeroa understanding their client base and being able to reposition their resources in a very adequate way for this time.
Lastly, while it's not my portfolio but I am the Vote Minister, I feel that I should acknowledge the good work of both Minister Jackson and Minister Henare for their respective work and effort into increasing support for trades training, cadetships, and the like. 
In the Whānau Ora space, Minister Henare supported the existing network of Whānau Ora providers, through the Whānau Ora commissioning agencies, to be able to stand up and activate supports during the COVID context and now in this recovery space. What, I add, that the committee acknowledged Minister Henare noted is that he believed that the Whānau Ora approach has not been as wide and as deep as he would like. Probably to highlight and emphasise that particular perspective is his focus on local-level commissioning where there is not a natural network of Whānau Ora providers within a community.
So I hope that provides a sense of context for the investments that we've made, but there's a lot of opportunity out there to grow the Māori economy, and much of what we will be doing from this time forth will be focused on that effort.





HARETE HIPANGO (National—Whanganui): Thank you, Madam Chair. To Minister Mahuta, thank you for being available. My first question is: does the Minister consider that 15 minutes' allocation in the House to answer questions on Vote Māori Development is sufficient and also due regard to the Vote Māori Development portfolios? That's my first question. 
My second question, Minister, is in relation to—although this is not directly within your parameters as Minister but comes within Vote Māori Development—whether the appropriation for the Crown-Māori relations role having increased only $4.25 million, that is, from $6.75 million to $11 million, is sufficient funding to deal with the vast scope and responsibility that Te Arawhiti has across all of the Government sector agencies, on a par with the State Services Commission Vote's allocation and responsibilities. I leave it at that at this stage.





KIRITAPU ALLAN (Assistant Whip—Labour): I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. There was a question within the member's previous statements just then, directed at the Minister, about the time allocation that she had to respond to these very important matters that are before this committee. I thought it would be prudent to note that the House management, of which this has been a discussion over the past several days, has very much been on both the Opposition and us in terms of our time management. The Minister has no responsibility for where these appropriations are put in terms of the prioritisation on the order list. That is very much an administrative function that I'm not sure is within the Minister's responsibility.
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): Quite correct; it isn't, and I just assumed that the member who's just resumed her seat wasn't aware of the processes of negotiating the time, and I didn't really think it was a big enough omission on her part to draw it to the committee's attention.
HARETE HIPANGO (National—Whanganui): I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. 
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): A new point of order?
HARETE HIPANGO: Thank you, Madam Chair. The member is aware of the administrative arrangements—
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): The point of order is?
HARETE HIPANGO: The point of order is that I put the question to the Minister in terms of deeming this a priority for answers and responses to the Vote allocation for Māori development. I think that that does have relevance and bearing with the ministerial responsibility in the allocation of time.
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): As the assistant whip for the Government just explained, the Minister has no responsibility for it. That decision is made elsewhere and it's certainly not within the appropriations. Any further speakers on this?





HARETE HIPANGO (National—Whanganui): Madam Chair, I was just awaiting a response to the question. The second question to the Minister in the chair, the Hon Nanaia Mahuta, was in relation to the increase in funding for the Crown Māori relationships role and whether that was deemed sufficient and certainly on par with the State Services Commission in the scope of the responsibility. 
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Minister for Māori Development): This is within the purview of the Minister for Māori Crown Relations: Te Arawhiti. What I can say is Te Puni Kōkiri does conduct some of the role and functions for some of the settlements in terms of ensuring that the Crown meets its obligation to report against the various Treaty settlement—I guess—requirements across Government agencies. This, the relationship that iwi continue to seek as a result of their Treaty settlements, is an ongoing relationship. I certainly believe that the Minister responsible is undertaking with diligence the role and responsibility of Government departments to implement their part of the agreements with various iwi. 
So, in short, you can put any figure there but, by and large, iwi largely measure progress in a very continual way, and that's how many of the settlements seek to enable a relationship an ongoing relationship. As that relationship evolves and matters are being addressed, no doubt the Minister may revisit the budgetary requirements in order to implement the necessary enactments. 
Vote Māori Development and Vote Treaty Negotiations agreed to.





Primary Sector
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Members, I understand that responsible Ministers are available to speak to the Votes in the primary sector volume (B.5, Volume 9). The question is that Vote Agriculture, Biosecurity, Fisheries and Food Safety; Vote Forestry; and Vote Lands stand part of the Schedules.
BARBARA KURIGER (Chairperson of the Primary Production Committee): It's a pleasure to stand up and take a call as the new chair of the Primary Production Committee, and I was involved through this process. We covered a wide range of topics, as primary industries tend to do, so I'm just going to go through and give the committee an idea today of those issues that we did cover. 
One of them—the first one, really, often we jump to, because water's so important—is actions for healthy waterways. I guess there's been some concern about how farmers are going to meet those standards, and one of the things we asked was what the Minister, the Hon Damien O'Connor, would say to farm systems that can't adjust. The Minister told us that farmers would have to take a fresh approach, and, while travelling around the country, he has seen farms where farmers are doing everything that's expected of them in areas such as biodiversity management and protecting waterways. The Minister said he recognises that not every farmer has the level of capability, but he considered that sharing knowledge is very important. 
We spent quite a section of time discussing reducing nitrogen input on farms in Canterbury, and there is a high level of concern that came through in our questioning of the Minister and of the ministry around that and the continued farming on land in Canterbury around the dissolved inorganic nitrogen levels, which led to further conversations around change in land use, because, obviously, there's pressure for different types of land uses, and, of course, if some farm types are not able to be continued because of the inorganic nitrogen levels, then there would be a big drop in the value of the land related to those levels.
We talked also a lot and asked a lot of questions around land-use change to forestry. The Minister explained that the Government is watching the level of land-use change to forestry really carefully. He said he's mindful that trees could end up planted on high-quality farmland. But we also discussed what amount of afforestation the Minister would define as massive, as it's causing a lot of discussion out in our communities. The Minister said he had not set the threshold and would not do so; however, he would look at stepping in if it reached 40,000 hectares a year or thereabouts, noting that it is not only his decision. 
We talked also about the class of land being converted to forestry. There's quite a dilemma at the moment between good, productive land for food and land that's being diverted into forestry. Te Uru Rākau told us that it does not distinguish between the trees that are planted solely for carbon farming and those that are planted for production forestry. That was a concern for the committee that that distinguishment is not happening.
The next thing we moved on was the primary sector's response to COVID-19, supporting people into jobs in the primary sector and the skills needed to put those people into jobs that they currently have no skills for, which brought into the conversation the agricultural training establishments, well-known as Telford and Taratahi. 
We also asked questions of the Minister about engagement with the primary sector. We commended the primary sector for its hard work during sustained operations being essential services through COVID-19. We also acknowledge the efforts of the Government and the ministry, which worked exceptionally hard with the sector over the last few months. I point to a couple of things that they really worked hard on that were mentioned. Certainly, moving day was one of them, because we went through a stage where we weren't sure how well moving day, with Mycoplasma bovis and COVID-19, was going to work. The other thing is there was a level of frustration about bringing sheep scanners into the country, but the ministry worked very hard.
In my limited time I've got left as my chair report, I just wanted to point to one of the things in innovation that we had a chance to discuss, and that was the red seaweed that we're pinning our hopes on to help our methane issues as an industry in the future. 
So, all in all, a productive session with our select committee. Thank you, Madam Chair.





TIM VAN DE MOLEN (National—Waikato): Thank you, Madam Chair. Just a couple of questions for the Minister, first of all in relation to Mycoplasma bovis. We're making pretty good progress there, and I think it's really encouraging to see the number of positive cases now being in the low single digits, which is fantastic news. But I'm just wondering if you can give us perhaps a bit more of an update around the planned changes in the team there that I understand are coming up. There'll be, obviously, some impact to staffing levels, but also if you could give an insight into those remaining cases—when they might likely be clear. Presumably there'll be some confidence around that date. It'd be nice to have an indication of that, and then his view on the likelihood of new cases coming up with this season's spring milk in terms of bulk milk tests that are starting to flow in as calving is starting to get under way around the country, especially in the North Island. So that'd be the first part. 
I appreciate time is getting limited on that side, so I might add in the next question as well, and that's in relation to the biosecurity risk of incoming mail levels. We've seen through COVID-19 a significant change in the way we operate as a society in a number of facets. One of those is a significant increase in the number of mail parcels or packages coming through the mail delivery system, in particular from international locations, which presents an increased risk. So I'm wondering what thought he's put into that and what consideration or action he is planning to undertake in relation to trying to mitigate any potential increased risk that may be flowing across our borders in relation to that one as well.
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Minister for Biosecurity): Thank you, Madam Chair. Look, I will take the opportunity to ask—and I just respect the, I guess, good summary that the member Barbara Kuriger, who's the chair of the Primary Production Committee, has put before us in terms of the discussion. I think it was a very productive one at the select committee. 
Can I just start at—Tim van de Molen asked questions around M. bovis, and I have to say we have made great progress in this area. I have to thank the team. I have to thank the farmers and everyone who's made an adjustment. Those people who were caught with infected properties have had to do it hard. But we've done our best to compensate them properly, and I hope that—well, there's over 250 farms now that have been infected, have been culled, disinfected, and have moved on and are now operating again, and that's great. There will always be some glitches. We've learnt a lot, but I think we're making progress. So I think we have four properties, and, in fact, it may be less than that today, because we're making great progress, and that's good. 
So in terms of the flow on to other areas of biosecurity—and the first question is, as we move to a lower number of properties, clearly the number of people engaged can be reduced. Some of those people will be redeployed into other areas of biosecurity. In the area of parcels and of containers and scrutiny of those, we'll be boosting that to ensure that we take the opportunity of having skilled people who may have picked up some knowledge of biosecurity systems that can be used elsewhere in our Biosecurity New Zealand and Ministry for Primary Industries responsibilities. So those adjustments will be occurring, and we're having open dialogue with all the staff in that area. 
The bulk milk sampling—yes, we do expect that there will be some positives picked up, as we have stressed, through the spring. Any cows that might have been in touch or in any way in contact with M. bovis, then, hopefully, they will then show up through bulk milk samples. We will then go and test and investigate and, hopefully, get to a point of, if necessary, culling—hopefully, they may not be infected herds. We do expect there will be some positive feedback and test results from that in the spring, and we will be ready for that. 
Just, then, on the areas—because I know we have limited time. The good summary of, I guess progress—everywhere I go around the country, I think farmers are really looking forward to an exciting future. The fact that they've been able to operate through COVID has given them a new sense of, I guess, the value of it and, if not importance, responsibility to our economy as a whole. They've adjusted the way that they've operated, and that's good. 
If we look to water and to emissions, our goals in both water quality and in climate change, I think they're up for it. What they need is some clear guidelines. People in Canterbury have been working through—actually, it was the previous Government's guidelines. Environment Canterbury has been rolling out that, working in some areas that are quite challenging—high levels of nitrates, maybe the need for land-use change already. Then we have our proposals that complement that work that has been going on. I think clarity is what we need to roll out to farmers.
Of course there'll be some areas of difficulty and challenge, but I think most people understand the need to make progress in these areas. We will back it up with, I guess, what we'd call a branding exercise—that is, accreditation and then acknowledgment of all that good work so, hopefully, we can get, in market, more value for everything that we do. I guess the collaboration that we've had with the sector leaders, with farmers themselves on the ground, I think puts us in a good place to seize the opportunities in a challenging COVID world to produce food that the world needs.





MARK PATTERSON (NZ First): Thank you, Madam Chair. Look, I'd like to take the opportunity to ask the Minister a couple of questions in the time I have allocated. First of all, though, I would like to reiterate the constructive nature of the committee session, which has been enhanced somewhat by the new chair, Barbara Kuriger. There's certainly a different tone within the Primary Production Committee and it has been working well. 
We did traverse a little bit the issues of the strong wool sector within the Estimates hearing, and I know that subsequent to that there has been a report come out. You've taken a very proactive stance. You've recognised quite early on in your tenure and, of course, as a longstanding member of this Parliament, that it's a sector that has great potential. It's a product, in many respects, whose time has come—the sustainable properties up against the synthetic petrochemical-based alternatives that are wreaking havoc with our environment. So I would like to hear some thoughts—subsequent to the Estimates debate we have had this release of the wool report—and how you see this progressing from this date.





BARBARA KURIGER (National—Taranaki - King Country): Madam Chair, thank you. I'm not sure how much time the Minister actually has in terms of asking questions, but if we run a bit short, in the spirit of primary production, we're happy to give him a few of our minutes so he can answer our questions. I've just got three, and so I'll ask them all at the same time, but I'd like to know from the Minister how the relocation of the workforce is going under COVID-19. I think it's actually a commendable thing to do, but, practically, is a little more difficult. It's a good idea but I'd like to know how it's working. 
My second question—and it's related to that question, as well—is about the agricultural training establishments. I know some of them, particularly Telford, are doing some taster courses to get people into the industry, but in the long term we want more long-term trainees. So I'd just like a further comment on that one. And the third question I have is: what work is being done to bring native planting into our carbon farming, because there's been millions and millions of native trees being planted voluntarily by farmers, and it would be great if that could be measured in some way so that we can take some credit for the work that we've done. Thank you.
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Minister of Agriculture): Thank you, Madam Chair. Firstly, on the relocation of the workforce, that's an issue that, I guess, Ray Smith, as the director-general, is doing, and I know he's working comprehensively with the team, acknowledging all the good work of those people. But there is, you know, obviously a reduction in the need at the border. So those people are being shifted, as I say, firstly into the areas where we can, I guess, lift the level of scrutiny, whether it be through containers or through the post, and fill some gaps across the system. The skills that they've learnt are ones we don't want to lose, but we can't pretend that just sitting around and waiting for people to fly into New Zealand is a good use of our resources. So that, I think, is going on very smoothly, and I trust the director-general to get that right. 
Can I just talk on agriculture training courses. I've just been over this morning to Taratahi. We've reopened it. It's been, you know, of concern—a wonderful establishment with much pride and heritage. It's now up and running again, and that will build, from a small base, short taster courses. The DairyNZ course, GoDairy, is starting next week, I think. So we'll build on that. Contractors are wanting courses for tractor—skilled operators, actually, not just tractor drivers, and so we'll be rolling those out. Telford is doing so, and it's had a wonderful uptake of trainees. So we've committed close to $20 million for that directly. Clearly, there's money coming through the apprenticeships—over a billion dollars that the Government's committed to that. Some of that will funnel down into, you know, courses with slightly higher standards. But at the moment, we're doing as much as we can as fast as we can to get people into the jobs that are available now.
The third question, on native plants, is a very fair question: can we have some credits for native planting? In fact, two-thirds of the money that's gone out from the billion trees programme that Minister Jones has been running—two-thirds of those have been native plants, and that's great, and we've had it around waterways. We are working, and I understand Minister Shaw is working, on a way of calculating that that is, if not entirely accurate and exact, a fair kind of consideration of what sequestration through native plantings might be. To allocate, even if it's a small amount, in my view, should be an acknowledgment for farmers that in planting natives, they are contributing to the sequestration of carbon. So that's a work in progress.





