TUESDAY, 1 JUNE 2021
The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.
KARAKIA/PRAYERS
SPEAKER: Members, in recognition of Samoan Language Week, three members will say the prayer this week in Samoan. Today I invite Dr Anae Neru Leavasa to say a prayer.
Dr ANAE NERU LEAVASA (Labour—Takanini): Tatou ifo ma tatalo. Le Atua e, silisili ese matou te sulaina lou alofa ma lou agalelei ona o tofiga ua e valaauina i ai matou. Matou fiafia foi e taʻutino lo matou amanaiaina o le Tupu Tamaitai o Peretania. O la matou tatalo, alofa ma taitai ia i matou felafolafoaiga uma ina ia faia i le loto maualalo ma le faamaoni ia matou faaiuga i totonu o lenei Maota Fono. Faamanuia i Taitai o le Faigamalo ina ia maua le tofamamao ma le loto maualalo e taitai ai lou atunuu i le manuia ma le filemu. Amene.





MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS
Canterbury Flooding—Government Response
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Deputy Prime Minister): Today I want to give an update to the House on the situation in Canterbury after the weather event and what the Government is doing to assist local communities in response and recovery. This has been a really tough time for the people of South, Mid, and North Canterbury, and I want to acknowledge how disruptive and distressing this flooding has been for the people impacted by this weather event. I'd like to recognise the extraordinary efforts of emergency management staff, first responders, volunteers, Ngāi Tahu, the Rural Support Trust, and community and rural leaders across the region.
A state of local emergency was declared on Sunday afternoon and remains in place for the region. Numerous roads and bridges have been damaged by floodwater, and rail lines are closed between Arthur's Pass and Christchurch, Pines Beach and Christchurch, and Timaru and Christchurch. Over 100 people have been evacuated across the region, including 16 retirement village residents from Geraldine. The tremendous efforts of everyone involved in the response means this event has, thankfully, not resulted in any loss of human life.
The Government is committed to helping the region through its response and recovery to this event. We have already announced funding through the mayoral relief fund of $100,000. This will support those impacted by the heavy rain event in the region, and as the rain begins to ease and rivers begin to fall, rapid assessments will be needed to ensure that bridges and households are safe. The Prime Minister, and Minister of Agriculture, and the Acting Minister for Emergency Management have visited the region and surveyed the damage. We continue to be heartened to see community members showing such great support for one another. Many evacuated residents are staying with family and friends, and marae have played a valuable role by opening their doors to those who have needed support.
Earlier this afternoon, the Minister of Agriculture, the Hon Damien O'Connor, declared a medium-level adverse event for the Canterbury region. Classifying the events as such will ensure funding of $500,000 for flood recovery measures, and it signals the Government's ongoing commitment to support those impacted as they start to recover.
In addition, the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) is able to approve up to $500,000 per event for the use of Enhanced Taskforce Green to help with clean-up and recovery efforts following an adverse event. Enhanced Taskforce Green can provide funding to employ job seekers to assist with the clean-up and can also be used to hire or purchase equipment and clothing needed for Ministry of Social Development clients to undertake the clean-up.
As the floodwaters recede and the scale of clean-up activities becomes clearer, MSD will be better able to understand the requirements needed and the needs assessments that are completed. The response has been extremely well managed at a local and regional level. The Canterbury region Civil Defence Emergency Management group has been leading response efforts. The National Emergency Management Agency National Coordination Centre has also been activated in support of the response. Local emergency personnel have been providing strong and welcomed assistance to the impacted communities. Police and Fire and Emergency New Zealand have assisted in a variety of capacities as required, and I also want to acknowledge the New Zealand Army, who have provided 16 vehicles and 30 personnel across the region, and two helicopters have been made available as well. St John Ambulance has deployed resources to Ashburton and Timaru.
Local rural support trusts, Federated Farmers, the Ministry for Primary Industries, and other rural agencies are also providing support as impacts on the rural sector can be properly assessed. Welfare services are available to help people with their needs. Coordinating people during emergencies is challenging, but it is taken in its stride and we thank those people for their work. Welfare is being delivered across the region and, again, local marae are supporting here.
The Government is strongly committed to supporting the Canterbury region as it recovers from this significant flooding event. We will continue to work with the region to identify needs and provide further support as is needed. Mr Speaker, I know that you and members across this House will join me in expressing our support and aroha to all of those impacted by this emergency.





Dr SHANE RETI (Deputy Leader—National): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Today, we stand in support of the people of Canterbury for the weather event that has so disrupted and affected their lives. We want to thank emergency services and first responders for what they have done and what we anticipate they will continue to do so professionally going forward. We acknowledge the Government's support, the mayoral relief fund, and other support that has been provided to the region, and the many families and friends who have opened their doors to those who have been impacted. We also want to thank marae. This is another reminder that during civil emergencies, unconditionally, marae open their doors and make themselves available. Ngā mihi ki a koutou.
We stand here wanting to help the support, to lend ourselves to the rebuilding that will be required. We can see that roads and bridges have been severely affected, and however we can lend our support to getting back infrastructure that provides quality of life for the people of Canterbury, that is what we plan to do.
Finally, our support is unquestioningly behind what is needed to serve the people of Canterbury. Please, if the Government can tell us what they need from us, we're here to help. Kia ora, Mr Speaker.





Hon JAMES SHAW (Co-Leader—Green): Let me start by thanking the Deputy Prime Minister for updating the House on the situation in Canterbury. All of us across the country are concerned about the impact of the flooding on the people of Canterbury.
First off, I would like to welcome the support and assistance that our Government is providing to local communities. Ashburton, Hinds, and the rural areas around mid-Canterbury, including Ashburton, have been particularly hard hit as well as areas around the Waimakariri District. I'd like to join with the Deputy Prime Minister in acknowledging the extraordinary response of the local community, the first responders, emergency and management staff, the volunteer fire brigades, and those who have been out in the pouring rain and cold repairing power lines and ensuring that local infrastructure holds up, and the friends, families, and neighbours who have come together to offer others a safe sanctuary or the simple pleasure of a warm cup of tea and a hot shower. 
The severity of the storm is such that lives could have been lost but for the extraordinary collective effort of people on the ground. What we've seen in the response effort is the spirit of cooperation and togetherness that Canterbury is known for around the world. It's during very difficult times like this that we're reminded of the importance of community and of looking out for each other—those moments when the small frustrations that we all experience vanish into the background and we focus on what really matters: community, a warm safe place to rest, and family.
As river levels begin, mercifully, to drop, attention will turn to the process of recovery. There will be clean-up to do. People will still need help, somewhere warm to sleep, and a warm place to rest. Kids will still need to get to school. We're already seeing offers of support come in and we need to make sure that this House and our Government are there to help for as long as people need it.
Marama Davidson and I and everybody in the Green Party are very proud of the people of Canterbury. When I hear stories like that of the Hakatere Marae, which has operated as a welfare centre on the south side of the Hakatere / Ashburton River, I'm confident that Canterbury can get through this, and we will be with them every step of the way.





TONI SEVERIN (ACT): ACT stands in support. We know the people of Canterbury are people who have shown, time and time again, their resilience in the face of adversity, but this does not make events like this easier for those affected at this time. A large amount of damage has been currently seen to the local infrastructure and farming land in the area. This is particularly significant, obviously for the families and farms affected, but also the entire South Island, who are connected to this region. Some of the affected roading includes damage to the Ashburton Bridge, a transport route that carries tens of thousands of vehicles every day.
I do want to acknowledge the Government for declaring an adverse event in the region to unlock a level of support for farmers and growers, but we also recognise that the impact of this will not end tomorrow. The land will take time to recover, and roads will take time to be repaired. Especially as we head into winter, it is vital that we provide the support necessary for this region. From the ACT Party, we want to especially recognise the work that has been done, from the local authorities to all the people in the communities who are coming together to support those affected in this region. 





RAWIRI WAITITI (Co-Leader—Te Paati Māori): Talofa lava, manuia faafetai i le Atua, manuia le Vaiaso o le Gagana Samoa. Tēnā koe e te Pīka. Tēnā tātou e te Whare. I rise on behalf of Te Paati Māori to show our aroha and support for the Canterbury region at this time as they deal with the severe storms, flooding, and all the stress and disruption that has been caused as a result. I want to acknowledge Ngāi Tahu for their tremendous effort to support and uplift their communities of Ōtautahi. In particular, I send the mihi of Te Paati Māori to the hau kāinga of Hakatere Marae, the Ashburton marae, who have opened their doors to all the whānau and communities. This is a demonstration of the manaakitanga that is absolutely central to our tikanga and culture. Time and time again, no matter what the nature of the emergency, it is tangata whenua and it is our marae who open their doors and provide the relief and care that people need when they are dealing with emergencies and may need to evacuate their homes to ensure their families are safe. I too acknowledge local and central government for committing resources and funding to support Canterbury with the significant impacts of the flooding. No effort, no pūtea, should be spared in giving mana whenua, whānau, businesses, and communities the support they need at this time. Nō reira, tēnā koutou, kia ora tātou kātoa.





PETITIONS, PAPERS, SELECT COMMITTEE REPORTS, AND INTRODUCTION OF BILLS
SPEAKER: Petitions have been delivered to the Clerk for presentation.
CLERK: Petition of Malcolm Mulholland requesting that the House urge the Minister of Health to conduct an external reform of Pharmac and increase its budget Petition of Cancer Society New Zealand requesting that the House pass legislation that significantly reduces the number of tobacco retailersPetition of Christine McCarthy requesting that the House insert a section into the Corrections Act 2004 that prohibits prolonged solitary confinement Petition of Seann Paurini requesting that the House stop student loan applications for course-related costs being declined on the basis of agePetition of Eva Chen requesting that the House urge the Government to allocate sufficient funding and resources to match the Asian communities' populations Petition of Doreen Senn requesting that the House urge the Government to encourage schools to teach our history in a positive lightPetition of Asha Stander requesting that the House pass legislation allowing working holiday visa holders to stay in New Zealand after their visa's expiryPetition of Ari Kerssens requesting that the House urge the Government to mandate equitable access to the Total Mobility scheme for those whose access to public transport is compromised due to disability Petition of Jino Philip requesting that the House urge the Government to allow all international students with student visas who have already paid tuition fees to enter New Zealand to start their studies Petition of Nahuel Gomez requesting that the House urge the Government to extend Argentinian working holiday visas that were approved before the borders were closed Petition of Ann Yee Ong requesting that the House urge the Government to extend the expiry date of Malaysia working holiday visas Petition of Piolito Ali requesting that the House urge the Government to give me a second chance and extend my New Zealand visa Petition of Chirag Gandhi requesting that the House urge the Government to grant citizenship to immigrants working as medical staff and isolation workers Petition of Anudeep Uppuluri requesting that the House urge the Government to grant post-study work visa holders who are stuck offshore entry Petition of Bhanu Yadav requesting that the House urge the Government to resume the suspended process of Expression of Interest for Skilled Migrant Categories Petition of Ehab Takawi requesting that the House urge the Government to urgently review the current borders control measures to allow the reunification of offshore partners.
SPEAKER: Those petitions stand referred to the Petitions Committee.
Ministers have delivered papers.
CLERK: Export Education Levy Annual Report for the financial year ended 30 June 2020Council of Europe Convention on Cybercrime 2001 together with National Interest AnalysisNew Zealand Symphony Orchestra Ltd Annual Report for 2020 and Statement of Performance Expectations 2021.
SPEAKER: Those papers are published under the authority of the House.
Select committee reports have been delivered for presentation.
CLERK: 
Report of the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee on the petition of Sunny Kaushal
Reports of the Finance and Expenditure Committee on Reserve Bank of New Zealand's Financial Stability Report, May 2021 Seven petitions regarding KiwiSaver
Report of the Primary Production Committee on the petition of Brenna Deacon
Reports of the Regulations Review Committee on Complaint about the Fisheries (South Island Customary Fishing) Regulations 1999 COVID-19 Public Health Response (Vaccinations) Order 2021
Reports of the Social Services and Community Committee onOranga Tamariki (Youth Justice Demerit Points) Amendment Bill and Report of the Attorney-General under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990Petition of Eliana DarrochSocial Security (Financial Assistance for Caregivers) Amendment Bill.
SPEAKER: The bills are set down for second reading. The reports of the Regulations Review Committee and the Financial Stability Report are set down for consideration.
The Clerk has been informed of the introduction of bills.
CLERK: Intelligence and Security (Review) Amendment Bill introductionConstruction Contracts (Retention Money) Amendment Bill introduction.
SPEAKER: Those bills are set down for first reading.





ORAL QUESTIONS
QUESTIONS TO MINISTERSQuestion No. 1—Finance
1. BARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana) to the Minister of Finance: Lau Afioga le Fofoga Fetalai. What recent reports has he seen on the New Zealand economy?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): Mr Speaker, fa'afetai lava. Malo le soifua. Overnight, the OECD released its latest global economic outlook, including for New Zealand. The OECD expects the New Zealand economy to be a relatively strong performer through the pandemic, with a small impact in 2020 and a solid recovery. It forecasts growth of 3.5 percent in 2021 and 3.8 percent in 2022, in line with the Budget update, driven by solid household consumption, rising investment in infrastructure, and gradual increase in tourism as the borders reopen. By the end of the forecast period, New Zealand's growth rate of 3.8 percent is expected to outperform most of the countries we compare ourselves to: Australia at 3.4 percent, Japan 2 percent, the United States at 3.6 percent, while Canada matches New Zealand at 3.8 percent. However, the OECD warns that before the improved outlook, challenges remain. Global activity is picking up but the recovery is uneven, with a lot of frictions.
Barbara Edmonds: What other reports has he seen about the Budget's impact on New Zealand's economic outlook?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Budget 2021's focus on securing the economic recovery has been recognised by credit ratings agencies. Moody's Investors Service noted that Budget 2021 forecast a continued strengthening in the economic outlook, thanks to the Government's swift and decisive response to the COVID-19 pandemic, and underscoring New Zealand's robust credit quality. Standard & Poor's assessment of Budget 2021 confirmed that the country is recovering quicker than most advanced nations, underpinning the agency's decision to upgrade New Zealand's credit rating in February. It noted that, "given the pace of the recovery, Standard & Poor's believes the Government's credit metrics can withstand further negative shocks to the economy and its fiscal position at the current rating level."
Barbara Edmonds: What other reports has he seen on the economy?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Statistics New Zealand reported that seasonally adjusted filled jobs rose to a new high in April, increasing 0.3 percent on the previous March 2021 high. Filled jobs are now slightly above pre-COVID levels. Employment held up over the summer period, despite the absence of international tourists. Statistics New Zealand says that filled jobs have returned to a more regular and upward trend in the last few months. Westpac bank commented that the growth in employment does not suggest that firms are having increased difficulty in filling vacancies in recent months. The Government is focusing on securing the recovery, and Budget 2021 boosted our skills and training initiatives to allow people to transition more easily into different types of work.
Andrew Bayly: What confidence does he have in the OECD's growth projections for New Zealand given that it assumes a rapid increase in the vaccination rate to enable the New Zealand border to be fully opened in early 2022?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I have great confidence in the New Zealand economy, the businesses, and the workers who work within it, and I also have great confidence in a vaccine roll-out that is ramping up day by day.




Question No. 2—Prime Minister
2. Dr SHANE RETI (Deputy Leader—National) to the Prime Minister: Does she stand by all of her Government's statements and actions?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Deputy Prime Minister) on behalf of the Prime Minister: Talofa lava. Yes, I do—in particular, our recently announced Budget that will secure New Zealand's recovery from COVID-19. Budget 2021 strikes a careful balance between securing the economic recovery and keeping a lid on the debt that we took on during COVID-19 to protect lives and livelihoods. The Budget is a core part of helping us achieve our three goals for this term: to keep New Zealanders safe from COVID-19, to accelerate our recovery and rebuild, and to tackle our foundational challenges—in particular, housing affordability, climate change, and child wellbeing.
Dr Shane Reti: What measures did Budget 2021 take to address benefit dependency, and does she agree the only sustainable, long-term way to address poverty is through jobs, not benefits?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: There has been a significant investment in supporting people into work through things like the Flexi-wage scheme. I'm particularly proud of Budget 2021's reinstatement of the training incentive allowance for degree-level courses, taken away by that member's party in 2009.
Dr Shane Reti: Can she confirm that Budget 2021 documents project that in four years' time, there will be 60,000 more New Zealanders on the jobseeker benefit than when she became Prime Minister?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: What I can confirm is that the Budget projects that there will be 200,000 more New Zealanders in employment at the end of the forecast period, which is an excellent result as we come out of COVID-19.
Dr Shane Reti: Does she agree with Budget 2021 documents that show benefit increases are needed to stop more children slipping into poverty due to the increases in rent and cost of living that her Government has overseen?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: What the Budget documents show about child poverty is that the Government has been able to reduce it by more than 40,000, and that the initiatives in the Budget will reduce it by a further 33,000 children being lifted out of poverty. Everybody on this side of the House recognises that there is always more to do to improve child wellbeing in New Zealand, but I'm extremely proud of what the Government has done in that regard.
Dr Shane Reti: Why did she claim benefit increases were about addressing Budgets passed 30 years ago, when this is simply reversing the cost of living increases caused by her Government's policies over the past three years?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I completely reject the latter part of that question, and, with respect to the former part of it, what this Budget did—finally—was make sure that the damage done by that member's party in the 1991 Budget was turned around so that now all benefits are of a value greater than they were when those cuts were made. If the member wants to stand up and defend the "mother of all Budgets", by all means, go ahead.
Dr Shane Reti: Is she concerned that her Government's policies will see more Kiwis moving to Australia to work, given their recent pro-growth Budget that delivered incentives for business investment?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: No, I'm not, and that's because every indicator coming out of both the Australian and New Zealand Budgets shows that New Zealand is doing better. We're going to be having higher growth rates. We're going to see more people in employment. We're going to see fewer people unemployed, and, at the same time, our deficit will be lower and our debt will be lower. The member should be proud of what New Zealand is doing.
Hon Chris Hipkins: Can the Prime Minister confirm that since the trans-Tasman bubble was opened up, more people have travelled from Australia to New Zealand than the other way?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Yes, I can, and I can understand that, given the major attractions that there are here in New Zealand. I once again ask the members opposite to actually look at the outcomes from the Australian Budget, and they'll see that on every indicator, New Zealand is doing well. They should be proud of New Zealand, not running it down.




Question No. 3—Social Development and Employment
3. GLEN BENNETT (Labour—New Plymouth) to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: What recent announcements has the Government made about supporting people in the welfare system?
Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development and Employment): Talofa, Mr Speaker, ia manuia le Vaiaso o le Gagana Samoa. In Budget 2021 the Government announced that weekly main benefit rates will increase by between $32 and $55 per adult by 1 April 2022. These are the biggest benefit increases in a generation. The Budget 2021 benefit increases, alongside the changes we've made since 2018, mean that 109,000 families and whānau with children will be, on average, $175 a week better off compared to 2017. This Budget finally reverses the welfare cuts of the 1991 "mother of all Budgets". It not only rights a wrong but it puts more money into the pockets of New Zealanders who need it, and it is money that will go right back into our economy, helping to secure our recovery.
Glen Bennett: What specific announcements did she make as part of the Budget package to support people in the welfare system to work?
Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: We've been very clear that alongside income support our welfare system is crucial with respect to supporting New Zealanders into work. This Budget saw an additional $99 million for front-line work-focused case management. This is off the back of a $200 million investment in the 2020 Budget. We have also reinstated the training incentive allowance (TIA) to support people to take up level 4 to 7 study. This will mean that 16,000 sole parents, carers, and disabled people on eligible benefits will be supported financially to retrain, upskill, and get into employment over a four-year period. This includes approximately 7,000 Māori and Pacific people. The ladder of opportunity was pulled up by National in 2009, but I'm—
SPEAKER: Order! Order! This is a warning—a final warning for the Government today—on those matters.
Glen Bennett: How has Budget 2021 responded to the Welfare Expert Advisory Group's recommendations?
Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: Benefit increases and support into employment, including the reinstatement of the TIA, were all part of the recommendations made by the Welfare Expert Advisory Group, but there are also a number of recommendations made by the group that relate to improving processes within the welfare system. Budget 2021 will see another process change adopted: the Ministry of Social Development will no longer be requiring that people provide medical certificates at fixed review periods, which was at least every four weeks for the first two months and at least every 13 weeks after that. Under the new process for subsequent work capacity medical certificates, the client's health practitioner will have more flexibility to recommend the time between medical reviews. These changes will mean that people are not having to spend money on unnecessary GP visits. It will also save the health system 20,000 GP visits per month that were only for the purpose of bureaucratic process. Our welfare overhaul is ongoing. We have made some significant changes, but look forward to doing more.
Ricardo Menéndez March: Why have the Government chosen to wait until next April for the full benefit increases, and only raised them a little bit this year, when people are struggling to make ends meet—
SPEAKER: Order! I know he's a new member, but his question had finished before he added something on to the end. If the member wants some advice about how to structure questions, I'm pleased to give it to him in my room, but he's growing a habit of adding unnecessary material.
Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: Generally, when changes like this to things like benefits are made at Budget they are introduced on 1 April. We have brought forward part of the benefit increases to be effective as of 1 July, which is a flat $20 increase for everyone on benefit. The rest will come into force on 1 April. There are differential increases, so that also gives the officials a little bit of time to work out how they do that properly.




Question No. 4—Health
4. Dr SHANE RETI (Deputy Leader—National) to the Minister of Health: Does he stand by all of his statements and actions?
Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Health): Talofa lava, Mr Speaker. Yes.
Dr Shane Reti: What measures had he taken, if any, before the cyber-security attack at Waikato DHB to reassure himself the cyber-security measures in place were appropriate?
Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I became aware, when I became Minister of Health, of the many problems in IT systems across our health sector, largely because of significant under-investment by the previous Government, and that is why in the Budget just two weeks ago we increased investment across the system by $385 million.
Dr Shane Reti: Can he confirm reports that the Ministry of Health turned down a DHB sector-wide cyber-security platform in 2019 because of the cost; and, if so, what was the cost?
Hon ANDREW LITTLE: No, I can't confirm that. What I can confirm the Ministry of Health did, following events in 2019 in relation to Tū Ora Compass, a primary health organisation (PHO) which suffered a major incursion in their database and their systems, was to talk to the sector about how PHOs could get better protection for their cyber-security.
Dr Shane Reti: Has he checked that all cyber-security measures at Waikato DHB before the recent cyber-attack were running the latest software versions and malware signatures?
Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I'm satisfied that the Ministry of Health and its IT leadership were well in touch with the needs of DHBs across the country by providing guidance and standards that the DHBs had to meet.
Dr Shane Reti: Can he confirm the answer to annual review questions that Waikato DHB had not undertaken a full restore from back-up in the previous year; and, if so, how does he explain this?
Hon ANDREW LITTLE: No, I can't confirm that.




Question No. 5—Environment
5. Hon EUGENIE SAGE (Green) to the Minister for the Environment: Will he consider tightening the limits on synthetic nitrogen fertiliser in the National Environmental Standards for Freshwater 2020 if the Government's review of the science on the relationship between nitrates and birth outcomes confirms a link between drinking-water nitrate levels and premature births; if not, why not?
Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): Talofa lava. I have met with the Associate Minister of Health, the Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall, together with the Director-General of Health to discuss the matter, and I understand the Ministry of Health is reviewing the various studies and will thereafter recommend whether or not further study is undertaken in New Zealand. If, eventually, nitrate levels were to be further tightened in New Zealand for drinking water standards, that would be a health-led issue rather than for me as Minister for the Environment.
Hon Eugenie Sage: Does the Minister agree that current nitrate levels in regions such as Canterbury are the result of land uses over decades, not just recent years, and that nitrate levels in ground water are likely to continue to increase in the foreseeable future?
Hon DAVID PARKER: I think it's astounding that between 1990 and 2015 there was, from memory, a more than 600 percent increase in synthetic nitrogen fertiliser application in New Zealand, and that that, together with the more intensive livestock practices, with more livestock per hectare, there has been a remarkable increase in New Zealand in nitrates, both on the land and in our waterways. That has contributed to environmental problems in our rivers, including the overgrowth of periphyton slime, and also nitrate toxicity levels which, at times, hinder a wide range of aquatic communities.
Hon Eugenie Sage: Why does the Minister not support an urgent precautionary approach to tackle land uses which cause nitrate pollution in drinking water sources to avoid burdening present and future generations with more pollution and higher health risks?
Hon DAVID PARKER: Well, we've already, for the first time in the history of New Zealand, actually, got a cap on the permitted amount of nitrogenous fertiliser—synthetic fertiliser—of 190 kilograms of nitrogen per hectare per annum for all pastoral farms. In addition to that, we've said there will be a review from a water quality perspective, as opposed to a human health perspective, in 2023 of nitrogen management settings, and the agreement from Cabinet is already that if by then there is not a material reduction in the use of synthetic fertiliser across New Zealand, the review will include an assessment of whether further input controls on agriculture are needed.
Hon Eugenie Sage: What level of evidence on the potential link between nitrate levels in drinking water and adverse health effects will the Minister need in order to consider reducing the fertiliser cap in the national environmental standards before 2023?
Hon DAVID PARKER: As I said in the answer to the primary, that is a question that should be addressed to the Associate Minister of Health. That doesn't fall within my responsibility.




Question No. 6—Health
6. SARAH PALLETT (Labour—Ilam) to the Minister of Health: What recent announcements has he made about adult cochlear implants?
Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Health): The number of adults getting cochlear implants for hearing loss will almost double as part of the investment announced in Budget 2021. More than $28 million over four years will see an increase of publicly funded cochlear implants go from 86 per year to 166 per year.
Sarah Pallett: How many people will be able to access these implants due to this investment?
Hon ANDREW LITTLE: In our 2020 election manifesto, we promised to double the number of cochlear implants to Government funds, and we have. This investment means that 320 more people will get cochlear implants by 2025.
Sarah Pallett: What will this mean for adults waiting for an implant?
Hon ANDREW LITTLE: Severe or profound hearing loss has a huge impact on people, affecting their family lives, their social lives, and their ability to work. I was impressed with a story from a person who stopped me in the street recently to tell me of the impact on her brother, who was in his 50s, who benefited from the increase in investment this Government put in cochlear implants at the end of last year. He rang her to tell her that for the first time, he heard his grandkids, and he was—and this was April—off to the beach, would you believe, not to swim but so he could go and listen to the waves. It's those simple things that make a huge difference to the enjoyment of people's lives and increases their wellbeing.




Question No. 7—Small Business
7. ANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato) to the Minister for Small Business: What specific new initiatives, if any, in Budget 2021 reduce costs on small businesses or directly assist them so that they expand to grow the New Zealand economy?
Hon STUART NASH (Minister for Small Business): Fa'afetai, Mr Speaker. Budget 2021's biggest focus was securing recovery while continuing to keep people safe. Specifically, in my small business portfolio, Budget 2021 delivered $44 million over two years to provide business training courses for 60,000 small to medium sized enterprises (SMEs), and digital advisory services to 30,000 SMEs as part of the Digital Boost programme. Also, $9 million per year for Business Connect, which will help deliver efficiency, cut costs of compliance, and enhance the upgrade of digital technologies. But there was so much more for small businesses in this Budget. If you're a small business operating in the infrastructure area, there was $57.3 billion over the next four years. If someone operates as a small business operating in the tourism sector, there was $200 million to help support, recover, and reset the industry. If you're a small-business owner making healthy lunches for children, there is $527 million to reduce food insecurity and supporting 200 jobs—
SPEAKER: Order! Thank you.
Andrew Bayly: Has he asked for advice on whether the $44 million digital business action plan will lead to a higher or lower small-business growth than the $1.2 billion Digital Economy Strategy announced in the Australian Budget 2021?
Hon STUART NASH: I haven't had a look at the Australian Budget, but what I do know, according to the OECD, which I liaise with quite a lot in small-business digitisation, is that we are leading the world in terms of driving the digital uptake by small businesses. In fact, there was a McKinsey report released—an American consultancy—that said that they saw about five years' worth of digitalisation compressed into eight weeks. We are very passionate about driving the uptake of digitisation for our small businesses because we know this will make a huge difference in their profitability and efficiency.
Andrew Bayly: Will the new initiatives in Budget 2021 mean that small-business costs are higher or lower than prior to the increases in the minimum wage, increased sick leave, and an increase in electricity prices?
Hon STUART NASH: I'd agree with the Minister of Finance when he said, and I quote, "Adding a few cents to the cost of a cup of coffee is a price worth paying to ensure workers get the money [that] they need to live." I would say what we have done over the last 3½ years, but certainly reinforced in this Budget, is that we are backing small businesses to drive their own future by ensuring that they can become digital experts and increase efficiency and drop costs. It's fantastic.
Andrew Bayly: Did Budget 2021 include any increased tax relief for small businesses to invest in new plant and equipment along the lines of Australia's $17.9 billion tax break—
SPEAKER: Order! Order! Again, the same comment as I made earlier to the Green member—when the member's finished his question, he should stop.
Hon STUART NASH: No.
Andrew Bayly: Does he share the concern of media commentator Luke Malpass, who said in his post-Budget commentary that New Zealand small businesses are at risk due to a brain drain to Australia, and what initiatives were included in Budget 2021 to address this? 
Hon STUART NASH: No, I don't.
Chris Bishop: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I wanted to wait until the end of my colleague's question, but twice today you have, I would argue, pre-emptively cut off both Mr Menéndez March's question and also Mr Bayly's question, and I'm just not quite sure why. It seems to me that both questions had maybe a little bit of context at the end of the questions, and it's always been in order for questions to have a bit of context in the supplementary. Is it now the case that questions must be one clause only and end with some sort of intonation at the end?
SPEAKER: No. No, the rules have always been the same. Members are allowed to ask two legs, of which one can be answered, but both legs must be questions, not throwaway comments.




Question No. 8—Economic and Regional Development
8. TANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North) to the Minister for Economic and Regional Development: Fa'afetai tele lava, Mr Speaker. What announcements has he made about supporting regional development?
Hon STUART NASH (Minister for Economic and Regional Development): Fa'afetai, Mr Speaker. Last week, I visited that member's home town of Palmerston North to announce the launch of the $200 million Regional Strategic Partnership Fund (RSPF) to replace the Provincial Growth Fund (PGF). This delivers on the Labour manifesto commitment, and it is the next step to keep up the momentum of economic recovery in the regions. Over this parliamentary term, this fund has three goals. The first one is: it will work with local partnerships to enable economic and business development; the second one: it would accelerate Māori economic aspirations; and the third one is: it will support sector transformation. The creation of the Regional Strategic Partnership Fund is a significant move and represents another step forward towards creating a more productive, innovative, resilient, and sustainable economy.
Tangi Utikere: What feedback has he received on this announcement from regional leaders?
Hon STUART NASH: Quite a lot of feedback. Let me give you a couple of examples. In the member's own region of Manawatū and nearby Whanganui, the economic development group Accelerate25 described it as excellent news. The Horizons Regional Council chief executive, Michael McCartney, said, and I quote, "To confirm central government will continue prioritising regional economic development is excellent news as we build on the next phase to establish the Central North Island as a growth centre for the New Zealand economy." The Employers and Manufacturers Association chief executive Brett O'Riley says the $200 million Regional Strategic Partnership Fund will be welcomed by its members, particularly in the Waikato and Bay of Plenty. I could go on, but I won't.
SPEAKER: You have already. 
Tangi Utikere: How will this fund build on existing investments?
Hon STUART NASH: The PGF has invested more than $3.11 billion in regional economic development in its three-year life, but we are now taking a new approach. This fund will act more as seed capital for regional priorities and will focus on building strong partnerships to help regions realise their economic potential. Central government will partner with local government, iwi, unions, businesses, community organisations, and other agencies to identify priorities and co-funding opportunities. The partnership approach of the RSPF will be strategic, and region-led, and will continue to be supported by Government.




Question No. 9—COVID-19 Response
9. DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT) to the Minister for COVID-19 Response: Does he stand by the Prime Minister's statement regarding the Government's COVID-19 vaccine roll-out, "we've announced our sequencing framework and have a plan in place that will ensure all New Zealanders are offered a vaccine by the end of the year"?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister for COVID-19 Response): Yes, and I also stand by the Prime Minister's statement that we will be ensuring that those most at risk of being exposed to COVID-19—our front-line border workers and our front-line health workers—will be amongst the first New Zealanders to get access to the vaccine.
David Seymour: Does he agree with the OECD that "The pace of vaccination needs to accelerate to reduce the risk of new outbreaks and pave the way for full border reopening in 2022."?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The pace of our vaccination campaign is accelerating. The biggest thing that has the potential to slow that is vaccine supply. We are certainly in a position to scale up as fast as the vaccines arrive in New Zealand.
David Seymour: Has the Minister received any information from Pfizer recently that they may be about to announce a major delay in supply to New Zealand?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: No, that's not the feedback that we have received. I understand Pfizer will be announcing their global allocation for the month of July towards the end of this week. I think we all await that with interest. The feedback that I had from Pfizer last week is that their New Zealand representative in fact used the phrase "lock step" when describing Pfizer's position relative to the New Zealand Government's.
Hon Paul Goldsmith: Are we in the near queue or the far queue?
David Seymour: How long can the Government maintain vaccination rates as set out in its schedule with doses that are currently onshore and in the Government's possession?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: We currently have just under 250,000 doses in our freezers at the moment. We are using just under 100,000 per week. We are scheduled to get deliveries sitting around the 50,000 mark per week between now and the end of June. That means that towards the end of June, we'll be wanting to have some certainty around what's going to be arriving in July. As I've indicated, Pfizer is expected to make all of that clear in terms of the month of July later this week.
David Seymour: How does the Minister reconcile his statement that the greatest uncertainty is vaccine supply, made just a few minutes ago, with his statement that Pfizer is in "lock step" with the New Zealand Government? Is he worried about delivery of vaccines from Pfizer or not?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I don't think those two things are incompatible. We are absolutely confident we'll get the vaccine; we just don't know exactly how many and on what dates.
David Seymour: Does that mean that there will be delays and the Government is in danger of missing its target of offering vaccination to all New Zealanders by the end of the year?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I don't think any person objectively listening to what I have just said would draw that conclusion.
David Seymour: So which one is it: does the Minister stand by and agree with the Prime Minister's statement, or is there uncertainty caused by the fact he doesn't know how much vaccine is available until Pfizer make an announcement next week?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The Prime Minister's statement that the member referred to in his primary question referred to all New Zealanders having an opportunity to have the vaccine by the end of the year. I absolutely stand by that statement.
Hon Michael Woodhouse: Point of order. You removed a significant number of questions from the National Party, which obviously undermines our ability to hold the executive to account. I wonder if you could just clarify whether that was because of the nature of Mr Goldsmith's intervention or the fact that it was during a question. I listened carefully. Mr Goldsmith interjected prior to Mr Seymour asking his supplementary question.
SPEAKER: Yes, he did. Unfortunately, there were at least four or five other members who made noises while Mr Seymour was having his question.
David Seymour: Will the Government release the agreement that it has with Pfizer or the schedule of delivery it is working to?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Those are commercially sensitive, and my understanding is that Pfizer have indicated that they do not wish to have those released.