LAWRENCE YULE (National—Tukituki): Minister, can I just, first of all, thank you for the Government support in the recent Hawke's Bay drought. It's never enough money, but it was gratefully received. But I do want to ask you a question about TB in Hawke's Bay and whether, in your view, you think we have the system and the set-up of Operational Solutions for Primary Industries New Zealand (OSPRI) in the right way, bearing in mind that half of Hawke's Bay farms are under movement control at the moment. Almost the entire rural area of Stuart Nash's electorate is under movement control—pretty close to it. So it's a big issue at the moment. Whether we've actually got the structure and the OSPRI process right, the funding right, is a question I'd like to understand, or whether it needs more investment into the future.
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Minister for Biosecurity): Look, thank you. I'm more than happy to answer. I'm not sure I've had an update. The claim of the number of farms under movement control is far greater than I—and I'll get clarification on that if I can. OSPRI has been—it's an interesting entity. It hasn't worked well at times for a number of reasons. I'm not going to go into them. I think the member might know it's been through a bit of a faulty period that has led to, I guess, poor performance in National Animal Identification and Tracing, and some mistakes around TB. But the issue in the Hawke's Bay related, I guess, to the reality of consultation and the right of landowners to contest the ability to get access for 1080 control. If people say they don't want 1080 on their land, they just want ground control, then there's a risk that if you've got a high population of possums and you've got, you know, some pretty extensive bush areas, then chances are you're not going to get the possum numbers down to the point where you need them. That, indeed, is what happened in the Hawke's Bay. Those possums seem to have moved into those farms, brought the TB with them, and, of course, we had an outbreak.
There's extensive experience of that on the West Coast, my patch. You know, there have been splurges in outbreaks of TB and it's taken a while to get them under control. I think there is some good cooperation in the Hawke's Bay there. I've been up and visited. It is a challenge for farmers, if you've got it. You know, I can go back to the 1960s. I relate very closely to their dilemma, and so we'll make sure the OSPRI is performing, and we've certainly made some changes to make sure—it's such an important organisation. They've got to get it right.





IAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitīkei): Thank you, Madam Chair. I'll be very brief. I just wanted to make a comment that I noticed earlier in the afternoon session that Minister Nash got to make a comment about one Andy Haden, and I couldn't resist making a comment about him myself, because, surprising as it may seem, I played a bit of rugby with and against Andy as a schoolboy. He was an intimidating man even as a schoolboy, but I think it's significant that he was also from a Whanganui farming family, and it's an appropriate time to acknowledge him. He was a great New Zealander, albeit controversial at times. 
Very quickly, I just want to get on to the—
Hon Stuart Nash: Only in Wales.
IAN McKELVIE: Quite a few times. I wanted to get very briefly on to the forestry sector and particularly the billion trees that I know Barbara touched on a minute ago, but I really want to understand—whether the Minister in the chair, the Hon Damien O'Connor, could tell us what number of trees have been planted in the billion tree project and also what number of those trees had been planted on class 6, 7, and 8 land. I realise that's a complicated question and may not be able to be answered immediately, but those are the two things I think would be of great interest to us. 
One other question in the forestry sector I'd like to ask, and that is why the Government is not currently recording the difference between trees planted for production forestry and those planted solely for carbon farming.
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Minister of Agriculture): Thank you. Can I start with the last question first, and it's one I asked myself of Te Uru Rākau, and I think we do have to define that. I think we've got clear figures on support from Government. In fact, there's no support for carbon farming. The only support from Government is actually for forestry. But there has been investment by individuals buying farms to just plant them for carbon sequestration, and so we're mindful of that. We have been working through, keeping a close eye on it, to make sure. 
As I say, there've been indications that—we're in a coalition Government but, I guess, certainly the Labour Party has indicated there'll be a change in that policy, and that is that people who want to plant over 50 hectares will have to seek a resource consent on anything below class 6. So we're mindful of the pressure there, and I don't have the figures of the number of trees planted in those areas but I can get those for the member. 
Can I just come back to—sorry, to answer the question that Mr Yule asked as to 570 farms—so it is quite a big number—under movement control. We acknowledge that, and that is a challenge—so I'm not trying to hide anything there and, yes, if we can get that down to a far lesser number, then we'll all be better off with that. 
Can I just go and finish on Andy Haden and say that he has played with the Parliamentary Rugby Team too, and I would like to take a brief opportunity to acknowledge him—his connection to agriculture and to rugby and, I guess, to the culture that is a big part of rural New Zealand. He will be a loss. 





MARK PATTERSON (NZ First): Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm in anticipation of my answer on my wool question to the Minister earlier, but I would like to just switch it up a little bit. I know your part of the Vote here is lands, and I know you're not the Minister for Lands, but you have been integrally involved in the Crown pastoral lease situation—the bill that passed its first reading the other night. The controversy around that, of course, is in terms of the potential for significant bureaucratic overreach into the day-to-day farming activities of the lessees, with—from my perspective, anyway—not a great deal of evidence that they are in any way farming to standards that aren't protecting the land. Often they are now heavily tourism orientated, and there's a huge incentive, actually, to protect those natural landscapes. So it is a little bit of a point of contention with us at New Zealand First, whilst supporting strongly the end of tenure review and the privatisation of those leases, but the balance being struck by having Land Information New Zealand, essentially, having too great a role in the day-to-day running of the pastoral leases.
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Minister of Agriculture): Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm sorry I missed the wool question. Actually, it's timely now, I guess, to connect both the high country and Crown pastoral leases and wool, because, I guess, if we want a model of excellence, many of those farmers are connected through icebreaker and other high-value products to fine wool. The story, and, I guess, the system of production, and the location—it's wonderful. It puts New Zealand at the forefront of pastoral farming and images of high-quality products.
So the wool report. Look, we will work through that. I'm meeting with people involved in the industry. I have to say, I will be pointing out to them that actually, if they think they have a solution now, they had 20 years to work on it and they didn't. So I'm not saying I have the solution, but I know that this coalition Government is committed to try and progress their situation, which is pretty dire. Farmers will not continue to focus on wool if it costs them more to shear than they get for the wool. So it is a fairly acute situation that we have to move on.
Can I just draw out the Crown pastoral lands. I think the point the member makes is that, absolutely, most of those farmers are managing their land in a sustainable way, but, actually, tenure review has led to intensification. Some of it's been retired. The rest of it's been farmed more intensively to run a viable operation. The end of tenure review, I think, is a sensible thing. Most high country lessees I speak to now think that they just want to be able to continue on, but things are never the same, and so there are some adjustments. The legislation as proposed—and I know it was scrutinised by all parties of Government—has the right balance between protecting the rights of those pastoral lessees and protecting, I guess, the inherent intrinsic values of the high country, which are the responsibility of every one of us. It's Crown land, ultimately, and it's held for the purposes for which it was originally negotiated—that is, that it's a spectacular part of the high country of New Zealand and the image of our country. But the lessees have rights. They need to be able to continue to farm. There has been a bit of discussion in the media about what this might do.
My oversight at this point—and the select committee will take a closer look at this—is that most of the day-to-day activities of high country farming will be able to continue without necessarily the request to go to the commissioner. It will be easier for them, but there will be other areas of farming where it may be part of intensification that there will be discretionary consent required. So ensuring that the commissioner understands the needs of those high country farmers, the needs of their farming operation, but understanding, too, the objectives of protection of the intrinsic values, I think, is the balance that a wise person—and we certainly had one in Sam Brown, going way back to when this process started. He was someone who was highly respected, who understood that balance, and I think we had a good system. But tenure review led to intensification, which has led to concern, which means that we've got to take a fresh look at the balance between the impacts of those operational issues.





LAWRENCE YULE (National—Tukituki): Minister, thank you for your answers to my questions on TB. I just want to come back to them for a minute, because the scale I've mentioned is significant in Hawke's Bay. But one of the new issues that's emerged is that plantation forest owners do not pay a levy, a TB levy, and what happens in the growth of the forest is that the possums all go and live in the forest, and as soon as the harvesting operation starts, they are, obviously, disturbed and they all leave and go out into the fields. So my question, really, is: is the Ministry for Primary Industries doing any work, or is Operational Solutions for Primary Industries New Zealand doing any work, on whether in fact we need to review the structure of payments, particularly around forestry operators, and the need to poison prior to harvesting? In Hawke's Bay, as I understand it, that is one of the factors that has made the spread way worse than what was anticipated.
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Minister of Agriculture): Can I acknowledge that that's a very sensible question, and it's one I discussed when I was in Hawke's Bay. Of course, there should be an obligation on all landowners to contribute to pest control. As I say, normally—and the forest owners have reassured me indirectly that they do that pest control as part of normal operations. I guess the issue of harvest time—I mean, clearly, if the trees are coming down and the possums want to get out, then what is the best way to control that? Look, I haven't engaged in a discussion on that, but I can commit to the member that I'll see from Operational Solutions for Primary Industries New Zealand what conversations they have had, because it clearly can lead to, and, in the future, will lead to, the movement of possums and, if they have TB, then a very rapid transfer into farmland. So I'll commit to do that.





TIM VAN DE MOLEN (National—Waikato): Thank you, Madam Chair. I'd just like to come back to my earlier questioning in relation to the M. bovis situation—so winding back a wee way. I just want to get an update on the compensation situation. So it's great that we've got down to only a handful of infected properties and we're now looking to downscale the team. I think that's appropriate. As I understand, that compensation team itself isn't being downscaled, which is good, but I wonder whether there's any consideration being given to injecting a little additional resource in there to try and catch up on some of those. 
So it'd be good to know what the average time is now. I understand it's north of 20 days' average compensation claim time, and the target had been only a couple of weeks, so I wonder whether there are any particular issues the Minister can share that are key sticking points in these compensation claims that are coming up as regular issues or whether an additional injection of resourcing might clear a bit of a backlog there—if that has been a consideration point, because, of course, whilst we all acknowledge the great progress that's happened, that is one of the toughest areas. For those impacted farmers, compensation is a really important part of the process, and it can be a particularly stressful part if it has been delayed or contested. So I really would like to see a stronger focus on clearing away those remaining compensation claims. I understand there are still over 100 in the mix, but it would be great to get some insight around what's happening in that space, please.
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Minister of Agriculture): Thank you. Look, very briefly, the compensation programme is running pretty smoothly, and I have to say there are not many longstanding or outstanding claims. Some of them are complex because they relate to, I guess, the assessment of what is potential loss of milk production. But payment directly for animals and that—straightforward—is pretty streamlined at the moment. If there are any particular claims—and I often was contacted when there were outstanding or difficult ones. I've now had direct emails from people. This might lead to a few of them, maybe. But, actually, the compensation system has been working very, very well, and I acknowledge the team that had been working through some quite complex ones, but it's a small pool and it's a declining number of them, thankfully.
TIM VAN DE MOLEN (National—Waikato): Moving on to a slightly different topic, and again the Minister touched on this briefly. We might just continue, if we're able to, for another few minutes on this. In relation to your comments around Taratahi being back up and running, that's great. Part of their training focus, I think you mentioned, was around rural contractors. 
Now, that's an area that's becoming increasingly important. There's a real shortage of rural contracting staff available. Typically, we see a real influx of international workers coming in—a lot of UK lads come over and do the harvest season, for example. What I'm hearing from a lot of rural contractors is they're getting very nervous around their inability to bring those staff in when we're looking at only a short period of time before they're cracking into it for the season, and that'll go right through six-odd months, or more, actually, through to the maize harvest early-mid next year. 
So I'm really keen to understand what work's being done in that place. I appreciate a bit of retraining will help, but, actually, I'd suggest it's well more than 350-odd. I don't have those numbers; the Minister may do. But there are cries for help from rural contractors around the country. We really need to see support coming in. Is there any way they can be classified as essential workers? Would that have to be a case by case scenario? Can we look at some exemption, like we did for the sheep testing scanners, to make sure that this gets done? 
This becomes an animal welfare issue if we're not getting the feed harvested through spring or the crops in the ground, for example, when we look at potentially another drought or whatever may happen in six to eight months times. We really need to have a bit more certainty for our farmers and contracting businesses.
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Minister of Agriculture): Look, thank you. I wouldn't pretend that we'll get trainees from Taratahi to solve this season's problem, I have to say. From Telford, yes—we've got a course running at Telford, and I think it's been very successful so far. We'll have quite a number of people who are competent that can move into that contracting business. 
Yes, there will be a shortfall, and it's unlikely that we'll get people from overseas through the system, given the COVID reality of the world. But I've committed, and I've certainly been in close contact with the contractors association, saying, "Look, let's work together on some innovative solutions here." 
As we've got through COVID and continued our primary production, some would have said it's impossible—they did, actually, at the start. Innovation and lateral thinking got us through this. I'm sure that the same will happen here, and there may be people who come for a short period into contracting through those peak periods that have all the ability—whether it's from off a big farm at a period, a lull, after spring, where they can go and work for a contractor. So we'll be doing all we can to help facilitate that. There are migrant workers in the country who have been working in horticulture who may have those tractor skills. We're certainly looking to have the work permits flexible enough to enable people with the right skills to move in and fill those jobs. We understand the need; we'll do everything we can to work with the contractors to fill it.
TIM VAN DE MOLEN (National—Waikato): So in relation to that, how will that be facilitated? So if there are workers who have been harvesting fruit, for example, and there are people in the Waikato crying out for contractors, how do we join those two up? The Minister, I think, may have been contacted in relation to a field day by BlueGrass Contracting in the Waikato, who are doing something innovative in trying to encourage new workers in. They're having an open day and spot prizes to get people along to see the sorts of jobs and what's involved, to try and encourage some new participants into the industry. They're getting desperate. So if we are potentially able to shift some of these workers around and that can fix some of the problem, then great. What's the mechanism for facilitating it? How will they be able to contact—is it going to be some sort of app or a programme that will link those two sides of the employment equation?
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Minister of Agriculture): Look, there's telephone, emails, basic communication—I'm not being flippant—but ensuring that we have the right survey. I think the contractors association has gone out. The chairman had rung them to say to each of the contractors "How many people would you need?"—not what you think would be convenient; actually the hard-core needs. We'll work through, be it the Ministry of Social Development or be it the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment, in terms of oversight of some of the work programmes that we have, even to the Recognised Seasonal Employer scheme. We will enable the flexibility. We're working through the details of the technical regulatory changes that might be needed. We will do everything we can, but I'm not going to pretend that the border will be open to the numbers that they've originally indicated are needed. We're going to have to look internally to fill those gaps, and, as I say, we'll be flexible to enable that to happen.





KIRITAPU ALLAN (Assistant Whip—Labour): I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. Just in the interests of the administrative functions of the committee, I thought it may be useful just to illustrate that we have two minutes remaining on this side. We are enjoying the collaborative nature of the discussions, but I did want to just make it clear that we have one more Minister to go, and fisheries is that portfolio. But if the Opposition wanted to make—
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): It is actually up to each party to determine how they manage their time. I indicated at the start of the debate how much time was available.
TIM VAN DE MOLEN (Third Whip—National): On this side of the Chamber we're happy to, and very gracious, to extend some of our additional allocation of time to enable the Ministers to answer questions. I think we have 29 or 30-odd minutes of total debate left, and we still have about an hour of allocation, I understand, so they're welcome to 20 minutes if that's going to help to respond to the robust question coming up from Mr McKelvie.
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): So you're allocating 10 minutes to Labour for fisheries and 10 minutes to Labour for forestry. Is that correct?
TIM VAN DE MOLEN: Do you want any more for forestry? 
Lawrence Yule: I have more questions for the Minister.
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): No, no—sorry; I just need to be clear on this. When we're allocating time, we should communicate it clearly.
TIM VAN DE MOLEN: I understand the forestry questions have been asked and answered. [Interruption] We have one more question for forestry, so let's do five minutes there and the rest for Mr Nash.
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): What is the rest, sorry? How many minutes are you allocating to Labour for fisheries?
TIM VAN DE MOLEN: They're welcome to an additional 10.
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): Ten, OK. Thank you.
Mark Patterson: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. Will it be allocated across the Government benches or is it specific to the Labour Party?
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): No, it's specifically to Labour, and if you want to go and negotiate with Mr van de Molen, I'd say the time is perfect. 
Mark Patterson: OK, thank you.





LAWRENCE YULE (National—Tukituki): Thank you, Madam Chair. Minister, I just want to refer to what Mr van de Molen just said about Recognised Seasonal Employer (RSE) workers. Next week, under urgency, we're going to look at a charging regime for people coming into New Zealand. Has the Minister given any consideration to how that's going to work with RSE workers and, in fact, whether RSE workers from countries that are COVID-free are likely to be caught up in the charging regime?
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Minister of Agriculture): Very simply, no, I don't believe at all that they'll be caught up.
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): OK. I think we're just going to slide into the next part of this sector. There don't appear to be any further contributions. A relatively seamless transition between Ministers.





IAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitīkei): Thank you, Madam Chair. Just on the topic of fishing, on Sunday night on one of the television programmes, there was a documentary called The Price of Fish, and that's going to drive a little bit of my questioning today, because I think that documentaries like that are unhelpful to anyone, and particularly unhelpful to industry in New Zealand. One of the Government's challenges, whoever the Government is, is to actually protect, or not "protect"—and it's a bad word—but to put in place measures that enable industries to continue to operate in a manner that's acceptable around the world and it's acceptable to our own people. I guess the point I'm making is that when you get documentaries like the one I saw on Sunday night, or Sunday afternoon, I think that puts an unfortunate taint on an industry that, frankly, is a pretty good industry. 
So my question really relates—and, clearly, it relates to cameras to some extent. But, no doubt, the Minister might want to go further than that, because I think there's some challenges for us—and that documentary highlighted that, whether we like it or not—around the ability of us to ensure that the fishing industry is both sustainable and is being managed in a manner that's acceptable to people, not only in New Zealand but in our market place. I think it's very important. 
I understand the challenges of introducing some of this technology to the industry and those sorts of things, and I don't have an issue with that. I think the real issue we've got, though, is that we've got a duty in this House to protect that industry and to protect our market places, and also to ensure, ironically, that we can feed people in the future, whether it's fishing or whatever it is. 
So I think that's basically my question. It's an interesting sort of dilemma, I think, so that's my first question of the Minister. 
Hon STUART NASH (Minister of Fisheries): Thank you. I didn't see the programme, but I'm well aware of it. 
The fishing industry is an interesting one, because there are four key sectors. You've got, obviously, your commercial sector; you've got your recreational sector; you've got the environmental non-governmental organisations, who are advocating on behalf of conservation; and you have your customs sector. But what I would say is every single one of those sectors starts at the same place: we all want abundant fisheries. I think that under the quota management system—which was world-leading at the time, and we have worked over the last three years to sort of bring it up to 21st century—we do have a system under which we can manage our fisheries. I mean, the vast majority of our fish stocks are managed in a sustainable way. 
I have the October sustainability round coming to my office today, I understand, and that's based on a whole lot of science. It's based on robust consultation with anyone and everyone who's keen to have input into this, so I do think that Fisheries New Zealand does work very hard to consult but also take on board the views of every single one of those sectors. 
The other thing I would say with regard to cameras is I believe they serve two purposes. The first one is, obviously, compliance—so keeping in mind we have 20 cameras out in the Māui dolphin area already, just in a proof of concept trial—but they serve two purposes. The first one is, obviously, around compliance, and that is to check that what is being recorded as being caught is actually being caught, and whether that's legitimate, or bycatch or not. 
The other thing for me, though, is it's about "Brand New Zealand"—it's what we stand for. I firmly believe that if we get this right, we can go to the global market and position ourselves in the ultra-premium end of that market. The value proposition around our seafood brand is that if you're buying seafood with "Brand New Zealand" on it, you are buying it from the only fully sustainably managed fish stock or fishery in the world, and I think that having cameras just improves that integrity. 
So, for me, there are two value propositions around that. I've worked hard over the last two years to sort of articulate that vision of mine for us being acknowledged as the most sustainable fishery in the world, and I think that that adds significant value. But, again, as in every industry, you get those who are staunch conservationists, which I do believe the vast majority of fishers are—you know, they want to be able to fish in perpetuity. You get a couple of rogues, but you get that in every business. But, by and large, I think our commercial sector does a very good job—by and large—of protecting the fish stocks that they go out there every single day and catch. 





MARK PATTERSON (NZ First): Thank you, Madam Chair. I'd just like, in my brief time, to ask the Minister around progress of the south-east marine reserve. I attended a candidate's meeting, as it happened, on Sunday, at the Tautuku Fishing Club, that esteemed establishment, where there's general widespread concern within both the commercial and the recreational fishers about the process in particular, which has been kind of expanded under their nose from what they started submitting on to what they now find themselves submitting on. So the process is one; also, I guess, the degree of evidence to support the reserve in the first place, or certainly to the extent that it is being proposed.
Hon STUART NASH (Minister of Fisheries): Thank you. What I would say is the south-east marine protected area—the whole process started in 2014. So this has been going now for six years, and a long time. What happened is there was extensive consultation. There was a working group put together, extensive consultation. The group came up with two proposals, and at the very end they digressed, so it wasn't a unanimous proposal put forward. 
There were two options in that. The first one was more extensive than the second one, but on both those proposals it's gone out to further consultation before the community. I can promise you, as the Minister of Fisheries, I have not come to any firm conclusions. This is true consultation and I am listening. I've had a meeting with Kāi Tahu. I understand their views, I also understand the views of the crayfishers down there as well, and I've taken those on board in my thinking about where we'll end up with this. What I'll say with that second round of consultation on the options that were developed is it started pre-COVID, but because of COVID it's actually had to start again. 
So I think submissions may well have closed now. If not, then they're about to close, but, obviously, this won't be decided by myself or this Government. It'll be a decision that will have to be made in the end by the next Government and the next Minister of Fisheries and the Minister of Conservation. But there is true and meaningful consultation gone on in terms of this.





IAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitīkei): I'll just touch on that topic for a second before I get on to another topic I want to raise. One of the things I think—and the Minister in the chair, the Hon Stuart Nash, can either answer me or not on this, but one of the observations I'd make about this process is that it's putting significant cost on fishermen, or it could potentially put significant cost on fishermen or fishing people to go and catch fish in much more remote areas with no significant benefit to the fishery or to the marine reserve, in fact, because you could shift that. I think that's the real challenge they've got with that, and I accept that that's an issue.
I just want to go back to the last issue as well, because I think that the point I raised with respect to that—to the issue of cameras and technology we might use to overcome, I guess, the doubts about or the credibility of the commercial sector particularly—I think it's most important that we ensure the credibility of our commercial sector, which will then get the confidence of our recreational sector in a much better space, which I think would take a lot of the friction out of the industry, because for some reason there seems to be friction in that area. 
So my question there is: are we going to actually implement technology to improve the recording and whatever of the commercial sector? The second one is: what is the potential for the sectors to join together? We've got, I think, it's called Fish South or something like that. There's an attempt that was made in the South Island to get all the sectors operating together—not operating together but working together so Fisheries New Zealand, for example, has got an entity they can deal with collectively rather than dividing and ruling. I think that's quite important for us. 
So that's the two issues I want to raise there. I want to get on to a couple of other questions, but if the Minister wants to answer those I'll get on to the next one in a minute.
Hon STUART NASH (Minister of Fisheries): First of all, yes, I would agree, potentially, depending on the final decision on the south-east marine protected area (MPA). It may impact upon fishers. As mentioned, no decision has been made, but, in my view, this does show that legislation around creating MPAs is clunky and it does need to be modernised—of that there is absolutely no doubt.
In terms of your second question, actually, it's been compulsory to have electronic position reporting, position monitoring, and reporting since December last year, and so that is already in place. There are a couple of exceptions. So by and large, we are moving into the 21st century.
In terms of the groups coming together, let me give you an example. There is a camera working group that has been formed at the moment working on the issues, and that contains officials, members from the commercial sector, and members from environmental non-governmental organisations. So there are projects where they do work together. The seabird action plan that was released by myself and the Minister of Conservation a couple of months ago—again, representatives on that were across all sectors. So there are a number of examples where, actually, the environmentalists, the commercial guys, the recreational guys, and customary all do work together for common outcomes.
IAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitīkei): Thank you, Madam Chair. My next topic I want to just get on to briefly relates to the COVID restrictions on immigration. The fishing sector has some specialist boats—I suppose fishing boats, for want of a better word—quite big ones, and bigger than the boat that I go in, anyway. They have some specialist fishing boats, which generally require crewing by overseas crews. Now, they're obviously New Zealand chartered boats, because we passed the legislation that ensured that happened some years ago, despite the doubtful nature of some of the evidence I saw on that programme on Sunday night around our foreign fishing vessels, which clearly aren't operating out of New Zealand—well, they shouldn't be, under the rules.
But the significant challenge is bringing those crews into New Zealand to crew those fishing boats. So we have a number of them potentially—well, we have them tied up the moment, and potentially tied up for quite some time, which is a huge cost to the industry, impeding the productivity of the industry as well. I wonder whether the Minister was doing any work on that with respect to those fishing crews, because clearly we've had issues in other sectors of our economy which have been fixed up pretty quickly—some, and some slowly. But there must be an opportunity to do that. 
You imagine with the fishing sector there would be a much easier opportunity, because you can leave them on the fishing boat, turn up—you could quarantine them on the fishing boat, because those ships or fishing boats need to be out there from a productivity perspective. So I wonder if the Minister in the chair, the Hon Stuart Nash, has done any work in that area and whether he was wondering whether there's potential to get that resolved.
Hon STUART NASH (Minister of Fisheries): First of all, the member is right. Every single fishing boat fishing in New Zealand waters must comply with New Zealand labour laws, and that includes wages and salaries. So, you know, the bad old days where they were "slave ships", that's well and truly gone. 
The second thing I would say is we are well aware of the issue, and there are a number of Government departments working on a potential solution. We haven't got there yet, but it is more complex than simply bringing people in. But we are well aware of the issue.
IAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitīkei): I'm getting to the end of my—I've never got up and down so many times in this place. The last issue I want to just get on to quickly was aquaculture, and I know that you think the same thing so I'm not questioning your loyalty to the aquaculture sector at all. I think aquaculture is probably the shining star in our food production sector in New Zealand. The challenge we've got is getting it operating in a manner that's sustainable from its perspective and also that allows it to grow in a manner that I think is hugely exciting for the future of New Zealand. I was wondering if the Minister in the chair, the Hon Stuart Nash could just give us a quick rundown on where he's at with his aquaculture strategy. 
Also, the other issue that's been raised a number of times is where we're at with the consenting processes, which are extraordinarily complex at the moment. Clearly, we're in new territory with some of those potential consenting processes, because they're asking for something that's never been asked for before in New Zealand. I wonder if the Minister would want to just give us a bit of a rundown on that.
Hon STUART NASH (Minister of Fisheries): Sure. I mean, I released an aquaculture strategy earlier this year at the aquaculture conference. We have a very, very strong vision for aquaculture. My vision for aquaculture is to be acknowledged as the most sustainable and best practice in the world. Very high—but you are right, there's huge potential. I mean, export value is, I think, at the moment around $600 million. The vision is to get to $3 billion, and so we're doing a lot of work in the space. 
As the member's probably aware, there's been a number of Provincial Growth Fund investments into aquaculture infrastructure. There's work going on at the moment with different organisations consenting—the member is right when he says consenting can be drawn out. There is one in particular that the member is possibly alluding to. Possibly, there are other reasons why that has taken longer than may be necessary, but one of the things that we are aware of in this space is—I suppose the best analogy I can use, even though, you know, it's not quite right, is a land-grab. We don't want to see a grab when we end up with one company, for example, going out there and putting a holding consent over huge swaths of ocean.
I'm a big fan of spatial plans, getting out there for the Government to determine where we can actually develop open-water aquaculture, for example, because I think that is the future of aquaculture—open-water aquaculture, where it is appropriate, where it isn't, and then working with the industry through this to see what the future of open water looks like. We're not quite there yet in terms of technology. They do have some in Scandinavian countries, and I'm well aware the member visited—was it Norway?—a couple of years ago.
That's the ultimate. I mean, we do want to get there and I do believe we will get there. But we are on a little bit of a journey at the moment. We have an incredibly good team in Fisheries New Zealand looking at aquaculture, working very closely with the industry. I do believe that the industry has bought into our vision and is supporting everything we're doing around the infrastructure to ensure that this is futureproofed going forward. But everything we're doing in aquaculture, from, you know, physical infrastructure, i.e., wharves, through to science and research at places like Cawthron, to me says that we really—I certainly, but I think the Government buys into the potential that aquaculture is, and we're doing everything we can and we will continue to work in partnership with the industry to be able to realise our vision in this space.
IAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitīkei): I was going to say I told a lie; I didn't quite. I've got one more question. Before the Primary Production Committee for at least the last year—probably the last year and a half, and probably not the first time since I've been in this place—there's a petition been discussed around the potential for trout farming in New Zealand. I know it's a touchy subject—has been for a long time, but I also—
Hon Stuart Nash: Sorry, what was that?
IAN McKELVIE: Trout farming. But I also have to say that when I did visit Norway, the best fish I tasted was sea-farmed trout—much better than sea-farmed salmon, I thought. So, I guess, my question is: has the Minister in the chair, the Hon Stuart Nash, given any consideration to that petition, and is it likely to progress in any way?
Hon STUART NASH (Minister of Fisheries): I mean, I'm well aware that the petition has been in front of the Primary Production Committee. You've had a number of submitters, and my officials have given you an officials' report. At this point in time, it's not in my work programme, though. 