Question No. 10—COVID-19 Response
10. CHRIS BISHOP (National) to the Minister for COVID-19 Response: Which district health boards are delaying vaccinations of Group 3 until at least July due to having insufficient doses available for Groups 1 and 2 populations, and is he satisfied with the COVID-19 vaccine roll-out in New Zealand?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister for COVID-19 Response): None, and yes.
Chris Bishop: Is he confident the COVID-19 vaccine roll-out will scale up to deliver 76,000 vaccination doses per day for 49 days in a row in September and October, as the Auditor-General report noted would have to be the case for the Government to meet its target of everyone being offered a vaccination by the end of the year?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Yes.
Chris Bishop: Is there any correlation between the at least one month delay of the COVID-19 vaccine national booking system roll-out and the delay in group 4 vaccinations starting from July to the end of July, which the Government confirmed last week?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: No.
Chris Bishop: Why are more than 10 district health boards, who are in charge of the vaccine roll-out, not collecting data on which of their staff have been vaccinated and which haven't?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: That's a question for those district health boards.
SPEAKER: No, I mean, I was sort of waiting for the point of order to come. I think the Minister is responsible to the House for those district health boards. He might want to say that he doesn't have the information from them but they can't answer in this House. He is responsible for them, and I think he should have another attempt at answering the question properly.
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The National Immunisation Register provides district health boards with the ability to access data on every one of their staff members who has had a vaccine.




Question No. 11—Housing (Māori Housing)
11. ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa) to the Associate Minister of Housing (Māori Housing): What initiatives has the Government funded through Budget 2021 to support Māori whānau to meet their housing aspirations?
Hon PEENI HENARE (Associate Minister of Housing (Māori Housing)): Alongside the Minister of Housing and my fellow Māori housing and Māori development colleagues, we have listened to the ongoing call for more action to address the housing issues our people are facing. We have secured $380 million to deliver approximately a thousand new homes for Māori housing, repairs to about 700 Māori-owned homes, and capability to iwi and Māori groups to accelerate housing projects and support services. In addition, this Government has also ring-fenced $350 million for infrastructure to enable Māori-led housing supply from the $3.8 billion Housing Acceleration Fund.
Arena Williams: How will this investment strengthen the Māori-Crown partnership?
Hon PEENI HENARE: Māori have an opportunity to reshape and drive the future of the Māori housing continuum and change what the statistics tell us today—this Government is here to support and enable that. We will see the Crown partner with iwi and Māori to achieve greater scale through new housing delivery models. A key benefit is that housing solutions are delivered by those who have the best understanding of the needs of their people.
Arena Williams: How has the Budget announcement been received by Māori?
Hon PEENI HENARE: Alongside my Māori ministerial colleagues, we are currently travelling around the motu kanohi ki te kanohi to discuss Budget 2021. We have met with housing providers, iwi, and Māori whānau from Te Wai Pounamu, Taranaki, Te Tai Tokerau, and Tāmaki Makaurau to discuss in detail what the Budget means for them. At our hui we are cheerfully greeted, and I can assure the members opposite, there are many hongi shared and not one single head-butt in sight. The feedback we are hearing is "Kua tae te wā—it is about time". Feedback from Māori is best summarised by Dame Tariana Turia, who said, "This is the best Budget we've had in a long, [long] time."




Question No. 12—Police
12. SIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga) to the Minister of Police: What are the measures of success, if any, for Operation Tauwhiro, and is she confident Operation Tauwhiro has been successful in reducing gang violence?
Hon POTO WILLIAMS (Minister of Police): Fa'afetai tele lava. As I said in my answer to question No. 11 on 4 May, the measures of success include: to sustainably reduce the prevalence of violence by gangs and organised crime, particularly that involving the use of firearms; to remove access to illicit firearms from gangs and organised crime groups; and to hold offenders to account. In my answer on 4 May, I also provided an update on the progress of Operation Tauwhiro so far. As at 20 May, I can tell this House that police have seized 522 firearms, seized $2.67 million in cash, arrested 476 people, seized 9.5 kilograms of methamphetamine, and conducted 361 search warrants.
Simeon Brown: Does she consider Operation Tauwhiro to be a successful deterrent for gang violence when hundreds of gang members turned State Highway 2 into their own personal highway last week?
Hon POTO WILLIAMS: I note that police will not tolerate this type of behaviour on our roads, and offenders will be held to account. I understand the police made a number of asset seizures from attendees of that tangi, and multiple arrests. Police will continue to investigate and take actions against those identified as being responsible for any offending.
Simeon Brown: As part of her oversight of Operation Tauwhiro, will she rule out meeting with gangs and gang members, and, if not, why not?
Hon POTO WILLIAMS: I have no intention of meeting with gang members at this stage.
 





URGENT DEBATES DECLINED
Ransomware Attack—Waikato District Health Board
SPEAKER: I have received a letter from Brooke van Velden seeking to debate under Standing Order 399 the ransomware attack on the Waikato District Health Board. This is a particular case of recent occurrence for which there is ministerial responsibility. Public confidence in the health system and the confidentiality of patient information is important. When considering an urgent debate application, the Speaker takes into account whether there are any other parliamentary means of debating the matter. The Budget is set to continue today, with 6½ hours remaining, and it provides an opportunity to debate this issue. The application is therefore declined. I will say, however, that this application was well framed and if it wasn't for the Budget debate, I would have granted the application.





BUDGET DEBATE
Debate resumed from 20 May on the Appropriation (2021/22 Estimates) Bill.
Hon DAVID PARKER (Attorney-General): A week and a half, just about two weeks, since the Budget was delivered, and hasn't it gone down well? A bit of whinging from the other side of the House, but the vast majority of New Zealanders are congratulating us on our efforts to secure the economy while continuing to keep people safe. I'm going to talk about some of the high-level forecasts that have come from the Treasury, backed up by recent forecasts from the OECD, and then come to some of the initiatives that are in the Budget. 
Over the next four years, 221,000 extra people are projected to gain employment. Unemployment is forecast to drop to 4.2 percent, lower than National ever got it after the global financial crisis (GFC). Annual GDP is growing. The economy's growing. It's growing better than it was previously. We are going back to pre-COVID levels pretty quickly—by 2023. The OECD report out today says that's not just good for New Zealand; that's very good by OECD standards. The deficit is forecast to fall—the Government deficit—from 5.3 percent of GDP in 2022 to 0.6 percent by the end of the forecast period, with a return to surplus in 2027. So we do have a pathway back to surplus, and I make the point that this is about the same time that it took National to get back to surplus post the GFC, despite the challenge from COVID obviously being much deeper. Core Crown debt now is forecast to peak at below 50 percent of GDP, and we've retained a buffer of more than $5 billion in the COVID recovery fund to guard against the possibility of future outbreaks. 
Wage growth's already been above inflation in New Zealand under this Government, meaning that people in work are much better off than they were in real terms before the Labour Government took office. But our agenda goes beyond working people. We don't want to leave anyone behind, and we've had four years of progress on that front, as well. It started in 2017, when we cancelled National's tax cuts and we designed support for low and middle income families. We introduced the winter energy payment, we introduced the Best Start payment that went to families with children, we increased the family tax credit, and we extended paid parental leave. That was a $5.5 billion package. 
At the same time, we introduced child poverty legislation and started working on our targets to halve child poverty in 10 years, and we've done a lot of things in support of that. We've indexed benefits to wages. We've kept investing in people to connect them with their work during COVID. We've made changes to the in-work family tax credit, and we'd already lifted benefit rates by $25 a week. So in the last two years we've seen improvements in all nine measures of child poverty, and we've lifted 43,000 children out of poverty already, after housing costs—after housing costs. I'm going to come back to housing, because it has been a challenge, but we are making progress. 
This Budget is predicted to lift another 33,000 children out of poverty. We've increased main benefits by between $32 and $55 a week. The first of those payments starts in July and rolls out next year, as well. And the changes that we made since we took office mean that there's 100,000 families who will be $175 a week better off, and, of course, that is the difference between Labour-led Governments and Governments of a different hue. 
There still remains a large difference between the benefits of working and being on a benefit. Even after these increases, a jobseeker support benefit is $315 a week. It is not a lot of money to live on: to pay for the basics, to put food on the table, to pay your power bill. These are not overly generous entitlements, and I think one of the reasons why New Zealanders up and down the country have backed these changes is that they saw how hard it was during COVID. They felt vulnerable themselves. They saw the support that the Government was giving via employers of $580 a week per full-time employer and they thought, "Wow, those benefits are low in comparison; we need to move them."
Now, we know that housing is inextricably linked to poverty and wellbeing. We're building more public houses than any Government in decades, and we've got 18,000 fully funded out to 2024, 7,500 of which have already been delivered. People decry that, but you count that on a daily basis, and, you know, 7,000—that's hundreds a week. We're finishing tens of houses—about 15 houses—every day of the working week, and over time 15 new public houses finished every day makes a difference. The private sector's doing their bit. The stats were out today: 43,000 consents in the year to June—43,000. That's 30 percent more—30 percent more—than when National left office. These are big changes. We've closed tax loopholes, we've banned foreign buyers, we've extended the brightline test, we've introduced progressive homeownership, we've expanded support for first-home buyers. These factors are now working, as shown by the Reserve Bank and the Treasury forecast saying that house price inflation is dropping to about 1 percent per annum on average through the country next year.
We're investing in Māori housing. We're investing in infrastructure to assist councils to provide the infrastructure that we need to build these houses. We're reforming the Resource Management Act (RMA) system. There's $132 million not just to redesign the application but to avoid the mistake of the RMA, which was that a good law was passed but it just wasn't implemented. At the time, they didn't fund the Environment Court. They didn't produce a standard plan. They didn't have standardised definitions, and they didn't pursue national direction. All of those things are being addressed through our RMA package.
I want to mention yet another area that we're delivering on, which is— 
Matt Doocey: Bureaucrats!
Hon DAVID PARKER: —vaccines. Oh, the other side, they say "Bureaucrats". You know, I think New Zealanders actually realise the benefit of public servants in helping us get through the COVID journey that we have negotiated so far, and, yes, some of those what they call bureaucrats are people who help in ministries with the COVID strategy, and that's working, too. We're at 108 percent in the last data that's on the website that's updated weekly—108 percent of target, as the Minister Chris Hipkins said in the House today. We're delivering vaccines at a faster rate than they are being delivered, and it's a delicate balancing exercise as we manage those stocks so that we don't run out by the time we get the big deliveries later in the year, but we are still on track to vaccinate every New Zealander that wants to have a vaccination by the end of the year. 
Those stats have been broken down by locality, they've been broken down by week, and they're all available on the COVID-19 vaccine data website that the Ministry of Health maintains. I invite those who are listening to look at them, because every week we show the number of vaccines that we are carrying out, the number of first doses, the number of second doses. Now, some of the critics as to the number of people that have been vaccinated say, "Oh, there's only 20,000 or 30,000 people been vaccinated." They're wrong. The data that comes out tomorrow, based on the trends that we've seen in prior weeks, will show that more than 200,000 New Zealanders have now had their second dose. 
We know that the third category of people includes about a million people. We've done the majority of the people who are in managed isolation and quarantine—virtually all of them, actually—and the health workforces; they're largely vaccinated now. But the extension of this to category 3—it is a million people in category 3. A million people in category 3 cannot be vaccinated overnight, in part because the stock of vaccines is roughly 300,000 people, and anyone that can do arithmetic—and there's obviously some arithmetically challenged people on the other side, because they can't seem to work out this obvious truth that if there's a million people in category 3, then until you get the big deliveries coming in July and thereafter, you can't vaccinate all of that million people from 300,000 doses that are in the country. They're arriving at roughly 50,000 extra doses until we get the big deliveries later in the year, so 50,000 per week, plus the running down of the stock, allows us to do towards 100,000 a week—
DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The member's time has expired.





ANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I'm just so glad that we had Mr Parker explaining that in such clarity—absolute clarity. Why didn't you say it as if you meant it, Mr Parker? One other thing, Mr Parker: I think you need to get out and about a bit more, because we've been out and about. I've been in Auckland, Hamilton, Wellington, Blenheim, and Invercargill, and they're not telling me that this Budget's a good thing. They're not saying that.
So, what we were expecting in this Budget: well, we were expecting a pathway back to prosperity. We need to see a road map so people know where we're going as a country, so that we can get this country growing again faster, and that's what's missing in this Budget. I've got to say: where is the ambition of the Labour Government? It just wants to wallow around in the old stuff. What we want to see is a pathway so that we can actually grow, create new jobs, because when people create new jobs, not only do we get our 200,000 people off the benefit but the Government in time gets revenue so it can invest in hospitals, schools, roads, and rail—all those things that New Zealanders are so desperate for.
I think if you compare this Budget to the Australian Budget, there are some stark differences. The Australians did the same things. They first of all concentrated on the most vulnerable, and that is correct. They certainly identified women as one of the most vulnerable. This Budget, for New Zealand, we certainly had an element of that, and I'm going to talk about that. But what this Budget misses and the Australian Budget did highlight and spend a fortune on is good packages, good reforms, good initiatives to help grow their economy. I've got to say to you why that is important. The issue is that Mr Robertson thinks it's OK to double the debt from, today, $100 billion to nearly $200 billion over the next three to four years. I just think we need to ask ourselves: why is Mr Robertson so comfortable continuing to run a situation where the Government can't pay its way? Effectively, it is borrowing money to pay the interest bill.
Just to put it in context, this Government borrowed $110 million yesterday, will borrow $110 million today, and will borrow another $110 million tomorrow. That means, in a one-week spend-up of borrowing it, we, effectively, could've got enough money to build a super-duper regional hospital, or, if we do it for two weeks, which will happen over the course of this parliamentary session that we are in right now, Mr Woodhouse could have his brand new Dunedin Hospital, for which we've waited for three years for this Government to sign off the business case—three years of delay. Or I could've had and Mrs Collins could've had our new $1.4 billion Mill Road in Auckland, or, over a course of eight weeks, we could've spent the entire amount fixing up Wellington's transport woes—$6.4 billion. That is the scale of the borrowing that this Government is prepared to do. I've got to say to you: debt is an albatross around our neck because it removes our potential to deal with future issues such as earthquakes; calamities, as we've just seen over the weekend; but also just in terms of our trading arrangements, all those sorts of stuff. It gives us the ability to be flexible and to have a capability to be resilient. This Government just thinks it should be piling on the debt to make that happen.
I've got to say, with the emphasis on the benefits—$3.3 billion worth of money spent on the benefits—I think it was understandable that the Government devoted a certain amount of money towards this issue. But I just don't know—what is it about the "mother of all Budgets" from Ruth Richardson, from 1991? Most of them can't even remember it. I'd say to you the short history lesson is that under Bill English, we increased benefits by $25 a week, the first time in 40 years when we did it, when we were last in Government. So, somehow, there is no sense of history in this Labour Government.
But why is it having to do the increase in the benefits? Well, I'll say to you, the reason it has to do it is it's of its own making. The Labour Government has seen a $100 increase in rents per week since it came to office over three years ago, and that is largely a result of its own policies it put in place. Then we've seen these massive increases in power prices, and let me say to you, as a business person and as a homeowner, we are yet to see the price increases in electricity that are going to come through. They are borne by the action of the Prime Minister to so rashly close down the oil exploration, which immediately saw all our oil companies disappear overseas. That should've been a transitional programme. What we saw was someone trying to get the highlights overseas.
So what we've seen is the Government dealing with the issue of beneficiaries. That is an issue that needs to be dealt with, but I'll say to you: what about all those other New Zealanders, those low-income earners in New Zealand, and what about our superannuitants? Did they see anything in this Budget? Absolutely nothing. This Budget was devoted to the beneficiaries, and our low-income New Zealanders, who get out every day, go and do a job—they didn't see any upside in this Budget. I think it's very, very unfortunate.
So where are the areas that we expected more? Well, I think we should've seen more support round businesses. What we've seen from this Government over the past three years is this continual socking of additional costs on our small businesses: the increase in the minimum wage at such a rapid escalation—no one's against increasing it over time, but they're huge increases that have been imposed—the additional sick pay, the additional public holiday, and also all the electricity costs that have come through. We should be supporting our businesses. We should be working with them much more in an aligned fashion. We should be making sure that they've got capital at the right moment. We should be ensuring that they are more innovative. We should be doing what the Australians did, putting an incentive to invest in much more modern plants and equipment so our productivity increases over time. That's what we should've seen in this Budget.
Secondly, we should've seen a move to diversify our economy. We all accept the loss of international tourism and students coming to New Zealand. We need to diversify this economy, and what have we seen from this Government? Absolutely no focus on it—only $44 million towards a bit of training around digital stuff. It is ridiculous. We need a Government that has a vision of how it's going to make sure that this economy is much more resilient, and that means an economy with strong, productive sectors in it, well-resourced with the money that they have and prepared to take on the risk.
We should also be seeing more support about regional businesses. We are concerned about the hollowing out of the West Coast and places like that—I'm looking here at Maureen Pugh. We do not want to see people leave that area because they don't have a viable job. We want to make sure that there are still people who are prepared to join the fire brigade down there. That means being clear about the policies, not Mr Nash walking around the country handing out a few dollars here and there with no real strategy.
There is a pressing need for housing, and, again, we've got 23,000 people waiting to get in a house. It is an outrage for this country. It is absolutely dreadful that there was no specific, innovative approach in this Budget to make sure that this issue is dealt with and dealt with quickly.
What did we see in health? Well, we saw $200 million go into Pharmac, which was even less than we promised in the last Budget—and we would've done more in this Budget. But what did we see? We saw lower operating funding for our district health boards (DHBs). What did we really see? We saw half a billion dollars directed to restructuring our DHBs, our hospitals. This is after a year where our doctors and our nurses have worked so hard to get us through the COVID. This Government, this Labour Government, thinks the best thing we should do is immediately put them into a restructuring reorganisation of our hospitals. Again, it is illogical, it is insensitive, and, what's more, mental health is still a burning sore for this Government. In the 2019 Budget, $900 million was promised and, Mr Doocey, what has been spent: $130 million—that's all. That's all—less than 20 percent.
We need a Government that cares for people, gets on and creates a more dynamic economy—
DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The member's time has expired.





Hon JAMES SHAW (Minister of Climate Change): Mr Speaker, I'm very sorry to cut Mr Andrew Bayly off, because he was just getting into his stride. 
DEPUTY SPEAKER: I call the Hon James Shaw. 
Hon JAMES SHAW: Thank you, Mr Speaker. He was just getting into his stride at the 9 minutes and 58 seconds mark. Mr Bayly says that we should be more like Australia. Well, let me tell you something, Mr Bayly: Australia has a higher top tax rate than New Zealand does and a capital gains tax. So if he wants us to be more like Australia, I welcome his support for higher taxes on those who earn more money and capital gains taxes, because if he thinks that New Zealanders are going to up sticks and move to Australia on the basis that somehow they'll be better off on those bases, he's incorrect.
Mr Bayly said a few other things in his opening comments that I thought were quite brilliant—that in Koru Clubs all over New Zealand, loyal National Party supporters are saying to him that this Labour Budget is a bad thing, which is not terribly a surprise, really. He also said that they need a pathway back to prosperity, and, given that only one in four people vote for National these days, he's right. They do need a pathway back to prosperity, because it's going to be a very long time before he's able to be in a position where as Treasurer or finance Minister, or some combination of those things, he's going to be able to do what Australia does and impose higher taxes and a capital gains tax. I look forward to the day when that happens.
I'd like to draw attention to a few things in Budget 2021 in relation to climate change, because one of the characteristics of climate-related spending is that it is distributed across many other parts of the Budget and it's not sort of packaged together. But this was actually quite a significant Budget in terms of expenditure on initiatives that will help to reduce New Zealand's greenhouse gas emissions. The total actually comes to about $2.3 billion of both capital and operating expenditure in Budget 2021, much of which is directed at reducing our transport emissions, which is, of course, the one area that has seen relentless increases year on year over the course of the last 20 years. So we are investing money in the worst part of our emissions problem, trying to arrest the increase in our transport emissions and to start to bring those back down. The expenditure included an additional $1.3 billion worth of rail, about 80 percent of which will end up helping to move freight from the roads and on to the rail network. That will have a significant impact.
There is $302 million for, shall we say, electric vehicle (EV) incentives, which will be announced in the coming weeks as to the precise form of that. But, obviously, that's been a topic of much discussion over the years, and that's helped to sort of start to transition our light-vehicle fleet around the country from internal combustion engine vehicles to electric vehicles. There is $56.7 million to implement the Clean Car Standard. That is because we and, I think, Russia are the only two countries in the OECD that do not have tailpipe emissions standards. Minister Michael Wood has brought those in. It's taken us a long time to catch up with the rest of the OECD on that, and so we'll be bringing those in.
There is $6 million to implement the biofuels mandate, or to bring back the biofuels mandate that David Parker brought in under the Helen Clark Labour Government but which was then thrown out by the incoming National Government on the basis that it might do some good. The biofuels mandate will help to ensure that every litre of fossil fuels that go into our transport network will have a biofuels component and, therefore, over time will bring down the emissions profile of those existing internal combustion engine vehicles into the fleet.
So you can see that there is a comprehensive plan for how to start to reduce emissions from transport. There was also an additional $120 million to extend the Warmer Kiwi Homes programme, which does have a long history of bipartisan support and it's made a huge difference in this country—
Hon Gerry Brownlee: Who started it?
Hon JAMES SHAW: —and, of course, $300 million—and I'm hearing from Mr Brownlee here, "Who started it? Who started it?" Well, under an agreement between the Greens and the incoming National Government, that Minister there brought it in. I want to acknowledge the work that he did doing that, and also the fact that he actually went out and got more for that programme than was asked for. So it's, like I said, a long history of bipartisan support for that programme.
The other thing I wanted to draw attention to is the $300 million that is going towards Green Investment Finance Ltd, which is the vehicle that we set up in the last term of Government to help to direct capital towards the green economy. At the time, we put in a minimum viable proposition of $100 million, that was really to ensure that we were just doing kind of proof-of-concept work. It wasn't a lot of capital, and so there are certain deals that it hasn't been able to participate in. Now, what we've done is we've quadrupled the size of that fund, which will enable it not just to do more but also to participate in larger deals as well. So that was a pretty significant component in Budget 2021, but, actually, the thing that I really wanted to draw the House's attention to is the commitment that from next year, 100 percent of revenue that's brought in under the emissions trading scheme (ETS) is going to be recycled into the transition to a low-carbon economy. That is something that we have been working towards for a number of years, and I'm delighted that the Minister of Finance made that announcement as part of the Budget package this year so that people can see that it's coming.
Now, we'll be working on the shape of that during the course of the second half of this year as part of the decisions that Cabinet has to make around the emissions reduction plan, which agencies are working on but will really fire up from late next week once we've tabled the advice of the Climate Change Commission, which will come out next Wednesday at midday.
One of the things that the Minister of Finance said in his Budget speech is that the way we do public finance in Aotearoa has some useful disciplines, but it is very poorly designed to deal with complex, distributed, multigenerational challenges like climate change. We have seen that, and I've experienced, as both a Minister of Climate Change and as Associate Minister of Finance in the last term, that it is not well-suited to be able to respond in a comprehensive way over multiple generations. So the Minister of Finance and I will be working on, as part of the work on the emissions reduction plan, how we need to reorganise public finances to be able to cope with that long-term challenge. That is underpinned by the announcement that that revenue from the ETS will go towards recycling of that revenue.
So we have said that we're not waiting for the emissions reduction plan. Like I said, this Budget does include $2.3 billion worth of new money that will help to reduce New Zealand's greenhouse gases and, of course, we've signalled a long-term pathway from Budget 2022 onwards. But, I do want to say, we have spent a lot of time and effort over the course of the last few years putting in place a comprehensive plan for how we deal with climate change.
Over the last 3½ years, we have ended new offshore oil and gas exploration, we passed the zero carbon Act with bipartisan support, and we've become one of the first countries in the world to put the 1.5 degree global warming threshold under primary legislation. We established the Climate Change Commission and we will soon have our first three emissions Budgets. We've overhauled the emissions trading scheme and put a sinking lid on emissions for the first time. We've overseen the more than doubling of the carbon price since we got into office from $17 a tonne to $37 a tonne. We've started planting a billion trees and invested $1.2 billion in Jobs for Nature, creating permanent carbon sinks all over New Zealand.
We've invested billions of dollars into buses and trains, cycling and walking infrastructure. We've invested in EV charging infrastructure around the country. We've started to replace the Government fleet with zero-emission vehicles. We've brought in vehicle emissions standards for new imports for the first time in New Zealand history. We've brought back the mandate to include biofuels in the petrol that we'll still include in our cars for years to come. We've set up a new energy research centre in Taranaki to kick start the hydrogen economy. We're helping businesses to switch to clean energy, with the Government Investment in Decarbonising Industry Fund. We've started replacing our own coal boilers in our schools, our hospitals, and our universities with clean alternatives. We've made Green Star six the minimum build standard for all new State homes. We've started the Building for Climate Change programme to cut emissions from building and construction. We've increased subsidies for home insulation.
We've conducted the first nationwide climate change risk assessment and committed millions of dollars to flood defences in some of our most vulnerable communities. We've published climate change curriculum resources for schools, doubled our climate change - related aid to the Pacific, declared a climate emergency, and committed the Public Service to be carbon neutral by 2025. We've paid back every single one of the dodgy hot air units that entered New Zealand under the hot air scandal of the mid-2010s. We've become the first country in the world to legislate for a price on agricultural greenhouse gas emissions and we're currently building the world's only farm-level emissions measurement management and pricing system, and we're the first country in the world to introduce legislation to require all listed companies and large financial institutes to report on their climate-related risk. 
We have done more in the last 3½ years to prevent the climate crisis than the last 30 years of Governments combined, and I'm very proud of the track record that we've got. Is it enough? It is absolutely not. That is why we must build on this work and keep going from next year onwards.





Hon WILLIE JACKSON (Minister for Māori Development): Well done to that member, the Hon James Shaw, and how the Greens are operating. But particularly well done to the kāhui Māori—Māori Ministers—who have come up with a record Budget in terms of Māori, the best Budget that any Government, any Parliament, has ever seen, ever: $1.1 billion—$1.1 billion. 
It's really important, because I see Mr Brownlee over there, and he knows, because he was part of a Government—well, they gave us stuff-all, basically. Along with the Māori Party, the reality was in 2017, the last Māori Budget that was delivered was $122 million—$122 million. Now Governments, as Mr Brownlee knows, historically have given us, as I said, stuff-all in terms of targeted funding. We can go way back, actually, but we won't go way back; we'll just stick with National and the Māori Party, and we'll talk about the 0.4 percent to 1 percent of targeted funding that they used to give us. It was terrible funding and it really put our people backwards.
But once we came in in 2017, things changed—things changed. We saw, in 2020, 6 percent of the new funding was allocated in terms of targeted Māori funding—6 percent—and here, this year, 7 percent. So it's a shame the Māori Party is not here—
DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Don't mention people who are not here, thank you.
Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Sorry, Mr Speaker. But people do get their sums wrong when they do the figuring out of the Budget, and we hear all this nonsense. Seven percent of a new Budget: incredible, given that we've got Māori providers who are only between 5 and 7 percent, and given that most of our people get mainstream funding. A terrific number—so well done to the Māori Ministers who fronted this with a Māori caucus who've been 100 percent behind us. I mihi to our Māori caucus, but as a Māori ministerial team—and we're on the road at the moment—we were really happy and proud to negotiate that position. 
It's incredibly important if you look at the two areas that are really standing out, and one of those areas is Māori health. Māori have lived off the smell of an oily rag for ever and a day. The Waitangi Tribunal talked about Māori health being in a catastrophic position—a catastrophic position. For too long, our people have been put into a process that has failed them and received minimal funding. We, again, have heard this. Māori Ministers have heard this and put forward the idea of an independent Māori health authority. That has been hugely well received by our people. It's an opportunity for our people to express their rangatiratanga, something that is foreign to the National Party. They mix up rangatiratanga, sadly, with apartheid, and have said that a number of times. But as the Hon Kelvin Davis has said, rangatiratanga is based on empowerment and apartheid is based on oppression. 
So $242 million in that space will give our providers an opportunity to set something up, to give our people an opportunity to access basic health needs. We want to see how this operates and we are excited by the opportunity to create something new and different. We have been widely applauded and supported by our supporters with this creation of an independent Māori health authority. Despite what the Opposition have said with regards to the setting up of a Māori health authority, we have forged ahead, and we have put senior kaumātua like Sir Mason Durie at the forefront, who will facilitate on our behalf this new creation, which we think will help in turning around the very, very negative statistics that happen in the health area. 
The same principles in terms of health I have to apply to housing, because in the housing area we have had, sadly, too many Māori miss an opportunity in terms of securing a basic home or basic housing needs. We have managed to negotiate $380 million in this space—$380 million—right across the spectrum in terms of papa kāinga housing, which I'm responsible for, right across into the different rohe, cities. This $380 million is on top of a $350 million infrastructure fund, which will help address the terrible statistics that are happening in the housing area. I want to mihi to the Associate Ministers of Housing, Peeni Henare and Marama Davidson, and Megan Woods, obviously, the Minister of Housing, and myself, who have worked at the coalface with our people and with the different providers like the Jamie Tuutas and the Willie Te Ahos to find a way forward in terms of the whole Māori housing position. Despite the criticism from the Opposition, we have forged ahead, and now, from this particular Budget, we have got a pūtea of well over $700 million—$750 million—in terms of housing. Added to our Māori health pūtea, we're talking about $1 billion—$1 billion. That's never ever been seen before in terms of these sorts of kaupapa. 
So I'm just very proud to roll out this type of funding. When I look right across the spectrum though, you see funding in areas like the iwi community panels where we've got $70 million allocated in that area. That's a really important area. That kaupapa was started at my own marae at Ngā Whare Waatea, and we started it nearly 10 years ago. We bring offenders in and they are overseen by kaumātua, they are overseen by elders, they are overseen by police, and we work on a way, a strategy, of trying to get them back on the right path. So $70 million is allocated in that area. As I said, it started at my marae and at Waiwhetū Marae around about eight years ago—so, proud that we've been able to get $70 million allocated in that area.
In Māori tourism, $15 million allocated in Māori tourism—another excellent pūtea. That's an area that has been well managed by Pania Tyson-Nathan, who does some really terrific work for us. Also across in the education area, we have $150 million that has been allocated in that area: $91 million for Māori-medium education funding right across the spectrum, and $42 million in the Māori broadcasting area, a really important area that I and my predecessor Minister Nanaia Mahuta have worked on. We expect some support now from that pūtea to go towards Māori television and Māori radio.
Finally, I want to address the area of family violence and sexual violence. This is a very important area that Minister Marama Davidson has been involved with, and I've certainly given her a lot of support in that area, because it's an incredibly important area and kaupapa for our people. We launched the strategy that Minister Davidson leads on my marae, again, at Ngā Whare Waatea. 
It's an area that can be controversial. As we've seen, Minister Davidson was absolutely condemned by the Opposition for speaking at a gang pad a few weeks ago, and then, in the last day or two, we, sadly, see the silly ACT Party jumping on the bandwagon again because they found out that I had spoken with gang members at the end of last year. Then we had Newshub waffling on that I'd had three further meetings with gangs over the last 12 months. I've never had such meetings. Meeting with Eugene Ryder, who's a great individual and community leader, doesn't mean that I've met with the Black Power. I've met with him, though, to discuss funding from the Budget, to discuss what we can do with families. 
It's important we discuss things. As the Māori development Minister, I retain that right to talk with whoever I like. Just like the ACT Party meets with the Taxpayers' Union and people who avoid paying tax, I'll meet with any Māori who needs help. 
In terms of gangs, I don't see gangs; I see whānau, I see communities, I see tamariki, I see mokopuna. I see our people, and it's important that we as Ministers never shy away from those hard conversations, because those conversations must continue if we want to turn around our communities, turn around our people, and get them the support that they need. I'm proud that Minister Davidson has got $12 million in terms of the Budget for that kaupapa under the Māori development umbrella, and I'll continue with that support.





Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Here's what I see when I see gangs and hear about gangs. I see chaos and I see crime, and I see drugs rife in our community, and I now see a Government that isn't prepared to do anything about it. The Minister Willie Jackson, who has just resumed his seat, might crow about $12 million for a particular fund, but what he won't say is that $90 million has been taken out of the Police budget in Budget 2021.
I want to go back to something that Mr Parker said, because I think, for me, it really summed up this Budget. I agree with the words he said; I just take a completely different meaning from it when he said that this Budget goes beyond working people. Well, I agree: it goes so far beyond working people that working people don't have a single thing to benefit from it in here. Not only do working people not have anything to benefit from but neither do the people who employ them. 
This is a Budget completely bereft of aspiration, bereft of ambition, with absolutely no initiatives for the very people who create the jobs, who create the wealth, who create the ability for New Zealanders to live well and independent from unnecessary intervention from the State. There is nothing for them whatsoever. It is important that we support our most vulnerable, and this Budget has done that. But the best and number one way to support Kiwis at risk of dependency on the State and on their fellow taxpayer is to get them a job and keep them in work, and this Budget has nothing for that. A measly $44 million is all there is for small business support. That is about 0.04 of 1 percent of the entire Government spend going into the very businesses that support our working New Zealanders. So I agree with Mr Parker. I agree that this goes well beyond working people—so far beyond them that they can't see anything in it for themselves.
I have got to say that crowing about job creation, which both Mr Robertson and Mr Parker have done, with in excess of 200,000 jobs being created—not by them but by those small businesses—over the 5-year forecast period masks the fact that that is only about 40 percent of the job creation climate and momentum that they inherited 3½ short years ago when they came to office. Yes, COVID has had an impact on job creation and jobs have been lost, but that was happening before COVID, and there are now 70,000 fewer people in work than there were 3½ years ago. Only about two-thirds of that can be put down to COVID. This Government has failed to support business.
Remember Mr Robertson in Opposition going on and on and on about GDP per capita? That was the big thing. It wasn't enough for Mr Robertson that GDP was growing, even in real terms; it had to be on a GDP per capita basis. That's true. Well, we had gone under the Key-English Government from 22 in the OECD on GDP per capita, up modestly but in the right direction, to rank No. 16 in the OECD. That was 3½ years ago, and 3½ years later, we are lower than that now. We're at 17 in the OECD, and at great risk of sliding down the scale. 
Relative to those countries, we are poorer, not richer, under this Government, and not only are we poorer but our children and grandchildren are going to be super-poor and saddled with a millstone of debt that is a consequence of some necessary but, in my view, some profligate spending by this Government. Every single household is going to owe about $150,000 more than they did before COVID started—$150,000 per family worse off because of the spending that this Government has done.
Hon Dr David Clark: Tell the full story.
Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: I'm very happy to tell the full story, Dr Clark, which is why I said that some of that spending was necessary, and I will give the Government this one thing: when it comes to supporting jobs, the wage subsidy was very important and very necessary in 2020. But Reserve Bank monetary policy initiatives like the large-scale asset purchasing and the funding for lending, frankly, is the easy bit. Our economy is mainlining on cash right now that the Reserve Bank doesn't know how to switch off. Even in a growing economy, they are still pumping significant amounts of money into the economy. That was the easy bit. Weaning off that cash and preventing the sort of climate that will create inflation is the hard bit. Why is that important? Because the significant increases in welfare support that were announced in this Budget, and which were necessary, have nothing to do with the "mother of all Budgets" and some finger-pointing to 30 years ago. 
We don't have to look back 30 years. We only have to look back one, two, three years for the inflationary policies that this Government has put in place. It's no wonder when there are massive increases in the minimum wage, massive increases in the wholesale electricity price, and increases in other costs of doing business. Bringing in a container from Australia now has gone from about $600 to $3,200, and the supply chain is basically broken. Prices are going up and we will hit inflation at, I believe, a much greater rate than Treasury is predicting in Budget 2021.
Those welfare increases were necessary not to fix a 30-year-old Budget but to fix the here and now. Actually, preventing people from getting into the situation where they rely on welfare is the No. 1 goal but nothing. 
Actually, what's most depressing about this Budget is the lack of imagination, the lack of innovation. I think it was Professor Paul Spoonley who talked about the fact that small businesses are going to rely either on automation or on immigration. Well, this Government's delivering small businesses, any businesses, neither. They're turning the tap off on migrant workers at a time when we desperately need skilled workers and labour, but they're not giving the opportunity and the support to innovate to increase productivity, to automate their manufacturing processes, and, as a consequence, jobs will be lost and businesses be lost. They will literally go to the wall, with our primary industry's fruit rotting on the ground. Now, that might sound like a doomsday scenario, but those are the inevitable consequences of businesses that are not supported by a Government. 
I was the Minister of Immigration for five years, and one thing we would never have done, however sternly we expected businesses to step up and solve labour shortages domestically to the degree that they can and automate when they can, is allow fruit to rot on the ground. That is hundreds of millions if not billions of dollars that are going to be put at risk at a time when we need our primary industries most—
Hon Scott Simpson: Economic sabotage.
Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: —to go forward strongly and confidently. It is economic sabotage, Mr Simpson. You're absolutely right.
I want to turn briefly to the transport part of this Budget. One of the biggest, frankly, subterfuges in election 2020 was the New Zealand Upgrade Programme, a $12 billion programme of infrastructure packages, of which $6.8 billion was for transport projects—transport projects, frankly, that the Government spent three years talking about, saying how they weren't good value for money, how the benefit-cost analysis hadn't been done, and then they brought them back to inoculate the voters against any accusations that they weren't supporting Penlink, Mill Road, Papakura to Drury, Ōtaki to north of Levin, and a plethora of others. But what we now know is that there was zero contingency in that $6.8 billion that they appropriated, and this Budget should have delivered more money to deliver those projects. There wasn't a brass razoo for them. So my question to Michael Wood—the Minister of Transport—and the Government is this: which of these projects are on the chopping block? 
Dr Clark grins like a Cheshire cat: "Oh, no, it's not going to happen." Well, let's just point to one where it has happened, and it's a nice segue, Dr Clark, into the other subterfuge: Dunedin Hospital. Where is the extra money for Dunedin Hospital? We now know that the $1.4 billion that was appropriated is not going to be enough if they were going to build a hospital of the scope and technology that is required. The initial application for consent under the fast-tracking consent—
Hon Dr David Clark: Nine long years.
Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: —had an 11-storey acute services building and—oh, listen to that. "Nine long years."—that's kind of rich coming from the Minister of Health.
Matt Doocey: Worst health Minister in 50 years.
Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: That's quite right, Mr Doocey. Worst Minister of Health in 50 years—nobody is arguing that. But what they are arguing about is what they were promised and what they've been delivered. They're getting half a pyramid, if anybody old enough to remember that old NZI ad can recall. 
This will not deliver what the people of the South require. Treasury told them that in order to deliver on that scope, they would need to either increase the Budget or cut the number of floors in the hospital or the number of beds in the hospital. Well, that's exactly what happened. It's—
DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The member's time has expired. 





Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Minister of Foreign Affairs): Fa'afetai tele lava, Mr Speaker. It gives me great pleasure to be able to speak in this Budget debate. Listening to the member prior, the Hon Michael Woodhouse, how quickly a memory fades, because during the height of the COVID pandemic, this Government did act to ensure that those who were affected most could be supported.
Firstly, we ensured that a health response was going to be at the centre of everything that we did, and, secondly, we made sure that workers and businesses could be supported. We ensured that businesses through the height of the COVID pandemic that we experienced here in New Zealand—that 1.8 million workers could be supported through the wage subsidy, and we're investing billions in infrastructure training and creating jobs, because we know the alternative, if we had to look back at the global financial crisis, was an austerity approach, and that's the approach that members on that side of the House took. We knew we couldn't do that. We needed to lean in and invest in infrastructure so that jobs could be created and that we could continue to ensure that people were being trained into these industries we were investing in.
We've seen a huge increase in apprenticeships: 100,000 people are now in free trades training since we introduced it in July 2020, and that's got to be good for the economy, because if we are training our own people into jobs here in New Zealand, then we are less reliant on importing a workforce when we need to continue to invest in the areas that will serve us well long term. 
This Budget is about securing our recovery. Now, the Hon Grant Robertson, our Minister of Finance, during his Budget speech said that there are three key challenges over this three-year term that we will respond to and that they will be addressed in every Budget of this term: to keep New Zealanders safe from COVID-19, to accelerate our recovery and rebuild, and to tackle our foundational challenges. 
We've always said that the best economic response to the COVID-19 pandemic is a strong public health response, and we stand by that approach. In fact, we are in a situation where, while many other countries are experiencing their third and fourth lockdown and community transmission outbreaks, we have the luxury of debating the issues in a very different way as has been experienced in other countries. 
We're focusing on a vaccination roll-out to build our resilience and to continue to ensure that we remain in the position that we are in, a very fortunate one. Our focus on a vaccination roll-out will continue to build our defence and ensure that we can keep our people safe, keep the economy going, and look towards our recovery. There is $1.5 billion allocated to the COVID-19 vaccine—and we know Pfizer is the vaccine of preference here in New Zealand—and our immunisation programme, including just over $1 billion for our advance purchase agreements for vaccines and $357 million for the immunisation programme. 
We're also pleased to support a vaccination roll-out programme to Realm countries and, working alongside Australia, to other countries across the Pacific. This matters to us. We're now enjoying, to some extent, a trans-Tasman bubble as well as a quarantine-free bubble to the Cook Islands. And if we want to continue to ensure that by our actions other countries across the Pacific will also benefit, then we're going in the right direction. 
We've made a great start to progressing our goal of vaccinating New Zealanders who wish to, over the age of 16, receive their vaccination, and there is more to do. I am worried about vaccine hesitancy, so it is beholden on many of us across our communities to ensure that we participate in the uptake of the widespread roll-out that will occur in the third quarter of this term. 
But let's turn to our economic recovery. We're tackling inequality and child poverty. We're raising main benefits to lift more children out of poverty to tackle inequality, which will also provide much-needed stimulus for our economy. We know that when funding goes into low-income families, that will go towards putting kai on the table, shoes on the feet of our kids so that they can go to school, and also to heating homes. 
We're managing the economy responsibly by keeping a lid on debt. Our net debt remains lower than Australia on a comparative basis, and we start to reduce it sooner. By 2024 to 2025, Australia's measure of debt is forecast to still be above 40 percent, while in New Zealand our corresponding measure is forecast to have fallen below 25 percent. 
Members on that side of the House in this debate continue to compare us to Australia and their approach. Look, Australia's approach is for Australia. We stand by the way that we're addressing our economic recovery in this period of a COVID pandemic. We're investing in infrastructure, as I said before: $57.3 billion in infrastructure over the next five years to drive economic growth and address the long-term under-investment in infrastructure in New Zealand. I know that only too well, with the work that I'm doing in the area of three waters to make sure we have a more resilient network to ensure that all New Zealanders, no matter where they live, have safe drinking water and that we have a more efficient system where everyone benefits. 
We've got the opportunity to continue to build more houses, and I take my hat off to the Hon Megan Woods. There is a challenge there, but our commitment to increase the public housing stock is unwavering, because we know that for years and years and years, members on the other side eroded the public housing stock. That's why rents have gone up, because there are many more people, low income, who are dependent on the private rental market as we build this public housing stock up. 
We're also investing in schools. How many members around this House have visited their local schools and there's been an extra building—
Hon Member: Extra classrooms.
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: —yes, extra classrooms there? Because we, through the New Zealand Upgrade, have said "We should be doing this. We can create local jobs for local people by doing this, and it's made a huge difference." We continue to ensure that infrastructure in many ways is a core part of our economic recovery, and it will make a difference. We know that, alongside that, investing in training and trades training in particular will support that, and we also know that regional economies will benefit from that level of investment. 
We're taking further action on housing, as has been raised by members on this side. It's important to note that in the area of Māori housing, I'm particularly pleased with the amount of investment that will go towards ensuring that papakāinga become a part of a system-wide response to addressing housing needs across our community and relieve pressure in the areas where it's most needed. The other thing is repairs and maintenance, retrofitting homes so that they're warmer. That is fundamentally going to make a huge difference to many families. 
There's a couple of small things in the Budget, too, that might not get the light of day in terms of the big ticket items of investment that we've made, and I want to talk about one of them or a couple of them in the time that I have left. It's reinstating the training incentive allowance for higher level study. You know what? This will enable single parents to be able to get higher degree qualifications, earn a higher income, and then support their family. Previously, that avenue was cut off to them. And I'm so proud that this small change will have such a fundamental impact on a number of people, single parents across the country. And if I think about the way in which it will allow people to study higher degree level - type training, it's estimated that will be able to support around about 16,000 people to retrain. Now, that's got to be good—a small change, but a valuable one. 
The other one is in the area of making homes warmer. About 47,700 more Kiwi homes will be warmer and more energy-efficient as a result of the investment of this Government into insulation and heating retrofit. Now, I think about many people who will not turn the heater on because they are fearful of the energy bill. Again, a small but valuable change that will go a very, very long way. 
This Budget is for the many and it's about recovery. It's about a Government who will not take an austerity approach but will lean in in the areas of investment that will create the most opportunity back to the country, to the region, and to people participating in a successful economic recovery. 
Finally, my small but humble investment in ensuring that Scott Base can be redeveloped, I think, will go a long way towards ensuring that science and conservation and biodiversity activities in that research area can continue, and I'm very proud of that particular investment. Kia ora rā. 





CHRIS BISHOP (National): Well, it was a disappointing Budget from a Government that is disappointing New Zealanders, and there is no better demonstration of that than the vaccine roll-out—the COVID-19 vaccination programme. New Zealanders will remember that in December last year, we were told by Minister Hipkins that New Zealand's at the front of the queue, and everyone got very excited and the Prime Minister said that 2021 was going to be the year of the vaccine.
Well, it's the year of the no-show. It's the year of the lack of delivery of the vaccine roll-out. Here we are on 1 June, about to become halfway through the year, and where is New Zealand? We're not at the front of the queue; we are the second-slowest in the OECD. We are 115th in the world for the vaccine roll-out. New Zealanders look across at Australia, where the Government's in political trouble because of the slowness of the vaccine roll-out in Australia, and they think, "How is Australia doing so much better than New Zealand, and how is it that Australia is regarded as a shambles?" Well, if they're a shambles over there, what would New Zealand be regarded as? We're the second-slowest in the OECD.
And just this morning—or, in fact, overnight—we have the warning from the OECD that, unless New Zealand speeds up, our economic recovery is at risk. Of course, the Budget forecasts—and we're in the Budget debate—are predicated, as we heard in question time, on the borders being opened up again from 2022 onwards. And how do we open the borders? Well, we open the borders once we have herd immunity—once we have a good level of coverage in the population for the COVID-19 vaccine. Well, where are we now? The second-slowest in the OECD, not at the front of the queue; in fact, right at the back.
Here's the thing for the Government: between September and October, for 49 days in a row, seven days a week, seven weeks, we are meant to do 76,000 vaccinations a day—76,000 vaccinations per day for nigh on 50 days in a row. I'm willing to say I don't reckon they'll get there. And what that means is, as the Auditor-General warned, that we will run behind—we will not meet the Government's target. And this Government has made an absolute fortune—or this Government has made it its raison d'être to not meet targets—whether it's KiwiBuild targets or whether it's child poverty targets or climate change targets or one billion trees targets. We don't talk about a billion trees anymore—that was another thing that was not mentioned in the Budget. Shovel-ready programmes are also something that we haven't reached a target on. We don't talk about the Provincial Growth Fund much anymore, because that didn't reach its job targets either. So, right across the board, on everything the Government seeks to measure itself against, the Government has not reached its target, and I don't reckon they'll get there on the vaccine target either.
Something very interesting happened last week, and we picked up on it, and the media ventilated this, which was the Government surreptitiously moved the goalposts on the COVID-19 vaccine roll-out. It used to be, if you went to the Ministry of Health website, you would see the group 3 roll-out, which is about 1.7 million people. It used to say May, and then, of course, we got two-thirds of the way through May and the group 3 roll-out wasn't happening. So, surreptitiously, in April, the ministry moved the goalposts for group 3 to late May, and then, of course, we had the same thing happening with the group 4 roll-out, which went from July until the end of July, which, in layman's terms, means August, which means a month's delay.
And I asked the Minister in question time today whether or not the month's delay to group 4—which is the bulk of the general population—was linked to the national booking system. He says the answer's no, but, of course, the reality is it is. The national booking system—this is this new-fangled system the Government spent the better part of $40 million on, which is meant to allow you to go online and book your vaccine and then book your second shot of the Pfizer dose—that's not ready to go. So we're going to have to wait yet another month for that to start. The booking system's not ready, group 3 is being delayed, group 4 is being delayed, and then we found out last week that district health boards don't even know which of their staff members have been vaccinated and which of them haven't. So the vaccine—it's very important we get it right, and so far the signs are very worrying indeed.





BARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana): Ia manuia le Vaiaso o le Gagana Samoa. This Budget targets investments that will set Aotearoa up to both recover from COVID and to tackle some of our long-term challenges. This Budget invests in our people, in our tamariki. Now, we've heard the numbers already, but I am going to repeat them because, in the words of our colleague Marja Lubeck, they're so good: 33,000 children lifted out of poverty, 200,000 more jobs, 3,300 more out-of-school care places so that 900 low-income parents remain in, or transition into, employment or training. These are not empty numbers; these are people, tamariki, tamaiti, whānau, aiga.
This Budget invests in our future, and the best way for me to evidence how is to tell you the story of a man called Selani. Selani was 38 when he had to give up his job as a navy clerk to care for his sick wife, who was 33 and dying from cancer. At the age of 40, he was left a widower with four children under the age of 11. For eight years, he brought up his children on the domestic purposes benefit, and when his youngest went to college, at the age of 48, he decided to retrain and become a social worker. The training incentive allowance that was in at the time paid for his petrol so he could get to his course without having to sacrifice food on the table for his children.
He worked as a social worker for over 25 years. Two of his four children also became social workers. One was a bit of a black sheep and became a tax lawyer! But I know for a fact that the training incentive allowance not only benefited the children of solo parents but, in the case of my father, my sister, and my brother, in the 60 collective years that they have worked as social workers, it benefited the thousands of children that they cared for through Oranga Tamariki. This Budget reinstates the training incentive allowance. This is a ladder to help people get ahead that was cruelly scaled back by the previous National Government. We are investing $127 million so that 16,000 people, like my dad Selani, can retrain and gain high skills to the benefit of their children and other children.
But we're also raising the main benefits so that we can lift more children out of poverty. This actually equates to food, it equates to shoes, and it equates to jackets. With the removal of school fees, with the reinstatement of school lunches, our families have a little bit more in their pockets. But that's why this Budget is so important to be able to help those who are more in need. At an uncertain time for the global and the New Zealand economy, this provides more security for people who might be in and out of work.
The last part I want to touch on in the Budget is the additional money that went to the Tupu Aotearoa programme. Since Minister Aupito Sio has become the Minister for Pacific Peoples he has increased the funding to go to Pacific peoples to $450 million—that is phenomenal investment. In this Budget, $30.3 million goes to boost the Tupu Aotearoa programme. This will support 7,500 Pasifika people into employment, training, and education across New Zealand—that is more people upskilling, relearning, getting into employment, and being able to help our economy grow and strengthen.
I go back to my main point: Budget 2021 is about securing our recovery and our future. I shouldn't have to stand here as a child of a beneficiary or as a child of a man who took the training incentive allowance, but I'm proud to be on the side of this Government, and I'm proud of my father, and I'm proud of this Government for the training incentive allowance.





Hon LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō): Thank you, Madam Speaker. The Government talks about this being a Budget of recovery, and the member that just resumed her seat, Barbara Edmonds, said that this Budget—Budget 2021—would deliver 200,000 jobs. I'm sorry; I can't see it. Every single employment initiative that Labour have introduced in the last four years has been a dismal failure. What the Government won't tell you—they'll talk about a $20 increase in the benefits, and I accept that for those on benefits, that's going to be a short-term benefit, but what about the long-term impact? What about the long-term impact of a much greater number of people on the jobseeker benefit?
So, at the moment, close to 200,000 Kiwis are on the jobseeker benefit. The member who just resumed her seat would know how tough it is in one of those households, so, surely, that member would also realise that the benefit system in and of itself isn't a pathway to prosperity. So what Labour is forecasting in Budget 2021 is an increase in the number of people on jobseeker benefit. The Minister hasn't explained why there are 70,000 more on jobseeker benefit than there were four years ago—30,000 more than pre-COVID—and what are we expecting in the next couple of years? 
This is a Government that's crowing about a Budget for recovery. In four years' time, there will still be 174,000 New Zealanders on the jobseeker benefit. So something doesn't add up here. The 200,000 jobs that they're saying they're going to deliver, when they couldn't even deliver the 20,000 jobs from the shovel-ready initiative that was meant to be a short, sharp stimulus to support people, to protect them—instead, that delivered only 11,000. So, good luck. Good luck to Labour for the 200,000 jobs they're promising.
But actually, I feel for the people that are stuck on the jobseeker now, because every single one of Labour's so-called employment initiatives have been an absolute disaster. Do you know who it's a disaster for? It's a disaster for the children that will be stuck in those benefit-dependent homes, because we have seen under Labour not only an increased number of people on benefit but they're staying on it for longer. Do you know what that means? Well, they won't tell you this: those people get stuck there—and they know this. If you connect someone to a job within three months, they've got a much higher chance of being back in employment. Once someone has been out of employment for 12 months or more, the ability to reconnect them to a job is that much harder.
So what else will the Government not tell you? They won't tell you that they underspent $100 million on employment initiatives in the last 12 months. That is a disgrace. That is an absolute disgrace—$100 million from a Government who purports to be interested in people, to be interested in lifting children out of poverty. Well, where are most of those children? They're in benefit-dependent homes. Their income will be three times as much if they have a parent in work, and their life outcomes, evidence tells us—they know, because they've got their heads down—the life outcomes of children who are raised in benefit-dependent homes, who are stuck in those very households, will be poorer educational achievement, poorer health outcomes, and poorer outcomes in general in their lives.
So instead of having a Government that is ambitious for every single one of those jobseekers, we're seeing 200,000 there now, and if the big recovery is 175,000 in four years' time, goodness only knows the harm and hardship that side of the House is going to create, because we're not seeing hardship going down and we're not seeing harm reducing. It's a Government that's causing it, and shame on them.





Hon JAN TINETTI (Minister for Women): While the world remains in very uncertain times due to the global pandemic continuing to rage elsewhere, the wellbeing Budget of 2021 is focused on securing New Zealand's recovery while keeping everyone in this country safe—safe from COVID-19. I am proud of the work of this Government that has shepherded this country through a time of uncertainty, but also ensuring that all New Zealanders are catered for within the recovery. What is really impressive about the work of this Government is not only have we had that world-class response to COVID-19, we continue to deliver on our goals of reducing inequity. We want to make the foundations better for our tamariki lying ahead. I will actually repeat those figures that we've heard here this afternoon: in this Budget, due to this Government, 33,000 children will be lifted out of poverty, and 200,000 more people will be in jobs over the next four years.
It was only this afternoon that I got a text from a parent that used to be at the school that I was at who has since moved to the Wellington area, who says she has got her first job interview in five years tomorrow. She is excited about that because there are more opportunities than she has ever seen before, and I'm excited for her and for people like her who are able to share in this recovery.
As Minister for Women, I'm proud to be part of a Government that is also committed to gender equality and has demonstrated this through the COVID-19 economic recovery and Budget 2021.
Hon Scott Simpson: Where's the passion?
Hon JAN TINETTI: So some of the highlights that Mr Simpson wants me to read out from Budget 2021: increases to benefits, including our sole mothers; extending—as we've heard from the member over here—the training incentive allowance, something that I'm really proud about; over 3,000 extra places in childcare; pay parity for early childhood education teachers, the majority of whom are women; cervical and breast cancer screening improvements; $131 million to tackle family and sexual violence; and some niche areas that are equally as important, such as Wāhine Māori Pathways in Christchurch Women's Prison.
There are some really good things in this Budget, and if I'm able to pick one that I'm proud of as Minister for Women, it's that the Government are lifting benefits, including for sole parents, of which 90 percent of recipients of the sole parents support are women. From working right on that front line, I know that reducing women's poverty is clearly linked to reducing child poverty. I've had parents who have contacted me from all around the country who have said and stated the difference that this will make to them and to their children. To be able to actually buy more food for their children, to not have to worry about when the next meal is coming for their children: those are the things that make a difference. Those are the things that get us up in the morning. And those are the things that I am absolutely proud of, that we are making that difference for those people, for those women, and for their children.
The changes made through Budget 2021 mean, for a single mum, she will be receiving $434 a week. Under Labour, this is a 22 percent increase since 2017. Also, Budget 2021 funds more effective cervical-screening tests to help reduce cervical cancer rates, and one that I am personally very, very proud of under the Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall is the new breast-screening system that can proactively identify and enrol eligible women to reach 271,000 more people who are currently in that programme. I know from personal experience that if we can get to women—and the few men that get breast cancer—and diagnose them earlier, we have greater rates of survival with those people.
This Government has delivered and will continue to deliver on making a more equal and fair Aotearoa New Zealand. Thank you.





DAMIEN SMITH (ACT): As New Zealand's third-most large and popular party—after the latest Colmar Brunton poll—we can tell you that our budget for New Zealand has got cut-through, while the other parties go backwards. But we'll park that for a second, because we know it'll have to be adopted, potentially, next year. What has been done to this country? New Zealand used to have the highest standard of living, the highest standard of productivity, the highest standard of equality—a true nation, a great nation—and now we're faced with patches being put on an economy which just isn't right. This wasn't a Budget; this was a political mission. It wasn't a Budget for business. It wasn't a Budget for prosperity or lifting the bottom 20 percent of the country. Indeed, it's a squeeze and a full-court press on the people of New Zealand.
I'll give you a bit of background about Moody's. I'd rather look at the mood of the country and the people that we're talking to. The mood is this: New Zealanders are being squeezed. Business, farmers, and growers are under pressure. Our tax system is unfair and the highest in the world—or one of them—and debt is growing exponentially. So the Government, we think, has a big job to accept. We like a Budget where we see an analysis of actually what can go wrong, as well as what can go right, and we've found in our analysis a Budget where the modelling is flawed. Even though we're not going to accuse the Government today of fiscal holes, we are going to accuse them of some fiscal potholes which will need to be addressed, and that is around how they actually run the economy.
The economy itself is finding citizens in the middle of it being ignored and feeling like they're being mugged. One of the most amazing things from the revenue forecast during this Budget was that the Government couldn't even predict, in its announcements, any policy changes around its taxing of property. And why is this happening? It's because they're managing the economy by memo. Nobody knows the rules. This hasn't been designed; so we can't even estimate the revenue from this.
It gets worse: in this Budget, Treasury hasn't presumed any projections for fair-pay agreements, and we explain how that will roll back into GDP forecasts. Following the Government's announcements on net immigration, the Reserve Bank admitted to us the other day that they've never even received a memo from the Government on how this will affect maximum sustainable employment. So where do we go from there if the Government's making decisions, and Treasury and the Reserve Bank can't actually model the future? That means that for everybody who's sitting at home with a pen and paper at the weekend trying to balance their budget, from the working solo mum up to the people who've not been property flippers but actually wanted to build their pension nest eggs, uncertainty abounds and reigns.
In conclusion, these Budget forecasts, we think, haven't even included some of the major initiatives the Government's talking about; so it's going to be worse off. If we drill into GDP, we're now going to face a Budget next year which is about constrain and retain. The reason you use debt is to get uplift and drive and build a modern economy, and lift all boats for all people, yet what we've got now is a tightrope walk around 50 percent of net debt to GDP. Anything can happen here. Anything can go wrong, and it's a big assumption that everything can go right. So the ACT Party is opening up the conversation to look at expenditure and look at restraint, but to actually build new legs to the economy through foreign direct investment and through technology to provide jobs that, actually, our children will be able to stay in this country and thrive upon.
Successive Governments over the last 30 years—going back to the post-war era, even—have a massive responsibility, and the buck stops with them. So what we are looking at is an alternative from the ACT Party which will generate more revenue for this country, and that will be good for every single citizen in this nation. Just to look at our long-term fiscal strategy, why can't the Government do a better job of communicating its 10-year view? You look at the document—there is no macro-level analysis of where we're actually going. With interest rates and inflation going up, GDP will get squeezed, and this Budget will not deliver less expenditure; it will deliver more. What we want to see—
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): Order! The member's time is up. [Interruption] Order!





Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Talofa lava. It's great to be here. I don't know what select committee the member who just took his seat, Mr Damien Smith, sits on, because when I was in the Finance and Expenditure Committee—and I'm sure it was him sitting in the same room—we examined the Overseas Investment Act, loosening foreign direct investment rules in New Zealand. We heard projections from Treasury, their forecasts, and the Reserve Bank of New Zealand telling us that we're on track. We've heard that our debt-to-GDP ratio is actually one of the best in the OCED and it won't actually approach 50 percent, on current projections, because we're doing the right thing.
Now, the ACT Party has a mantra, and the mantra is austerity, and we heard the Minister of Finance say, "Not on my watch. There won't be austerity." We won't be cutting budgets like the ACT Party's alternative budget—at least they had the decency to come up with something—will do. So no, this is an economy which is absolutely supporting those people who need it, and I certainly won't apologise for that. That's exactly why we're here on this side of the House. So the fact of the matter is that this is a Budget which sees more people in jobs, sees our debt manageable, and sees our economy growing, and I haven't seen anyone on the other side of the House come up with any alternative that comes close.
Look, only last week I was singing the praises of this Budget in Christchurch, and I was very, very proud to do so. I must say, with the exception of a couple of the usual naysayers, there was almost universal acclaim for this Budget, whether that be at the YMCA, where they're building the hotel of hope on the basis of shovel-ready funding—and that was fantastic. It's a hotel where all of the profits go back into the community. The YMCA are a great organisation down there. That was with Megan Woods, of course, who is doing a great job. More houses are consented now than there has been for years, within a generation. So we are finally, under this Government, catching up. The huge deficit that the last Government, the National Government, left us—we are finally catching up, because we have made some brave decisions, decisions which will, in time, see the housing difficulties that New Zealanders face alleviated.
Waltham rail workshop. You know, I've been to the Waltham rail workshop, and there's a building there, and it says "1940". That was the last piece of significant Government infrastructure that was built down there. I went down there to see some other Government-funded building, in one of their workshops, but now there is a very large project for all of the repairs and maintenance to be done on all the locomotives and rolling stock there in Christchurch at the Waltham rail yards. Why? Because it creates jobs. Why? Because it's a low-carbon alternative. Why? Because it's good for our economy and also for our national security.
You know, I must say, going with the Prime Minister to Antarctica New Zealand and the Antarctic Centre was a fantastic day, and the joy on the faces of those people at the Antarctic Centre when we said, "Your future is secure." We see New Zealand's place in the Antarctic as important, and it's one that this Government is prepared to fund, because Christchurch is a fantastic launching pad for all of that important work that goes on in Antarctica on a whole lot of levels. Importantly, a lot of our climate change research is based out of there, but also the biodiversity of that fantastic continent is really, really important, along with our participation in the relevant treaties which ensure that that place stays free from commercial exploitation for ever—the last genuine remote preserve, where there will be no mining.
There will be no commercial activities there. That is absolutely fantastic, and that's not even to mention the many, many little things that are going on. You know, and do come down, any member, any side of the House—come down and visit Christchurch. I have an extra bike. We have the most cyclable city in the country. Why? Because the Government has funded those cycleways as part of the low-carbon economy that we are going to transition into. The work that the Climate Change Commission has done is of critical importance, and we are going to heed that advice. Walking and cycling has to be seen as the dominant way in which we encourage new transport in this country. This Budget does it, this Government does it, and I'm proud to be part of it.





RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): Tēnā koe, Madam Speaker. How great is it that the conversation has finally shifted from not how undeserving people on the benefit are, but by how much benefits need to go up so that people can live with dignity. For decades, people on the benefit, and front-line advocates, have been organising and campaigning to lift incomes so everyone can live with dignity, despite successive governments being hostile to people on the benefit, either by cutting income support or adding punitive sanctions as late as 2013 by the previous National Government. And while not many of us vividly remember the "mother of all Budgets", or were even alive to witness it, we have lived under its effects, which have meant a record number of people have needed food grants from Work and Income to survive.
In recent years, we've seen a chorus of incredibly diverse voices calling for livable incomes and an overhaul of the welfare system: unions, faith groups, poverty groups, and over 70 organisations came together last year to rally for increasing benefits. The Green Party has proudly stood by these calls since our inception. We've tirelessly worked to bring about change so people can thrive, not just survive. 
I want to take an opportunity to pay tribute to former co-leader Metiria Turei, who in 2017 shone a light—as well as many other people on the benefit who have spoken out—on our inadequate welfare system and the fact that low incomes criminalise some of our most vulnerable and force them to lie to Work and Income in order to survive. This is a direct result of policy making by successive Governments, and it's great that this Budget is finally turning the ship around and we're seeing an increase to core benefits.
The increases to benefits this year would not have happened without the confidence and supply agreement we had with the Labour Party last term, which led to the creation of the Welfare Expert Advisory Group (WEAG), who recommended an urgent increase to benefit levels, as well as a raft of other changes to our welfare system. We're proud of the work we achieved with the Labour Party that led to the report and has now started the work in overhauling the welfare system, but we know there is far more work to do.
We supported this year's Budget, because we want to see benefits lifted, we want to see people's ability to fully participate in their society, but we do not just want to live in the past and look at the poor decisions of past Governments. We want to project to a future where our welfare system is fit for purpose. And so, while we think it's great to see an outright rejection of the rhetoric laid out in the "mother of all Budgets" in the 1990s, we now see it as an opportunity to match this rhetoric with action and policy that meets the needs of our communities, because, before the "mother of all Budgets", our welfare system was already broken. We had a welfare system that still accepted that people who found support and relationships didn't deserve to have their income with them—that they were made to be dependent on their partner. We still had a welfare system that accepted that people outside of paid employment didn't make meaningful substantive contributions to society. So there is far more work to do.
The Government acknowledged that benefits were not high enough to live on with dignity last year when the income relief payment came about, which was $490—almost double the benefit rate at the time. This was an acknowledgment that people who were becoming unemployed couldn't simply go on a main jobseeker benefit in order to survive—that benefits needed to go a lot higher. The Minister acknowledged, just pretty much a couple of weeks ago, that $315 wasn't an amount that was easy to live on, and acknowledged that far more work needs to be done. So the Green Party will continue campaigning to increase core benefits, as well as bring about a raft of changes.
So we want to acknowledge that the increases in this Budget to benefits were a direct result of the recommendations of the WEAG report. We think that the WEAG report was made before COVID. It was made at a time when the cost of living wasn't as high as it is right now, so we want to make sure that we continue working to individualise income support, that we make sure that temporary additional support doesn't eat away the increases in benefits, that people have in their pocket the amounts laid out in this Budget by the time their paycheque comes, we want to remove punitive sanctions, and we want to ensure that people can thrive, not just survive. That should be the end goal of all of us in this House: to ensure that people have a right to a life of dignity. Kia ora.





ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): Before I call the next speaker, I would like to remind all members to be respectful of everyone else who gives a speech. When you do get up to give your speech, I'm sure you don't want everyone else to be talking and not paying attention. You may not want to hear the speeches, but I actually do.