A party vote was called for on the question, That Vote Agriculture, Biosecurity, Fisheries and Food Safety; Vote Forestry; and Vote Lands be agreed to.
Ayes 63
New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.
Noes 50
New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.
Votes agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That clauses 1 to 10 and Schedules 1 to 5 be agreed to.
Ayes 63
New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.
Noes 50
New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.
Clauses 1 to 10 and Schedules 1 to 5 agreed to.
House resumed.
The Chairperson reported the Appropriation (2020/21 Estimates) Bill without amendment.
Report adopted.





VETERANS' SUPPORT AMENDMENT BILL (NO 2)
Second Reading
Hon RON MARK (Minister of Defence): I move, That the Veterans' Support Amendment Bill (No 2) be now read a second time. 
When I spoke to the House on 27 May during the first reading of this bill, I was confident that what we were proposing would have the full support of the House, and I have to say I've been very pleased that we do so at this point now. I do particularly want to thank the members of the Opposition who sat on the Social Services and Community Committee and who worked in a shortened time frame, as we had requested, to enable us to get this legislation passed through all stages prior to the House dissolving on 6 August. It is very pleasing at this point in time to be here now undertaking that very task. 
I want to acknowledge all parties in the House for the way in which they have come together in support of our veterans. As a veteran myself—and I do want to acknowledge members on the Opposition who themselves have served—it is one of those things where, over time, we have seen veterans and their families, sadly, not supported in a way that the nation clearly would expect them to be. Over time in history—and it is not worth going into too much detail on that now—there have been numerous cases, numerous deployments that have been a challenge to the people of New Zealand politically, and have caused different parties to take different stances. What pleases me here in 2020, as we look forward to dissolving the House and going into the elections, is that probably for the first time that I can recall, we have total unanimity and total respect throughout the House. It does not escape me that every day while we sit here in this Chamber exercising democracy, exercising the will of the people, that we are served with reminders on the walls around us as to the price that was paid to give the nation this freedom, this liberty that it enjoys.
The Veterans' Support Amendment Bill (No 2) is the product of the work done by Professor Ron Paterson and on the back of the review of the Veterans' Support Act 2014, which cemented into it a post-implementation review. That post-implementation review was undertaken by Professor Ron Paterson. He came up with a raft of recommendations as to how the legislation should be improved. It is, absolutely—well, I'm very, very grateful that the Government has supported those amendments and that now the whole of the House is about to do so as well. 
These amendments will—just to remind everybody—improve access to services for veterans. They will improve support for veterans' families. They will improve the support available for veterans and their families at the end of a veteran's life. They remove provisions of the Act which have been, or have the potential to be, unfair to veterans who have loyally served New Zealand. 
Of course, there are matters that still sit outside that we weren't able to address at this point in time but I am hopeful that in the next term of Government those matters in particular, around the definition of a veteran, will be taken up by a very brave Government, and I look forward to the support of the whole of the House as we move that legislation boldly forward, as well. 
I just close by saying to the House, to the select committee, I'm indebted to you. We are grateful to you for the work you've done and for the support that you are giving.





CHRIS PENK (National—Helensville): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Veterans have served our country; our country must serve veterans. I would like to acknowledge the words of the Minister in thanking our veterans, former but also current New Zealand Defence Force personnel, and those who have served in Her Majesty's forces. I use those words quite deliberately for reasons that I will return to in due course. I acknowledge the Minister for his advocacy in this space, as well as his own service, and all members across the House who have supported the work that is represented in this bill. 
National supports this bill because it does support many of our veterans and their families. It does not provide additional support for all veterans. That much I do want to acknowledge, and, again, that's a point to which I will return shortly, in the context of submissions that were made at the select committee hearings. I do want to acknowledge the value of the bill to the extent that its scope has seen it introduced to this House and therefore capable of consideration and indeed amendment by us. 
As the Minister has mentioned, it implements a number of the recommendations made in the independent review that flowed from the passage of the Veterans' Support Act 2014, often referred to as the Paterson report. The more straightforward and easily legislated aspects of that have been addressed in this bill. Other changes recommended by the Paterson report have been able to be implemented administratively—that is to say, without the need for legislation. There is also another category, of course, of changes that have been recommended by Professor Paterson, and the Minister has highlighted the fact that that is ongoing work that, I would agree with him, should be the subject of the focus of a future Government.
In so far as the current bill goes, however, I do want to acknowledge the particular detail that it provides around providing support for veterans themselves, their families—even the scope of what it means to be the family of a veteran, that is extended and expanded as well—support mechanisms available at the end of a veteran's life, and removing provisions of the Veterans' Support Act that could operate in a way that could be seen to be unfair. I acknowledge those very worthwhile changes, and I commend to anyone interested in reading the detail of those further, not only the bill itself, of course, but also the general policy statement within the departmental disclosure report, with particular ways in which the access to services are being effected.
At the select committee, we had a process that was relatively short in time, but that reflected no shortage of attention or consideration by the committee, but rather, and in fact to the contrary, a commitment by all involved to move rapidly so that we'd be able to pass this legislation prior to the House rising in advance of the upcoming election. The select committee process, which was ably chaired by Gareth Hughes, whose impending retirement I acknowledge, featured a large amount of advice and feedback provided to us as members of this House from those who wish to see amendments made to the way that we regard the subject of veterans affairs in this country. The bill does amend the veteran definition within the parent legislation, as we call it, but only in ways that are relatively limited. That means that veterans who made contributions to the select committee—in a number of different fields we have had to say as a select committee, in our report back to the House, that we were unable to make such changes; it was not within the scope of the bill. But I do want to acknowledge as part of the select committee process that we heard a number of those. I'll categorise them in a number of different ways, briefly, if I may.
One is the distinction between so-called scheme 1 and scheme 2 veterans according to whether service was given prior to 1 April 1974 or after that date, and therefore the applicability of the ACC regime. There was a difference, too, between deployments that qualified as operational services as compared with others that looked ostensibly quite similar within the New Zealand Defence Force. And I acknowledge by way of example, not exhaustively, but the submissions made in relation to HMNZS Blackpool and also by the South East Asian Veterans Associations. You have made very compelling points that have been noted and understood, along with others, as I say.
Other points that were raised before us at the select committee were the deployments that were recognised by allied nations' militaries but not by our own subsequently in relation to veteran definition; also illness, injury, and other conditions as a result of service that were not incurred as a single incident that could be described as an accident or indeed in a qualifying operational service context. Other distinctions such as that between the Merchant Navy during World War II and the navy proper, as it might be regarded, but I don't wish to make that distinction in any disrespectful way—and I acknowledge the case of Mr "J.S.", Juliet Sierra. I haven't been authorised to provide his full name. And so too the case of those who have signed on the dotted line, have attested their willingness to serve our country, and indeed the fact that they have served the country, albeit not necessarily in an operational context. And in that regard, I wish to acknowledge Mr "F.L.", Foxtrot Lima, for 52 years' worth of service in the Royal New Zealand Navy, notwithstanding that he does not qualify for veterans' support in the sense that that is available under legislation at the moment. And of course, there is the vexed question of medallic recognition. The overall theme of these categories of feedback would be the desire for consistency and a rational treatment of those who have served this country and therefore those whom this country must now serve. 
I will conclude my remarks at this the second reading by acknowledging, again outside of the scope of the bill but as acknowledged in our select committee report, that ongoing work is required in this area. The select committee was at pains to highlight in its report that these issues had been raised. And I would also commend to those who are interested in policy in this space that the recent exercise described as mission feedback, led by Minister Ron Mark, has provided an opportunity for people to contribute to this. And of course, ahead of an upcoming election there'll be an opportunity for Kiwis to talk to different political parties about their view of what should be done in that space. 
Notwithstanding that, it's totally appropriate that in this House we adopt a bipartisan approach to the legislation. And on that note, and with no further ado, I do wish to acknowledge and confirm that the National Party will of course be supporting this legislation.





ANGIE WARREN-CLARK (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Look, it's a real pleasure and honour indeed to stand and speak to this bill. I want to acknowledge the Minister for his efforts to bring this bill to the House, and my colleagues across the House for their agreement to this bill.
It was a real privilege, actually, to listen to the stories of our submitters. We had some 50 written and/or oral submissions come to us. I'm ashamed to say that there were some things that I learnt that I did not know about in the history of our country. I have to acknowledge the member who has just taken his seat, Chris Penk, for his great summary of the issues that were out of scope but nevertheless very important to us. There are some of those issues that the Paterson report made reference to, and we'll indeed be addressing the more mid-term factors—that will be addressed in the new Parliament.
What I have to say is that we've made some changes. They are relatively minor in comparison to the bill itself. But what I have to say is the stories of the men and women who've served our country were fascinating. They were delivered as only those in the military can do. Everyone's presentation, their bearing—they were very factual and to the point, but told us some quite horrific details of things about their service that I want to acknowledge and honour in this space.
Now, just very quickly, we have made three changes. The three changes are to the timeliness, that's the first one. That was the removal of these 30 days in order for the Veterans' Affairs to make a decision. Now, we have done that not to make it slower; we've done it to actually facilitate speed. But one of the things that we heard from our servicemen and women was that they themselves did not feel that they knew what was happening in the process. So we've also built in an additional piece of information that says that the person applying needs to be informed of the process. Some of these are very complex decisions. They're very time pressured. We just wanted to acknowledge that while the 30 days have been removed, sometimes the process will take shorter, sometimes it will take longer, but the process needs to be fully informed of the person as well.
The second part that we've changed is providing treatment and rehabilitation to prisoners, just making a clear definition of who those people were, and ensuring that should a veteran go into prison, and are actually currently receiving an entitlement or support for mental health or illness, they will continue to receive that if it is not available in that prison environment.
Thirdly, childcare assistance—the childcare payment upon the death of a veteran. It's opening up and giving more flexibility around the New Zealand context of families now, with much more relevance to what we see our families looking like in this country. So that really sums up the three changes in the bill. I have to acknowledge that there are some issues that will need to be addressed in the upcoming 53rd Parliament, and we look forward to that, but for now, I commend this bill to the House.
Bill read a second time. 





In Committee
Hon RON MARK (Minister for Veterans): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I seek leave for all provisions to be taken as one debate.
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There appears to be none. The question is that Parts 1 and 2 and clauses 1 to 3 stand part.





Parts 1 and 2 and clauses 1 to 3
CHRIS PENK (National—Helensville): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I'm grateful to the Minister in the chair, the Hon Ron Mark, for engaging in this way and, indeed, I acknowledge that he has been very open to discussing the issues arising from this legislation throughout.
My first and only comment is in relation to Supplementary Order Paper 561 that, again, I acknowledge and disclose that the Minister has been prepared to engage on, along with his officials. It's simply the removal of the specific time frame that's currently in the law; this bill will remove that for, perhaps, understandable reasons, but reasons that, none the less, a number of submitters at the Social Services and Community Committee felt was unfortunate. Specifically, it will not be the case any more that within 30 working days a decision must be given in relation to a claim. My proposal is simply that the period of time be amended to 30 working days or, if more time is needed, then 10 working days after all the information required has been obtained by Veterans' Affairs New Zealand.
I understand that the proposal may not have full support across the House, and I do acknowledge that, but, none the less, I did want to give some weight to the submissions made by various veterans in relation to that throughout the select committee process.
Hon RON MARK (Minister for Veterans): Thank you, Madam Chair. Look, firstly, I want to acknowledge the honourable member and the sincerity of the Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) that he has proposed and put forward. I do acknowledge that this is a matter that was raised in submissions and was a point of discussion. I guess the position that we are faced with is whether you become overly prescriptive or put the emphasis on Veterans' Affairs (VA) to deliver in a timely manner.
The problem with the 30-day requirement is that there are aspects that VA has no control over. So when matters are referred to other agencies, when further information is sought to enable—and sometimes from the veterans themselves—the case to be progressed, very often it is totally beyond the ability of VA to control those responses and that feedback, that information flow.
We have addressed, in the last Budget, one of—well, we have taken steps to address one of the challenges that VA have faced over the years, and that is the difficulty that VA has had in getting other Government departments to share information—that is the resources that VA have had in terms of personnel and in terms of data-processing capability to actually address case work in a more timely manner. We believe that we have attacked those issues through the last Budget, in particular. I am confident that the chief executive of VA and her staff now are not only focused more on delivering more rapid responses but are better resourced to do so, and we have addressed the information-sharing deficiency that VA was shackled by up until now.
So, at this point in time, we would not see the need to reimpose that 30-day requirement, and we won't be supporting it. But, again, I acknowledge the sincerity of the honourable member's concern and his SOP, and we undertake to ensure that the services are delivered in a timely, effective, and responsive manner; I'll most definitely be watching for veterans who feel that it hasn't been.
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 560 in the name of the Hon Ron Mark be agreed to.
Amendments agreed to.