IBRAHIM OMER (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker, Lau Afioga le Fofoga Fetalai. A lot has been said about this Budget. There are a lot of good things in this Budget as well, and many people describe this Budget in many ways—good ways. While we still have a long way to go, this Budget is a game-changer for many, many people. It addresses historical injustice for those most vulnerable among us, those who carried the burden for a long time, those who were left behind for no fault of their own. For many, increasing benefits is long overdue. It's a step in the right direction. A friend of mine asked me how I describe this Budget, and my answer was, with no hesitation—this is the answer that many people give—the Budget hardly leaves anyone behind. It addresses a lot of issues that've been around, that've been unjust. To mention some: Māori, Pasifika, women, ethnic communities, our tamariki, and low-paid workers—and the list goes on.
This last category is what I want to highlight today. This Budget is about COVID-19. It's about prioritising our recovery from COVID-19. This means it's looking out for our front-line workers, such as security guards who are contracted by the Ministry of Social Development (MSD). This is only an example of the meaningful delivery of this Budget.
Hon Scott Simpson: Where are the vaccines?
IBRAHIM OMER: It's under way, it's happening; we're vaccinating people, and you know that, Mr Simpson. I had just spoken to one of those security guards who works at the Naenae MSD. His name is Robert Duston; we call him "Dusty". Me and Dusty worked together. I was his union organiser, his advocate. Dusty and his colleagues came to this very House and they shared their stories. They spoke about their struggle on low wages, and they spoke about their families. One of the people they spoke to was our finance Minister, the Hon Grant Robertson. I was in that meeting, and Grant told Dusty and his colleagues that "We are doing everything we can, and we will deliver you the living wage." Dusty is one of many, many people in this country who struggle on low wages. Today, this Government has listened and it has delivered. Dusty and his colleagues are now getting paid the living wage. Dusty and his colleagues, after what happened, after the tragic and sad incident in Ashburton, they put their lives on the line every day, shielding our hard-working MSD staff. They get a lot of abuse on minimum wage. Now this Government have decided to honour them, have decided to pay them what they deserve.
Just before I came to this House, while I was preparing for this speech, I spoke to Dusty and I asked him what this Budget means to him. He said that he doesn't have to live week to week any more, and he said that he feels valued and has the motivation to get out of bed and go to work every day. One of the many aspects of this Budget is supporting parents like Dusty, and that many children get the benefit because they get to spend quality time with their parents.
Hon David Bennett: Oh, that's a great economic theory!
IBRAHIM OMER: Absolutely. Dusty drove this point home when he said that he now gets to have more free time to spend with his daughter that originally he would have spent working just to meet an end. Also, for giving people like Dusty more money, they will be spending it in the local economy. They don't go to Australia. They don't go to the Gold Coast and spend the money. They are locals, and they spend it in our local economy.
This Budget seeks to deal with the root causes of poverty, such as addressing low wages. The common response we are getting is that this Budget is what everyone had been waiting for, and we have delivered it. I am proud of our finance Minister, I'm proud of this Government—I'm even more proud of our team. Kia ora.





MELISSA LEE (National): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I'd just like to start off by saying that the role of Government is to provide for the most vulnerable people. That is just the job that they are supposed to be doing, and that is not something that they should be throwing about. The other role that a Government has is to grow the economy so that people can actually get jobs. For me, this Budget 2021 is an absolute failure. 
One of the ways that this Government has failed is in the area of the critical threat that New Zealand faces in digital infrastructure. While the Budget was being read, we actually had an instance at Waikato District Health Board where there was an absolutely humongous ransomware attack. How it actually happened, I'm not so sure—yet, because they are still investigating. I'd like to acknowledge all of the Public Service workers who are working in the cyber-security and intelligence community, working hard to protect all of us from the cyber-border. 
Australia has invested, through their Budget, $1.6 billion in their cyber-security area. I'm not so sure what Minister David Clark had, in fact, taken to Cabinet, but we certainly did not get that in this Budget.
For the health sector, we got something close to $400 million, apparently—but that was actually for infrastructure. Some of it has cyber-security. But where is it? If somebody is actually going for the infrastructure area—I mean, for Waikato District Health Board, they might actually invest in cyber-security because they've had this massive attack, and in order for them to get back, they might want to invest in it. But for some other district health board, where the real needs are for things like radiography or X-rays or whatever, if that was, in fact, the case, they would not be putting money into cyber-security. We are in constant attack, and we need a better look at how we deal with our cyber-border.
It was really interesting listening to Mr Omer Ibrahim—
Joseph Mooney: Ibrahim Omer.
MELISSA LEE: —I got that mixed up—Ibrahim Omer—I mean, some of us actually do surnames first, right?—from across the House talk about the ethnic communities. I think he and I are talking to different people, obviously, because the ethnic communities that I talk about are very, very underwhelmed by this Government's move towards creating a ministry of ethnic communities. They say, "Yeah, it's great that they've actually got the name, but the actual funding is only about $15 million. It's almost like they're robbing Peter to pay Paul." If you compare that ministry that is about to happen with the Ministry for Pacific Peoples, which actually gets, like, $108 million—the ministry of ethnic communities only get $15 million. When you consider the fact that the Asian population alone—not the whole ethnic population, but the Asian population alone—is projected to rise to 26 percent by 2043, you would think that they would spend a little bit more money to make sure that ethnic communities actually fit into New Zealand.
I mean, they should take a leaf out of the Pacific peoples' portfolio, because I think they are doing a great thing: $30 million for employment programme support, $16 million for business support, $20 million for Pacific language promotion. If that is what people think is going to work—and I think it is wonderful what they've actually got—for the ethnic communities portfolio and the new ministry that they're about to implement should look at that.
During COVID, ethnic communities actually suffered—and Naisi Chen knows that. The Chinese community actually had a tremendous difficulty, so did all of us who look like us. You know, Asians actually were blamed for COVID, and the thing is that some of the issues that they raised should be taken up. The fact that some of them don't have the language capabilities, some of them do, in fact, need to upskill for jobs in New Zealand. They are probably one of the biggest communities that are underemployed; they're not able to work to the capacity that they are able to, and this is where they are lacking.
This Government's Budget is an absolute failure and they should be ashamed.





Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): Talofa lava, Madam Speaker. It is a delight to speak after that member, Melissa Lee, who began her contribution by saying that she thought it was the Government's job to protect the most vulnerable and to grow the economy, and I take great delight in sharing with the member something from Budget 2021. This Budget was about protecting the most vulnerable, we've raised the main benefits, reversing the changes of the "mother of all Budgets", and the forecasts in it are extraordinary by global standards. New Zealand is set to outstrip many of our comparator countries by a margin. In fact, Standard and Poor's issued the first upgrade for any economy since the pandemic, to New Zealand, and the first upgrade they've issued for New Zealand since 2003. So we have a Budget that delivered on the very things that Melissa Lee was asking for, one that protects the most vulnerable and delivers the economic growth that ensures we can provide the hospitals, education, roads, the Hillside Workshops—did I mention Hillside Workshop?—and other things that our country needs for its future success.
This Government is absolutely focused on securing the recovery from COVID-19. We've known, and we've seen in evidence, that the best economic recovery is the best health response. So if we focus on getting that right—and thus far, with the help of the team of 5 million we have had terrific results in that respect. We've seen that that has led through to good economic growth, to the lowest unemployment we've seen in a long time—4.7 percent, currently, extraordinary, 15,000 extra people in work in the last three months. I mean, these are amazing numbers, but behind these numbers are the stories of real people—real people who are benefiting from an economy that is going, in these difficult and challenging times, far better than anyone expected. Far better than the National Party expected at the election! The National Party campaigned on a debt level—which they have no plan for, because they're in such jolly disarray on that side of the House—they campaigned on a debt level that is higher than the one that this Budget delivers on. We're still also helping our most vulnerable along the way; something they refused to promise to do.
Well, it is a delight to speak in the Budget debate. The Treasury's forecasting that 200,000 more people will be in paid jobs over the next four years. The Budget projections, with the changes made around the main benefits and other changes, are projecting to lift up to 33,000 children out of poverty. There is a long way to go with child poverty in this country, but we are making real and meaningful gain—real and meaningful gains with the laser-like focus of the Prime Minister on addressing child poverty in this country. This wellbeing Budget is focused through a lens of making sure we are addressing those issues which are biggest in New Zealand. We're having a balanced approach, we keep the lid on debt, but we invest where we need to invest, where evidence says we should invest; like previous Budgets that have invested in mental health to make sure, over time, every New Zealander will be able to access free mental health services; like the focus on infrastructure in the COVID Budget to make sure there was stimulus in the economy; like the focus in this Budget on people out of poverty, and tackling our child poverty challenges as a country. These are long-term issues. No one expects these issues to be all solved overnight, but they do expect to see progress and this is a Government that is delivering.
I want to say a couple of quick things about Hillside Workshops, down my way. What a terrific investment the Government has made, absolutely terrific investment. It's not so long ago that they were down to 10 workers at the Hillside Workshops.
Hon David Bennett: And it was a waste of money.
Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: It was clear that the National Government was trying to derail Hillside for good, and members on that side say investing in local jobs is a waste of money, but we believe in upskilling New Zealanders, in getting those high-value jobs in our country, and building back better. We're rebuilding with pride, we're seeing 250 construction jobs through that reconstruction of the Hillside Workshops through what's gone into this Budget and, when completed, there'll be 45 staff needed to deliver on the contracts for all of the money that's been put aside. So this is an opportunity for the South. It's interesting—rail is one of those areas where, around the world, people are investing. They're investing in Europe and elsewhere, because we've got climate change goals we need to address. It's also true that rail is one of those rare areas that has such a rich history and such a rich future ahead of it. It is a really powerful investment that invests, again, in one of those long-term challenges we've got.
My time is nearly up, but I'm so proud to be a part of a Government that is securing our recovery from COVID-19 and that is doing what matters for New Zealanders.





Hon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): Madam Speaker, thank you very much. The only thing that that member who's resumed his seat, the Hon Dr David Clark, got right was the fact that he said his time was nearly up, and it is. It's nearly up, indeed, because if ever there was an example of how bad and how unimaginative this Budget was, it's the reference to the money that is going to be wasted at the Hillside railway workshops in Dunedin. We're going to be back at a time when, back in the 1970s, in the 1960s, even into the early 1980s, we used to assemble kitset cars in New Zealand. We used to try and think that we had a car assembly industry. Well, that's what we are going back to at Hillside. We're going to have dismantled wagons from overseas, and then we're going to put them together like some giant Meccano set, employ a whole lot of people on, sort of, make-work jobs schemes, and kid ourselves that somehow this is a great industrial revolution for Dunedin. Well, it's not, because, like that project, this Government's Budget this year has been little more than a flight of fiscal fantasy.
And this is a Government, a Labour Government—you know, in the hours after the delivery of the Budget, there were Labour MPs from across the House who were standing up and proudly announcing themselves as socialists. Well, very few of them are doing it now. The Government backbenchers who have been speaking in this debate can hardly even get enthusiastic about it. They can hardly raise a bit of enthusiasm from their speaking points, from their talking points, to actually feel motivated to get out and defend and argue this Budget, because they know it has landed incredibly poorly.
Part of the reason it's landed so poorly with hard-working New Zealanders, taxpayers who are going to have to ultimately fund the debt and the borrowing and the printing of money, is because this Labour Government plans to borrow around $30 billion net in the next coming year—$30 billion. That's over $15,000 per household—$15,000 per household—in New Zealand over the next 12 months. And that is just the current year. Treasury projections say that Crown borrowing will be a massive $215 billion by this time next year—by 2022, massive Crown borrowing of $215 billion. If you think $15,000 per household in the next 12 months is a lot of money, well, that sum for the $215 billion equates to $119,000 per household. 
Now, most New Zealanders don't understand how much is being borrowed, printed, and spent in their name at the moment. And it won't be, actually, most of the members in this Chamber that end up having to pay for it. That's the sad reality. It will be the children and grandchildren and great grandchildren of members in this House who will pay for it for most of their working lives. When I go and visit schools around the Coromandel electorate, I see the innocent look on the young students who do not know what is being borrowed and spent in their name by this socialist Labour Government. I wouldn't mind so much if this socialist Labour Government was actually spending the money on something that was going to create intergenerational wealth, something that was actually going to improve the long-term lifestyle and outcomes for the children and grandchildren of members in this House, but they aren't; they are spending it on very poor quality initiatives.
It was Bill English who used to stand in this House, and he would often refer to welfarism as nothing more than managing misery. And that's exactly what it is. He would always say that it was easy to borrow money, easy to spend money, easy to print money; it's very difficult to make the right decisions. And we have a socialist Labour Government now who are determined to revert back to the old ways of the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s—mostly to encourage their mates in the trade union, but that's a whole different debate. But the real challenge that Bill English used to talk about was actually that the skill is getting people off welfare. That's the real thing. Growing an economy, creating opportunities for real work—a thriving, growing, productive economy. There's nothing in this Budget that encourages business, there's nothing in this Budget that encourages productivity growth, and there's nothing in this Budget except added cost for business that will ultimately mean fewer people are in work. This is a thoroughly bad socialist Labour Party Budget.





Hon MEKA WHAITIRI (Minister of Customs): E te Māngai o te Whare, talofa lava.
Otirā ngā mema katoa o te Whare nei, tēnā tātou katoa. [So to all the members of this House, greetings.]
Before I start, can I please seriously acknowledge the great people of the Canterbury region. At this particular time, can I send my best wishes and prayers to them and their families and hope that their recovery is a speedy one.
It's also Memorial Day, which is the United States equivalent to our Anzac Day. I was pleased to represent the Government at the Memorial Day speech where partnership was the topic spoken about—partnership between the USA and, of course, New Zealand. That leads me into this fantastic Budget of 2021. We're talking about partnership here, the largest Māori Budget in the history of Government, $1.1 billion—
Hon Dr David Clark: How much?
Hon MEKA WHAITIRI: $1.1 billion, the Hon Mr Clark, here. That's $1.1 billion to acknowledge the partnership that we have here in this country with iwi Māori. So let's see where that $1.1 billion—$380 million towards housing, that is to build another thousand homes and work in partnership with iwi Māori to repair 700 Māori-owned properties. This is magnificent news for people that are struggling to get houses throughout the country.
There's $242.8 million for Māori health initiatives. I want to acknowledge the Associate Minister of Health Peeni Henare, for his work in this space with the establishment of the Māori Health Authority. We've heard in this House that the current health system has failed Māori, and it is this Government's boldness and leadership, led by our Rt Hon Jacinda Ardern that is leaning in for fixing a system that is pakaru—or to translate: broken.
There's $150 million in Māori education to support Māori boarding schools. Something that's very dear to my heart, particularly as three of the last four Māori boarding schools are in Ikaroa-Rāwhiti: St Joseph's, Hukarere, and Te Aute College. And, of course we've got Hato Pāora that's there. That $20 million will go a long way to fixing our leadership in some iconic Māori boarding schools. 
Of course, there's $42 million in this Budget for a sustainable Māori media sector. And, finally, a Government that's investing in the great work our iwi radio stations do up and down the country. Nowhere else did we see it but in lockdown last year, where the messages and the information to our communities were portrayed over the iwi radio stations. A big mihi to them. And, of course, $15 million in Māori tourism, $14.8 million for the Māori Language Strategy, and, something that's dear to my heart, $40.1 million towards Māori data sovereignty.
This is a fantastic Budget that will unlock the potential for Māoridom in terms of meeting those needs. Towards the Māori economy—and I want to just quickly turn, because on that side they always accuse that we don't grow the economy. So let me just quote from Chapman Tripp, who acknowledge the Māori economy soars to $68 billion and has grown by 60 percent in the last five years—60 percent, not 16; 60 percent. We've got to acknowledge that the Māori asset base in this country is playing its part for all New Zealanders and that's why this $1.1 billion will unlock the relationship and the partnership potential that we've got in there—Chapman Tripp.
We've also got the recent report by BERL—the Business and Economic Research Limited—that valued the Māori economy at $68.7 billion. It's a no-brainer that in this time and age—not like in 1921, but in 2021—that this side of the Government is progressively leaning into its relationship with iwi Māori, and all the country will benefit from this. This Budget, as has been said across this side, does three things: it protects all New Zealanders, it helps in the economic recovery, and, of course, it resets our future in the work that we're doing, lifting the benefit levels.
I'm proud of this active Budget. This Budget that actively works in partnership with all New Zealanders. For me, particularly, a partnership with iwi Māori leveraging off the Māori-owned asset around fishing, forestry, farming, and food production. This is a benefit to all people. I'm so proud to be on this side, to be part of a Māori caucus of 15, and the hard-working Māori Ministers who have delivered a Budget that we on this side are not only proud of but all Māori, all New Zealanders are proud of it. This is a Budget for all New Zealand. I commend it to the House.





Hon DAVID BENNETT (National): Thank you, Madam Speaker. First of all, I just want to recognise our Canterbury communities, especially the farmers down there, that have done a tremendous job in the last couple of days of being able to look after their stock, maintaining strong animal welfare at a very difficult period of time. I think that the results that they've seen is a direct result of farmers being proactive, listening, and communities coming together and helping each other. I'd just like to put a special mention for Federated Farmers. I think Chris Allen and David Clark have done a tremendous job in advocating for the farmers down there as well. So we wish them all the very best as they rebuild. 
The infrastructure that that community needs now, like the Ashburton Bridge that's in trouble—those are the kinds of things that this Government said no to. That was the infrastructure that should have been in this Budget. That is what is needed for our farming communities so that they can grow and prosper. And when you have infrastructure that is dilapidated and it's old, then when the first adverse events like this come along, it really just shows how, if the Government doesn't use its funds wisely, we can actually have devastating effects on the industries that promote and build New Zealand. So this should have been a Budget that had something in it for farmers. It should have had something around infrastructure. It didn't have that. And the consequences we're seeing in the last couple of days just reflect what happens if there's a poor decision by Government around use of its funds.
There was nothing in this Budget for farming education. That last speaker talked about $150 million for Māori boarding schools. What about the other private schools in their networks? Why didn't they get some money? I remember years ago they stood against us when we gave money to private schools. What about rural health? What was in there for rural health? What did they give—where's the new medical school that would be required to train the doctors? Where are the new nurses that are needed for the rural communities? Time and time again, we see things in the paper saying that there's shortages in this area. That Government didn't act on that.
Where has been the rural connectivity that farmers need? There was $10 million put away in that Budget—ten million bucks. They'd probably, if you're lucky, get five cell phone sites. You know, it wouldn't even do one decent valley. Where is the Government investing in the primary sector by giving it the infrastructure it needs? There should have been money in that Budget around rural connectivity. And if we look at other things in the Budget that were missing, there's no increase in TB spending when we've got a TB outbreak in the Hawke's Bay. I didn't see any of those Hawke's Bay MPs advocating for extra funding to deal with that outbreak. It is static in the Budget and there's no increase there. 
Water storage actually was decreased in the Budget. Crown Irrigation went from $73 million to nil—zero. Crown Irrigation does not exist under that Labour Government 2021-2022. That is taking away the future of our horticultural industries. They need water to grow. The sustainable food and fibre fund is reduced by $18 million as well. They took away from agriculture. They didn't put anything in. This is not a Budget for farmers. And we look at what's in the farming newspapers, what did Federated Farmers say? "What we really need to see from this Government is an acknowledgment that the world pays us good money for the food we produce, and we need a regulatory framework that encourages and supports us to keep doing what we do." We didn't get that in the Budget. All we get is farmers in the South Island, especially in Southland, constantly attacked for what they do. They've had to form groups to stand up to this Government that puts rules on them that are unworkable, that will never work, and they never give them a chance to actually put down practical, reasonable solutions. 
Then we see that DairyNZ in the same article says, "there was little new funding to help farmers accelerate the pace or scale of … work they are doing behind the farm gate to improve environmental outcomes." There are huge requirements this Government is putting on farmers around the environment. Where was it in the Budget to help them? Where was it in there to actually make sure that they had the ability to do that? The rules are stupid. The rules have had to be revised time and time again. They are not giving farmers the ability to satisfy those rules. And the Minister would say, "Oh, there's money in there for integrated farm plans and global research." That will touch the surface if they're lucky. There is not the capability there. Regional councils are looking at putting up rates to meet those goals. This is not a Budget for farmers. This is a Budget that didn't deliver in health, education, infrastructure that farmers needed.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): Order! The member's time is up.





Hon POTO WILLIAMS (Minister for Building and Construction): Thank you, Madam Speaker. First, a mihi to my home region for the stuff that's happening down there at the moment. I want to commend the work of the Hon Kris Faafoi and others in supporting our region to recover from what's been a fairly devastating 72 hours, etc. You know, thankfully, many of us in Christchurch were saved the worst of it, but Ashburton and North Canterbury—really disappointing to have to go through this again. But, you know, that terrible "R" word that we roll out in Canterbury, "resilient", we are people who have been through this before, and the most amazing thing about coming from Canterbury is that we are people that do work together to get the best outcomes for us all.
I've often followed the previous speaker, the Hon David Bennett, in debates and I kind of wonder why that is. Am I being punished for something? Because, you know, I feel like we kind of wake him up from his little siesta and he says a few things and then he sits down there. But Mr Bennett, I'm here to say that I am a socialist and am proud of it. And really, just amazing because I have—
Hon David Bennett: Point of order. That was clearly inaudible, that last comment. If she actually believes it, say it like you mean it.
Hon POTO WILLIAMS: Thank you very much. I am a socialist and proud of it! I have the best job in the world, because I get to work with an incredible Prime Minister, the Rt Hon Jacinda Ardern, who actually speaks and walks and talks the values of the Labour Party every single day. I'm so proud to be part of that team. And I'm proud to support the Minister of Finance, Grant Robertson, who I think if he wasn't doing this he would probably be commentating cricket or something like that, because he is just an all-round great guy, and I'm so proud to be here supporting this Government in this, the best job in the world. 
I say that because the programme of work that we've got coming up—record building consents, a massive infrastructure programme. What we're doing is actually supporting our people to take up those roles by training them. We're outstripping our own targets in terms of people in training in the building and construction sector—outstripping them by easily double. Not only that, apprenticeships are seeing more and more and more women coming into the trades. Really extraordinary, amazing stuff going on. And I'm proud of the wellbeing agenda that we have been running for the last couple of years.
I have got a couple of great roles: of course, building and construction, but also in police. I'm proud to be the Minister of Police and proud of their work—that they get out there every day supporting us. There are a couple of things I want to just correct, and that's some misinformation that the Opposition spokesperson has put out about the Budget. I just want to correct that in terms of the work that we've still yet to land in our negotiations around our road policing. So that will add to our budget bottom lines, and the work that has now been completed on the Whanganui police hub which will come out of this year's Estimates. 
But what is really great, what I'm really grateful for, is the work that police are doing, that they will continue to do and that we will continue to support them, around Operation Tauwhiro. Now, in the House today I got to update the House on just how well we are doing in that particular operation: 522 firearms seized; $2.76 million in cash; 476 people arrested—and that's since February. That's an extraordinary piece of work that the police are doing, getting out there, keeping us safe every day. 
But not only that, the work that they are doing in partnerships like Whāngaia Ngā Pā Harakeke, and the integrated safety response, which is around dealing with the issue of family harm, which is something that has troubled this country for an awful long time. You cannot do this work alone. This is about working in partnerships. And I'm really proud of the work that the pilots of Te Pae Oranga have demonstrated, that there is a way to divert young people from entering the justice system in the first place. That's the stuff that will actually stop the overrepresentation of Māori and Pacific in the negative stats around the justice system, and I'm really proud of that. I am a socialist, Mr Bennett, and proud of it.





SIMON COURT (ACT): Thank you, Madam Speaker. One of the things that should be at the top of this Government's priorities is to let New Zealanders build like the boomers did. One of the major problems we're facing today is that we're not building enough affordable homes to house New Zealanders. The Budget contains over $100 million out to financial year 2023/24 to enable the Government's resource management reform agenda, but the focus really needs to be on how we enable people to actually build more homes and more things in this country, starting with infrastructure, roads, bridges, tunnels, pipes, and water and waste-water networks.
Until the introduction of the Resource Management Act (RMA) in the 1990s, average house prices were about two to three times the average income. In the last year, we've seen house prices go up by $100,000 on average, and now the average home is six to nine times the average income. That's an appalling indictment on this Government's anti-development policy agenda. It's only been made worse by a lack of planning and a lack of funding for basic infrastructure—the most basic infrastructure—like roads, which allow people to choose whether they drive a car or whether they take a bus to school or work, and functioning water and waste-water networks in our towns and cities. We're facing maybe a $170 billion infrastructure deficit, but how would we know? Nobody has actually surveyed them.
Now, think about it. When a developer has a vision now under the RMA for a new township or a new business hub, how are they treated? You look at Sleepyhead in the North Waikato. They proposed a model town and development, $1.2 billion worth of work, contributing $200 million a year during its lifetime, and the only major objectors were Environment Waikato and the New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA). Environment Waikato—they didn't want Sleepyhead and The Comfort Group to build the model town. They wanted them to go and redevelop the town they'd let run down, at Huntly, and NZTA didn't want traffic on its expressway, did they?
Hon David Bennett: Have you been to Huntly recently? You can't say it's run down.
SIMON COURT: Well, they didn't want traffic on their expressway, because apparently that's not what highways are for.
Now, the Government plans to replace one anti-development Act with three new Acts, and they expect us to believe that that will actually make things less complicated. The fear ACT has with this approach is that it will actually entrench the worst local government behaviours and planning practices. There are going to still be a whole lot of people telling you what you can do with your land but, more importantly, what you can't do with the land that you own. That is why ACT would repeal the Resource Management Act entirely and replace it with a separate environmental protection Act and an urban development Act. Our urban development Act would be based on the Productivity Commission's report, Better urban planning. That significantly expands the rights of landowners to develop their own land.
Our environmental protection Act would be rules-based to give landowners and developers of infrastructure and homes certainty and confidence. ACT's environmental protection Act would focus only on those environmental issues not already covered by other schemes. We wouldn't waste time talking about climate change in our environmental protection Act; it's already covered by the emissions trading scheme. If we wish to get more New Zealanders into safe and affordable homes, we must end irrational planning restrictions. ACT's repeal of the RMA would not only accelerate housebuilding; it would also allow faster infrastructure development.
The Government recognised these problems when they created their fast track for their own pet projects. ACT believes all infrastructure projects should be fast tracked or enabled, not just the trendy ones which the Prime Minister wants her photograph taken by. Our reforms to the RMA would increase certainty for developers and local councils, giving them the confidence to develop and deliver ambitious infrastructure projects without living in fear of the Environment Court. Only then can we deliver the infrastructure and affordable housing that New Zealand needs. Thank you.





RINO TIRIKATENE (Labour—Te Tai Tonga): Malo le soifua, Madam Speaker. 
Tuatahi, he mihi poto tēnei ki taku iwi o Te Waipounamu, ki ngā mea e noho ana i ngā hapori o Ngā Pākihi Whakatekateka o Waitaha me ōna pakeketanga. Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.
[Firstly, I would like to quickly acknowledge my tribe of the South Island; those that are living in communities of the Canterbury Plains and all their difficulties. Greetings one and all.]
I just wanted to open my contribution in this debate to acknowledge my people and also the many districts of the great Te Wai Pounamu across Canterbury, and offer my sincere thoughts, as we are doing as a Government, to stand by the communities and the difficulties that they're facing with the severe weather deluge that Tāwhiri-mātea has put on to those communities. I know it's a very difficult time, but we will be there to support them through this, as I will, too, as the member for Te Tai Tonga. 
But I'm delighted to speak in this Budget debate. This Budget is all about securing our recovery from the global pandemic of COVID-19, and, as we have done as a Government prior, right through this global pandemic, guiding our nation through, protecting, putting our health response to the fore so we can drive our economic recovery; that work is continuing through this Budget. That work is continuing through the Budget priorities, which we set right at the start of this year through our Budget Policy Statement, and all of those aspects that we have put to the nation we are now delivering on through this Budget. I'm very proud of this Budget, particularly in addressing the issues of inequities that we have, particularly with raising the income levels of those who are most vulnerable in our society. The raising of benefit levels for families that are in need, in line with the Welfare Expert Advisory Group's recommendation—that is a huge, huge gain, which really just lifts those families up to a level whereby they can live with some measure of dignity, albeit, though, we know that it is a daily battle. 
There are so many good things to this Budget, so many that we are covering right across the full expanse of the reaches of Government, right throughout Aotearoa, and there are so many highlights that I could go into, but I want to focus on, as my colleague the Hon Meka Whaitiri touched on, the huge investments, game-changing investments, that we are making in Māori under this Budget. That was a priority that we set in our objectives, and we have definitely followed through with that, most notably through our investments in health and housing. 
I'm delighted that we are putting the resources behind the Māori Health Authority that will be a critical part of the new architecture of our health system. As chair of the Māori Affairs Committee in the last Government, we recommended as a committee that there be a Māori health authority, and I'm pleased that we are following through with that. But we are backing that up with investments of $242 million, I understand—huge investments that will really make a difference, not only to ensure that we are involved in the highest levels of strategy and planning for health in Aotearoa, but also in terms of commissioning services and support for our Māori health providers that do such tremendous work right across Aotearoa. Ultimately, what we want to see through these investments is changes to those health inequities. Whether it be access, whether it be treatments, whether it, ultimately, is outcomes, we want to ensure that we get those benefits for Māori. And I want to acknowledge the work of our Māori Ministers who helped us achieve these significant gains. 
I don't really need to trumpet on how great this Budget is, because we are receiving so much endorsement—so much endorsement—from right across the whole nation. And, in particular, I just think of the huis that we had across Ōtautahi just a few days ago with my colleagues. We've had iwi leaders—the chair of Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu—publicly say that this Government has gone the furthest and is doing the most for Māori in terms of the Treaty partnership, and really backing it up with the resources to support our people. So I'm very proud of the work that we're doing, and I know that we are going to continue on, because it's all about the wellbeing, which is at the heart of everything we do. Kia ora tātou.





Dr ELIZABETH KEREKERE (Green): Talofa lava. I acknowledge that today is Samoan Independence Day within this Vaiaso o le Gagana Samoa, Poupou le lotoifale, ola manuia le anofale. So from our whanaunga, Te Moananui-a-Kiwa, we come back to Aotearoa to have a look at this Budget and how it affects Māori in different ways.
Nā te mea, tuatahi, ka nui te mihi ki te kāhui Māori o te Pāti Reipa.
[Because, I congratulate and acknowledge the Māori caucus of the Labour Party.]
We will always want more, we certainly always need more, but securing $1.1 billion for Māori across this Budget is undeniably the best we have ever seen, so kia ora.
I also acknowledge our own co-leader, the Hon Marama Davidson, for fighting for funds in the areas of homelessness and family and sexual violence. What I find most heartening is that this funding is spread across many, many sectors: te reo me ōna tikanga, housing, health, employment, justice, benefit increases, education, tourism, and broadcasting, and our sovereignty—kia ora. It recognises the intersectional solutions that Māori need in the face of the institutional racism that is the legacy of colonisation, because no one single thing is going to lift our people out of poverty and address the disparities we face across every single one of those areas, up to and including how long we live.
When Te Mātāwaka—the Māori and Pasifika caucus of the Green Party—set out our six Māori priorities, one of them was the establishment of an independent Māori health authority. We wanted to support this, and it is one of the areas where I am most excited in this Budget. I wondered who would have the mana to lead this work, but the appointment of Tā Mason Durie is as much a master stroke as it is inevitable after his decades of world-leading work in this area.
Two concerns stand out for me in this Budget. Number one: when all this funding rolls out to the respective departments, agencies, and organisations, how do Māori—how do whānau, hapū, and iwi; how do marae; how do Māori providers and organisations—access and direct that funding? Another one of the Green Party priorities is that Māori have a say in the issues that affect them. We'll be watching closely to see that Māori are actually part of the decision making on how that funding rolls out to them, and not just the subject of consultation or at the mercy of bureaucrats who think they know better—we know that story really, really well.
Number two: in the week that started with the International Day Against Homophobia, Biphobia, Interphobia, and Transphobia, it was really disappointing that nowhere in that Budget is there specific funding for rainbow communities, and therefore nothing specific to takatāpui. Of course we're included in other funding and we'll find it, but it's well known if certain communities are not recognised specifically and their people are not counted, not much changes to improve their health and wellbeing.
Māori activists, organisers, academics, and leaders have long said, "What is good for Māori is good for everyone." So my suggestion is that we create a takatāpui unit in the new Māori Health Authority. This is one way that we can show leadership, that we can show the mainstream health system how we can treat takatāpui, and show wider rainbow communities how they can live with the dignity they deserve in a way that respects their mana, their mauri, and their wairua. Kia ora.





TERISA NGOBI (Labour—Ōtaki): Faafetai i lau Afioga le Fofoga o le Maota. Can I say, first, it's a privilege and an honour to be able to take a call in this Budget 2021 debate. While there are many examples of how this Budget serves many New Zealanders—all New Zealanders—there are so many to talk about. What I would say, for example, for the Ōtaki electorate in particular, the health reforms that the Hon Andrew Little announced mean a great deal to us in the Ōtaki electorate, given we don't have a hospital, and at the northern end we don't have access or transport access to a hospital. So the focus on regional primary healthcare is a game-changer for the people of the Ōtaki electorate, and for that we are truly grateful to this Labour Government.
But that's not the focus for this Budget kōrero that I want to highlight. What I wanted to highlight was this Labour Government's commitment to tackling climate change, and that's led by our Prime Minister, the Rt Hon Jacinda Ardern, and delivered by our Minister David Parker where he announced, just last week, the $11.5 million to restore Lake Horowhenua. So if you are from the mighty and beautiful Ōtaki electorate, and you live there in Levin—
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Not me.
TERISA NGOBI: —then you will see that that means—
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Not me.
TERISA NGOBI: —sorry, Madam Speaker—that there's a massive increase to the joy of being able to, one day, be able to enjoy that taonga.
What I will say is that $11.5 million investment from this Government—continuing to show they deliver on climate change—means that we've bought a farmland, a dairy farmland actually, at the back of Lake Horowhenua to be able to renovate that into a wetland. What that means is that that's the first step to be able to rejuvenate our beautiful taonga, our beautiful Lake Horowhenua. Once that's finished, it will also create 45 local jobs for our area—another investment in the Ōtaki electorate, thanks to this Government and this Budget. But what I would say is, growing up in Levin all my life, while you see how beautiful and picturesque Lake Horowhenua is, you smell the stench that comes out of there, you see the sandflies, and across the wai, across the water, you'll see all the pollution sitting on top.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Order! Not me.
TERISA NGOBI: My apologies, Madam Speaker. So with that $11.5 million toward making it into wetlands, that's going to reduce that and be a step towards being able to rejuvenate it.
Like I said, growing up there all my life, I know what it means to me, but what I also know is what it means to the people of Muaūpoko, the mana whenua in that rohe, and I know while I've advocated strongly for the rejuvenation of Lake Horowhenua, I know for decades the people of Muaūpoko have, so I just want to acknowledge some of those people. For example, Tommy Waho, who has now passed on, one of my beautiful friends, who advocated hard to hopefully one day have his children—or at least his mokopuna—be able to swim in that awa, and now that's not a hope, that's an actual reality, thanks to this Government and its commitment to climate change and investment in the Ōtaki electorate. I also want to acknowledge Eugene Henare and the Henare whānau, Phil and Viv Taueki, Tawake Whānau, Mua Matakātea, also Marokapa Matakātea, the Hori Te Pas, Justin Tamihana and the Tamihana whānau, the Kelly Tahiwi whānau, Jack Warren, Charles Rudd, Keven, there's so many more Muaūpoko Whānau that have been advocating hard for this for decades, so I hope this is one step to be able to restore that for them.
I also want to acknowledge Horizons Regional Council, their tautoko and mahi. In particular, I want to acknowledge Sam Ferguson, a councillor, environmentalist, and staunch advocate for the restoration of Lake Horowhenua in the mighty and beautiful Ōtaki electorate. I also want to acknowledge Woodhaven—Jay, Emma, and their dad John Clarke, who have been working also with the council and with Muaūpoko, and, I believe, put in $1.2 million seed funding.
This Labour Government has ensured that, one day, our kids will be able to swim safely in Lake Horowhenua, and so I say, on behalf of the people of the Ōtaki electorate, and being the MP of the Ōtaki electorate, fa'afetai tele lava to our Prime Minister, to Minister Parker, and to this Labour-led Government, 'ofa atu.





Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): Thank you, Madam Speaker. We're here to debate Labour's 2020 Budget and the message from the Labour Party to working New Zealanders is very clear: drop dead. That's the message: drop dead. Because if we look at this Budget, there's billions and billions spent, there's higher debt, there's slower growth, and there is nothing for working New Zealanders. People who work hard, look after themselves and their families—there's nothing in it for them. 
If we look at the three most urgent issues in this country today, it's around housing. The complete failure of this Government to make any progress in dealing with the housing crisis in this country, and what is most of the Budget about? It's about increasing benefits, chasing the higher costs that are putting New Zealand families under real pressure. Rents have gone up primarily because of crazy policies introduced by this party, adding costs to landlords, which are sent through to the renters, and we're seeing rents go up by over $100 a week. So this Government chases that by putting benefits up even higher. But they're not dealing with the real issue and they've never dealt with the real issue. KiwiBuild was a complete failure and now all their interference in the rental market, the failure to understand that it's not compulsory for people to rent out their houses, and if you make it too expensive, too risky, too difficult, they'll withdraw from the market—shortage of supply, price goes up. 
The second issue is around vaccine. We're well off the pace of that. We're supposed to be the head of the queue. Second half of this year, New Zealanders will be looking at the rest of the world moving around, engaging in trade and tourism, and getting back to normal life, and we'll be huddled down here because this Government has been too slow to get the vaccines. 
The third issue is the lack of any clear and coherent economic plan coming out of this Government. All they know how to do is shut things down and spend and add cost to businesses. That does not create the wealth that we need in order to have the living standards that we aspire to. We've added incredible cost to small businesses that are struggling to stay afloat. This Government has created massive policy uncertainty by lurching around all over the place—"Oil and gas? We don't like that. We don't like this. We don't like that. We don't like international education. We don't like a whole lot of stuff." 
Todd Muller: Don't like cows.
Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: They don't like farming, don't like cows, but somehow, miraculously, we're going to make a higher living standard and we're going to create the wealth that we need for this country. There is no clear, coherent economic plan coming from this Government. There was certainly nothing in the Budget. 
And then when we turn to education, well, that's the longer term challenge for this country, because there is a long tail of underachievement, and everybody recognises that, and it has been the case for a number of decades. But I've been shocked and horrified going to schools over the last few months that there isn't recognition of the fact that we are falling off the pace internationally in our educational outcomes. 
Hon Dr David Clark: What about maths?
Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: The Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) reports—all the international studies show that New Zealanders are falling behind in maths and literacy. But you go to your average principal and it's "PISA SCHMISA. Oh, no, we're different. It doesn't matter. We don't believe in all this sort of stuff." It's living in a fantasy land if we think that we can have the living standards that we aspire to as a country without producing top rate educational outcomes so that New Zealanders can compete, and we're falling behind.
Now, what can we do about it? Well, there's a couple of very simple things we can do about it, and the first thing is make sure that the kids actually go to school. The disgrace of this Government is in this Budget where billions and billions of dollars have been spent, they could find only $5 million a year extra to deal with the truancy crisis in this country, and that was just a joke. We've got only 60 percent of children regularly attending school—60 percent. I went to one school in Hamilton, Whitiora primary, and 15 percent only attend regularly. Can you believe that in this country? Now, you're not going to make any progress in education if the kids aren't at school and we've got to get on with that seriously. 
The second thing is we won't make any progress if we're not measuring academic progress in any way, shape, or form. Nothing in the Budget about that. There's lots of money, however, for the Ministry of Education to spend on consultants and all that sort of stuff around the curriculum review. Yes, the curriculum does need to be reviewed. NCEA has been dumbed down over the years and we need some rigour back in there, but I'm deeply concerned that the changes proposed will make it even worse. We've done away with accounting and economics at NCEA level 1 and I'm sure there'll be a lot more to come. 
The other thing that's been surprising is a complete absence of real extra resources in the learner support area. I go to so many schools and they're struggling to deal with children with special needs. So we see all the billions of dollars in this Budget mainly trying to deal with the situations that this Government has helped create in this dysfunction of the housing area.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): The member's time has expired, thank you.





MARJA LUBECK (Labour): Talofa lava, Madam Speaker, and thank you for the opportunity to speak on Budget 2021. Now, the previous speaker, Paul Goldsmith, mentioned 2020, but, actually, this is Budget 2021. But let me talk about Budget 2019, when New Zealand was the first country in the world to actually deliver a wellbeing Budget, tackling some of our country's most disturbing long-term challenges. It's been that exact commitment to wellbeing that has actually put us in a really strong position compared to many of the other countries.
Budget 2021, then, reflects the principle that has guided us since we came into office, and that, basically, is: leave no one behind. To do this, we take a very balanced approach. We make sure that we put new investment directed towards the greatest need, but at the same time we also keep a lid on debt. So we are securing our economic recovery while keeping people safe, but we know we can't take this recovery for granted. There is still a global pandemic raging, and we know that we are still in a highly volatile global environment that will continue to bring ongoing uncertainty.
Now, last week I was lucky enough to be invited by Mr Speaker to sit in on a Speaker's dinner with some of the European ambassadors based in New Zealand. We spoke about many places in the world where most of these Budgets and most Government announcements are taking place under restrictions, online or in socially distanced parliaments, because in those countries, COVID is still causing havoc and distress, and many are going through a third or even a fourth wave of COVID outbreaks. I know that firsthand because, of course, my family is in the Netherlands, where my mum and dad still have been locked up since pretty much March last year. My sister, who probably is watching, actually, working from home—it's 7.30 in the morning now. So, yeah, still working from home because there is still a global pandemic raging there.
But in New Zealand, of course, we have always said that our strongest economic response to COVID would be a strong public health response, and that's exactly what we've done. Because we did so, we got a head-start on our economic recovery, and, also, that recovery continues to be supported by a very strong health response.
Vaccines were mentioned, and, of course, vaccines are an important step. That's why we have $1.5 billion allocated in Budget 2021. Rolling that out has been a massive logistical exercise, and our plan is ramping up at the moment. We have already delivered more than half a million doses now. That vaccine roll-out is continuing to make sure that Kiwis have vaccines available free of charge. I saw that work first-hand last week in Wellsford when I visited the Coast to Coast Health Care facility, which was especially set up to provide vaccines for the Far North. I want to do a shout-out to Tim and Nancy Molloy and Neil Anderson, who have done a fantastic job there in Wellsford to convert an unused meeting and storage area to a kick-ass vaccination centre for the local community.
Hon Dr David Clark: How many doses?
MARJA LUBECK: They're doing about 10,000 vaccinations a month. They're starting five days a week, 8 to 5, and they're ramping that up to seven days a week, much like we're doing with the Government as well. So we're ramping it up: 500,000 vaccinations already delivered, and that is continuing to be ramped up. So sites like that are an enormous testament to this Government's recovery effort. In fact, I did a Facebook Live, but I forgot to mention that people do need to make an appointment, so can I just correct that for the record: please call and book an appointment before you go in, because the clinic has been flooded with people keen to get their vaccinations done.
So Budget 2021, of course, focuses on wellbeing—we're making sure that we give every New Zealander a fair go, and that means that our country, basically, takes that opportunity of what our finance Minister always says, to build back better: "The glimmer of silver lining on the darkest of clouds." That sort of ties in with this year's Samoan Language Week: "Poupou le lotoifale, ola manuia le anofale."—I hope I got that right—in English, "Strengthen the posts of your house for all to thrive." That looks like 16,000 people supported into studying through the Training Incentive Allowance, seeing 33,000 children lifted out of poverty, Treasury forecasting 221,000 more people in jobs over the next four years as our recovery continues. So I'm absolutely proud to be part of this Government that is making this happen with its strong values, its brilliant leadership, of course, by our Prime Minister, Jacinda Ardern. I thank you, Madam Speaker. Fa'afetai.





STUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I would like to start out by acknowledging the people in my electorate who have been evacuated last night due to the flooding down south. It's certainly a significant event, and I know, with the clean-up that they'll be about to face, how difficult that can be, fixing fences up and dealing with stock and all of those things that go along with it. So our thoughts are with them.
But we're here to talk about the Budget in this Budget debate, and I'm going to focus on climate change, which I'm sure you're probably not surprised about. It's been a bit of a disappointment, actually, in terms of climate change. Back in December of 2020, the Government decided to declare a climate emergency. I had a quote back then saying that it was complete virtue-signalling, and, actually, that has proven to be the case. We have seen little in the way of urgency to meet this climate emergency that the Government thinks we have, and we also see this in the Budget that's been announced a few weeks ago. We spent the last four years that the Government's been in talking a lot about stuff and not getting much done, and I think we're seeing that here today.
The clean car standard had $56.7 million in the Budget for that to be rolled out, but what we see in that, because the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment have come up with this formula, is that, actually, some cars that emit way more than others—V6s, for example, V6 diesel—actually get an incentive in that standard, compared to some very small four-cylinder engines with much lower emissions, because of the complicated formula that goes in there.
My point with this is that when you start to come out with incentives along the lines of this sort of thing, you always get these sorts of—not you personally. But we will always see gaps and perverse outcomes, very much like what happened with the roll-out of the net zero Government programme, when we see the Department of Conservation buying an electric vehicle (EV) and putting it in Stewart Island. In Stewart Island, the only electricity down there is generated by a diesel generator. Now, that makes no sense at all to put an EV in Stewart Island. It just doesn't make sense at all, but it's a great idea because we're subsidising the roll-out of EVs! There is no possible justification for that, and yet the Government goes out and does it.
Now, I did actually write to the Minister about this through a written parliamentary question, and she came back with quite a cute answer, saying "Well, it's an efficient diesel engine." Well, I've talked to an electrical engineer, and we've done the calculations, and it's rubbish. Effectively, you're wasting your time putting an EV down there. Now, EVs are great technology. We all like them—I'd love to buy one myself—but that's not a point for subsidising them for everyone. It's middle class welfare, actually.
Actually, $100 million was announced in 2018 for the Green Investment Fund. We heard the Minister saying, "Well, we've allocated another $300 million, because we want to actually fund some big projects." Well, he can't tell us what projects he has funded. We don't know how many tonnes of emissions that the fund has actually abated. There's no numbers around it. I think, from what I can gather, what has been spent of that $100 million original fund has gone into bureaucracy. It certainly hasn't gone into anything to do with lowering emissions at this stage. So another $300 million—what's that going to do? Sit there. This is actually what the Government has done since they got in. They've got a great track record in making announcements and not delivering, and that's another example of it.
The $1.3 billion to go to KiwiRail to try and—and we heard the Minister of Climate Change say today that we're going to get freight off rail and on to road. Well, actually, they're different kinds of freight. The freight that goes on a truck goes to the door. Freight that goes on a train is used going into big depots. Actually, KiwiRail do a great job at what they do, but they're not going to get all the trucks off the road. It's actually about rewarding the unions, and building Hillside workshops—well, rebuilding it—in Dunedin is a waste of money, and what we should be focusing on is actually getting coal-fired generation out of the system. The Government's banned oil and gas, and we're on track to burn 2 million tonnes of coal. Our renewable electricity share has gone from 85 percent down to 75 percent. This Government, in a very short time, after this virtue-signalling climate emergency, has increased our emissions from coal by a significant margin—probably four times, I would imagine. A waste of time.





RACHEL BROOKING (Labour): Talofa lava, Madam Speaker. 
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Talofa lava.
RACHEL BROOKING: It's a great pleasure that I get to speak after the last speaker, Stuart Smith, and also on climate change—might have a little bit of focus on that. And coming from the South, I might also focus on trains, tourism, and trading. So we've heard quite a lot of talk today about trains, and the last speaker was saying the freight is different if you put things on trains—they're going to a big depot, whereas trucks are doing door to door. I'm sure there is some truth to that statement in that trucks sometimes go door to door, but often they go to big depots too. So it's incredibly important that we get as many trucks using carbon off the roads as possible and to use those trains.
So we've got that $1.3 billion for rail to support that move to reducing carbon. We've got the Hillside workshops. We heard from my colleague the Hon Dr David Clark about the importance of making Hillside workshop work again, and it was a tremendous privilege to be there last Tuesday with the announcement of that $85 million that will mean that we can manufacture again in Aotearoa New Zealand—that's a major thing, and we need to be strategic about our manufacturing, rather than always relying on offshore. And, of course, we can think about the jobs: the jobs that are properly paid, the jobs with proper labour laws, health and safety, people who have hospitals and things to go to, as well as all the thought that goes into the climate and to the environment when things are built here in New Zealand. Of course, at that announcement last Tuesday, I want to acknowledge my friend the Hon Clare Curran, who was there and has worked so hard to make the point that it's ridiculous, it's false economy, to think that it's cheaper to buy something offshore when you don't have any of the standards I just talked about, and the trains then arrive with problems like asbestos.
Then I'd like to speak about tourism. I was also lucky in the past week to go to the beautiful Queenstown with the Minister the Hon Grant Robertson, where he spoke to a number of different groups about the Budget. Of course, Queenstown is an interesting place. It's been very driven by tourism and high growth tourism. And we've seen with COVID that it needs a reset. So there's $200 million to support the recovery and reset of tourism and to move to a sustainable future. There's $10 million for the tourism industry transformation plan, and that's to lift industry standards and transform to a more sustainable model. There's $20 million to diversify Queenstown and Wānaka's regional economy, and it's so important for that region that it doesn't rely solely on tourism. Clearly tourism is an important part of its economy, but it needs other things as well.
Then in conservation: obviously the conservation estate is something that tourists are able to enjoy, so there has been a waiver—$10 million to concessionaire waivers—so that the people operating in that tourism estate can keep working, despite the COVID world that we're living in. Then there's $15 million to Piopiotahi for the Milford opportunities project. As anybody in the South knows, that road through to Milford Sound, when tourists are in full flight, is very busy and the area is really overrun, as the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment's recent report said. So there needs to be some good thinking and planning there. Then, of course, there's a tourism infrastructure fund of $16.5 million that enables communities to build things like toilets, waste recovery, and cycle lanes. 
Now to my third "T", and that is trading, and I want to talk about the emissions trading scheme (ETS). So we've had this big announcement that the money that's earned from that ETS scheme will be hypothecated—that is recycled into climate change emissions. This could be around $3 billion over five years and that will be very important to mitigating climate change. That's not even to speak about responding to climate change and adaptation. So there's a $19 million fund in there for thinking about that response to climate change and doing the policy work of that. And it would be remiss of me not to mention the Resource Management Act reforms, with the money to fund that being $131.8 million.





MARK CAMERON (ACT): Thank you, Madam Speaker, for my opportunity to rise on the debate speech. I'd just quickly like to point out our concerns in this House and acknowledge the difficulties that the Canterbury region is going through, in what has been a terrible adverse weather event.
This Budget I rise to speak about, I am saddened and disgraced at what it represents to farmers. There is absolutely nothing in this Budget that acknowledges the very people that have kept this economy going. It's asinine and vacuous in many, many, many parts. This economy has been kept going for no other reason than the rural sector, and I think my colleagues on this side of the House would acknowledge that. There is nothing in here. We haven't got an acknowledgment for water storage. There's been no TB funding. 
Hon Simon Bridges: You'd think they hate the farmers!
MARK CAMERON: We haven't had the thanks for the rural sector, which reduced the funding for the fibre investment.
Hon Meka Whaitiri: What do you know about farming, Mr Bridges?
Hon Simon Bridges: I've got gumboots on!
MARK CAMERON: Well, you guys can keep on debating; I'm the actual only farmer in the building, outside of Mr Bennett—
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Order! [Interruption] Order! The member will resume his seat. That all started because the member was bringing the Speaker into the debate, which I'd ask him not to do, because, quite clearly, it leads to disorder.
MARK CAMERON: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Look, I reiterate my point: this has been an absolute disgrace, what it means in terms of funding for rural New Zealand. It's never been harder to be a farmer in rural New Zealand. We acknowledge that. There's a plethora of shoddy lawmaking that this Budget does not acknowledge. Fresh water reforms, climate change regulations—what will that mean to a rural New Zealand farmer? The other side of the House simply don't understand. Crown pastoral lease agreements and significant natural areas, that's the next thing that's coming. What does that mean for rural New Zealand?
Hon Dr David Clark: Who are your socialist buddies asking for more subsidies?
MARK CAMERON: Oh, we've got people that are calling themselves socialists over there. Sixty-six million dollars was the only significant funding, and that was for the biosecurity and the M. bovis programme. This is, frankly, insulting to the tens of thousands of farmers doing the tough work. Who else in this hall gets out of bed at 3 a.m. and then has to look at a re-grassing programme, especially down in Canterbury, that's going to take six months to get in?
The first question is that it was laid out of a foundation with this New Zealand economy going to be spearheaded by the rural sector. We withstood a global pandemic that caused havoc across the landscape. Who was better to fix that and keep the economy going? It was the rural sector. Despite this, we have seen a bureaucratic machinery that's pontificated. When was the last time that anyone in this hall—and I challenge them—was actually on a farm, talking to farmers, understanding the difficulties that they were going to have to deal with? Am I, as I said, the only practical farmer in here? The future of rural New Zealand—
Hon David Bennett: You're not a practical farmer!
MARK CAMERON: Well, certainly, here we go again! The Budget shows there's a disconnect with this Government and it's become—
Hon David Bennett: You're a bureaucratic or you wouldn't be standing there!
MARK CAMERON: Well, I'm both, mate—I'm both. As a country, we deserve better, and this Budget has nothing to address that—absolutely nothing
Hon David Bennett: Right now he's trying to present himself as something he isn't.
MARK CAMERON: Yeah, thank you very much, Mr Bennett. I am actually a farmer, and I've been 30 years in the industry. But, anyway, I will leave it at that. This has done nothing for the rural sector, and I will leave it at that. Thank you very much.





TANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North): Fa'afetai tele lava, Madam Speaker. Well, anyone would think that that member was reading from his own party's alternative Budget—so much glum and in the doldrums and what have you around that. So let's get back to reality. [Interruption] That's right. We're all about reality on this side of the House, aren't we, team?
Earlier today, Minister Parker in his contribution talked about how Kiwis were backing these changes. And I have to say that the recess week last week gave us all an opportunity to be back in our electorates and that is the message that people in the fine electorate—semi-beautiful—electorate of Palmerston North were telling me as well. Actually, the resounding level of support, thanks, and gratitude was really because of the positiveness that was in Budget 2021.
Hon David Bennett: One of the first to go.
Hon Simon Bridges: "Semi-beautiful"—I love that. I'm going to try that out on my wife.
TANGI UTIKERE: You know, what I've been hearing out in the community is that the increases to main benefit levels are going to make a real difference. Members opposite might be quite jocular about that—
Hon Member: They're out of touch.
TANGI UTIKERE: —but the reality is they are out of touch and they are out of touch with reality. They are out of touch with the fact that $20, which will increase benefits—that's the first take—will make a difference. It will make a difference. Now, that's what I'm hearing in my community and that's what others are hearing in their communities around the country as well. [Interruption] 
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Order! Order! Apologies to the member. The interjections are getting a bit above the "rare and reasonable" stage, so if I could ask members just to calm the farm a little.
TANGI UTIKERE: Thank you, Madam Speaker. As I was reflecting, it was a great week last week. I had my Palmy pop-ups, which were an opportunity out in the electorate for people to come have a chat and to share the good news about Budget 2021—beautiful Palmy pop-ups, I might say, as well. 
And you know, just last week we also had Minister Nash in Palmerston North and that was a fantastic opportunity because the regional development and economic development Minister took the opportunity to take a visit at what is going to connect the eastern and western corridors of the central North Island with Te Ahu a Turanga. Of course, that is progress that we are really, really proud of on this side of the House, but also the $200 million Regional Strategic Partnership Fund, which will continue to see that momentum in the regions because this is the Budget for regional New Zealand—$200 million that many, many people are pleased to see as well. And, yes, the Minister talked about the three goals that that would provide in terms of that pūtea, and I know that people in my electorate are also looking forward to that as well. Accelerate25—as we heard earlier today, is a group of local government members, of iwi partners, of business partners who were very, very positive, explaining, or describing this as excellent news for Palmerston North and central New Zealand as well. 
So this is a Budget that is delivering for regional New Zealand. And the reason why I say "Palmerston" in terms of what's beautiful—and, you know, I acknowledge my colleague, the MP for Ōtaki, from the beautiful Ōtaki—is that this Government—
Hon Members: Oh!
TANGI UTIKERE: —we're friendly, we're neighbours, we're friendly. Team positivity—that's what we're all about on this side of the House. But what I will say is that the Government's investment in Lake Horowhenua will make Ōtaki even more beautiful as a neighbour as well. 
I want to very briefly touch on the investment in rail—and my colleague Rachel Brooking has touched on that. You know, this morning I jumped on the train, the Capital Connection, which brought me from my home in Palmerston North here to Parliament. Again, investment by the Government to the upgrades that have already been rolled out—they have had a look at it as well and what is yet to come in terms of building on those opportunities around rail. So it will signal that investment, that $1.3 billion investment around—and that's significant. That is significant along with being fantastic as well. The work that starting with the Palmerston North regional economic growth hub as well, the strength around logistics, is yet another example of this Budget delivering for people in my community.
Finally, I want to acknowledge the Pasifika aspects of this Budget: the package in terms of the Pasifika package, $108 million—$108 million. Nearly $100 million of that is new operational funding and I want to acknowledge the leadership in this space of our Minister the Hon Aupito William Sio. My colleague Barbara Edmonds previously today has described the work that he's been doing as phenomenal. This will make a real difference to our communities. This will create opportunities for improvement in terms of wellbeing, and that's why I'm extremely proud to stand alongside this Government in terms of supporting Budget 2021, because it is a wellbeing Budget that delivers for communities like Palmerston North and others all around the country. 





Hon SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga): I like that member that's just spoken, the member for Palmerston North, and how did he describe Palmerston North?
Hon David Bennett: Semi.
Hon SIMON BRIDGES: As semi-beautiful. That's how he describes his electorate. Well, I've got news for him: don't try that on your partner, Madam Speaker—you know, "You're looking semi-beautiful, love." I just don't know that that's going to work.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Oh, oh! Order! Order! Does the member really wish to bring the Speaker into this debate at this time? I think not. 
Hon David Bennett: You can't be saying she's semi. 
Hon SIMON BRIDGES: She's beautiful, Tauranga's beautiful—my wife is beautiful, Madam Speaker. But I tell you what—
Hon David Bennett: Palmerston North is beautiful. 
Hon SIMON BRIDGES: Well, it's semi-beautiful—that's what he says. But I tell you what, this is a semi-beautiful Budget and I'll tell you what that's code for: it's ordinary. It's an ordinary Budget because—I'll tell you why. Three things that I just want to go through, rattle through—I only get five minutes. I deserve 10, but I only get five. So the three points I want to make: the first is that this Budget has us borrowing billions for benefits, right? I didn't just say that because it's quite a good alliteration there—lots of "Bs"—but because, actually, that's the reality of it. Really, if you look at the guts of this bill, what's in it: billions for benefits that they have to borrow, right? That's what they have done here. 
I say to the members on the other side of the House that the issue of giving more to beneficiaries is entirely of their own making. It is entirely of their own making, because Labour has lost control of housing and the rental market and, instead, are chasing an ever-increasing cycle of rent and lack of housing, and, I tell you what, it's very simple. KiwiBuild—what did they do?
Barbara Kuriger: Nothing.
Hon SIMON BRIDGES: Stuff-all of nothing—right—and now they're reduced to talking about consents: "Oh, consents are up." You can't live in a consent—that's what Phil Twyford told us. That's the reality of it.
On the rental side of it, we've got all those rules and regulations. All they've succeeded in doing is pushing up the price for the landlords who pushed it on to the poor old renters, and that's why we've got significantly increased poverty in this country. If cash was the answer, we would have solved this decades ago. It's not, actually, it's more houses; it's a better rental market. But Labour can't deliver, just as they haven't delivered in housing. No one can live in a consent. It's also true you can't drive on an announcement. So whilst they've talked a big game on infrastructure, nothing has happened in nearly four years.
The second point I want to make is simply this. While Labour is borrowing billions, and I've already talked about that, fundamentally, it's about benefits. That's the one big thing they're doing. There is nothing, not a skerrick, zilch, nada—there is nothing in this Budget for beneficiaries, for the working poor who rent, for middle New Zealand—
Mark Cameron: And the farmers.
Hon SIMON BRIDGES: —who get up and go to work, try hard—and yes, include some farmers. But not just farmers; people in suburbia in the beautiful city of Tauranga. There's nothing for business—it's just not there. So what was needed in this Budget was some aspiration, some hope, and a plan for New Zealand to reduce debt, actually, so that New Zealanders don't think that them, their children, and their grandchildren are going to be paying it for years to come—to grow the economy, and to deliver some real productivity gains in this country. Otherwise—otherwise—all this Budget is a second-rate, semi-beautiful advertisement for workers and middle New Zealand and business people to move to Aussie, and we're going to watch them go.
Chlöe Swarbrick: But not to vote for National.
Hon SIMON BRIDGES: That's what we're going to see. No, no, no, some of them probably vote for the Green Party because of all the spin of Chlöe Swarbrick over there. She cares so much about carbon; she spends all her time on aeroplanes, actually.
But they will go and they will look back at New Zealand romantically, as nothing economically is happening here. There is nothing in this Budget for middle New Zealand, for workers, or for businesses. I tell you what, I know this: we will see in the next couple of years, those numbers of hard-working Kiwis with skills who build, who do real stuff, moving to Australia. We will start talking about the brain drain again in this country like never before, because that's what New Zealanders have been experiencing.
I want to say this in the last 20 seconds: the justice sector got a cut. It got a cut. Why is that? Well, because, actually, they're no longer putting people in prisons. Well, has crime gone down? No, it hasn't. Crime's got worse. Gangs have got worse. These issues are getting worse, and in this Budget we saw a cut. It's a disgrace and it's making New Zealanders less safe.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): The time has come for the House to rise for the dinner break. We will resume at 7 o'clock.
Sitting suspended from 6.02 p.m. to 7 p.m.





DEPUTY SPEAKER: Talofa lava. The House is resumed. Members, we are on the Budget debate, and it's a Labour Party call.
Hon KRIS FAAFOI (Minister of Justice): Talofa lava, Mr Speaker. Happy Samoan Language Week to you. 
Can I begin by acknowledging the region of Canterbury, given the events of the last three or four days, and pay tribute to the emergency management staff throughout the region. Can I acknowledge the civic leadership of the region: Dan Gordon of Waimakariri, Neil Brown of Ashburton District Council, Sam Broughton of the Selwyn District Council, Nigel Bowen of the Timaru District Council, and also our former colleague and the Mayor of Christchurch, Lianne Dalziel, who's the chair of the Canterbury Regional Emergency Management Group, for their collective efforts to keep their communities safe. Emergency management is extremely important in difficult times like this, and I will get to at some stage during my short contribution a commitment of funding within Budget 2021 to assist efforts to make those groups stronger around the country in order to keep our communities safe. 
More acknowledgments, if it's OK, Mr Speaker. Can I acknowledge the regional group controller for the Canterbury region, Mr Neville Reilly, who was travelling with us—myself, Damien O'Connor, as Minister for Primary Industries, and also the Prime Minister, Jacinda Ardern, and local MP for the Ashburton area, Jo Luxton. Neville is a bit of a legend in civil defence circles in the Canterbury region, and on Friday, as they were preparing for the weather event of the weekend—which is still continuing—Neville had his farewell event in the region as well, so for his swansong, he was delivered a one-in-100-year weather event. So can I thank Neville for the leadership that he showed to his community when a regional declaration was made—I think I'm right—on the Sunday night.
Can I also acknowledge Ngāi Tahu, who are central to the emergency management response being led out of Christchurch. They had someone in the emergency operations centre making sure that they were fully involved in the response, and a number of marae were set up as civil defence centres and welfare centres in the event that there were mass evacuations. Can I say we are very thankful that there weren't the mass evacuations that could have happened, especially in the Ashburton area, if the northern arm of the Ashburton River had broken and caused thousands of evacuations out of that area.
Emergency services: the police and John Price, who is a very good area commander there; Fire and Emergency New Zealand; St John Ambulance; civil defence; our own National Emergency Management Agency, led by Gary Knowles—can I acknowledge him; new to the role—the unflappable Stefan Weir, who was a private secretary for the National Emergency Management Agency; the Ministry for Primary Industries; the Ministry of Social Development; Te Puni Kōkiri; the Ministry of Health; and Waka Kotahi, who will have some work ahead of them in order to make sure that the roads are back up and running in the region as soon as possible. Obviously, with the issues with the Ashburton Bridge across State Highway 1, they will be making sure that that vital link between Tinwald and Ashburton itself—which is at the moment being tested, I believe—is put back into shape.
Can I also acknowledge the New Zealand Defence Force—the air force, navy, and army—who were there to assist the response effort; Environment Canterbury and their river-modelling team, who are giving us extremely important data on what to expect from water flows from the high country down to rivers both in North Canterbury and in South Canterbury and mid- Canterbury; and the Ministry of Transport, who obviously have, again, a job on their hands. There was 500 millimetres of rain in three or four days, and they usually call a significant weather event about 50 or 60 millimetres. So that is an event of some sort. 
Minister O'Connor committed $500,000 today, there is $100,000 for the mayoral relief fund, and also, because the Government has committed to the reform and the strengthening of the national emergency management system, there is nearly $46.6 million in the current Budget that we are debating here today to make sure that our emergency management system is safe. I think what we've seen from the weekend is that it is strong, but this commitment of more funding will ensure it is stronger, and we thank the effort of those in Canterbury over the last three or four days. 
DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The member's time has ended. 





CHLÖE SWARBRICK (Green—Auckland Central): E te Māngai, tēnā koe. Tēnā koutou e te Whare. I guess I just want to stand to make a contribution on behalf of the Green Party tonight to address some of the concerns that have been put forward by members of the Opposition, and that is, primarily, "What's in it for me as far as this Budget goes?". We've heard about all of these different groups in our society who are supposedly missing out, and we've also heard, particularly, the Hon Simon Bridges lamenting the fact that in here there is billions for beneficiaries. That is for our lowest-income New Zealanders, who we know we have to raise the incomes of if we want to do anything meaningful about inequality in Aotearoa New Zealand. 
We all ultimately benefit from having a more equal society where everybody has the access to the basics to be able to fulfil their potential and engage in the opportunity that is otherwise taken from them. I think that this is actually something that mental health spokespeople from across this House, including Matt Doocey, can surely see for what it is—that is, in He Ara Oranga, the Government's mental health and addiction inquiry, we saw laid bare the mental health crisis in this country fundamentally generated by recognition of the fact that, sure, all of us are born with a biological predisposition towards the manifestation, or not, of issues, but it is also our environment and—
Nicola Willis: Ha, ha!
CHLÖE SWARBRICK: —our society which can drive the manifestation, the aggravation, or mitigation of those issues. The key issues, as identified in that mental health and addiction report—which, I might add, Nicola Willis, Matt Doocey has very much come on in support of, from my understanding thus far in our cross-party work—are very much those public health drivers of poverty, of a lack of sense of meaning in one's life, and of a lack of sense of identity and whakapapa. 
When you increase incomes for our lowest-income New Zealanders, what you end up securing is that sense of place and that greater sense of security in one's future. But I also want to touch on a point raised by other members of the Opposition, and that is the debt for our future generations. Therein, I think it's really important to unpack some of the mythology that they've attempted to create through their rhetoric tonight: firstly is the fact that they continue to raise that debt is going to be paid down slowly. There, I might add that the very debt track that the Government has signed up to is actually faster than what they campaigned on in the 2020 election. 
That aside, however, we had the Minister of Finance in front of the Finance and Expenditure Committee a few weeks ago, and there I got the Minister, on the record, to effectively admit or submit that that debt track is something that the Minister himself and the Government have confined themselves to. These are decisions, fiscal policy decisions, that the Government gets to make, and there I think it's really important to reflect—as actually is made really explicit in the Wellbeing Budget 2021: Securing Our Recovery document at figure 14, which demonstrates it really clearly—that the interest payments on the debt that the Government is taking on are actually less than inflation, which means that now is the perfect time to be borrowing to invest in that infrastructure for future generations. 
That actually brings us to another one of the mythologies that the Opposition has been peddling today, and that is that this debt is some massive financial or fiscal burden that future generations are going to take on. To that effect, we only have to look at the reporting by the likes of, for example, Bernard Hickey on just how it has been since the 1980s to the 1990s, where we have seen a pulling forward of funding in what should be the infrastructure for future generations, in turn meaning that my generation and the generations that come after me are carrying that debt already in terms of the need to invest in our public transport, in our classrooms, and in, of course, our whānau across Aotearoa New Zealand. 
I also just finally want to touch on the point of immense pride for the Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand and, obviously, the contributions that our Ministers and co-leaders, the Hon Marama Davidson and James Shaw, have made, both with regard to investment in ending domestic and sexual violence and ending homelessness but also the hypothecation of that revenue raised out of the emissions trading scheme, which sets us on a pathway to start to meet those commitments that we ourselves have declared ourselves to. Just in my final few seconds, I feel an immense need to make a shout-out to Mojo Mathers, former Green Party MP, because we got a funding line in here for the Election Access Fund at $3 million for disabled New Zealanders to run for general elections.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The member's time has expired.