The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 561 in the name of Chris Penk be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 49
New Zealand National 48; Ross.
Noes 63
New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
Parts 1 and 2 and clauses 1 to 3 as amended agreed to.
House resumed.
The Chairperson reported the Veterans' Support Amendment Bill (No 2) with amendment.
Report adopted.





Third Reading
Hon RON MARK (Minister for Veterans): I move, That the Veterans' Support Amendment Bill (No 2) be now read a third time. 
SPEAKER: The question is that the motion be agreed to.
Hon RON MARK: Mr Speaker.
SPEAKER: Oh, you're going to speak? Well, keep going.
Hon RON MARK: Thank you. I just want to acknowledge and thank the whole of the House for their support in what is a very important piece of legislation to all veterans throughout New Zealand.
Chris Penk: Mr Speaker.
SPEAKER: I call the gallant member Chris Penk.





CHRIS PENK (National—Helensville): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I acknowledge the gallantry, actually, of the Minister for Veterans, in both the technical parliamentary sense of that phrase but also in relation to the conduct of the Government parties in relation to this legislation. The Minister has highlighted already today, and I have acknowledged, the fact that there is a larger picture at play. We start by acknowledging that veterans have served our country and so it's appropriate that our country serves veterans. 
We've talked about the fact that the Paterson report, as it's frequently known, has made a number of recommendations. Some of these are larger items of work, but those that we can cover today, that we can pass before the Parliament rises ahead of the upcoming election, we should, we can, and we are.
So having acknowledged those points that are not within scope but which were the subject of various submissions at the select committee, and acknowledging the Minister's feedback in relation to the discussion around the response times, and noting that that is a genuine view that has been provided to him by his officials and expressed by him on behalf of the Government, I say that we are satisfied that some good is coming of this. I won't rehearse the detail in relation to the particular additional support for veterans and their families during and at the end of their lives. So I conclude my remarks at this the third and final reading of the Veterans' Support Amendment Bill (No 2) by saying that National is pleased to support it. We look forward to its passage as ongoing work that is so vital in this space.





ANGIE WARREN-CLARK (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Look, it's a real pleasure to stand again and speak in relation to this bill. Mr Speaker, with you sitting there, it's reminded me of 2019 when we attended the Gallipoli services, and what an honour and a privilege that was to be in Turkey at the time and to see the dawn services. Certainly, when you have that opportunity to experience standing on the soil and, indeed, the bones of those who have given service, it is a tremendously privileged but also sobering experience.
I haven't got very much to say on this bill, except that we have worked collegially across this House, as we should in these matters. I'm very pleased to say that we listened well. We were respectful, as, indeed, we should be on these matters. I think, as well, it is very clear to me that these changes will make a material and real difference. There is more work to do, and we will be addressing this in future parliaments. But I absolutely commend this bill to the House.





GOLRIZ GHAHRAMAN (Green): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It's a privilege and a pleasure to rise in support of this bill on behalf of the Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand. I do sit on the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee and we do hear from time to time from veterans and their families as to the harrowing experiences that they've had, but also the harrowing experiences they have after their postings are over, and that extends to their family members. So I'd like to acknowledge this Minister for what I know is a deep sense of care and responsibility for all veterans, and we're very pleased to see that now this will extend some of the support in terms of mental health care, in terms of their children's bursaries, in terms of rehabilitation of veterans coming into conflict with the law and undergoing imprisonment—all things that the Green Party supports and all things that I'm very happy to note the entire House is in consensus on this afternoon, which is a compassionate and fair approach to caring for our veterans. So I commend the bill.
Bill read a third time.





NEW ZEALAND PUBLIC HEALTH AND DISABILITY AMENDMENT BILL
Second Reading
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Health) on behalf of the Associate Minister of Health: I move, That the New Zealand Public Health and Disability Amendment Bill be now read a second time. 
I want to thank everybody who made a submission on the bill, including those who spoke at the Health Committee via Zoom. I also want to thank members of the Health Committee for their thorough consideration of the bill. The committee unanimously recommended that the bill progresses with only one amendment, which was to change the date the Act comes into force from 1 September 2020 to 30 September 2020.
The bill will repeal Part 4A of the New Zealand Public Health and Disability Act 2000 in its entirety. It will also make consequential amendments to the definition of "employer" in section 5 of the Care and Support Workers (Pay Equity) Settlement Act 2017, by removing the reference to a family care policy, as defined in section 70B of the New Zealand Public Health and Disability Act 2000. Since 2013, funded family care has allowed payment of people to care for family members assessed as having high or very high support needs related to disability and long-term chronic health conditions, mental health and addiction, and aged care needs. The bill is one of a suite of changes to funded family care.
The main intent of the bill is to remove the discriminatory elements of the current legislation that have attracted national and international criticism since it was introduced. Change to funded family care is also a priority in the health and disability sector work programme, and two important nationwide plans: the Disability Action Plan and the Mahi Aroha - Carers' Strategy Action Plan.
I acknowledge the frustration of the sector and the length of time it has taken for the bill, especially when the original bill was introduced and passed in one parliamentary sitting day. While the bill is very simple, it is a powerful and just response. Part 4A had become a symbol of the frustration felt by many people, including both those needing care and support and those providing it. It's important that all of those people had the opportunity to have their views on the bill heard. The repeal of Part 4A is, of course, just one of a suite of changes to the payment of family carers called for by the sector. There was widespread support for the removal of the restriction on taking claims of unlawful discrimination that relate to family care policies to the court or to the Human Rights Review Tribunal. Many submitters commented on how unfair the restriction was, and how relieved they were to see it being removed.
Positive policy changes have been made. These changes remove the majority of the issues that moved people to take legal action in the first place. I note that many submitters also took the opportunity to raise wider policy and process issues that are outside the scope of the bill but related to the payment of family carers. These included the needs assessment process, the allocation of hours, safeguarding and advocacy, consultation on any further changes to paying family carers, and the need for better recognition and support of the caring role. These issues will continue to be addressed.
The Health Committee unanimously recommended the change of date, as I just mentioned. The reason for that change to 30 September meant that it will align with the intended completion of the transition of current Disability Support Services family funded care recipients. Disabled people now have a choice of two new ways to pay family members. This is through individualised funding or a home and community support services provider.
Finally, the repeal of Part 4A, coming into force on 30 September, will signal the end of all statutory policy, operational, and payment components of the current funded family care framework, but not the payment of family carers, which will continue under the new arrangements. Part 4A has, for too long, discriminated against the fundamental right for people to be involved in the decisions that affect them, and the right to complain about policies related to those decisions. Today we are one step closer to fixing that injustice, and I commend the bill to the House.





AGNES LOHENI (National): Thank you, Mr Speaker. A pleasure to make a short contribution on this the second reading of the New Zealand Public Health and Disability Amendment Bill. As has been relayed by the Minister in his contribution, the crux of Part 4A is that it prohibits payments in most circumstances for people who provide that support for their loved family members, and it also prevents certain complaints from being made to the Human Rights Commission and certain proceedings being taken to the courts. So, in essence, repealing Part 4A removes inconsistencies with human rights laws and the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.
We in National stand to support this bill at the second reading, and I just want to thank and acknowledge the many people that made submissions on this bill and I would also like to acknowledge the Health Committee. I would just like to note some of the key issues that were raised in the submissions. There was some dissatisfaction noted in submissions around accessing disability support, in terms of the process that applicants must need to go through in terms of the assessment process with the Ministry of Health. A number of submitters told the committee that the process is lengthy and complicated, some saying there are a number of hoops to get through, but also some having no knowledge of the fact that such a fund existed. There were also a number of submissions in terms of the remuneration for family-funded care, and the main concern raised was how the needs assessment and services coordination organisation determines the level of support a person will need, in particular around making a judgment of how care is based, in terms of how long it would take to do a particular task in providing that care and support to their loved ones. This is a difficult position for family members to be in and there are increasing pressures on those families in terms of completing those tasks. So submitters did feel that the assessment relied too heavily on calculating the hours worked and trying to quantify how long it takes to perform a particular task in caring for their loved ones. 
There were also some concerns raised by submitters in terms of health and safety concerns. The reality is that caring for people with high support needs relating to disabilities, chronic health conditions, mental health and addictions, and aged care—these are very high-risk jobs and, again, it is about supporting those family members who are doing the best they can, being very dedicated to their loved ones, their family at home.
We support this bill at second reading, but we are disappointed that people with disabilities were overlooked in last year's Budget. However, I commend this bill to the House.
Bill read a second time.





VALEDICTORY STATEMENTS
SPEAKER: Now, members, it's my intention to indicate that at the conclusion of the Hon Nathan Guy's valedictory, the House will adjourn until 2 p.m. on Tuesday, 4 August 2020, so I don't have to interrupt any celebrations that are occurring at that stage. I also want to indicate now to people in the gallery who are guests of the Hon Nikki Kaye that at the end of her speech, could they please leave quickly and in an orderly way—if they are above the Government benches, through that door; and those in the Speaker's gallery, through that door—so that we can have the opportunity for the Hon Amy Adams' guests to get in. Could Amy Adams' guests who are in the back row come down to the front row when that occurs. We lost about 10 minutes yesterday, which we would prefer not to happen again. There will be some spare seats on this side, but people in the gallery can only go over there when others who are specially invited have their seats. Now, it is my pleasure to call on the Hon Nikki Kaye to make her valedictory statement.