KIERAN McANULTY (Labour—Wairarapa): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I'm very pleased to be able to get up here and make a contribution in response to the Budget. What a marvellous Budget it was, and don't just take my word for it. Take the word of the good people of Wairarapa, the Tararua District, and Central Hawke's Bay, the three districts that make up my electorate of Wairarapa. 
For the last week, I've been travelling around, from Waipawa in the north down to South Wairarapa, to meet with people to discuss the Budget. Now, these were interest groups, they were groups of business owners, they were groups of the elderly, and everyone in between. I reckon I did about 10 last week—10 meetings after the Budget—to get a bit of a feel as to how it was getting perceived in the regions, and to also give them an opportunity to ask some questions. I can say, hand on heart, that it was received well. It was received well because the people of Wairarapa know that we wouldn't even be in a position to discuss the Budget, and we wouldn't even be in a position to be able to debate where this Government is investing, if it weren't for the fact that this country is benefiting from what was an effective response to COVID-19.
It is very important, I believe, to touch on that, because you only have to look overseas to see what things could have been like if the response here in New Zealand was not of the ilk that set us up for this Budget to make such a difference. The Prime Minister said right from the start that the best economic response to COVID was an effective health response. In many ways, it is regrettable that New Zealand is now the only developed country in the world to have only had one nationwide lockdown, and is the only developed country in the world not to have some form of lockdown at the moment. I say that with the greatest amount of sincerity, because I would like to have seen other countries benefit like New Zealand is benefiting now. 
It was going hard and it was going early that allowed us to be in this position today, and that fact is not lost on the good people of Wairarapa, the Tararua District, and Central Hawke's Bay. Many of them have family members and friends overseas that are still struggling and that are still in some form of lockdown and can't even think about opening up to other countries like we have with Australia and the Cook Islands. 
It is that sort of response that enables us to be nimble and adjust when there are cases overseas that puts us in good stead, but we are now experiencing and benefiting from an economy that has 4.7 percent unemployment. That is, essentially, the same as what it was before COVID hit. We got down to 4.2 percent at one stage, but to get back to the level that we were, essentially, before COVID hit, is a phenomenal achievement, and it is testament to the work of everyone in this country. The team of 5 million never really rang so true as when it was referred to in our COVID response. 
I think of the businesses in Wairarapa that at the moment are genuinely thriving. They are flying, particularly in South Wairarapa. They themselves have adjusted to the new environment. They cannot benefit from international tourism. Now, admittedly, our share of international tourism is nowhere near the ilk of other places like Queenstown and the West Coast, but they still adapted to the new reality, and, in fact, the work that the region has put in to attract new visitors has offset the amount that they have lost for international tourists. That can actually be said for the northern parts of the electorate, as well. 
So I commend them for the work that they've done, and I commend the work of everyone in the electorate to demonstrate to people why the Wairarapa is a place where people want to visit and spend their money and make our economy tick over for the benefit of all. Those businesses will benefit from what is in this Budget, because we know that for the vast majority of small to medium sized businesses, their turnover depends on people's capacity to spend. 
The increase in benefits is doing something that should have been done a long, long time ago. It is righting a wrong, but there is a clear economic argument for this, as well. The other side may argue for tax cuts, but that doesn't guarantee stimulus of the economy. Putting money to those that need it most will.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The member's time has expired. 





NICOLE McKEE (ACT): I'd like to start my five-minute call just giving a tautoko to Minister Kris Faafoi for his shout-out to those wonderful people down in Canterbury who helped out during a time of need and, adding to that, all the volunteers within the Canterbury community, because without them we could have been in a much worse situation. But my speech tonight is really about a disappointing Budget. It appears that it's actually spent quite a lot of money, but where it really matters it appears to us that it's falling short—falling short of delivering solutions to some real problems that are being faced by New Zealanders. 
You would expect that a Budget would show the priorities of a Government. Well, if this Budget shows the priorities of the Government, then New Zealanders will find it lacking. Where was the commitment to safety, I ask, safety of the people up and down this country? 
Under this Government, of course, we've seen a 50 percent increase in the number of gang members. That's a 50 percent increase since 2017 of the gang members that we know about—only the ones on the national gang list. Given that there's been such a dramatic increase, I thought I'd go and have a look through the Budget and see what actions are being taken to address such a significant problem currently facing New Zealand. I went and looked under the justice booklet under Vote Police. The word "gang" appears once—just once. Gangs have appeared more times in Ministers' diaries than they do in the Budget. 
But it gets worse. We do see, as other members have said this evening, a reduction in the total amount of money in the Police appropriations this year. Now, the Government has its own explanations for this, but this is a problem, because at a time when we're seeing gang membership increasing by 50 percent, instead of increasing the resourcing for police, the Government's overseeing a cut in their budget. In a time of gang-related crime—gun violence and family harm incidents are surging—one would expect that the Government would use this Budget as an opportunity to invest in the police in order to address some of these issues. But what the Budget does make crystal clear is the fact that we do have a soft-on-crime Government. Besides a small boost of $12 million to the Police appropriations budget, the Government actually took away $90 million worth of cuts from that Police budget. 
So why is it that I want to talk about this today? It's because from the emails and messages that I'm receiving from the general public, we have Kiwis that are saying they want the Government to stand up to violence and intimidation. We should be arresting the gang members who create crime, not having cups of tea with them. This week, gang members intimidated members of the public in the Hawke's Bay. They drove them off the road. We've seen reports of children sitting in cars crying because they were intimidated by that gang activity. The gangs do intimidate people, they do carry out violence, they're running around with illegal guns, and we don't have a Government who's prepared to support our police to go after them. 
I would have expected the Government to be of the same opinion as us in this case, but it just turns out not to be that case. The fact that the Government Ministers like Willie Jackson and Marama Davidson are meeting with patched gang members and visiting the Mongrel Mob in Waikato shows exactly how distorted this Government's priorities are. These are organisations who inflict harm on New Zealand. Their members harm our people. They peddle drugs that fuel misery, crime, and dependency, and they use tactics of intimidation to get their way. 
The Government talks a lot about kindness and the need to support the most vulnerable people in our society. Well, the most vulnerable people are the ones that are being preyed upon by the gangs. They are the victims of violence and they are the victims of the drugs and misery being peddled by the gangs, and our Government is investing time in pursuing dialogue with them. ACT would rather invest our time in stopping the crime that these organisations inflict on our country. Thank you, Mr Speaker.





Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Minister of Agriculture): Mr Speaker, thank you very much. Firstly, I would like to acknowledge my colleague the Hon Kris Faafoi and the Prime Minister and others who are involved in the challenge in Canterbury. I have to say that the Hon Kris Faafoi has stepped in, he's stepped up, but I would like to acknowledge and I know that the Hon Kiritapu Allan would have done the same, and we wish her the very best. Our prayers and thoughts are always with her for her challenge, along with the challenges of those people—the rural people, in particular—in Canterbury who, following a drought, are now facing excess water. 
I was actually emotional when this Budget went through the House. I came into this House a number of years ago as a Labour MP to help people who needed assistance and to give them a fair go, and on the issue of gangs, this is what this Budget does. It addresses the causes of gangs. This was a Labour Budget, if ever we had one, to address the core challenges that we face as a nation. 
Can I acknowledge, firstly, the fact that we have got to the situation where we can have a Budget that invests in the right way, because each and every New Zealander did the right thing through COVID, and I want to thank each and every one of them—and, in particular, the primary sectors—that carried on through the last 12 months, continued to produce wealth for this country, and adjusted their businesses and their operations to ensure that they didn't participate in any way in the spread of COVID. Thank you for that, and thank you for the wealth. This Government is spending that wealth that has been created for the right causes in a Labour Party way—in a Labour way that says those people who need help should get assistance. That's what this country was founded on.
The fact that we will put 200,000 more people into jobs over the next four years is something that made me proud as a Labour Party Minister. A Budget that will lift 33,000 children out of poverty—that's what I came into this House for. We should not have any poverty. We should not have homelessness in this country. We should have people who have opportunities to realise their full potential and to realise their talents, but we know that's not the situation. So what we in Government did was step up and invest in the core areas of need. Infrastructure that was run down over nine years of a National Government that ran things into the ground—we're putting over $57 billion into infrastructure over the next row. Sweating the roading assets—the roads that we will fix up in Canterbury had been run down over nine years of National Government, and the $57 billion will be part of that rebuild.
There are 109,000 families who will be, on average, $175 a week better off. "Emotional" was the only description that I had when, on Budget night, a mother of two children said that the $20 extra that she would be getting would be used to assist her boys to take them on a trip that she could not otherwise afford, and those who scoff at the benefits of such small amounts of money over on that side of the House don't understand the real challenges facing many, many Kiwis out there. I applaud the fact that they get on and do an incredible job with their families to get them through the challenges and, for the most part, to turn out and produce and support fine young Kiwis. With $175 a week extra, many of them will be able to do the things that they want to do—not all of them, but a lot more than they could.
This was a true Labour Budget. This $3.8 billion that we have invested in infrastructure for housing will help create not just houses but homes for people—homes and security. The previous Government was happy to sell off all the houses because they don't care about the core values that make this country what it is. Those values are providing access to food, access to shelter, and access to public education and good health. This Budget invested in the areas of need that will make this country a better place, and the fact that we have so many people wanting to come back and live here is a clear indication that we're on the right path. We've got a long way to go, but we will invest where it is needed, and that is with the people who are most in need.





BARBARA KURIGER (National—Taranaki - King Country): I don't know what that member Damien O'Connor is talking about—about feeling emotional about this Budget. I feel emotional when I think about those poor farmers down in Ashburton and surrounding districts that have actually had not just their moving day disrupted but their whole dairy season. It's going to take a long time to recover from that. 
Yes, it was a Labour Budget, and if the Minister was emotional about that—well, I can tell you this is the Minister for Rural Communities that we just heard from. I got a magnifying glass and I looked through this Budget to find the word "rural". Now, I can tell you that I put a video on my Facebook page. It was made before the Budget and I put it on after the Budget. I was so certain that that Minister was not doing his job, and I was looking for the word "rural"—scanning, scanning, scanning. There was one piece on connectivity, and it wasn't for any more connectivity, Minister; it was to upgrade what we already have to 5G. It wasn't going to cover any further area. You know, people have said to me, "Why doesn't the Minister for Rural Communities care about rural communities?" We're looking for it. We're scanning for it, and even with magnifying glasses, Minister, we can't find it.
The Minister waxed lyrical about "Those people that need assistance should get help.", and I agree with that, but there's been a lot of farmers out there who need workers right now. They're not getting the help. The fruit pickers didn't get the help. There was not even a sense of opening up borders to countries that didn't have COVID to allow staff to come in and do the job. That's not helping people that need it the most, and guess where the Labour Budget and the Labour Government who's running this Budget get their money from? They get it from rural New Zealand. I can tell you, we are very lucky that last week, Fonterra made an announcement that had "$8" in front of the forecast payout, because I can tell that Minister that we are one dairy downturn away from this Government not being able to gloat about how much money they've got. Most of them haven't realised where it comes from. I hope the Minister has; I don't think he's quite registered yet.
I was looking in here where it says "Budget makes more Kiwi homes warmer and reduces emissions across sectors." Now, we have been talking for too long in this country about wool. Think about the wool farmers. I'm the energy spokesperson. I'm a great proponent of wool—wool carpets, wool clothing, wool insulation. I don't see anything in this Budget anywhere about wool. How are we going to keep our homes warm and dry? Obviously not with wool, under this Government.
As part of my portfolio, on emissions from transport—associate transport spokesperson—it's really laudable that this Government is trying to make claims for strong climate action at a time when we're on a nine-year coal high just to get our electricity in place. In fact, private businesses have to sell their gas currently so we can keep the lights on in this country, and I can only hope that maybe some of that water that came down in the South Island this week—apart from the damage that it's caused—might have run into those hydro dams, because if it hasn't, this is a Budget that's got no investment in gas, and this Government has literally killed the investment in the gas industry. We're short of gas, we're short of hydro, and they all live in fairy tales about new technologies that one day we'll have. 
We're excited, too. We actually want to deal with climate change, but you can't have a just transition with no available answers in the quantity we need. We're actually digging a big hole in energy.
Minister Wood actually made an announcement the other day about electric cars—a pre-Budget announcement. Well, get this: the Government's got a 15,000-car target for the Government electric car fleet by 2025. So far, they've got 155. That's 1 percent—1 percent. The Minister made an announcement for another 422. That would give us 577, if it was delivered. If it was delivered tomorrow, they would be at 3.8 percent of their target in four years, and it's not actually delivered yet. 
Come on, Government, this is not a Budget; this is just a pipedream. Thank you, Mr Speaker.





Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Health): It's a pleasure to take a call after Barbara Kuriger, the member who's just resumed her seat. I say to that member and to her compadres opposite that the journey of a thousand miles starts with the first step. Those were the words of, I think, that great communist Mao—tell Kieran McAnulty, he'll be very proud of that. 
But we are on a long journey, a journey of adaptation, and, actually, a journey of correction—a journey of closing a gap that the previous Government left right across the board of government, with absolutely appalling levels of under-investment in those things that actually matter to people. I'm pleased to hear that member concerned about the need for better energy and warmer homes and all those sorts of things. The question we ask is why they didn't do it when they had a chance to do so. 
I am very proud of this Budget. This is a true Labour Budget, and it follows the incredibly difficult circumstances that we had last year with the COVID outbreak. Ours is a country now that very much leads the way, not only in addressing the impact of COVID-19—shutting it down; stopping it spreading—but now leading the way in the economic recovery that accompanies a pandemic such as the world saw last year. This Budget does that, and it continues the work of lifting more New Zealanders who are in poverty out of poverty.
What I'm very pleased about and very proud about are the health initiatives and, yet again, record investment in health, because that's what Labour Governments do. Labour Governments understand that people in New Zealand need a good quality public health system, and whereas the previous Government continually under-invested in it, this is a Government that has put even more money in it in this Budget, along with the previous three that it did in the last term in Government: $2.7 billion in cost pressure funding for the next four years. That's what this Government has done to allow the DHBs and, once they are out of the picture, Health NZ to be able to provide the health services that New Zealanders need.
When it comes to mental health services too, we're continuing the roll-out of the programme approved in 2019, because the previous Government so appallingly neglected those very important services. So many New Zealanders were left isolated, alone, and without any support or help because of the appalling management of mental health services by the previous Government. Not this Government: we made it a priority, as we have in other aspects of the health system. 
So we see things like continuing the capital expenditure programme up to, now, $5.5 billion in capital expenditure for our hospital system—new buildings and new IT systems—because the previous Government completely neglected and failed to look after it. What a difference it makes. A good system and a safe system for patients to look forward to now, because that's what Labour Governments do: invest in the things that matter, like a decent health system.
Even down to the things like the very specific services—so, improvements in our breast-screening programme, improvements in our cervical screening programme, and now introducing HPV testing, which has been requested for many, many years and now we've got that on board. Things like cochlear implants too, and what an incredible difference we know that that technology makes. We have a waiting list of about 260. The funding we have provided will provide cochlear implants for 320, and we'll continue to add to that as well. We know the difference that that sort of stuff makes, and it is here in this Budget.
We've increased disability support services by nearly $400 million over the four years, because we've got to look after those vulnerable people—that part of our vulnerable population. We know that all those things matter. 
There is $200 million into Pharmac, and that was a promise kept. We promised it in the election last year. There is $200 million in Pharmac, now taking its budget to over $1 billion a year to provide the medications that New Zealand needs. You compare our investment in Pharmac in the time we've been in Government, with increased spending on pharmaceuticals by more than 25 percent in the time we've been in Government, to the less than 7 percent in the last three years of the previous Government. That's the difference. 
The Labour Party gives priority to the stuff that keeps people healthy and safe and provides a public health system that does the job of keeping the nation healthy, and then we have the reforms. We've got a bit of money in here to start investing in new processes and new ways, getting the community input—real community input—into what they need for health services, as we start to rebuild and reshape our health system around the needs of New Zealanders to address the real inequities in our system and to address the real gaps in service provision right across the country. This is a fantastic Budget for the nation and for our health system.





SIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga): Thank you, Mr Speaker. What a disappointing and backward-looking speech that was about a backward-looking Budget, which doesn't look to the future, but looks back to the past. The Minister of Health just got up and talked about all the investment that's been made into health. Cochlear implants—yes, there's money in this Budget, but guess what? They cut funding for cochlear implants back in 2018, so now, this year, they can turn out and say, "Oh, we're funding it again.", and then, of course, I wouldn't want to dare mention Dunedin Hospital, which is still going so well under this Government. 
This Budget is a blast from the past. The Minister of Finance was saying he is trying to correct a mistake from the 1990s with the "mother of all Budgets". This is a Budget which is looking back to what happened in the past, rather than charting a course for the future and a course for our economic prosperity. 
I was born in 1991, and I barely remember the "mother of all Budgets". I might have been a couple of months old, but guess what? This Government forgets that my generation don't remember the 1991 "mother of all Budgets". They're looking forward, and this Government's focused on giving some nostalgic feeling back to New Zealanders of something that, actually, New Zealanders don't remember. This Government is looking backwards in promoting big unionism, big government, and a big increase in benefits, rather than focusing on increasing jobs, increasing our economic prosperity as a country, and increasing the opportunities, especially for young New Zealanders, who have been the hardest hit coming out of COVID-19 from an economic perspective. 
As the police spokesperson, in this Budget I wanted to know where was the mention of police. Well, I read—and I had to listen to it as well—the entire Budget speech from Grant Robertson. Not once was the word "police" referred to. In the context of not only rising increasing gang violence and violence on our streets but also the role that police played last year dealing with COVID-19 and the important role that they played, not once did the police get mentioned in Budget 2021—not even a thank you, but particularly no new resources to help them actually do their job. In fact, there's a $90 million cut from the Police budget—$90 million has been cut from the Police budget in the 2021 Budget.
Nicola Willis: What a disgrace. 
SIMEON BROWN: It is a disgrace—it is an absolute disgrace—and what do we have facing New Zealanders? A 50 percent increase in gang membership in New Zealand. 
I repeat the comment from my colleague Nicole McKee in the ACT Party that those are the gang members we know about—the 8,000 gang members we know about. This Government wants to say, "Oh, it's not quite 8,000. Actually, the numbers are wrong." It's 8,000 that we know about, based on the intelligence that the police reported and that they collect. That's the intelligence system that they use. This Government wants to downplay it.
Not only do they want to downplay the gang numbers but also they want to downplay the violence that gangs are causing and perpetrating on our streets. The Ministers are lining up to go and have cups of tea at the Mongrel Mob gang pad in Hamilton. We've had Willie Jackson, we've had Marama Davidson—she's not gone once but also twice. Who's going to be lining up next for a cup of tea with the Mongrel Mob in Hamilton to try and talk about their misunderstanding? 
Well, I've got a message for the Mongrel Mob and for this Government: don't have your cup of tea until the Mongrel Mob stop peddling drugs on the street and until they hand back the guns and they stop the violence on our streets. New Zealanders have had enough of the gang violence. They've had enough of gangs closing down our streets and using our schools for their hui and making disruption across New Zealand society—the violence that's been caused by the guns that they refuse to hand back and the violence that they continue to cause on our streets.
Where's the 1,800 police that this Government promised over three years? Where's the 1,800 police? We're now 3½ years in. They've only got to about 1,300. There were 700 police promised to be targeted on organised crime and gangs. How many of those have been delivered?
Hon Damien O'Connor: I think ACT were better than you.
SIMEON BROWN: How many of those have been delivered? Mr O'Connor, your electorate has had the biggest increase in gang numbers in the country. It's had a 177 percent increase in gang numbers. You should be worried about this. Your Government's only delivered 242 of the 700 police targeting organised crime and gangs. 
Our Government does not have the resource it needs. It is not delivering the resource it needs for our police to keep New Zealanders safe, and that should be one of their most important jobs. This Budget fails to keep New Zealanders safe.





ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): Talofa lava, Mr Speaker, and fa'afetai tele lava. This week last year was the first for me as the Labour candidate for Manurewa, but it was after 14 years of campaigning and community organising for the people who need us most, and I can tell you that the community organiser in me—the kid who volunteered to deliver leaflets and run phone banks and organise cottage meetings—is proud of this Budget. She is proud of this Budget 2021, which brings with it a wellbeing framework that builds on our previous Budgets in Government. 
It's a Budget which has no surprises because it's so intrinsically Labour. We saw at the election people overwhelmingly choose to support this Labour Government's vision for the future, and that's exactly what they've got out of Budget 2021. It's a Budget which lifts 33,000 children out of poverty. It's a Budget that tackles the root causes of inequality and addresses exactly those factors which are driving up gang membership. That's why I'm proud of it, and I'm proud of it because it deals with the situation which is most affecting people from Manurewa and from South Auckland, who are the people who I've always been campaigning for. 
So, Mr Speaker, if you'll indulge me and let me talk about some of the things which will make the biggest difference for my people in Manurewa, they are things like the Puhinui station interchange in Manurewa, which will generate 2,121 jobs in South Auckland. That's a massive project which not only creates those jobs but links our Papatoetoe and Manurewa communities with one of the biggest employers in South Auckland, which is the airport. That's a game-changer for that community. It provides that direct link with public transport and with jobs which our people need. I'm thinking about our extending the National Bowel Screening Programme to Auckland and Manukau district health boards for people aged 60 to 74. We know that people in South Auckland are at a high risk, and in that age group, that's when you can catch those risk factors for our people who suffer these diseases which are associated with bowel screening at an earlier age, and it will make a difference for our kuia and kaumātua there. 
I'm thinking about the $18.9 million for Te Pūtahi Māori o Manurewa. It's a campus that will house both Te Kura Kaupapa Māori o Manurewa and Te Wharekura o Manurewa. I was lucky enough to visit it last week with our Māori Ministers, who came and saw the joy on the kids' faces when the kids performed their haka with so much pride in their community of Manurewa being given the resources to create not just a new school for themselves but a hub for the community who are Māori in Manurewa, and they are so proud of their very deep links to that community.
I'm thinking as well of our Finlayson Park School. It's one of the schools which is in line for an upgrade—161 South Auckland schools, to a total value of $45.9 million. For Finlayson Park, that means new heating infrastructure and warmer, drier classrooms. I was also lucky to visit that school and to celebrate with them Samoan Language Week. It's a special school because they're bilingual not only in English and Māori but in English and Samoan, and to see these Samoan-speaking kids celebrating their heritage and knowing that they will have warm, dry classrooms to continue to learn their reo rangatira and to learn about their community was really special for me. 
I'm thinking also about the 73 new jobs that are created by the Jobs for Nature fund in South Auckland, which includes raising 480,000 native plants for Takanini, Papakura, Manurewa, and beyond. I visited them on Tuesday morning, and I met with some of the kids who are part of that programme that the funding will support. These are kids who are referred by police and who are referred by our court systems, who have fallen through the cracks through the Oranga Tamariki system, but who are learning to just be a part of something like Jobs for Nature, where they can go every day and learn practical skills about how to regenerate te taiao and to look after their whenua. That programme feeds into a pipeline of employment and education opportunities where these kids can then go on to take advantage of Labour's revitalisation of vocational training in South Auckland, which will provide more and more jobs in South Auckland. 
Finally, I want to reflect on the $12 million in Mana Ake funding for mental wellbeing supports in primary and intermediate schools, which will make a difference in South Auckland, and the $11.6 million to expand the Reading Together Te Pānui Ngātahi partnerships and Duffy Books in Homes programmes. It's those programmes which in our South Auckland schools are getting more books in te reo Māori and in our languages like Samoan into the hands of our tamariki and they are increasing learning, and that's why this is a magnificent Budget for Manurewa and for all New Zealanders. 





NICOLA WILLIS (National): Budgets are about priorities, they are about hope for the future and laying foundations for the future, and they are about what Governments are prepared to tolerate in terms of failure. This Budget fails on each score.
This weekend, I met Ed Lee. He is a man who lives with cystic fibrosis. He has accessed through his own money Trikafta, a miracle drug which has transformed his life, and Ed, instead of sitting back and saying, "My life is transformed, and on to the next thing.", has said, "Actually, I'm concerned to see more people access this drug." So I said to Ed, "What did the Budget deliver?", and he said, "Oh, well, there's been a lot of talk about increased Pharmac funding, but I've done the numbers and it barely keeps up with population growth, let alone the increasing costs of medicines due to COVID-19. It just takes us backwards to standstill." So I said to Ed, "Well, health's hard. Government's hard. Where could that money be reprioritised from?", and Ed and I discussed the $400 million - plus that this Labour Government has prioritised for a health restructure, for shuffling around the way things are organised and for centralising control over our health management system. 
I think that if you really prioritise things, you can spend things on the things that change lives, not just reorganising. But, for this Government, centralising and doing bureaucratic change is more important than doing the things that change lives. So there's a sense of their priorities.
But the second thing that Budgets should be about is turning around over the long term those issues which hold us back as a society. I think you can judge a Government by what it's prepared to tolerate, and in this Budget—and I'm glad that Carmel Sepuloni is in the House, because she is the Minister in charge of this. What this Budget shows is that she is prepared to tolerate, not just this year or next year, but for the next several years, thousands of New Zealanders living in motels—thousands of New Zealand families raising their children in motels.
When Labour came into office, they were spending approximately $100,000 a day on emergency housing, and they said that was far too much. Well, in this very Budget it shows us that next year, Labour is going to be spending more than $750 million on motel rooms and that that number will continue into the future. Millions and millions of dollars—still, even in 2024, $275 million on motel rooms, and why is that? Well, it's because Labour's housing policies have failed. They promised New Zealand 100,000 KiwiBuild houses—
Hon Damien O'Connor: National sold houses.
NICOLA WILLIS: Damien O'Connor says, "It's because you sold houses." Well, is he aware that his Government has sold hundreds of houses and has demolished hundreds of houses in the same policy that has continued? Actually, this is about a failure. The problem is that they are prepared to tolerate it into the future. They have no plan to turn it around, they have no plan to change it; they're simply going to put up with it.
What I said at the beginning of my speech is that Budgets are also about laying the foundations for the future. They are about giving people hope that things are going to get better, and that's where this Budget is most lacking, because what we need to see in a time of uncertainty, in a time where industries have been turned upside down, when New Zealanders' lives have been altered, and where the global landscape is changing is a plan for economic growth. We need to see a plan for creating more jobs, a plan for ensuring that the number of beneficiaries on the benefit for more than a year doesn't keep increasing as it has under Labour. What we need to see is New Zealanders having more options for higher-paying jobs. We need to see investment in our industries that are going to grow. But, instead, this Budget lacks this. It is a standstill Budget, when what we need is a foundation for the future.
This is a Government that has its priorities wrong and that is centralising and spending money on bureaucracy instead of medicines to save lives, it is a Budget that has given up on the thousands of New Zealanders whose housing problems it said it would solve, and it's a Government that is standing still. New Zealand deserves better. Every child in this country should be growing up knowing this economy is going to get better and better; this Budget doesn't deliver it.





TĀMATI COFFEY (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I really hope that somebody gives that member Nicola Willis a hug because she needs one, because she doesn't understand just how good this Budget was. 
Now, I get it. The job of the Opposition is to oppose everything that the Government does, but actually in the last week that I've been travelling around the Waiariki—the Bay of Plenty—speaking to our communities, there has been nothing but praise for Budget 2021. 
Granted, I reached out and spoke to a lot of Māori communities about how they felt about the Budget, and there was a lot for support. Some said it's been a very long time since the Government has spent money like this on Māori initiatives, but the key change in this Budget is that we are investing in solutions that are by Māori and for Māori. Our Māori organisations have been waiting for a very long time for the kind of Budget that we were able to deliver two weeks ago, and we're going to continue, obviously, this brilliant streak that we're on.
I want to also acknowledge a good friend of mine. His name's Paora Stanley—call him a miffed National Party voter. Once upon a time he loved the National Party, but he's fallen off the wagon because he's realised that they're divided, they're distracted, and actually he's got nowhere to go but to actually look at what we've delivered in Budget 2021, and he's full of praise—full of praise because I went out there and I talked to our whānau around the Waiariki. 
Specifically, I had some great conversations with Ngā Pōtiki-a-Tamapāhore, which is an iwi in Tauranga Moana who have been doing some great things already. They have got a housing strategy and, as an iwi, they saw the opportunity that we were presenting with the kind of investment that we were talking about into Māori housing: $380 million for Māori housing. They see the benefits of that. There is also $350 million carved out of that wider infrastructure spend to be able to assist Māori with that infrastructure as well—which can be crippling as we try to realise our aspirations—by using their under-utilised land that we have so long wanted to utilise. So Ngā Pōtiki were pretty excited about that. 
I want to tell another story about heading over to Whakatāne, and talking to Te Puna Ora o Mataatua and how excited they were about the health reforms that were coming up. They were stoked about the idea of the Māori Health Authority and told the story that when it came to contestable funding for health, they found themselves often in a very long line. They felt as though, as Treaty partners, they should have their own line, and it should be shorter and it should be funded because that's what Te Tiriti promised them. So they were very surprised and pleased that we would be establishing the Māori Health Authority. 
That's something that this Government have done, because we know that for too long we've been trying to create solutions for Māori, not letting Māori create those solutions for themselves. So the pleasure that I got in sitting there in front of them talking about the formation of the Māori Health Authority was significant. I wanted to mihi to them specifically because, as we're rolling out the COVID vaccinations all across the country, they're the ones that are doing the job in the Eastern Bay of Plenty to be able to roll out COVID vaccinations. 
I got the pleasure of walking around their COVID vaccination centre in the middle of Whakatāne and I saw the well-oiled machine that they had going on in there. It was brilliant to be able to see it. But what happened was that as we were walking through, they were showing me how it happened—how they reached out to kuia and how they reached out to kaumātua for the first time but also being able to get them in again for their second vaccine—and they were really pleased about what they were able to deliver for the people that they represent. So I was able to talk to them about how the vaccination programme through Budget 2021 is going to continue to be rolled out. 
People over there will say that it's not being rolled out fast enough, but you know what? This is the year of the vaccine. We're going to do it, we've appropriated the money for it, and it's what New Zealand is expecting. 
I want to finish off just by acknowledging the $527 million that has gone into the expansion of the free healthy school lunches programme, because while we're putting money into health and while we're putting money into housing, while we're putting money into education, I actually got to go into Tauhara Primary School in Taupō and see the great difference that it's making to those kids. You know, many families struggle with being able to feed their kids, and, actually that programme has been a game-changer. 
I went to Ka Pai Kai in Rotorua, who, once upon a time only a few years ago, were rolling out about 300 lunches by the generosity of donors around the Rotorua community. Now they're rolling out about 6,000 lunches around the whole of the Bay of Plenty, and they have nothing but praise for an expansion of that programme but also Budget 2021. It's a good thing, and I support it.





Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development and Employment): I move, That this debate be now adjourned.
Motion agreed to.





MOTIONS
COVID-19 Orders—Approval
Hon KRIS FAAFOI (Minister of Justice) on behalf of the Minister for COVID-19 Response: I move, That this House approve the following orders made under the COVID-19 Public Health Response Act 2020:COVID-19 Public Health Response (Air Border and Isolation and Quarantine) Amendment Order 2021;COVID-19 Public Health Response (Air Border) Order (No 2) Amendment Order (No 2) 2021;COVID-19 Public Health Response (Point-of-care Tests) Order 2021;COVID-19 Public Health Response (Required Testing) Amendment Order 2021;COVID-19 Public Health Response (Air Border, Isolation and Quarantine, and Required Testing) Amendment Order 2021;COVID-19 Public Health Response (Air Border) Order (No 2) Amendment Order (No 3) 2021;COVID-19 Public Health Response (Vaccinations) Order 2021.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is that the motion be agreed to.





Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister for COVID-19 Response): Thank you, Mr Speaker, and my apologies. The House moved just a few moments faster than I had been anticipating there. So I want to thank my colleague, the Hon Kris Faafoi, for stepping into the breach and making sure that the House continued to flow as it should. 
By way of explanation, the motion that my colleague has just moved on my behalf confirms seven orders that I have made as Minister for COVID-19 Response under the COVID-19 Public Health Response Act. By way of a little bit of background, that piece of law gives me as the Minister for COVID-19 Response some quite wide-ranging powers to compel people to do or to not do things that relate to the COVID-19 response. It is quite a significant power and it is one that, when Parliament put it in place, Parliament decided that it should also be subject to regular scrutiny. So any orders that I issue under that Act have to be scrutinised by the Parliament and then, ultimately, confirmed by a motion in the House as they are being now. Before they are confirmed, they go through a Regulations Review Committee appraisal. The Regulations Review Committee will look at: were they made in accordance with the Act, is there any unusual use of those powers, have all of the correct processes been followed, and so on. So, here we are, we are confirming seven of them now. 
To run through those briefly: the COVID-19 Public Health Response (Air Border) Order (No 2) Amendment Order (No 2) of 2021—so this is an order amending an order that amended an order—this particular amendment introduced the prohibition on people travelling from India, people who had been in India within the last 14 days. This was the first of the restrictions that we put in place and then it was subsequently succeeded by the second order that we're confirming, which is the COVID-19 Public Health Response (Air Border) Order (No 2) Amendment Order (No 3), which introduced the new categories of very high-risk countries, made clear what the criteria for determining them would be—those countries presently are Brazil, India, Pakistan, and Papua New Guinea—and it introduced a prohibition on people travelling from those countries within 14 days of being in those countries unless they are a New Zealand citizen. That order continues to be in place now. 
The third order is the COVID-19 Public Health Response (Air Border and Isolation and Quarantine) Amendment Order 2021. This particular one makes some technical changes to the way we manage our managed isolation and quarantine facilities, dealing particularly with group allocations and group bookings. The fourth is a change to the required testing regime that we have in place—that is, people who have to be tested regularly as part of our surveillance to make sure that they haven't picked up COVID-19. It extends that to a wider group of people who work at the border, and it includes people who handle items removed within 72 hours from a managed isolation facility, within a plane or a ship, or have contact with other affected workers. It also increases the testing frequency for some groups of workers. It allows the Director-General of Health to authorise different testing methods, including saliva testing, and it requires a PCBU—person conducting a business or undertaking—to use the border workforce testing register to ensure that we have accurate records of all those who are being regularly tested. 
The fifth order that we are confirming prohibits point-of-care tests or POC tests. This is to ensure that the testing we are using is robust, is reliable, and that we are not using off-the-shelf tests that we know to be not as reliable as the tests that we have been using. The sixth, the COVID-19 Public Health Response (Air Border, Isolation and Quarantine, and Required Testing) Amendment Order provides for quarantine-free travel—so the safe travel zone. It is the amendments that we've introduced under this particular order that allow us to have quarantine-free travel between Australia and New Zealand; and New Zealand and the Cook Islands; and, ultimately, New Zealand and Niue, when that finally is introduced.
The final order being confirmed here is the COVID-19 Public Health Response (Vaccinations) Order of 2021. This requires people undertaking certain roles at our border, most notably in our managed isolation and quarantine facilities, to be vaccinated in order to do their work. I want to be very clear here. It's not a compulsory vaccination, because people who are doing that work are entitled to say no. It just means that they cannot continue to do that work if they say no to having a vaccination. There are only a very, very limited number of people who have been in that category and, in a lot of the very limited number of cases, it's for a reason that's temporary. For example, there are some pregnant women who have said no to having a vaccination until after they've had their babies, in which case arrangements can be put in place until such time as they are able to have a vaccination.
So the seven orders are absolutely consistent with the purpose of the Act, which is to do everything we can to keep COVID-19 out of New Zealand and to ensure that COVID-19 doesn't spread within the New Zealand community, and, of course, vaccinations play a big part of that. But the restrictions that we have at our border, the managed isolation facilities, and the quarantine facilities that we are using at the moment to allow a safe passage back into the country for those who have been in higher-risk settings, are a really integral part of that as well. So, ultimately, I absolutely respect and endorse the process that we are going through now. I think that these orders should be regularly subject to parliamentary scrutiny and I'm very happy to commend the resolution put by my colleague to the House.





CHRIS BISHOP (National): Well, thank you very much, Mr Speaker, and we will be supporting the Government motion No. 1, but I want to take the opportunity to say a few things about the various orders that have been presented to the House. And can I just start by saying thank you to the venerable Regulations Review Committee for their excellent consideration of these orders—
David Seymour: What does venerable mean?
CHRIS BISHOP: Well, honourable, I should say—maybe venerable. Certainly they've done a good job. But I do want to go through the various orders.
So the first one is in relation to the COVID-19 Public Health Response (Air Border, Isolation and Quarantine, and Required Testing) Amendment Order 2021. All the words are very similar, but Part 2 of this order that I'm talking about relates to the provisions to give the chief executive of the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment operation of managed isolation allocation system specific responsibility for ensuring the system does not allocate more confirmed spaces in MIQ than the system's capacity. Fine on its face—we support that.
I want to take this opportunity to make the point that at the moment, on average, there are 1,717 rooms on average in MIQ vacant every day. And at the moment, we have a group of people out there living in New Zealand who have been split from their families, who are being denied entry to New Zealand because of the immigration system and because the Minister of Immigration and his officials will not take action to reunite those families, whilst the Minister for COVID-19 Response sits there with over 1,500 rooms per day on average sitting vacant that could be used to reunite those families. I think that is disgraceful, and it is time the Government got a move on and finally provided a pathway to those families.
These are people who moved to New Zealand in good faith. In fact, in some cases they were incentivised to move to New Zealand. They were told that they would come to New Zealand and provide a better life for their families and fulfil skills shortages in New Zealand. In the case of Cameron Conradie in the Hutt Valley, he moved to the Hutt Valley to become a maths teacher at Hutt Valley High School, where he's doing a great job. His family are ready to come to New Zealand, but, because of our border restrictions, they cannot. He sits there, split apart from his wife and his children for over 450 days now, and he quite rightly looks at the spaces in MIQ—as I say, 1,717 in the last week alone—and says, "Why can the Government not move?" And there are hundreds of people in his situation. We're not saying let them all in straight away, we're not saying let them all in all at once, but what we are saying is the Government must provide a pathway for these split migrant families to come to New Zealand, and they can do that by virtue of Part 2 of the order, and I encourage the Government to finally take action.
The second point I want to make is in response to the COVID-19 Public Health Response (Air Border) Order (No 2) Amendment Order (No 2) 2021 in relation to the Indian travel ban which then got extended to other high-risk destinations. I'm really pleased that the Regulations Review Committee investigated whether or not the suspension of travel was wider than necessary because of the open-ended time frame that applies to the restriction. I just want to put on record here that I encourage the Government to continue to review that suspension of travel regularly, and I'm heartened by the Regulations Review Committee's exhortations to the Government to do that. We support the ban—we supported the ban on people from high-risk destinations coming to New Zealand at the time and we continue to support it—but we also support the regular review of that, because it's a pretty big thing for the New Zealand Government to say that New Zealanders cannot come to New Zealand. We consider that it needs to be regularly reviewed. The Government has said that they will do that, but we want to make sure that actually happens. So that's the first two things I wanted to say. 
In relation to the COVID-19 Public Health Response (Required Testing) Amendment Order 2021 that was made on 13 April and presented on 16 April, I do want to say a couple of things. The first is in relation to saliva testing, because this is the order that enables the taking of saliva for the purposes of testing and medical examination. I want to place on the record now how frustrating it is that it has taken this long for the Government to move on saliva testing. Let's remember, this was something that was recommended to the Government in September 2020 by the Roche-Simpson report. So the Government own report that they commissioned into the debacle that went on at the border in August said all efforts should be made to roll out saliva testing as quickly as possible in September. The Government sat on the report, it finally got released in December, and here we are on 1 June 2021 finally getting on with saliva testing. Except it won't happen straight away, because, as we now know, the Government's just given a contract to Asia Pacific Healthcare Group, but that will take many weeks to roll out. So it won't be until July that we actually have saliva testing at the border.
This is something that should have been happening months and months ago. The advantages of saliva testing are well known. It allows for increased regularity in terms of testing, it means you can pick up COVID earlier, and of course it's way more comfortable for people. I've taken a saliva test. Rather than just keep talking about it, I thought I should put my money where my mouth is—well, not so much, actually, I didn't pay anything—and at least see for myself exactly how it worked. I had one at Rako Science last week: a very good experience and I can see absolutely why people would want to do it. It just beggars belief, quite frankly, that it has taken the Government so long to move on saliva testing. This is something that we should have been moving on many months ago.
The other thing I wanted to note about this amendment order is in relation to the compulsion for persons conducting a business or undertaking to enter records of testing and medical examination on a register. Now, the Minister said in a very matter of fact way—a reasonably sterile way, actually—that this was all very straightforward. But, of course, what he did not advert the House to is the controversy behind this register. The reason the register has finally been made compulsory and mandatory for people operating at the border to use is because it was not beforehand and people were not using it. And, of course, what happened there was we had the situation where the Government did not know how many people were not complying with the mandatory testing requirements that have been set up by various other orders pursuant to the COVID-19 Public Health Response Act 2020.
We had the ridiculous situation a month or so ago of a security guard—case B at the Grand Millennium—who was not tested for five months. The Government sat on that information for six days before they deigned to tell the public about it. And the only reason that we actually know about it is because I asked the MIQ officials twice at the select committee as to whether or not that person had been tested and how long they'd gone. Unsurprisingly, the Government continues to block the officials from ever turning up to the committee ever again. And we have not actually had any of the officials, including Dr Bloomfield and Megan Main from MIQ before the committee because Labour members, led by Dr Liz Craig, quite disgracefully have continued to block repeated motion after motion to allow us in the National Party and the ACT Party to question officials about what's going on at the border. We have myriad questions we want to ask, not particularly political, but all designed in the spirit of continuous improvement.
Well, this is all about continuous improvement and actually making sure our border response is as good as it can be. It's been good—I don't deny that. It's been good. We are COVID free—that's fantastic, but the question is can it be better and can it be great, as Christopher Luxon says, and of course it can be better and of course it can be great. One way to make it great would be to roll out saliva testing. One way to make it great would have been to make the border register compulsory six months ago, and that's what we're talking about here. So we agree with making the border register compulsory, we just don't understand why it didn't happen many months ago.
Then finally, in the minute I've got left, I want to turn to the last order, which is in relation to the vaccinations order. This essentially means that people who work at MIQ or airports can't do that unless they are vaccinated. It's very sensible, it's reasonably controversial with some, including some employees, but I think most reasonable New Zealanders would say this absolutely makes sense. If you work in MIQ, it's not unreasonable for the Government to say you have to be vaccinated given the risks that these people are incurring, essentially, on behalf of other New Zealanders. It probably should have happened sooner. 
I think the next question that we're going to have to consider as a House, and that's for the Government as well, is whether or not, if you are working in a DHB, you should have to be vaccinated as well. And that is something that the New Zealand Herald adverted to last Friday and that I hope the Government is turning its mind to in regards to further orders that may come pursuant to the Act. That I think is the next question; it would be good to hear more from the Government in relation to that.





DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of ACT in support of these orders. We think it's important that New Zealand has a lawful response to a public health emergency, and that's what the COVID-19 Public Health Response Act was intended to enable, and that's what these orders are. So we broadly support them, with one exception, which I'll mention.
It's important, for example, that we actually ensure that the people who are most at risk of contracting COVID-19 are required to be tested, because as Chris Bishop has just alluded to, the failure of the Government to make rules that are proportionate to risk, not the institution but actually proportional to risk, has cost us hundreds of millions of dollars through a lockdown in Auckland. This is actually a failure of the current Government across the board. It's often more focused on the ideology or the institution doing the delivery than it is on the actual outcome for the people who pay the bills—aka the New Zealand taxpayer and citizens of this country.
Now, if the Government's focus was on "Is this person at risk of contracting COVID-19, spreading it to their friends and neighbours and causing a lockdown which will devastate New Zealand's business?", then they would have from the start said "Everyone, regardless of whether they work for a public or private company"—or what particular company it is—"should actually be on a register." So we absolutely support the idea of having required testing for anyone who's a PCBU—person conducting a business or undertaking. Great idea. Pity we didn't think of it six months ago. It could have saved a lot of money.
The one that ACT has an objection to is the actual ban on point-of-care tests. It's another theme of this Government's response that it has been, again, very fixated on who delivers the service: Ministry of Health good; everybody else bad, out in the cold. That has held us back as a country. It's made our response to COVID-19 less nimble and less efficient. You have to ask yourself why the Government would take it on itself to actually ban the—they've done this all the way through COVID with Gazette notices, banning testing kits. You know, why shouldn't people be able to avail themselves of information? Why shouldn't New Zealanders be able to innovate in response to a crisis? That's how New Zealanders have traditionally faced adversity—by innovating and using better technology—and the Government's going out of its way to ban technologies being imported into New Zealand by citizens of this country. I think that's a real, real shame.
Finally, we come to the restrictions on people coming—or finally in this particular report of the Regulations Review Committee—from India. The ACT Party thinks that this is the right thing to do. In saying that, we acknowledge the terrible heartbreak and considerable resentment, particularly within our Kiwi Indian community, and the inconvenience that is being caused. But I want to be clear about why we support it. ACT has said all along that one of the things the Government needs to do in response to a pandemic is have a response that's proportional to risk. The logic is that if there's a place that has a new and more infectious, perhaps more virulent strain that may be more resistant to vaccination, then the risk of people coming from that country and bringing COVID-19 must be higher than from other places. So our response should be proportional to risk, and putting restrictions on people coming from India was the right thing to do.
Now, here's the thing: we still don't let people come from Niue. I mean, it's speculative that one day New Zealanders will be able to come to Niue, which to some extent is actually legally part of New Zealand, and that's actually a place—funnily enough, for the benefit of the Labour members, I'll name-drop Chris Luxon. When I went to Niue, he was on the flight. He pops up everywhere, you see. It's hard to avoid mentioning him. But—
Matt Doocey: Those bald guys all look the same.
DAVID SEYMOUR: Well, I sometimes get him confused with Matt Doocey. I mean, you know, it's an easy mistake to make! But back on COVID-19 and the response to the pandemic—I mean, this is important stuff.
Greg O'Connor: A dollar each way.
DAVID SEYMOUR: What's that from Greg?
Greg O'Connor: Having a dollar each way.
DAVID SEYMOUR: Greg from Ōhāriu—O'Connor; that's his name.
Greg O'Connor: Ōhāriu—get it right. Ōhāriu.
DAVID SEYMOUR: Yeah, yeah, yeah. It looks like he's been getting a bit of Irish courage during the dinner break again. In any case—
Greg O'Connor: Some of us don't need it.
DAVID SEYMOUR: Ha, ha!
Chris Bishop: Berocca!
DAVID SEYMOUR: Chris Bishop says he's been having the Berocca. They've been passing it around on the Labour backbenches. It's dangerous stuff. Anyway, we've got serious matters to debate here.
The question is: if we're going to be proportional to risk when it comes to putting restrictions on people coming from India, then surely the quid pro quo on that is we should actually have less restrictions on people coming from places like Niue, coming from places that have no COVID whatsoever, welcoming our Pacific friends as Recognised Seasonal Employer scheme (RSE) workers. So, again, a good idea, but why don't we have more of this risk-proportional initiative?
We've had the vaccinations order. This is something that has been very topical and of concern for a lot of people. This order says if you want to work in certain settings where you might be subject to getting exposed to COVID-19, working at the border or managed isolation and quarantine (MIQ) or whatever, then you actually have to be vaccinated. Again, vaccination dramatically reduces the risk of harbouring and passing on COVID-19, because it prepares your immune system to fight it. People say, "Well, it's my right not to do it." Well, actually, let's be really clear about rights. Everyone has a right to refuse treatment. What people don't have a right is for someone else to give them a job on any terms they demand.
If it's in the best interests of this country to avoid another lockdown, to keep people in business and not going broke, and if the way to achieve that is to ensure that the most vulnerable people are people who are prepared to be vaccinated—and I've personally been vaccinated and seem to be fine; people who think there's something wrong with me will probably maintain I was like that before—then I think actually it's critical that the law is in place to make sure that people who are working in those critical areas are vaccinated. Again, I mean, this goes back to ACT's policies, our COVID 2.0 Response Plan. You know, one of the principles is that New Zealand's response to COVID should be risk proportionate.
Finally, there's a couple of orders around MIQ, and these are orders about making sure that we are properly using MIQ space. Now, this was touched on also by Chris Bishop, and it's an area—and I'm sure we'll hear a lot from Erica Stanford, because she's worked hard standing up for her constituents from the East Coast Bays and beyond on this. The wastage of MIQ space may seem, when you're just managing a big operation, like not a major thing, but I can tell you and I can tell people listening at home and especially tell this Government that to people who have faced heartache and separation from their families—losing jobs, losing employers, in some cases for nearly a year now—the idea that there are MIQ spaces going begging, not being used, is absolutely heartbreaking.
So once again, we commend these orders. It's a great idea, except for the one banning technology, which is bizarre. But we actually want the Government to use them, because here's the thing: COVID has come back into New Zealand's consciousness in the last seven days, first in Taiwan and then in Australia. We have seen how costly our complacency can be. Two other countries that thought they'd won, island nations, both of them, like us, with low rates of vaccination and that had not improved their defences—even if Taiwan started from a high base, had not improved their defences over the last year. Suddenly, in Melbourne and in Taipei, you see what can happen.
This Government's response is a cross between Dad's Army and Hogan's Heroes. If we were to ask the Minister—can anyone on the Labour benches get up and honestly say that New Zealand's response is more sophisticated than it was six months ago in testing and tracing? Have we got any new technology? Oh, that's right; we're allowing saliva testing that was first recommended by the Government in September last year. I'm glad we're just fighting a microscopic virus; if this was an actual war, we'd be toast by now.
We need to do better than the Dad's Army, Hogan's Heroes, complacent, happy-go-lucky approach that's seen Melbourne locked down and Taipei not far behind. It's not good enough to expect vaccination will solve all our problems, especially not the way this Government's rolling it out. Thank you, Mr Speaker.





Dr ELIZABETH KEREKERE (Green): Talofa lava. I will take a short call on this kaupapa, succinct as I like to be. During the Budget speeches this evening, we heard much about our economic recovery and how well we've done while COVID continues to ravage the rest of the world, and in such an extraordinary environment, though some freedoms were, and some continue to be, compromised.
Lockdowns and level changes meant, of course, compromising our freedom of movement, especially if you lived in Tāmaki Makaurau. Freedom of religion and belief was compromised when congregations could not gather. Freedom of speech was challenged when conspiracy theorists tried to derail the health messaging that we were putting out based on science and research—it turns out you can't win an election based on trying to mislead and manipulate. So those freedoms were compromised because, in this case, we've been prioritising freedom of health.
I'm certainly thankful that I live in this country when all of these decisions have been made, and, of course, the vast majority of us support how the Government has handled the COVID situation. It doesn't mean that there aren't some details that could be tidied up. Because of these sacrifices, we can enjoy being with each other in large numbers—concerts, sports, on marae—we can largely ignore the awkwardness of elbow bumps, which I always struggled with; and we can travel around the country without barriers. Most importantly for me, it means I can attend tangi and funerals of people that we have lost—that was the hardest thing of COVID. To get where we are, many decisions were made quickly, and in some cases, the legislation has not kept up with the policy or the action.
This suite of orders appears to amend the regulations and clarifies the application of those agreed policies to be lawful. So included, but not limited to, are: enabling our travel bubbles; exempting people from managed isolation and quarantine who have come from those agreed quarantine-free places; stopping poor-quality of fake tests coming into our country; clarifying the testing process of workers who are required to have ongoing tests as part of their mahi; making sure people wear masks on aircraft; prohibiting people from arriving into Aotearoa from the high-risk countries. We note, in terms of those prohibitions, in those high-risk places: humanitarian grounds; people who are transitioning—not "transitioning"; we're not talking about gender issues here!—who transit through a very high-risk country and remain airside; aircrew members; our defence force members returning; diplomatic consulate officers; and people who are landing here for emergency reasons.
I support my colleague who spoke earlier in that I feel that one of the areas we have fallen down the most is in saying that we do have exceptions for New Zealand citizens, their partners, dependent children, and parents of dependent children, when we've brought people into this country, given them visas, allowed them to come here to settle and live their life, and they've left their homes thinking that they will come here and, of course, bring their whānau with them. We have not done that. There are so many stories, across the country, where whānau still need to be reunited. I think this is a key area where people need to do a lot more work.
Succinct as promised: all of this seems very sensible to us. We support the Government always doing things that are legal. We commend these orders to the House. Kia ora.





ERICA STANFORD (National—East Coast Bays): Thank you, Mr Speaker, I'm pleased to take a call in this debate. I want to talk specifically to Part 2 of the order, and my colleague, Chris Bishop, earlier alluded to some of the things I want to speak about. But I find it interesting looking at this order, where it says that it gives specific responsibility to the chief executive (CE) for ensuring that the system does not allocate more confirmed spaces in managed isolation and quarantine (MIQ) than the system's capacity. At the face of it, when you read that you think, "That sounds great", except for the fact that we have had thousands and thousands of rooms over the last few months, completely empty that the taxpayer has been paying for. While it's all very well to make sure that we're not over-allocating rooms, the real question is what are we doing about the underutilisation of these rooms.
For a very long time, I have been standing in this House talking about the inability of us to manage the competing demands of different groups on managed isolation. Now we find ourselves in a situation where, for weeks on end, we had 1,800 rooms a night free. In fact, over a two-week period, we could have reunited 1,800 split families, and yet we chose not to. It's a joke that, in this order, there's nothing talking about underutilisation, because that is actually the problem that we have at the moment. People like Cam Conradie, who is split from his family, every day has a look at how many rooms are completely underutilised. He makes graphs that he puts up on Twitter and shares with everybody—us included—and shows the heartbreak of all of these people who can't see their families, and yet here we are with thousands of rooms every day, that we pay for, that are not being allocated.
The Minister of Immigration spoke a while back about allocating some rooms to split migrant families, like he'd solved the problem. But what we find has actually happened is that hardly any split migrant families met the criteria, the very careful criteria that he set out. So migrant nurses were one group that were a winner. A lot of those migrant nurses' split families are in India. They can't actually travel at this time. They have a light at the end of the tunnel, and that's all very well and good. The second group of people were people who had visas to travel before the borders closed, a very small amount of people. So using these managed isolation rooms is just a few people. There are thousands more people whose visas were in train, or they hadn't actually applied yet. None of those people have been able to apply for visas to travel, and yet here we have a massive underutilisation of rooms.
We saw recently, on the Sunday programme, Mr Henco de Beer who hadn't seen his four-day-old baby in a year. Now, that was an extremely sad situation. I've met him a few times. He was on Sunday. The very good news a few days ago was that he got visas to travel for his family to come in through MIQ. Great ending to a great story, and I think those of us who knew him and had spoken to him online, and some of his family members, were very moved by that. But that is a very, very, very tiny proportion of the full scale of the problem. Here we have this ridiculous order—I mean, on the face of it, like I say, it sounds great, "We don't want to overuse the capacity", but we're underutilising it by thousands and thousands of rooms. So while it's really good for Henco, all of those other thousands of people, those thousands of split migrant families, are missing out. 
It's not only the ones who had their visas in train. The highly skilled migrants were the third group of people that the Minister had a category for, but every single person who applies gets put through the wringer, and very few of those people from Immigration New Zealand are actually allowed to come in and use these spaces. So no wonder there's a massive underutilisation of these spaces, because at every turn Immigration New Zealand are using all of their powers possible to say no. Highly skilled people, earning over $150,000 in some cases, are being turned away, and Immigration New Zealand are saying, "Oh, well, your skills aren't unique". There's a much higher threshold for them than the other people that we're letting in. The 300 construction workers who we're allowing to come in and use MIQ spaces have to pass a much lower bar than the people who are already here who are being turned away from being reunited with their split families, and that is not right. Here this order is going on about, well, make sure we don't use more spaces than we have. That is not the problem. The problem is underutilisation. So those split migrant families, who hadn't yet applied for their visas, or those highly skilled people who keep getting turned away because their skills aren't unique and that bar is so much higher, have no chance of getting in.
It's not only split migrant families; it's New Zealand citizens and permanent residents who cannot get their partners in because of the, again, very, very strict interpretation by Immigration New Zealand. I had a message today from Catherine, a New Zealand citizen, who said, "Today, Labour, you have broken us. He's English, he's vaccinated, he can't get in. We will have to go our separate ways and hope to find what we had in our own countries. Jacinda, I hope you can sleep at night." That's what she put on Facebook on the split migrant group. Yet here we have 1,800 rooms every day, completely unused. But we're standing here today talking about over-utilisation. It's not the problem, the problem is underutilisation and our complete inability to manage competing demands and take these groups of people who haven't seen their families in over a year, who are highly skilled people who, in most cases, are earning more than double the median wage, who still can't get in. And you've got Kiwis who can't see their partners as well.
I had another woman, her name is Jacquie. She went back to South Africa. She was a highly skilled mental health worker—who we desperately need in this country—working for the Massey counselling department. She had to go back to South Africa because her husband and son missed out on this very tight criteria that the Minister had set. And yet, 1,800 rooms every night—underutilisation. I've been travelling around the country talking to businesses as well, and they are crying out because they can't get staff, and the staff that they do have are split migrant families who can't get their families into MIQ, even though there is all this space available. They're losing them. So not only can they not find staff, they're losing the highly skilled staff that they already have who are migrants who can't see their families because they can't get them in through MIQ. And yet we have 1,800 rooms every night. I was talking to a hydraulics company in Gisborne, just the other day. They've got staff who are looking to leave—highly, highly skilled staff who are looking to leave. It doesn't matter where you go. In my electorate, a plastics company lost a South African, even though he was the only guy who could work that piece of machinery. David Parker knows well, because we lobbied him. Even he couldn't lobby his colleagues to let that guy's family in. And yet, 1,800 rooms every night, underutilised. 
I'll go on to the second part of this order, where it talks about, I guess, being more open and transparent, and having the Minister actually dictate what those special criteria are for the CE of Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment allowing people coming through MIQ, not using the booking system, which is a great thing, because what we've seen in the past is a very murky and not very transparent situation, where people are coming in through MIQ and nobody knows how they got in—this is back in the day when MIQ was very full. There was complete murkiness and lack of transparency around how those people got in. Then we have people like Trevor Ponting. You will all remember him, the man who had terminal brain cancer who wanted to get back in, who applied under these special criteria to get in, and was declined and had to go through the media to get a spot. So I'm really hoping that in the second part of this order, where we talk about being more open and transparent and having the Minister set the criteria for allocating these spaces in MIQ and the chief executive having to apply these criteria, they will be somewhere that we can all see them so that there is openness and transparency around this process. Because what we've seen over the last year is completely the opposite of that: deserving people, who are coming in to see their family for the last time, being declined, and yet other people seemingly waved through, and no one knows how they got those spots in MIQ. 
So, while we're supporting this, I think the focus really needs to be on how we better manage the underutilisation of MIQ, how we reunite split migrant families, how we widen the criteria so more of them can see their families again because, as I suspected the Minister would do, he chose the very smallest part of the pie that he possibly could and said, "Look, I've done my job." There are thousands more people out there who are desperate, who are skilled, who are leaving, and we have treated them appallingly. That has to change, Madam Speaker.
Motion agreed to.





MARITIME TRANSPORT (MARPOL ANNEX VI) AMENDMENT BILL
First Reading
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Minister of Foreign Affairs) on behalf of the Minister of Transport: I present a legislative statement on the Maritime Transport (MARPOL Annex VI) Amendment Bill.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): That legislative statement is published under the authority of the House and can be found on the Parliament website.
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: Fa'afetai tele lava. I move, That the Maritime Transport (MARPOL Annex VI) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Transport and Infrastructure Committee to consider the bill. At the appropriate time, I intend to move that the bill be reported to the House by 16 September 2021 and that the committee have authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting (except during oral questions), during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House, and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House and outside the Wellington area, despite Standing Orders 193, 195, and 196(1)(b) and (c).
One of our Government's priorities is to tackle climate change. Shipping is a major contributor of emissions to the atmosphere, particularly sulphur oxides, nitrogen oxides, and particulate matter, which affect both human health and the environment. This bill will enable us to align domestic legislation under the Maritime Transport Act 1994 with the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL), Annex VI, which the Cabinet agreed to accede to in 2019.
In June 2020, the Environment Committee considered the treaty, including calling for and hearing from a range of public submissions. In its report, the committee stated that given the environmental and public health benefits identified, it believed that the Government should implement legislation as soon as practicable.
In summary, New Zealand's accession to MARPOL Annex VI would reduce adverse public health effects of marine air pollution on communities close to ports and harbours, strengthen New Zealand's ability to play a credible role in international maritime organisation negotiations on climate change, and improve New Zealand's ability to work with like-minded parties to push for global ambition in future negotiations. It will also enable New Zealand to enforce requirements for both domestic and international ships and improve New Zealand's ability to protect its trade and economic interests in negotiations on new greenhouse gas emissions reduction measures for ships.
Multilateral measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from ships are expected to be introduced through MARPOL Annex VI at the International Maritime Organization in the next few years. Acceding to Annex VI and putting our domestic legislation in place now means that we'll be able to implement future greenhouse gas reduction measures and contribute to the global effort to reduce emissions from shipping.
We need to make changes to the Maritime Transport Act 1994 to ensure that the rule-making and enforcement provisions in the Act provide the authority required to fully implement the legal obligations of MARPOL Annex VI. Part 1 of the bill contains a number of amendments to the Maritime Transport Act 1994 to achieve this objective. Part 2 of the bill amends the Maritime Transport (Marine Protection Conventions) Order 1999 to insert MARPOL Annex VI into the list of international conventions declared to be marine.
Key components of the changes proposed by this bill include providing a power for the Minister of Transport to make marine protection rules in relation to Annex VI substances. The Maritime Transport Act 1994 sets out the purpose for which the Minister may make marine protection rules. The bill inserts an additional purpose of prescribing requirements relating to the prevention of air pollution for ships for the purpose of implementing Annex VI, providing "a power for the Director of Maritime New Zealand to conduct inspections and audits in relation to Annex VI requirements". This is in addition to the existing power of the Maritime Transport Act 1994 giving the director the power to conduct inspections and audits "for matters other than in relation to Annex VI", providing a power for the director of Maritime New Zealand "to detain ships and seize marine protection products that are in contravention of Annex VI requirements" and exercise related powers such as imposing conditions and prohibitions. These powers expand the existing powers of detention and seizure in the Maritime Transport Act so as to prevent air pollution from ships and to facilitate implementation of Annex VI.
The bill is about addressing the impact of shipping emissions on our health as well as the environment. By introducing this bill, we will have greater powers to implement future greenhouse gas reduction measures and contribute to the global effort to reduce emissions from shipping. I'm committed to ensuring that we reduce greenhouse gas emissions from transport and reducing shipping emissions that will contribute towards New Zealand meeting its emissions goals. At the appropriate time, I intend to move that the bill be reported to the House within four months after it's had its first reading. I commend the Maritime Transport (MARPOL Annex VI) Amendment Bill to the House.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is that the motion be agreed to.





CHRISTOPHER LUXON (National—Botany): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Look, I'm pleased to take a call too on the Maritime Transport (MARPOL Annex VI) Amendment Bill at first reading. National is pleased to support this bill to select committee. It's not the most radical or transformative or sexiest piece of legislation that we're dealing with this evening, but it is certainly a very positive step forward in our collective actions around climate change and around a cleaner environment and making sure we've got healthier communities. That's a good thing. We believe small actions over time—actions being the operative word, not just words—can actually make a big difference.
As we all know, the MARPOL agreement is a really good multilateral tool that is available to countries around the world in arresting the effects of climate change, particularly in the marine environment, and that is a really important thing. Certainly, you know, we've all been signed up in New Zealand here to MARPOL since 1998, and we've acceded to four of the six annexes already, and it's good that Annex VI, which is really fixated on limiting air pollution of ships around ports and harbours, is a good thing for us to be signing up for.
The bill as it's been proposed is really around enabling the Minister to make marine protection rules around Annex VI, around air pollutant substances, which are things like nitrous oxides in sulphur, oxides in particulate matter. That's important because it makes our harbours and our communities around those harbours much safer and, obviously, has some public health benefits. It enables the director of Maritime New Zealand to make interventions, to do audits, to check that, actually, ships are complying with Annex VI, and it has a number of obligations on them, which is fantastic.
So we think, you know, limiting sulphur content in marine fuels, requiring ships to meet certain performance criteria, emission standards, port receptions having facilities to actually deal with those particulates and those wastes is really important. Ninety-four countries have signed up to it, over 97 percent of the world shipping tonnage, and I think we're one of only a handful of OECD countries that hasn't yet done so, so it is certainly time that we embrace this piece of legislation.
It will have public health benefits, and that's important for people with compromised immune systems, and it does give us some public health benefits, estimated to be in the order of about $33 million annually. So I think it is important—and, on this side of the House we think, in National, that it is important—that we are playing our part as part of a multilateral system to work collaboratively with our trading partners to try and improve the marine environment, and it's one of the things that helps us protect one of our trade and our economic interests.
But there are a few things that we really would dispute, and I think the four-month window for us to discuss this bill and some of the implications, and particularly the implementation plan around it, is something that we can pick up and discuss later on, but we have some issues with that and would oppose that. We think it is important that we really do properly understand what low sulphur fuels are going to be needed in this country, where they're coming from, how they'll be distributed, who can access them, and which ports—all of that implementation plan needs to be completely understood. We know that for a lot of our New Zealand coastal shipping fleet, they've got to be able to use fuels that have a 0.5 percent level of sulphur in it. They can fit their ships with scrubbers, but that's actually not very economic for that fleet. We know also, here in New Zealand, that, fundamentally, Refining New Zealand isn't going to be refining this kind of fuel and sending it down the main pipeline, so we're going to have to import that fuel from overseas. Obviously, low sulphur fuels are in huge demand globally. So the real thing we want to use that time for is to understand exactly how that implementation plan will come together and what is New Zealand's ability to make sure that when we make a declaration like this, we can actually meet our commitment and support our coastal shippers and our shipping community that actually need to be able to use these fuels.
So we look forward to that time being used to hear more from our shipping operators and, of course, the affected officials who can give us some insights and confidence that there is an implementation plan here. And the reason for that is very simple. We think this is a Government that likes making declarations and announcements; we've seen it on oil and gas, we've seen it on lots of different things, and we really want to see an execution or an implementation plan. We know this Government suffers with execution, so we just need to reassure ourselves that we actually have it all sorted, that we actually do know what we're implementing, and that we will be able to get the job done. We'd also like to see—I think the Ministry of Transport had a New Zealand Institute of Economic Research report commissioned. We'd like to see some of the benefits of that and just take the time to go through the analysis, tick off the boxes, make sure that we can do what we say that we're going to do, and execute things incredibly well. So apart from that, we're pleased to support this bill through to the select committee stage. Thank you.