Hon NIKKI KAYE (National—Auckland Central): Why is it that through the toughest moments of our lives we learn the most, we feel the most, we have the greatest power to contribute and experience beauty? Through COVID, we saw this. Through fear, desperation, and hardship, heroes emerged. Teachers taught children from their living rooms while supporting their own families. Nurses, doctors, and checkout operators had the courage to turn up even when they were petrified. The lesson is: character and courage emerge out of trauma and hardship. The question for any generation of political leaders is: have we had the courage and character to step up and solve the hard economic and social issues of our time? I hope that I've done my bit to step up. I hope that I stepped up as the member of Parliament for Auckland Central and as a Cabinet Minister.
Twelve years ago, winning the seat and becoming the first National Auckland Central MP in our country's history was one of the best nights of my life but also challenging, in breaking up with my boyfriend of five years. In that week, I learnt that not everybody wants to be the spouse of an MP but also that the life of a good MP comes with duty, responsibility, and extraordinary sacrifice. Many in this Chamber know the price of power, as do their families. I want to take a moment to thank my family, who are here: Mum, Neil, Sue—I'm not going to name everybody else, because they're quite a large family. Thank you for all that you have done in my life. As I said the other day, I have spent most of my adult life in this place serving New Zealand. That means that I have been an absent auntie, sister, and daughter at times, but I am coming home. You know I can't cook, clean, or drive very well, so please be patient with me. I still want to change the world, so I'm going to pull that card if things cut up rough.
It is the toughest moments of my personal life that have helped me be able to be a better member of Parliament and Cabinet Minister. Through my parents breaking up young, a stepbrother being charged with murder, and being diagnosed with breast cancer at 36, I have learnt that when your world breaks and shatters, you can be your most powerful. Random strangers in the role reach out and pick you up. Thank you to the many New Zealanders who, through their messages, picked me up. My ability to help people in Auckland Central for 12 years, to reach into their hearts and homes, comes from this experience. Good Ministers come from all walks of life—they can be teachers, doctors, solo mums—but they all must have good judgment, a capacity to solve problems, and a perseverance for people and policy which means they deliver.
Four terms in Auckland Central—beating Judith, our current Prime Minister, and Helen—were won through hard work and knocking on doors, a clarity of purpose in projects in the electorate, and a core group of dedicated and passionate volunteers, who I wish to acknowledge this evening. Paul Beattie, my electorate chair of more than a decade, thank you. You and Donna have been loyal rocks through many a storm; Katie and Evan, my spiritual mentors. Chris, thank you for your blue-green vision. Brad, Annie, Helen, Josh, Hamish, Tim, Jonathan, Jessie, Jim, Jan, Sheeran, and Barry—each of you have given so much. Thank you. Michelle, while I had no knowledge or involvement relating to COVID data, what occurred was unacceptable, and you have taken responsibility and apologised. I still recognise that some people make terrible mistakes, but still she has given decades of political and charitable service to our nation. To Judy Wrightson: you have been a bright light and a crucial cog in our victory.
In my maiden speech, when I first came to Parliament, I said "I believe in freedom, hard work, determination, courage, an ability to question and challenge, and a commitment to help those most in need." I also talked about the importance of our environment, being the greatest asset that we have as a country. I told my electorate I would be a liberal who fought for freedom, a blue-green who would fight for the environment, and someone who would continue to fight for those disadvantaged while persevering for a more modern and dynamic country. My office has served not just my constituents but thousands of businesses and community organisations. As a constituency MP, I have enjoyed the many wins where you can fundamentally change the course of people's lives with a letter or a phone call. 
There have also been heartbreaking moments where you can't make change. Many people in this Chamber know those moments—the moments such as explaining to a man dying of cancer, and to his wife, that Pharmac was not going to fund a lifesaving drug. It is out of these moments of sadness that you fight harder in the caucus room. 
New Zealand has the capacity to have a stronger democracy than other countries because of the accessibility and accountability that can exist in politicians in a small nation. I am proud of the people I have helped, from long-term rough sleepers to people who have been suicidal and families torn apart by immigration. However, there are constituents and cases that stick out. One involved me helping a young New Zealand girl stuck in Japan near a nuclear accident, post the tsunami. The short version is that it was some advocacy via Murray McCully and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade. In a dramatic race against time, we got her and a young Australian girl in what, I think, was one of the last taxis to Tokyo. I think that if New Zealanders knew more about the stories of politicians helping people, our democracy would be much stronger. Recent events are not a true reflection of the calibre of many of the parliamentarians that walk these halls. 
As I have said, our environment is the greatest asset that we have as a country. Whether it has been my opposition to my own party's proposals of mining on Great Barrier, which saw thousands of people marching down Queen Street, or progressing marine protection in the Hauraki Gulf, I have fought for my party and my country to do more for our environment inside and outside the caucus room. People still cross the street to thank me for stopping the mining of their baches in the Coromandel and on Great Barrier. Years later, it was a great moment to be able advocate and help secure a conservation park for the island, which will see Aucklanders enjoy this jewel for generations to come. 
I want to acknowledge Izzy Fordham and Paul Downie for their work for the island. I've often said to people that being the MP for Great Barrier when things go wrong, there is no army of public servants, but there is the MP, the chair of the local board, and the community. The island is resilient and resourceful. I'm proud to have delivered investment in communications infrastructure, secured funding for the Aotea Learning Hub, and provided greater access to bursary payments for children off-island. I've also opposed marine dumping near the island, and I hope that the next MP can carry on the work done around marine protection. I have loved the people of the Barrier for their authentic and pragmatic approach to solving issues. The island is one of my many families, my spiritual home, and where I will live for a large part of my life. 
In central Auckland and the western bays, I have supported a number of projects, including securing over $150 million in the redevelopment of Freemans Bay School, Bayfield School, and Western Springs College. In transport, I advocated for the $300 million Victoria Park Tunnel—delivered under National—the urban cycleway investment, and, for many years, the approval of the City Rail Link, a game-changing artery for the beating heart of Auckland. Thank you to Steven Joyce, Simon Bridges, and the other transport Ministers for your work on these many projects. 
I want to acknowledge City Missioners Chris Farrelly and Diane Robertson, and Moira from Lifewise. I've supported organisations such as the City Mission to secure additional wraparound support through the Housing First programme. I've also advocated for the National Government to provide significant funding for the Homeground project, which is being built at the moment, and which will see additional accommodation and services for vulnerable people who are homeless in Auckland. 
I've been passionate about apartment law reform, and I've spent several years working with the legal and property professionals to develop a 30-page statute which is currently progressing through Parliament. It is essential that this unit titles bill passes if we want to prevent the next leaky buildings. 
To the people of Waiheke—to the "Republic of Waiheke"—you've been about a quarter of my constituency cases. Thank you for your vocal and powerful force of nature. I'm proud to have secured over $40 million for the redevelopments of Te Huruhi Primary School and Waiheke High School. I've advocated for greater viability of ferry services, and I've helped retain funding for continued free travel, alongside Winston Peters, for oldies to go to Waiheke on their SuperGold card. I have petitioned Parliament to oppose the accommodation provider - targeted rate tax. I've fought for fairer ferry fares and greater accountability of services. 
I want to now take this moment to acknowledge all of my electorate staff—Rita, Maggie, Amy, Sam, Alex, Elliot, Shelly, Angee, and Rochelle—for all of the work that you've done, but to Maggie Beaumont, thank you for the more than a decade of service that you have given to the people of Auckland Central. We have seen it all: P addicts, mental health incidents, we've been taped, we've had police incidents, we've had burglaries—Auckland Central is a hotbed for sometimes some of the hardest social issues in New Zealand. Thank you to Auckland Central. It's been a privilege to be your MP. 
In my time in Parliament, I've also fought for freedom. I've always tried to be a strong advocate for freedom and personal liberty. I feel proud to have followed a line of inspirational and liberal Nats, from Katherine Rich to Simon Power, Jim McLay, Marilyn Waring, to Chris Finlayson. I've helped keep the flame alive in our caucus, alongside my friend Amy Adams. It has been through conscience issues, in working in a collaborative way across the House with people from different political parties, that I have fought the cause. I voted and worked with parliamentarians from different political parties to help support legislation to enable people to marry who they love. Thank you, Louisa Wall, for your mahi on this issue. Through my work as Minister for Youth, I supported funding for organisations, such as Rainbow Youth, to get their first contract to prevent bullying of young people. I've also worked with colleagues to enable changes to decriminalise abortion and to pass the end of life choice legislation. I know that as Amy and I leave the liberal wing of the National Party, it will burn brightly with colleagues such as Nicola, Chris, and Erica fighting for freedom. 
The National Party has been a strong force in New Zealand politics because of its values of freedom and personal responsibility—a place where social conservatives and social liberals can work for the common good. As a party, we are at our best when there is balance. That is when we are truly representative of this great nation.
One of the worst things that you can do when you get that call to become a Cabinet Minister is to have your battery run out. This is what happened to me, but I called John Key back. 
It was a baptism of fire as a new Minister, dealing with our largest food safety scare in our nation's history within a few months of being sworn in. When I found out from the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI), at 5 o'clock in Canterbury, about the potential presence of botulinum in milk powder, I thought that I would be a very short-serving Minister. It was a very scary time. Alongside my colleagues, I had to envisage the possibility of babies dying at home and abroad and the destruction to our economy. In those weeks, I saw the very best of Steven Joyce. I saw the very best of Bill English, of Tim Groser, of Nathan Guy, and of John Key. It was a challenging situation. I acknowledge all the Ministry for Primary Industries officials for their work. Miriam Dean, thank you for your stunning independent review. Thank you, Nathan, for all that you did. As Minister, I went on to deliver food safety legislative reform. 
However, the scare did see me have dinner with the PM and the President of China. I remember feeling enormous pride, John, in watching you as a Prime Minister of a small nation have a genuine and warm relationship of respect with the President of China. It is a testament to you.
As Minister for ACC, I was proud to have overseen significant levy cuts, in part due to the good work of Nick Smith. I succeeded in proposing ACC legislation designed to enable greater stability and certainty around ACC levies, which I hope has provided benefits to many small businesses.
But it has been the civil defence portfolio that kept me awake at nights, from floods, to cyclones, to earthquakes. I remember receiving a phone call around an earthquake in the Kermadecs. It is in those moments, as Minister of Civil Defence, that you wait to find out whether a wave is coming towards New Zealand. It was then very important to me, when I experienced that, to push for an early warning system. I fought hard to secure funding for the cell alert system, which, in my view, will highly likely save thousands of lives in the future of our country. Thank you to Sarah Stuart-Black and all of the civil defence staff for the work that you do.
But my love and passion has been in education. I became Associate Minister to Hekia Parata, who I believe is one of the greatest serving Ministers of Education in our nation's history. Hekia, you achieved so much. You oversaw a huge lift in achievement for Māori and Pasifika students. You had an absolute commitment to excellence. As Associate Minister, I helped to try and improve school infrastructure. We did condition assessments of schools right across New Zealand. We took the school infrastructure budget from $3.5 billion to $5 billion. It was a testament to John and Hekia's leadership that in the middle of the global financial crisis we secured $200 million to connect all schools in New Zealand to uncapped fast internet connections. This was about unlimited learning. This was about ensuring that young people were not disadvantaged by geography in this country.
In 2016, I was diagnosed with breast cancer. As I've said before, my world broke. I tried to resign. The only reason that I was able to become Minister of Education was that John Key, as I cried my eyes out, said, "You're not fucking going anywhere." I became the Minister of Education three months prior to the election period. I was proud to carry out Hekia's work getting a Cabinet decision to scrap the decile system within two years. Many communities are stigmatised by the system. There is a poverty of expectation that must be removed.
I signed off the digital technologies curriculum as Minister, and in the last few years I've had the privilege to travel the country and work with Chris Hipkins on NCEA reform and the Tomorrow's Schools Review. We do not agree with all of the proposals, but I acknowledge Minister Hipkins for trying to collaborate and compromise to get a better result. It was very touching that on the morning that it was reported that I was going to retire, you told me not to do it. I think you learn in those moments that you can fight on policy and ideas but form friendships across the House. Thank you for what you do, Minister.
I now want to talk about being deputy leader of the party, and a few comments about leadership. I backed Amy for the leadership because I believed in her character and her work ethic. All leaders and Prime Ministers have a superpower, in my view—Helen Clark her intellect, John Key his confidence and his optimism, Jacinda her communication and charisma, Bill English his intellect and emotional intelligence, Simon Bridges his work ethic. I backed Todd for leadership because I believe in him and I believe in his capacity to set a vision for New Zealand that was blue-green, bold, fair, and outward-looking for our nation. It was a very short time in the role, but I still believe in you, Todd. Regardless of what the papers have written, I do not believe what occurred was predictable or preventable. It was a privilege to be your deputy leader and to the National Party. I expect that in time Todd will tell his story, but can I say this to Amelia, Bradley, Aimee, and Michelle: you can be very proud of your husband and father.
With heartbreak, though, comes opportunity. Judith, I hope that you become our next Prime Minister. You're strong and you have huge conviction. We are facing the largest economic crisis of a generation. New Zealand needs a National Government, and I will campaign harder than anyone else for that to happen.
Now to the future. I may be off to be a hippie for a while, but I wanted to leave you with some thoughts. We must, as a nation, value education more. Last year we released an education discussion document. It talked about incentives for people to go into teaching, to stay in teaching, changes to teacher training, additional support for children with complex needs, and, of course, supporting children in their first 1,000 days of life. Recently I was the Lee Kuan Yew Fellow, and I reflected on the need for New Zealand to become lifelong learners. National has proposed education accounts as an option for more people to be upskilled throughout their life. COVID provides this burning platform for large-scale upskilling of the nation and a change in culture where we must value education more. We must continue to break down the barriers to online learning. Children in parts of New Zealand can have access to subjects, qualifications, and teachers like never before.
We must continue to tackle disadvantage. Bill English built the machine of social investment, but what we do around children with complex needs will mean that there are young people that are less truant, more people in work, and less people in prison.
We must continue to value our environment more, save our species, reduce emissions, improve our water. There is so much to do. I hope that one day we have an environmental party that will rust on with the left and the right in this Parliament.
It was a sad day when we lost the Māori Party. Dame Tariana Turia is someone that I admire greatly, and I hope that we continue to evolve our Treaty partnership. One of the reasons I progressed second language learning in schools was about ensuring that Te Reo thrives and other languages are supported for our heritage.
To the National Party: you are my family. I'm grateful to have always been blue. Past presidents, the board, the leaders of the party, and our members: I joined the party at 19 and I joined because I believe in equality of opportunity. You have given me so much opportunity. Thank you to my National friends and family.
To the parliamentarians, I've always said I believe there are two types of parliamentarians in this place: those that are in it for themselves and those that are in it for the country. Be the latter. Be brave and have courage. Don't leave anything in the tank. I've been fortunate to be supported by a number of strong, smart, and caring women: Jenny Shipley, Ruth Richardson, Katherine Rich, and Amy Adams. Each of you have been so generous with your time and wisdom in critical moments where I needed a dose of courage and compassion. To the parliamentarians: don't be arrogant or entitled. This is public service. I have been proud to have been a public servant of New Zealand. I love our country and I hope to continue to contribute more in the future. Haere rā.
[Applause]





Hon AMY ADAMS (National—Selwyn): In rising to make my valedictory statement, I feel every bit as humbled and as privileged as I did when I rose to make my maiden speech from the very back row of this Chamber 12 years ago. It's always seemed to me that time has its own rules in this place. My maiden speech feels both just like yesterday and at the same time a whole lifetime ago. I battled my emotions during that speech, and I give the House fair warning that I'm highly likely to succumb again tonight. I remember giving a pretty emotional speech in the general debate shortly after the first major earthquake had devastated much of Canterbury and losing the battle on that occasion to not cry in this House. As I tried to get a grip on myself, I recall Hone Harawira yelling out, "Kia kaha, sister.", and I remember thinking, "Holy cow, if Hone is feeling sorry for a Tory like me, I really must be a mess."
I spent a good portion of my maiden speech casting back to some of the debates in the battle for women's suffrage that reflected on the benefits that women members would bring to politics. I'm incredibly proud and actually quite shocked to find that I was just the 98th woman member in New Zealand's history to become an MP. Over my time as an MP, I've tried to use the role to encourage more women to see their futures without limits and to push back on the still unlevel playing field. As any woman in this place can tell you, we continue to face a type of scrutiny and criticism that is unique to us, and often a different measure of competence. While the number of women in politics is growing, we still have some way to go. But as MPs we have the ability to model possibilities for so many New Zealanders, and that's something we should never lose sight of.
One of my proudest moments came five years after I'd been asked to give a speech to the seniors at my old high school, Rangitoto College. I talked about the fact that I'd never won a prize of any sort at school, and while I'd done OK, I certainly wasn't someone who was marked out for bigger things. Years later, a woman came up to me and told me that she'd been in the audience that day and after hearing me, she decided she would go to law school, too. She'd just graduated, and she came up to thank me for making her believe that she could. I have to say, I was lost for words that our stories could have such an impact, but they do.
I've never really seen myself as a politician. I didn't come from a political family. I wasn't a youth MP. I wasn't a member of a youth wing of any party, nor did I study political science or work in the halls of power before coming here as a member. My path to this place grew out of a deep love of my country and an overriding sense of optimism of what being a New Zealander could and should mean for everyone. After my children were born, I found myself increasingly thinking about what their futures in New Zealand looked like and worrying when I thought we as a country were getting it wrong. I grew up in a household where sitting on the sidelines complaining simply wasn't an option. If you thought something was wrong, you had two choices: you could suck it up or you could do something about it. So the opportunity to step into the ring and try and make a difference became everything. Standing for Parliament and nailing my political colours to the mast was one of the scariest things I have ever done in my life. It involves doing that very un-Kiwi thing of stepping forward and saying out loud that you think you're good enough. But it has been, without question, one of the best decisions of my life.
I have to say that I started my time as an MP in a relatively bizarre way, and I've seen it end in a similarly unusual way. My selection and initial election involved a candidate being selected for the seat then unselected after a public furore, then a new process being commenced, then a High Court injunction, and finally a rare Electoral Act challenge based on a disgruntled aspirant challenging the party rules. After a hearing before a panel of judges in the High Court in Christchurch, which some of my colleagues will remember for a number of reasons you can ask them about later, I had to come to a question time early in my first term to listen to the Speaker deliver the judgment of the court, without any idea how the court had ruled and knowing that if the applicant had won, then the Serjeant-at-Arms would be called upon to eject me and I would've had one of the shortest terms as an MP ever. I have to say that keeping a poker face while the judgment was being read involved acting skills my famous namesake would have been proud of. 
After a beginning like that, it's only fitting that the end of my time as an MP has also been somewhat non-traditional. It's always good to hold some of the firsts in this place, and I'm pretty sure that I am the first MP to have retired, unretired and then re-retired all without actually leaving. When I told my son a few weeks ago that I would be announcing I was stepping down, he said, "OK, thanks for the update, Mum. Just let me know when you un-retire again." It was a bit harsh, Tom, but I do admit that I must seem a little bit like the AJ Hackett of New Zealand politics.
Michael Cullen described a valedictory as like being asked to give the oration at your own funeral, and I have to say it does feel a little bit like that. It's a surprisingly uncommon thing to be able to say you are going at your own time, of your own choosing, and, in recent times particularly, to know that you leave with your reputation and your integrity intact. I've been here for less time than some, but for longer than most. And I've been fortunate to hold a vast number of roles, including holding 13 ministerial roles over six years around the Cabinet table. I do have one perspective, though, that those of you who are staying on don't yet have. And that's of being in the position to reflect back on my time here as I think about what really matters when you come to say goodbye. 
That reflection puts our work here in a different light. It's easy to get caught up in the day to day, the relentless news cycles, the parliamentary skirmishes, the never-ending papers to read, and the palace intrigue. Years can pass like that, filled with unbelievable hours of hard work, little sleep, and high stress. But that's not why any of us come to Parliament. Simon Power, who was an MP I greatly admired, said in his valedictory, "People don't spend years getting elected, more years waiting to get into Cabinet, to then say 'Well, I managed that week well. I minimised risk, I had no view, I took no decisions, I stayed out of trouble. Well done, me!' Once you're in office, you've got to do something. People come and go, but ideas endure."—and I agree with that. 
In the words of Teddy Roosevelt I have a horror of words that are not translated into deeds, of speech that does not result in action. None of us should measure our contribution here by our goals, our hopes, or how much public money we spend in pursuit of them. The only measure that counts is the difference that our actions, ultimately, make for people. It's not good enough just to deliver a programme if that programme doesn't actually make the difference it was supposed to. In my view, we don't spend enough time as a system looking back and answering those sorts of questions. 
I don't think anyone leaves this place without some things left undone. I have plenty of things I would have liked to achieve, including—Mr Speaker, I'll admit to you now—a secret desire to have been thrown out of this Chamber. There is still time, however.
SPEAKER: Three more days.
Hon AMY ADAMS: Ha, ha! But for all the things not done, there are many more that I do reflect on with pride. The Parliamentary Library tells me that I was responsible for the introduction or carriage of 74 pieces of legislation—each one of which I reflect on with pride and, as far as I know, none of which have yet been repealed, but you'll be very pleased to know I'm not going to list them. Legislation aside, there are a few things that are being part of here that I do want to mention. 
In my three years as justice Minister, it very quickly became clear to me that the best thing we could do to reduce crime was to intervene many, many years before the offenders ever turn up in court. That was the basis of my absolute adoption of the importance of social investment as championed by Sir Bill English. Yes, it's early intervention, but it's so much more and involves radical change to our delivery models if we're going to make progress on the hard intergenerational issues. Last week in her valedictory, the Hon Anne Tolley talked about the work that she and I had led to change the delivery model for family violence and to force agencies to come together to treat it as everyone's problem, not just something for the police. The integrated safety response pilots we set up in Christchurch and the Waikato are embodiments of that, and hearing from those involved that many lives have been saved as a result of that new way of working makes me incredibly proud. 
As environment Minister, putting in place comprehensive environmental protections for our exclusive economic zone; delivering New Zealand's first ever national standards for fresh water; and mandating regular, independent, environmental reporting feel like substantial pieces of work to have been involved in in that critical area.
In my maiden speech, I extolled the importance of long-term thinking and planning when it comes to the infrastructure needs of New Zealand. And in my longest-held ministerial post, I was fortunate to play a central role in providing better internet connectivity across New Zealand. To me, good internet connectivity is a great leveller, both for New Zealanders looking to trade globally and domestically across our communities. Our ultra-fast broadband, Rural Broadband Initiative, and mobile blackspot programmes were transformative in that regard, and I want to acknowledge John Key and Steven Joyce for their vision and commitment in that area.
I'll never forget visiting a tiny school on Great Barrier Island with John and Nikki Kaye to launch the connectivity upgrade there, and watching a group of gifted students being able to study astronomy via remote learning, or listening to the story of a small baby on the West Coast of the South Island being able to be quickly diagnosed and treated in their local medical clinic by specialists at Christchurch Hospital through their dedicated fibre link. Of course, those stories were just a taste of what that vision and investment will mean for New Zealand for many generations to come—and didn't we see that during the COVID lockdown, when we all worked from home.
One of the amazing things about being an MP is getting to experience parts of New Zealand life we wouldn't otherwise get to see. When I became the MP for Selwyn, and knowing that my area included Burnham Military Camp, I realised that I also knew absolutely nothing about our defence forces, so I decided to go about changing that. During my first term, I convinced the Minister of Defence to let me set up a New Zealand equivalent of the UK parliamentary defence forces scheme that saw MPs embedded with either army, air force, or navy for a week, in uniform, and living on base. As the guinea pig, I did a rotation with each service, and I have to say they're experiences I will never forget.
Now, I'm a massive coward when it comes to all things adrenaline. I scream on Ferris wheels—it's really embarrassing. I never thought I would skydive. Yet my week with the air force saw me throw myself out of a plane at 12,000 feet. The only thing that made me do it was knowing that there were two bloody Labour MPs in the plane with me, and I was damned if I was going to wimp out in front of them! During my navy stint on the inshore patrol vessel Pukaki, I got to see a man overboard drill. When the man went over, I was somewhat startled to hear the command go up, "Get the rifles." I commented to the captain that that seemed a pretty harsh consequence for falling overboard, to be reassured by him that the weaponry was for the sharks and not the sailor.
Those experiences left me absolutely blown away by the dedication of our defence force personnel. And in 2017, when I was given the honour of speaking for New Zealand at the dawn service at Anzac Cove in Gallipoli alongside Julie Bishop and I heard the stories of those young men and saw the countless grave markers, I came to understand what true public service really means.
So other than my first and last speeches in this Chamber, four other speeches stand out particularly in my memory: the speech post the 2010 earthquake that I've already mentioned; giving the final speech in the passing of the recent abortion law changes; talking about the death of my own mother during the euthanasia debate; and giving the apology of this Parliament to those men unjustly convicted of loving who they love as part of expunging historical convictions for homosexuality. In each case, the emotion was real, and it was difficult, but they were all speeches that needed to be made to be true to who I was.
Colleagues, the jobs we hold matter. They matter so much more than any one of us. We need good people to want to step into this arena, and we need them to do it for the best of reasons. I worry that increasingly the scorn and the vitriol that is heaped on politicians—often fairly—discourages those good people from stepping up. These jobs are tough. The life is brutal, and the public will never really see the hours, the stress, the impossibility of the perfection that is required, and the impact that life in the public eye has on our families. While you are here in your political role, it is your life. Friends, family, and our health get what's left over, and often that's not much. But this job deserves that level of devotion.
Hunter S Thompson once said about politics that it is a cruel and shallow money trench, a long plastic hallway where thieves and pimps run free and good men die like dogs—and there's also a negative side. We all as MPs face the same personal challenges and upheavals as the rest of the population, but we quickly learn that we have to put on our public faces no matter what our internal turmoil, and that can take a toll. In my time in this House, I have dealt with the death of both of my parents and my two remaining grandparents. I've witnessed the devastation in my electorate through the Canterbury earthquakes, the Port Hills fire, and, more recently, the mosque shootings. I've received death threats and abuse, and I've seen my children have to deal with the relentless negativity and lies that are aimed at us through the media and social media alike. Yet not for a moment do I think it all hasn't been worth it.
I want to quote from Teddy Roosevelt again: "It is not the critic who counts … The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly … who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat."
If we're honest, though, none of us get the chance to be in this arena and dare greatly without the incredible support of a huge number of people, and I'm honoured to have so many of those people here with me today. I want to start, of course, by thanking my electorate of Selwyn, and to all its incredible communities from Akaroa to Arthur's Pass, from Rolleston to Rākaia, what an honour it has been to represent you. Being chosen to be your voice in Parliament for 12 years has truly been a privilege. My thanks to the three electorate chairmen I've worked with: the late John Skinner, Frank Brenmuhl, and John Sunckell. Thanks to all of the incredible members and volunteers who have been with me and given extraordinary service. I couldn't possibly name you all, but you have been like a second family to me.
To all my staff across 12 years, you made me look far better than I actually was. In Selwyn and in Wellington, what an incredible team you were. I particularly think back to the times we had as a Minister, and some of the hilarity that that included. Thank you, in particular, for stopping me one day from sending out a letter which had intended to call for a meeting with the iwi leaders, but which autocorrect had helpfully changed to request a meeting with the ISIS leaders—that could have been somewhat interesting; might have been easier, I'm not sure! The professionalism, laughter, and support of you all, and all of the officials that I had the privilege of working with, made every day a pleasure, and any successes that I've had in this job, I share with each one of you.
There are two staff, in particular, though, who need special mention and my deepest thanks. Sharon O'Callaghan, who has run my electorate office for every single day of those 12 years, like an absolute boss; and Caron Hoare, who has been my phenomenal executive assistant and senior press secretary for almost as long. These two are legendary, and, quite simply, you are the best in the business. I thank you.
Thank you to the National Party for giving me incredible opportunities; to party president Peter Goodfellow and the board, to all the leaders I've served under, and to our tireless regional chairman, Roger Bridge, my thanks.
To my caucus colleagues, present and former, what a group of minds you are. I've been so lucky to be able to debate and collaborate with you. I've made some incredible friends, particularly in my 2008 year group, in a way that can only be formed by sharing such a big part of your life over so many years. Go well, all of you.
A special thankyou also to Sir John Key for taking a chance on a stroppy young backbencher from Canterbury and for your being an inspiration to me every single day that you served in office. When I started here as a young fresh-faced MP, I thought it was highly likely that the Prime Minister wouldn't really have a clue who I was. Just a few months into my first term, I found out that he certainly did, when I stepped on to the treadmill in the Parliament gym early one morning, only to find it had been left going at warp speed by the previous user and I found myself jettisoned through the air, swearing like a sailor, to land, quite literally, at John's feet while he was doing weights. He looked down at me, somewhat bemused, smiled, and said, "Are you right, Amy? Be a bit careful, our ACC budgets are tight." I can tell you, I don't recommend it as a way to improve name recognition.
To my wider parliamentary colleagues, most of you I have come to respect and enjoy, even though I usually thought that you were utterly wrong. The best of this House is when it acts with its humanity taking precedence over its politics, and I've been lucky enough to see that on many occasions.
To my family, my mother and father were both here with me at the beginning—oh—
Chris Bishop: Breathe. 
Hon AMY ADAMS: —no, you've got to tell me to harden up, not breathe!—but you are no longer, and I miss you both. To my siblings Belinda, Ingrid, and Cam, and your partners and kids, my amazing in-laws, my uncles, aunts, and cousins, you all mean the world to me.
Finally, my husband, Don, and my two children, Tom and Lucy. As everyone in this Chamber knows, you guys serve in these roles as much as we do, but you don't get any choice in the matter. Tom and Lucy, you were eight and 10 when I started this journey, and you're both now in your 20s. I'm sorry I missed so much along the way, but you've turned into the most incredible people—I'm very proud of you.
Don, for someone who hates any sort of public attention, you'll hate this, so how you've put up with my political life is a mystery. I am sorry that I refused your very kind offer to write this speech for me, but I really didn't think we could afford the legal bills or the counselling for the Hansard staff that had to transcribe that, so I didn't take the option!
If I have any advice for those who follow me, it would be pretty simple: do the right thing and let the politics take care of itself. Be brave, stand up on the divisive issues, and never lose sight of the difference you get to make in the time that we are here. 
For me, I head off with no regrets, with immense pride, and now with the rare delight of being able to express an opinion without having to get 54 others to agree with it first. This place and these jobs matter. Go well. Kia kaha, kia maia, kia manawanui. Ka kite anō.
[Applause]
SPEAKER: Could I now thank the guests of the Hon Amy Adams, and ask you to vacate using that door and that door, so the guests of the Hon Nathan Guy can take their places.





Hon NATHAN GUY (National—Ōtaki): Today is exactly one year to the day that I announced I was retiring from this place. I learnt politics as a teenager at home. My father, the late Malcolm Guy, was the Horowhenua county chairman and the first mayor of the district. Angry ratepayers would ring constantly. My father was at endless meetings or out on the farm, and it was my job, along with my mother and brother, to try and pacify these people, and that's when I learnt about putting people first and hearing them out. I would write a summary in my father's diary when he came home. Occasionally, I'd write "M-A-D" next to their name.
Fast forward to 2004: the National Party started ringing me. I was, and still am, happily married to Erica. We had our first child on the way, Henry, and the National Party said, "We want to rebuild and attract some young people, particularly some young farmers." I said, "Thanks very much for the offer, but could you come back and see me in 10 or 15 years' time?" They said, "No, we'd like you now, thanks very much." We came down to Parliament here—I had to find a suit and a tie and things—and we had 45 minutes with Bill English. It was an amazing time. Bill summarised it quite nicely. He said, "You've got this triangle of conflicting things happening." He looked at Erica and said, "Your family's obviously very important." He said, "You've got your political aspirations and your farming." He said, "These three corners of this triangle won't work. You have to remove yourself from one of those." So I went home and told Dad that I was going to run for the National Party and, effectively, leave him and Mum to run the farm.
Two of us stood for selection late in 2004. It was a close match, and Henry arrived just a couple of days before the selection. So on the final selection night, Erica turned up with Henry in one of those baby capsules, passed him along the front of all these voting delegates—Henry, I owe you a lot, mate. The party hierarchy, they toned my expectations down. Darren Hughes—formidable MP, had a majority of 7,732. They said, "You won't win. Just work hard for the party vote.", and I thought, "Bugger them—I'm going to show them a thing or two." So I worked really hard, and on election night I was devastated. We missed by 382 votes the most marginal seat in the whole country. But I worked hard from then on. There's a saying in politics: you turn up to every cat burial and envelope opening, and I did that. In 2008, we had 500 people turn up to our campaign launch, which was huge in Levin—it was probably because John Key was there that attracted all those people—and as they say, the rest is history.
Can I acknowledge my Massey mates, who are here today, who turned up every term without fail during the election to support me and wave placards. I came up with this idea of a 1972 HQ Holden, three-on-the-tree, and I put a full graphic of myself down the side. It was a bit different: I was in jandals, shorts, hairy legs, all that stuff—short sleeves—and I had a cut-out that I would put in the driver's window of muggins with thumbs up. It was a real head-turner and conversation starter, but it had a couple of faults. It loved petrol, and it had this wonky petrol gauge. Those of you that have driven HQ Holdens or Belmonts before, it sort of bangs around between quarter of a tank and E quite regularly. I was on State Highway 1 at that Ōtaki roundabout there—many of you would've been held up there in the past, but thankfully the National Government's sorting that out for you. Anyway, the old Holden, it ran out of gas—State Highway 1, the middle of the roundabout. So I thought, "What do I do? I'd better get out and push.", so I pushed. BP was right there, but there was about 300 millimetres' difference between coming off the road up on to the forecourt of BP. I pushed this 1-tonne tank up on to the forecourt. I could see them running to get a camera to try and get a pic—fortunately, I was quicker than them.
Can I thank my loyal team in Ōtaki electorate and campaign chairs: Ted Cobb, the late Mike Gilbert, Brian Milne, Grant Robertson, John Riding, Terry Wood, Shirley Sowry, and Gavin Welsh, and in particular John Tanner, who was an amazing fundraiser. Thank you to your support of me and the party and the wonderful volunteers behind you.
I love rugby. I still do. I joined up with the Parliamentary Rugby Team. I heard there was a trip on to play the poms at Twickenham and also to get over and play the French in Paris. So what happened is we got out there. They were building the south stand. There was a massive crowd of about 10 guys in hard hats—they were spending most of the time laughing at the Lords and Commons and a few Kiwi guys running up and down. I managed to get the ball, and I ran over a couple of these rather large Lords and made a couple of tackles. Then what happened: McCully reports back to the hierarchy that Guy has got enough mongrel to be a whip. 
So I found myself suddenly as junior whip and then senior whip. I spent a huge amount of time in this House, understanding, debating—actually, just understanding how it works. It was interesting for me, the cut and thrust of this place. It's intimidating. It's a bear pit—that's its nickname—and it probably will never change. But, for me, that was my opportunity, ultimately, to pick up a ministerial warrant. Thank you very much, Prime Minister, for that opportunity.
I found myself as veterans' affairs Minister in Gallipoli in 2012. I did a battlefield tour—incredibly emotional, understanding what happened to our soldiers over there was horrific. They landed at the wrong place—piss poor planning and execution. I saw the battles that they had—from one end of the tennis court to the other. Incredibly emotional.
Then, the next day, it was my turn to speak at Anzac Cove. That was incredibly emotional too: 6,000 people, most of them had stayed overnight; the gentle wave-wash of the surf at the beach; the birds, just coming into song. I looked across at the New Zealand Defence Force when the roll call was on, and the lady had tears streaming down her face. I thought, "Shivers; I've got to speak shortly." So I got up. I got to a really emotional part in my speech. A tear came out of my eye, on to my nose, and dropped on to my speech. I thought, "Holy hell; I'm going to lose this." But then I thought about those thousands of young Kiwi men that had lost their lives. I hardened up and battled on.
After that, I had the privilege of sharing a breakfast with Julia Gillard, the Australian Prime Minister at the time. Neither of us were into cold pastries or cold meat, so she ordered toast. I thought, "What are we going to put on this toast?" She said, "Don't worry, Nathan. I've got it in hand.", reached down—"Kraft peanut butter. Vegemite." We had a great discussion. The Anzac bond is incredibly strong.
Back home, we were into building roads. Steven Joyce was under way as transport Minister, announcing four lanes through the Kāpiti coast—wonderful, wonderful project. Every time I get on that road, I'm so excited. I had to bear the brunt of that in my electorate office, with people coming in in tears. They were angry about Steven's road going through their living room. But, ultimately, it was the right decision, and I backed it all the way. It's connected communities and provided a huge amount of economic growth for our region. The Hon Simon Bridges and I had a wonderful opportunity to cut the ribbon on that amazing piece of infrastructure.
Then Prince William arrived. He wasn't married to Kate Middleton at the time. I got invited along—or probably, knowing me, invited myself—to Kāpiti Island. It was all going to be hush-hush. The public weren't meant to know. Well, what had happened is a British media contingent of about 50 had turned up with all of their cameras and got on the launch, so the secret was out. There were hundreds of people lining the beach wanting to get a glimpse of the prince, and probably the Prime Minister. So we arrived in the bus there, drove on to the beach, and John said to Prince William, "Right, let's go and meet these people." The handshaking began. I thought, "What do I do?" Never miss an opportunity, of course, as a local MP, so I carried on behind handshaking, until it got to a point when I think it was one of my constituents said, "Who on earth are you? Are you the security guy for the prince?" I thought, "Shivers; I've got some more work to do." 
Then we got on the launch. There were two young females, about 16, 17. We're in the launch heading out and the police were trying to hold them back. They were yelling out "Prince William, please marry me." They were out in the water there, and we carried on. Then, of course, the prince went bright red and the Prime Minister started giving the prince cheek. And of course, what I do I do? I joined in too, and then I suddenly thought, "This is the guy that's second in line to the throne. Pull yourself into line, Nathan." He's an incredibly likeable gentleman.
We got on to the island and the prince was able to release a kiwi. Of course, Kāpiti Island is well known as a bird sanctuary, with kiwis at large over there. He's holding this kiwi. Just at this point, the British media contingent obviously saw the money shot and their shutters on their camera went off at that point. It sounded like a rifle going around Kāpiti Island. This kiwi freaked. Feathers went everywhere. Fortunately, the prince had a reasonable hold on it and he turned to the British media and he said, "Told you I'd score a kiwi while I was here."
The Prime Minister gave me my dream job as Minister for Primary Industries, the biggest Government regulator, and a massive economic footprint. I'd just got my feet under the desk and we had meat locked up on the wharves in China. Then we had the Fonterra botulism false alarm that the Hon Nikki Kaye just spoke about a couple of moments ago. Both of those incidents tested the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) and tested me.
Then along came an idiot who sent a letter, a criminal blackmail hoax, where he wanted to contaminate infant formula with 1080. The Prime Minister stepped up an all-of-Government response and, at some point along the way, the Prime Minister said to me, "Nathan, you're the lead on this one." I thought: holy moly, here we go again. I was worried about an infant baby dying. I was worried about our international markets closing on us. MPI did a fantastic job. It's one of my proudest moments that MPI stepped up, worked with the dairy industry. We set up a whole testing regime from cow to can, and the day that it became public, there were no border ramifications. Martin Dunne, I acknowledge you and the MPI team for the work that you did. 
Erica knew that I had something on my plate for months. I wasn't sleeping well, I was irritable, and I wouldn't tell anything confidential to Erica. She nicknamed it "the bloody issue". We were going away on summer holiday—Ōtama beach, a beautiful spot in Coromandel—and Martin Dunne said to me, "Well, how are we going to get hold of you if you need to front this thing?" And I said, "I dunno. There's no cell phone tower out there. The signal's crap." He said, "Don't worry, I'll send a police car out to get you if you need to front." So every day the sun went down, Martin, I thought, now I can have a beer; the cops haven't arrived. I was loading the car up for camping and I'd done a pretty good job, ticked off everything. I put my suit bag across the top of it. Erica came out to check everything off. She said, "What's that bloody suit doing coming away with us on our summer holiday?", and I said, "It's the bloody issue." She slammed the boot on the car, and, of course, the day that that story broke, she duly texted me saying, "I see your bloody issue is in the media." Can I congratulate the Government on stepping up with the M. bovis response. You've done the right thing. I salute you.
Things got a little bit interesting with fishing for me. Remember Snapper 1, which is the area Hauraki Coromandel? I let a discussion document go out, and it had one option there that said "reducing the bag limit from nine down to three.", and all of those fishers wanted Guy on the hook. Ultimately, I made the right decision in the end, for sustainability purposes, reducing that bag limit to seven. At the time, the Prime Minister was under the pump with GCSB, a law change, in here. He got about 50 submissions on his bill; we got about 50,000 on snapper. So the Prime Minister would come into the House when he was getting attacked from this side and he'd say, "No one cares about GCSB. They all care about snapper!" I was thinking "No, Prime Minister, no. Don't drop me in it." Anyway, David Shearer did that for us. Remember him? A nice guy. He came in with two dead snapper, standing here, and moments later he was burley bait. Fishing politics can be problematic.
I really enjoyed getting out and about and travelling with the Prime Minister. We went to various countries around the world. One of the ones that was a great highlight for me was travelling to Mexico, Columbia, Brazil, and Chile. I need to tell you this funny story. We were on this amazing farm in Chile and I decided I'd show off to the Prime Minister with an electric fence with a blade of grass—trying to get him to do it. Of course, he thought I was pretty mad. So in the end I grabbed hold of this electric fence; then he thought I was stupid, and said so to the media. But I did have, close by, seasoned journalist Barry Soper, who I managed to talk into grabbing the electric fence. I looked down: John Key and I had on good, rubber gumboots. I'd worn my woolly socks for insulation. Barry Soper had wet, leather shoes. So Barry dutifully obliged—got hold of this electric fence. For those of you that have burnt yourself, you know that it's going to hurt, but it takes you a few seconds for your brain to tell you. Barry got hold of it and went: "It's not turned—oh, shit!" Then for the rest of the trip, I said to Barry, "You're looking a little bit pale."
He got me back when we stopped at Easter Island for a bit of gas on the way home, and we went and had a look at the statues there—the moais. He got me to pose in front of one. He said, "Don't smile. Just look normal." And then he tweeted it out and said, "This is where the Guys have come from. Look at their monobrows." It was one all, Barry, I think.
Can I acknowledge my staff before I forgot and before I get closed down on time: Anne Rogers and Heather Shaw and Pauline Coupland for doing a huge amount of work for me in my electorate office, thank you; Tricia Benny and Sue Reid also. Sue followed me into the whip's office. Lorraine Jones and Bibiana Marsh for running my ministerial office. Nick Kirton, Phil Rennie, and Bill de la Mare were the engine room. Thanks, fellas, for the long hours and strategic advice.
I also had the opportunity to travel down with Boris Johnson. You might have heard of him; he's now the Prime Minister of the UK. We went down to have a look at Kaikōura and the earthquake damage. I was civil defence Minister at the time, and we got on the NH90 helicopter. We were taking off nicely over Cook Strait. Then he said to me, "What's all that sort of vineyard over there?" And I said, "Well, foreign secretary, that's the Marlborough area where we grow grapes." He said, "Oh, God! Marlborough sauvignon blanc. I drink gallons of this stuff." At this point in time, I thought, oh, shivers. I could feel the captain of the NH90 veering off thinking we're going to need to stop and fill the NH90 with cases of wine, but we carried on. 
Then we had a full pōwhiri, and I was rehearsing with Boris about the hongi, showing full respect. That all went very, very well. We got into the morning tea after that, and he stood up to speak and he said, "Oh, it was a bit like a Liverpool kiss.", which is a head butt. I thought, "Oh no. Oh no. We've offended iwi." There was nervous laughter, and then applause. Everyone joined in with it. 
I also had the opportunity to travel with Richie McCaw around farms when he was a pilot—or still is—dropping off food parcels to farming families that had been impacted by the earthquake.
Can I wish Tim Costley well. He's going to be a great MP for Ōtaki.
We came home, Erica and I, from a fundraiser at Te Horo one night. There was this car sitting there—or a ute, actually—helping itself to our farm tank of petrol, and suddenly property rights came blaring into my head. So I backed up—this ute was high speeding it out—and I smacked into the side of this ute—got it on two wheels, actually, did a good job. And then a high-speed pursuit followed. We were heading along out to Foxton and Erica rang 111, and they said, "Can you tell us the speed that you're doing." I said, "Erica—no, no, no, no."—no, no, no, no, no. Anyway, we were just 101 kilometres an hour, from memory. The police did the rest in Foxton. 
Then I thought, "Shivers; I've smashed up the VIP self-drive. What do I do?", and I thought. "Gosh, this'll have to be reported through to the Minister of Police." So I walked into Cabinet—Judith Collins, Minister of Police at the time. I went up to her and I said, "Excuse me, Judith. Can I tell you about an incident on the weekend." She said, "Don't worry; I've already heard about it. Well done, Nathan. One less crim on our streets." I wish Judith all the best for this election campaign. She'll be a fantastic Prime Minister. 
Summary: in our lovely garden at home, we have a magnolia tree. It's majestic and protected. My father rests underneath the magnolia tree, but he's on my shoulder every day. When I'd be under the pump, he'd ring up and say, "Don't let the bastards get you down." I miss you, Dad. To my lovely mother, Betty—an amazing lady, recently awarded 50 years of voluntary service in the Horowhenua, happy always to be in the back row, and always puts others first—my success, Mum, is your success. 
To our children, Henry, Frankie, and Jeremy, I'm very proud of you. You've got a nice blend of Rawlings and Guy genes: dogged determination, that's probably on your mother's side; a bit of a good work ethic, maybe that's mine; and, combined, a great fun spirit and outlook on life. It isn't easy being a parent. I'm determined to do more and support you through your teenage years. 
Erica, an amazing wife and business partner, an amazing mother, and the best political brain around, learnt from your days in agriculture journalism. We make a great team. We ran the New York Marathon together. Erica, you had a sore leg—you're a gutsy girl to finish that. Thanks for always pushing me in the right direction. 
I was looking in my office the other day—got boxes galore, cleaning it out—and I came across the article that the Manawatū Standard did in a long-form interview of me in August 2009. There's a quote in there that I want to read out to you: "It's easy to sit on the side lines and criticise. It's a lot more difficult to stand up and be counted." I won't forget the last 15 years. I'm sure Parliament won't miss my booming voice. Kia kaha, my friends and foes. Haere rā. 
[Applause]
The House adjourned at 6.12 p.m.