GREG O'CONNOR (Labour—Ōhāriu): It gives me great pleasure to speak on the Maritime Transport (MARPOL Annex VI) Amendment Bill, which sounds something of a mouthful, but, like all these pieces of legislation, it's good to give it some context and to really understand what we're here for. Really, most New Zealanders are lucky enough to live near a harbour, near water. I know that Wellington Harbour—we all look out there, and I know I've been enjoying fishing out there on the odd occasion. And if you get an evening, say a March evening, there might be two or three cruise ships—in a non-COVID time, the cruise ships, of course—heading out of the harbour. You'll get the odd ferry coming in and out, fishing boats, you may even have a log ship. And, of course, because they're sitting out there on the water it's easy to forget just how much pollution is coming out or just what emissions are coming out of those boats—or ships, I should say: any maritime people listening would be disgusted to hear them described as boats; those ships. One of those cruise liners actually produces as many emissions as every car driving around Wellington in a day. That just puts things into perspective, which is exactly why we need to ensure that we're addressing such issues. 
Of course, New Zealand, as the previous speaker, Christopher Luxon, said, has been something of an outlier on this. In fact, in November 1973 the International Maritime Organisation (IMO) adopted the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL), which remains today the main international convention covering preventing the pollution of maritime environments by ships from operation or accidental causes. Obviously, this is a piece of legislation that now underlies efforts to do what the world is now increasingly seeking to do: reduce pollution. New Zealand joined MARPOL in 1998 and is a party to four of the six annexes of that treaty. 
Often when we talk about treaties—one of the things we learn when we come here is that everything is interrelated and that when we pass legislation here, often it needs to be something that complies with our international treaty obligations. In 2018, New Zealand participated in negotiations that saw the adoption of the IMO GHG, the greenhouse gas strategy. So, of course, at that stage, New Zealand, by being part of that—the fact that we were one of only two countries, ourselves and Mexico, who hadn't actually signed up did, again, make us something of an outlier, and also made it very difficult for us to continue arguing for ambitious action to reduce maritime emissions—almost as though we were getting something of a free ride. So that's the background as to how we've arrived at where we are today.
The consultation occurred on whether we should sign this, and obviously, in doing so, we just have to make sure that there are all considerations, and the two global problems relating to shipping emissions are, of course, impacts on human health and environments in port communities from maritime pollution. While I've mentioned Wellington Harbour, you go to somewhere like Picton, which, again, is in a narrow valley. That's now one of New Zealand's busiest ports. In fact, Picton's a bit unique, because most New Zealand ships—certainly coastal ships—haven't complied with this, whereas most international ships coming here now have. Most of the container boats—certainly most of the cruise liners—that have come here do actually comply. So you get a port like Picton, where, obviously, while being busy, most of those visits are from ferries going back and forth, and those ferries don't actually comply, so you can imagine what the impact on a place like Picton might be.
Of course, the other broad issue whenever we're talking about pollution is contributions to climate change and ozone layer depletion. Climate change, once again, as we reflect on the floods down South Canterbury, the one-in-100-year flood that people are discussing—but you'll wonder, now, with a plethora of one-in-100-year events that seem to be occurring with monotonous regularity, how much climate change is contributing to these weather events that we are seeing.
Of course, we then look at the benefits of this bill for New Zealand becoming a party to the annex we're talking about. Of course, one of the important things with all of these is protecting New Zealand trade interests and advancing effective migration measures, because, again, as Australia are finding now, it's all very well to basically put the proverbial finger to the world and say that we won't comply, but very quickly they're going to suddenly find that internationally it doesn't matter what the various states and what the various state governments say; they're going to have to start complying or it's going to badly affect their international trade. So, again, in considering a piece of legislation like this, it is, again, ensuring that our trade interests—as we have our officials around the world now negotiating trade in the UK or negotiating trade with Europe, these are the things that are going to be very important. They'll be quickly thrown back in our face if we don't comply, because often particularly the agricultural interests of those places will be very quick to point the finger at us if we're not complying with these treaties.
Also, of course, another thing is that it will also allow—we do not have a big international shipping fleet from here, which is a shame. There was a time, I remember just recently reading some history, that Tainui alone had 50 ships plying the Tasman back in the mid-1800s, and wouldn't it be nice if we could ever get back to the day when New Zealand did have those shipping fleets out there around the world, ensuring that our goods were getting there but we were able to be—somewhat crudely put—clipping the ticket the whole way as our goods found their way around the world. Of course, as I say, if we do get those New Zealand ships, it will mean that they will comply as they go to the various ports. With ourselves and Mexico being the only non-compliant countries, as you can imagine, there are plenty of ports there that would very quickly be turning us away.
So what are the amendments? This is what we are seeking to apply, so what does the bill actually do? Well, section 388 of the Maritime Transport Act provides for the Minister of Transport to make marine protection rules for a number of purposes. Clause 10 of the bill empowers the Minister to make rules for the purpose of prescribing the "requirements, procedures, and standards relating to the prevention of air pollution from ships" for the purpose of implementing this annex. The Act also provides—in section 395; this is an interesting one, Madam Speaker—that the director of Maritime New Zealand may grant exemptions from the maritime protection rules; however, section 395(2) provides that the director "must not grant an exemption unless satisfied that—(a) granting the exemption will not breach New Zealand's obligations under any convention".
So, as my time draws near—and there's so much more material that I'll leave for my colleagues here to explore—as one does, you'll see, as you look through the legislation here, in fact, there's this reference to "scrubbers". I see the excitement raising, and it's not the terrible comments made by the coach of the Australian netball team that can never be forgiven. These scrubbers—and it's quite interesting; often, when you're speaking, you go, "How do these things actually work?"
Christopher Luxon: How do they work? Tell us how they work.
GREG O'CONNOR: So I did take time to actually find out how these things actually work. It's quite interesting, because we either change the fuel or we put scrubbers, as the previous speaker talked about, to ensure—so how they work: it actually "sprays alkaline water into the vessel's exhaust, which removes the [sulphur] from … ships' engines and boiler exhaust gases." So it's not an inexpensive exercise to fit these, but "In a seawater system, the sea's natural alkalinity largely neutralises the results of [sulphur] removal before discharge" into the sea. I'm sure there'll be other speakers here who will mention these scrubbers, which are an important part of this bill, so now you need wonder no more, Madam Speaker, just what it is that is being referred to as we go through this. Again, as the chair of the very hard-working Transport and Infrastructure Committee, who will be considering this bill, I have no hesitation in commending this bill to the House.





Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Of all the remarkable achievements of the member for Ōhāriu, dragging that speech out for 10 minutes surely ranks amongst the top two or three of his political career. What a font of knowledge he is on scrubbers. I was sitting there, just hanging off every word! Mr O'Connor is, I have to say, known for some hyperbole, but even if that were the case, I think the metaphor that he used about the size of some of those ships and the emissions that they create relative to Wellington's light vehicle fleet was quite a sobering statistic. I'm not sure where the member got it from, but it certainly, I think, brings home the importance of reducing emissions in our shipping fleet, and that's exactly what this bill is intended to do, so we will support it.
But I think he also raised a number of other issues, as has my colleague and friend Christopher Luxon, that for me underscore the fact that despite the fact that there has been a reasonable amount of consultation prior to this bill being introduced, a shortened select committee process is once again being used by the Government in circumstances that I think are inappropriate and unnecessary, and we will be opposing that part of the motion. I think it's a debatable motion, so I'm sure Mr Luxon will speak in more detail about that.
If this is an issue of such import that it needs to be passed by September or October, why then are we not having a first reading before today? The Government's been working on this for some time. It consulted quite extensively and it actually received some very intelligent feedback from stakeholders who are going to be affected by this. The overwhelming majority support it in principle, but the devil's in the detail and the application of this in so far as it relates to the retrofitting of technologies, the availability of low sulphur fuels. Where that's going to come from, how much it's going to cost, whether scrubbers are actually economic to fit on to some of these vessels are all questions that I think the select committee are going to have to grapple with. To shorten that period of time on what I believe is a reasonably spurious basis of having done some consulting before this came to the House is not a good reason to shorten that process.
I also want to actually raise a couple of other matters that are the subject of the bill. The first is in respect of the inspections and audits as set out in clause 13 of the bill. Now, these are quite widespread powers for the director to require inspections to be carried out by authorised people but on potentially foreign flagged ships, and I think it does raise some interesting questions about reasonable cause to access the ships. I hope that other legislation, including international maritime legislation, has been taken into account in the drafting of clause 13, but I think that's something that we need to hear from stakeholders about.
The other aspect that concerns me is in respect of the requirements for courts to, effectively, have the means to discharge the harmful substances or to reduce them. They're described as reception facilities, and there's some quite onerous requirements on reception facilities—effectively, ports—to make some changes that perhaps in the short period of time after this bill is passed, between then and when it is introduced, may create some difficulties. 
Mr O'Connor also pointed out section 395 is being amended in clause 11. That is the granting of exemptions from marine protection rules as long as they don't breach the emissions rules. Well, that actually could undermine the sorts of research that could take place into lower emissions vehicles, engines, technologies for carbon removal or sulphur removal, and may actually act as a disincentive to the sorts of research and development that might enable us to have lower emissions vessel fleets. 
So there's a lot to actually talk about here. It may be straightforward in so far as, well, it's a MARPOL agreement. Annex VI is one that we haven't signed up to, and a plethora of other countries have and only a handful haven't. That does not diminish this House's responsibility to ensure that we do embark on a rigorous examination of the legislation and the treaty that underpins it to make sure that this is a good bill in all respects. But I'm sure it can be improved, and I hope that the committee does have an appropriate period of time within which to do that.





SHANAN HALBERT (Labour—Northcote): Tēnā koe e te Māngai o te Whare. Good evening to you, Madam Speaker. It's my honour to rise this evening to give my opinion, feedback, and discussion points in regards to the Maritime Transport (MARPOL Annex VI) Amendment Bill this evening.
This afternoon, I missed out on my Budget debate, sadly, but I was so, so proud of this Government's Budget, an incredibly Labour Budget. I've been getting around Northcote all through recess week talking about the benefits to local people, to businesses, and in particular how this Government is getting on with addressing our foundational challenges. We know that there's child poverty, we know that there's inequality, but the third particular one is one that the Opposition just doesn't seem to listen to. It's our foundational challenge, Mr Luxon, to address climate change. What this Government did, in getting on with it, is declared an emergency, along with Minister James Shaw, to address climate change. The time is now. Our kids are telling us, generations are telling us, and awareness across Aotearoa New Zealand knows that climate change has to be addressed.
So that's what this Government has got on with with this Budget. I look forward to sharing more and more about the amazing things across the North Shore as well in their feedback.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): I invite the member to come back to this bill.
SHANAN HALBERT: Thank you; will do. But we know, when we look at climate change, that 47 percent of our carbon dioxide emissions come from transport—47 percent. All of us that sit on the Transport and Infrastructure Committee—led by the wonderful Greg O'Connor; he's very passionate this evening—know that we need to do something now. Just to discuss some of the previous points that were talked about, Mr Luxon said, "It's more actions—not just words from this Government." It's this Government, Mr Luxon, that's getting on with doing things. Then your colleague across the way is saying that he's concerned about a shortened select committee process. What is it that the Opposition want here? Do you want to get on with it, which we're able to? Or do you want to complain about the process and argue opposition for opposition's sake?
Well, now's the time, because we both live in Auckland, Tāmaki-makau-rau, the big smoke, where we're experiencing significant population growth, $67 billion investment in infrastructure, and that includes transport. We've got a number of projects that are supporting us to get these emissions down. This particular bill, we know—and that work will continue. You'll see a number of transport projects. Anyone that lives on the North Shore in Auckland, over the other side, anyone that lives in Auckland, knows that the behaviour in transport needs to change. We know that the investment in Crown infrastructure to deal with a modern transport system has seen under-investment for decades—under-investment for decades. So anyone in Auckland knows that the biggest complaint is we don't have a public transport system that's efficient, affordable, and ready to carry the number of Aucklanders. But—
Christopher Luxon: What is this to do with a maritime bill?
SHANAN HALBERT: We're talking about transport and climate change, Mr Luxon. You know.
So let me take you to our theories. Let me take you to Chelsea Sugar factory in my backyard. I'm sure many, many of us have all been there, that we've tasted the goodness of that particular place. It's a local maritime centre alongside all of our local ferries.
Christopher Luxon: He's sugar coating it.
SHANAN HALBERT: We're sugar coating it. But they know that they've had to adjust their business, that they've had to work really hard on sustainability plans, and that they've had to adjust product. They've had to create new customers coming in. But what I'm impressed about—and when I met with the CEO Bernard and when I visited Chelsea Sugar factory—was when they took me out to where their ships arrive to bring their stock in to the big factory, a local employer. They need our assistance. They need this Government to work with them. They wanted to start that discussion. So opportunities like this particular bill enable us to be able to do that because this Labour Government is about having conversations, getting things done, working through.
If we go back to—I think it was biofuels; was it biofuels? Labour, when last in Government, implemented a biofuels sales obligation. It was repealed in 2008, Barbara Kuriger, before it came into effect, by the previous National Government, which you were a part of. If the obligation had been implemented and continued with the levels of biofuels increasing after 2012—
Barbara Kuriger: How much?
SHANAN HALBERT: —to 7 percent for biodiesel and 10 percent for bioethanol—the Minister of Transport estimates that around six million tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions would have been avoided from 2008 to 2020. So getting things done, Barbara Kuriger—under this Government we're getting on with it.
This bill will enable us to align domestic legislation under the Maritime Transport Act 1994 with the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, which Cabinet agreed to accede to in 2019.
I just want to go over the consultation that has been able to get us to this point. The member complained about not having enough time, four months pushing it through select committee. I think it was 300 bills, I read, when we were doing the Māori wards debate, that National pushed through in urgency under the last Government. Correct me if I'm wrong, but happy to.
The consultation for this bill that's brought us to today is the formal public consultation that started in November of 2018. It continued for three months there, and the Ministry of Transport received 49 submissions during that consultation process, 44 of which were in favour of it—44 out of 49 were in favour. In addition to that, the Ministry of Transport has engaged with stakeholders and roundtables, and they've worked through this bill and heard them loudly and the issues that are in front of them. Also the Environment Committee sought public submissions on whether New Zealand should accede to the MARPOL Annex regulations in March 2020. So there's a good basis of evidence and information and submissions that have come in to support this bill. Four months, I appreciate, is not an incredibly long time, but given the information that we have, given the urgency of climate change, we need to move now.
Lastly, I just want to also acknowledge the work in relation to this from the Ministry of Transport. The pronunciation goes hīkina te kohupara transport emissions: pathways, that was released last week, which gives an insight for us how we get to net zero emissions by 2050. We've got to do this, and we've got to achieve this, and this particular bill helps us to do that. Like He Puapua, it's not a Government policy, but it is a consultation framework that enables us to understand where we're at with transport and how we will get to net zero emissions by 2050. We've got to do the work. We've got to do the mahi to get on with it. We've got to do it now. And we can't sit in opposition for opposition's sake when it comes to climate change. We've got foundational challenges that we've got to move on. Under this Government, we promised after COVID-19 when we build back we will build back better. Tēnā koutou.





Hon JAMES SHAW (Minister of Climate Change): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I'm very grateful to the comments from the previous speaker, Shanan Halbert, in relation to this. I actually have both a professional and a personal link to this because I happened to be advancing this whilst I was covering for Julie Anne Genter after the birth of her first child in 2018. The reason I say that is because the Hon Michael Woodhouse gave a sense that maybe this was all moving a bit quickly. I take the opposite view; I think that this has moved extraordinarily slowly and I'm extremely glad that something that I was trying to move forward in 2018, now, in 2021, is actually, finally, about to happen.
The previous Prime Minister Sir John Key said that when it came to climate change he thought that New Zealand should "not be a leader but a fast follower". Well, this treaty, MARPOL Annex VI, was agreed to in 1997, 24 years ago. It took effect in 2005, which was 16 years ago. Our Government kicked off the process of acceding to it in early 2018, three years ago—over three years ago. I think we have been anything but a fast follower.
As has been previously noted in the House, for many of the—well, in fact, the whole time I've had any association with it, MARPOL VI has only had two countries in the OECD that have not been members, us and Mexico. Frankly, it is embarrassing that it has taken us 25 years to accede to a treaty on, frankly, just the quality of the fuel that we stick into our ships.
Also, as previously noted by Greg O'Connor, and Michael Woodhouse asked for the reference to this—it came from Dr Gerda Kuschel who, quoted in a Stuff article in 2019, said that a rough calculation is that "emissions from a single cruise ship visiting here is the equivalent of 200,000 cars a day." That is the entire Wellington light-vehicle fleet per day in terms of the output of those ships. And, of course, there's not a lot of those cruise ships arriving at the moment, but for over half of the year, there are—or there have been, you know, when we had travel, those ships there and they were constantly running their engines whilst in port, not just in between ports but actually using them to power themselves whilst in port as well. And you can just see the air pollution in our harbours here in Wellington, in Auckland, and in Tauranga.
Maersk, the shipping company, do about a thousand visits to New Zealand a year. And, yes, the profile of a freight ship versus a cruise ship is marginally different, but if you can multiply 200,000 cars a day times a thousand visits a year from one shipping company, you get a sense of the scale of the pollution. When Maersk were trialling these cleaner fuels that are compliant with MARPOL VI, what they found was that they cut the pollution coming out of their exhaust gases by over 80 percent. So this is just basic hygiene and we are extremely late to the party as a country when it comes to just observing this very basic treaty.
Now, it's also kind of one of those things where we have considered it and we have consulted and we've held workshops and we've talked to everybody who is involved at a time when 98 percent of the world's shipping is already complaint with it, right? To coin a phrase: the ship has sailed on this one. We're just catching up to the rest of the world on it.
So my view is we absolutely need to support this. Obviously, it will make a huge difference to air quality because shipping emissions, particularly when they're docked in the harbour, increase nitrous oxides. There's particulates in the air; air quality monitors in downtown Auckland have shown significant increases in air pollutants over recent years which come from the ships docked in Auckland harbour, and so on. We're talking about fuels here that have been described as Marmite-like; thick, black, viscous, basically the lowest grade fuels available to humankind. So all this really does is to get rid of those and say that we're actually going to observe—
Simon Court: Apart from coal.
Hon JAMES SHAW: —other than coal—a higher quality of fuel in our ships. 
Now, there is something that I should mention here, because this obviously has an intersection with climate change and the commitments that we've made. Now, international aviation and international shipping, neither of those are covered by the Paris Agreement, right? So the only place to handle emissions from international shipping and international aviation is through these separate agreements. When it comes to international aviation, of course, it's the Carbon Offsetting and Reduction Scheme for International Aviation (CORSIA) agreement. When it comes to shipping, it's MARPOL. Now, some countries are moving to integrate their international aviation and shipping emissions into their national greenhouse gas inventories. The draft advice of the Climate Change Commission that came out in February of this year—when you look at the modelling that they've produced, they've actually left some buffer zone on there. I guess the probability that they're calculating was that we will probably follow that trend and start to incorporate them, particularly given where we are located in the world and the fact that we are a trading nation, that we're highly dependent on tourism, and that both aviation and shipping are absolutely central functions of our economy.
It kind of doesn't make sense to ignore aviation and shipping emissions when it comes to our commitments, but the problem with leaving shipping and aviation outside Paris is that you then kind of forget about them as a country. Everybody focuses on all of the things that we have to do which are inside the Paris Agreement, and that's well and good, but, actually, we do have these very significant emissions that occur outside and that are dealt with through their separate treaties. And so, again, I think that acceding to this treaty and bringing in a higher standard of fuels, at least in our shipping fleets, means that we can start to actually drive down the emissions relating to this component. As I said, we're extremely late to the party when it comes to that and it's about time that we cracked on with it.
So I am delighted that this is finally in the House. I'm delighted that New Zealand is finally acceding to it. For me it should have happened decades ago, frankly, but it is better late than never at all. And so this is one treaty I say, "Let's get on with it."





SIMON COURT (ACT): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It is positive that 44 of the 49 submitters agreed with this bill, this Maritime Transport (MARPOL Annex VI) Amendment Bill, to prevent air pollution from ships. It's good to reduce the amount of sulphur emitted into the atmosphere, nitrogen oxides, but one of the concerns raised by submitters is not that the time taken to get this legislation over the line has taken too long; it's 1996, it's 2005, it's taken too long, but actually in order to convert New Zealand's ships to a low-sulphur fuel—and we're talking about the two dozen or so coastal ships, those ones so dear to the hearts of my comrades on the other side of the House, so passionate about coastal shipping, who want to stand up for their shipmates and the sailors' welfare. We know all about the welfare of seamen; it's been discussed in this House a number of times. But what I'm concerned about is how quickly this bill rushes New Zealand shippers to a place that is a very high cost and very difficult to comply with.
I'll give you an example. In addition to the low-sulphur requirements, the bill also requires that ports provide facilities to treat ballast water. Now, we know how harmful ballast water can be to marine biodiversity. Ballast water sometimes can be, on the larger ships, up to a hundred million litres, or 50 percent of the weight of cargo carried by those ships as they come into a port like Auckland or Northport. When those ships take on freight, like logs, for example, or our dairy products, they have to discharge that ballast water into the harbours so that the ships stay on an even keel, and that ballast water can contain marine bio-organisms and other contaminants. Now, what this bill proposes to do is to require ports to provide facilities to receive that ballast water. You might say, "Well, that's a good idea, because we don't want those harmful marine pests contaminating our marine ecosystems. So that's what we should do." But, in fact, I've visited Ports of Auckland recently. I've had a look at their operation. They've made extensive investments of space and infrastructure to provide for cement siloes, to provide for storage of all kinds of bulk products, motor vehicles, plant and equipment, sensitive products and materials that need to be protected in big warehouses, and so on. I would find it very difficult to locate anything like the size of water treatment plant needed to treat a hundred million litres of ballast water from a single ship.
So, despite the best intentions, like so many of this Government's policies, where they fail is in the execution and delivery, actually understanding what it is that businesses like major ports need to do to operate successfully, how constrained they already are by failed legislation, decades-old, failed legislation—
Hon David Parker: You won't learn from that Auckland.
SIMON COURT: —like that Minister Parker's failed Resource Management Act, that he has failed to bring to the House and offer a solution to New Zealand's developers and infrastructure operators. And this bill does nothing to actually resolve the issues. All it does is create another imposition on these ports, which, in many cases, are locally owned by local councils. They have a severe lack of capital. They're artificially constrained in how they might operate efficiently and safely and meet environmental obligations by the extremely poor environmental and planning rules that already govern their operations. So to impose this additional requirement on them to provide ballast water treatment facilities seems entirely unreasonable, impractical, unworkable, no expense spared.
It was very disappointing also to hear some of my colleagues on this side of the House describe this legislation as simply a box-ticking exercise and really describe a confidence in Government that the ACT Party feels is absolutely misplaced. This is not a box-ticking exercise. This is material to the performance of our coastal shipping fleet—that shipping fleet so dear to the heart of our comrades—and it actually underpins our infrastructure delivery. So I'm talking about the Aotearoa Chief, that bulk cement carrier operating out of Golden Bay and Northport. I'm talking about the Spirit of Canterbury, Silver Fern Shipping, Matuku, the StraitNZ Bluebridge Cook Strait ferries Straitsman and Strait Feronia. All of these ships rely on having access to good-quality fuels, but they also need time to achieve compliance. It's not correct that New Zealand is the last on the list. There are many other shipping hubs in the world struggling to supply sufficient quantities of low-sulphur fuel to their shipping fleets and New Zealand, with 5 million customers at the bottom of the ocean, is not a high priority for them. 
The other issue that's being canvassed is: where will we get the low-sulphur fuel from? So if it's a refinery in Singapore that may well be the case. We know the New Zealand refining company is exploring options to a transition—an unjust transition, no doubt—from a refining operation with the loss of hundreds of high-paid jobs to simply a storage tank facility. And I'm sure that our comrades on the other side of the House would be happy to go and have a conversation, a conversation with the workers in Northland, those highly paid workers who are facing the loss of their jobs and being nothing more but pump operators at an onshore storage facility, not to mention the lack of economic resilience that that induces. So if we are going to transition to low-sulphur fuels for marine use, the New Zealand Government has a potential role to play in evaluating what volume that is, if there's a public good, the balance of public versus private good, and why this entire cost should be imposed on an industry that internationally has demonstrated they're very successfully migrating to a low-sulphur fuel for marine use. 
Around 10 percent of the world's fleet remains stuck with low-sulphur fuels. A large proportion of them operate in countries that are still not signatories. There are 99 signatories out of all the world's countries. So New Zealand is actually blessed that many of the ships and shipping companies already coming to New Zealand comply with these rules, but they're not getting their fuel in New Zealand. They're coming here bunkered up; they're not buying fuel in New Zealand. So the issue really affects most severely our own coastal shipping fleet. And it's for that reason, when we look at the submissions, the majority of submitters recognised the need to address climate change risk. They agree that meeting the conditions of the treaty will benefit New Zealand's international reputation. However, they are extremely concerned about the time frames and the cost of getting hold of this fuel and what kind of port facilities will be required to receive waste residues from the low-sulphur fuel management systems that might be required on ships, as well as the ballast waters. 
They're also concerned as to what kind of regulations might apply if they were to use, say, what they call a wet open loop scrubber that actually discharges the sulphur into the ocean, which is permitted under international maritime rules. So whether those types of systems would be permitted by New Zealand's harsh and onerous environmental regulations, irrespective of the costs or benefits to the environment, we don't know. It's not mentioned here. 
So public consultation was in 2018. There's been a number of things that have affected the world economy in shipping since then. We all know about COVID and the effect that that's had on supply chains, not to mention other issues affecting our port operations in Auckland, its automation; places like Timaru, its failing infrastructure and having wooden bollards rip out of the docks; and CentrePort in Wellington falling into the sea following an earthquake. So there's a whole lot of issues affecting our port infrastructure that need to be looked at in the context of a transition to low-sulphur fuels, a national strategy for storage to meet the International Energy Agency's requirement to hold 90 days of fuel in New Zealand. Without a refinery, New Zealand has nothing but an IOU to call on if we run low on fuel. We can't guarantee 90 days. We don't meet the International Energy Agency's requirements. 
So while the ACT Party will support this bill at the first reading, we have serious reservations. This is not a box-ticking exercise like some of our colleagues on this side of the House have suggested. I can't imagine that the port operators around New Zealand would be happy to hear that's how other parties feel about it. The ACT Party will support it to first reading but we'll be asking very hard questions of the Minister and officials. Thank you very much.





PAUL EAGLE (Labour—Rongotai): Talofa, Madam Speaker, and what a pleasure it is to speak in the House this evening. It's been some time, but only yesterday was I with the Chatham Islands Enterprise Trust, who manage the critical, vital shipping service for those living on the Chathams and interacting—I guess is the right word—with the mainland. That interaction was an educational one, because after many years, it's time to look at a new ship to service the nearly 700 people who live on the islands that make up the Chathams. One of the key things in that meeting or in that conversation was around vessel type, partnering with the coastal shipping service of New Zealand, and having a deep and meaningful conversation about how they can package this up for economic reasons but also best service for Chatham Islanders.
But one thing I noticed that underpinned that was the willingness from the consultants there, the team that came to see the Minister of Transport, around the desire to say, "How do we help Aotearoa New Zealand become carbon neutral by 2050?" They'd done their research. They'd gone back and said, "Look, let's not argue around whether this is in or out." The reality is that this is part of the future of shipping in Aotearoa New Zealand, and so that's what impressed me most.
I believe that the sector, the shipping service around this country, is saying, "We know we need to do this. It's being done for the right reason." They certainly were watching the release of the climate change report, which comes through today, and they are pre-empting that. That gives me every confidence that some of our concerns and issues that are being expressed, primarily from that side of the House, are unfounded, because they know that that's how a modern shipping service operates. They know that there are certain minimum standards that are expected.
The key thing is that they—who have been operating without technology and many of the other luxuries that have become the norm for us on the mainland—are now ready to make their own transition, because technology is coming to the island with the first cellphone network, which will help other parts of the environment, particularly in fisheries with on-boat cameras, for example. But they too expect that the way that things used to be done will be now no longer. 
So can I just reaffirm to you that sometimes when you're confronted with the reality of shipping, you learn a lot, and you often talk to people who have been in the business for many, many years, with their expertise around running a shipping service, being part of the old school, the old way of doing things, but embracing the new way, looking at what it means to be carbon neutral by 2050, and picking up on some of these concerns. It's interesting, because I thought, "Oh, wow, tomorrow that's coming up in the House.", and here we are talking about a critical service for part of Aotearoa New Zealand and an enterprise or group of people who are saying, "How do we now deliver on that?" So there was no debate. There was no argument. It was just factored in as part of doing business for the future.
It's interesting. I thought that when reading their notes too, and I just want to embrace or reaffirm the words of James Shaw when he said it's been far too long. I couldn't believe it myself when I looked at how many years. He said 25 years. I thought "Wow."—and only us and Mexico. I love Mexican food, but sometimes we don't want to be—I think we can do better than Mexico in this particular aspect. So it surprises me—because I think that we do so many good things, but there are some things where I just don't understand why it's taken so long.
So can I acknowledge the Ministers involved—Ministers Mahuta, Parker, and Wood—for their combined efforts, and the select committee, the Environment Committee, for their work around hearing those submissions and actually trudging it along and getting it to the finish line.
So I'm really proud to be speaking on this. I sit on the Transport and Infrastructure Committee, so we will be considering it, and I expect to have a robust debate with the maritime community, the coastal shipping service, and the stakeholders involved, who have submitted before and talked about their concerns—and I think it's fortunate timing with the Climate Change Commission report that will be coming through the House. I think we have 10 days to get it on the Table. So that means that we can have the robustness of a debate and bring the conversation together and actually address some of these concerns.
When I look at the purpose of the bill—because sometimes we get a bit emotional about these things but forget about what the purpose is—it says here in the explanatory note that the bill makes changes to the Maritime Transport Act 1994 to ensure the rule-making and enforcement provisions in the Act provide the authority required to fully implement the legal obligations of MARPOL Annex VI. So, hey, that can't be disputed. I think if we look at Part 1 and Part 2 and bring those together, you have a piece of work here where I don't think I need to say too much more, because it speaks for itself. As I said, I'm looking forward to being part of the select committee to further this work. I commend this bill to the House.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): The next call is a split call. 





BARBARA KURIGER (National—Taranaki - King Country): Thank you, Madam Speaker, and I would reiterate some of the comments of the previous speaker, Paul Eagle, when he mentions that this has taken quite a long time. Yes, it was 1998 when New Zealand first signed up to this. I've learnt a bit, actually, in the House tonight, even listening to some of the other speakers, and particularly when Minister Shaw talked about how around the world this is 98 percent done, and now we're actually doing the bits to finish it off. So National does support this bill. It's a positive step towards a shipping sector that is cleaner and healthier.
What I would like to comment on, largely, around this is the process. So this time, we've got the bill, the bill's going to select committee, we've got a four-month process here, and we have a national interest analysis that's very well-thought-out. I'm sure people that are more knowledgeable than me have had lots of input into this, and we will have lots more comments about this national interest analysis. I just want to make the point that while four months is a shorter time than normal, in relation to the oil and gas legislation, that was four weeks when the Government actually wouldn't even come to Taranaki and bring a select committee day out there. So when we look at climate change, and we're doing this bill in the name of climate change, I cannot believe that we did four weeks—four weeks—of submission, did it really quickly, and now the result is a massive nine-year high of Indonesian coal, which I'm sure was unforeseen by Minister Parker and his colleagues because the lack of investment in gas has taken the gas out of the system. And I can only hope—and reiterate; I've said before tonight—that some of the rain that's just devastated South Canterbury has actually made its way to the hydro dams. 
I'm banking on the fact tonight that, after listening to Shanan Halbert's speech, the Speaker is being quite lenient and that there is a bit of leeway, given that it's the first reading and there's lots of things to discuss. I also picked up before that Minister Shaw talked about shipping and aviation being outside the Paris Agreement. So this is a global agreement where we've got those two things, shipping and aviation, who are working together to get a global answer. And I sit here and I look at Minister Parker and I think, "Why can't we do that with methane, actually, from dairy cows?", because if you want to look at the efficiency of a globe as a whole, I think there should be more effort put into trying to get some sort of agreement, because we know that the climate efficiency of this country is the best in the world. So if we're looking at global agreements, I just want to throw that on the table, because I think there's probably going to be a better way than where we're tracking at the moment. And we said that with the gas ban permit, so we've just got to be careful what road we go down.
We recognise, in National, that New Zealand needs to play its part. We need to play our part and we're all happy to play our part, and we want to get to 2050 just like the Government does, right? But most of the time in Parliament, we don't argue about the end goal; we just argue about how to get there. And that is the problem. Because we can often see faster ways and better ways and, unfortunately, we get frustrated when we see various forms of energy are running out while there is no just transition and there is no plan for a new future—and we're excited about the new energies, too, but we want to see them in quantity. Shanan Halbert also talked about biofuel tonight. So the infrastructure in Firstgas can carry biofuel, it can carry hydrogen, it can do all these things—and I know I'm sidetracking here, but it can do all these things. The problem is we don't have those things yet. So why don't we have a much more sensible conversation about that while we're going through this process, because we know that emissions from transport and industrial heat are two of our biggest problems, and this bill is a step in the right direction, and I'm really glad that this Government has allowed four months for us to have the discussion so we can do this much better than we have done some other things. Thank you.





Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): There seems to be some misunderstanding amongst some members as to what this bill does. It does reduce particulate pollution from marine fuels, it doesn't reduce carbon dioxide—carbon in, carbon out. So it has virtually no impact on carbon dioxide emissions.
Can I thank other members for their contributions in respect of this—Christopher Luxon, Government members, they all got that this was essentially about marine fuels, and although there's a tangential reference in there to ballast water, I was somewhat bemused by the ACT Party's constant reference to ballast water when this is mainly about gases and sulphur dioxide. In the end, I thought that, once again, the ACT Party had to find objection to any form of regulation, even good regulation, and I concluded that, really, Simon Court is the Dennis Denuto of the ACT Party—it's the treaty, it's MARPOL, it's the vibe of the thing.





TERISA NGOBI (Labour—Ōtaki): Faafetai i lau Afioga le Fofoga o le Maota. Can I first just quickly acknowledge Vaiaso o le Gagana Samoa / Samoan Language Week, and also Samoan Independence Day today.
It's a privilege and an honour, as always, to be able to get up and take a call on this maritime transport amendment bill, which addresses the impact of shipping emissions by aligning domestic legislation with the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships. This bill also provides a Minister with the power to make rules around maritime protection. 
But I just wanted to pick up on the push in terms of, actually, the full mahi that this Government is doing in terms of climate change, and so this bill is part of that bigger mahi, part of that bigger work. So for me, and the Ōtaki electorate, we have many of our Kiribati community that have had to come to New Zealand, come to Ōtaki electorate, and while they're grateful to be in New Zealand, grateful to be able to still practise their traditions and cultures, they miss their motherland. They wish they could still be in Kiribati, but due to climate change and the erosion of their islands, they've had to come to New Zealand. So for me, on many levels, the climate change—and as the Rt Hon Jacinda Ardern has said, this is a climate change crisis at the moment, and so this bill, and the other work that this Government are doing in terms of the climate change space, I absolutely support, and I commend this bill to the House.





Hon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): It's always an embarrassment when a new member of Parliament comes ill prepared to a debate like this and creates a speech of the sort that we've just heard. Because this is a bill that actually isn't to do with Kiribati. It isn't to do with the potential refugees from climate change activities. It's a relatively simple bill that the Government's introduced, a little bit belatedly but at least they've introduced it. It's a bill that is a small step in the right direction and it's a bill that seeks to bring New Zealand into line with the international regime that has been agreed by almost every other country in the world. 
Some would say that we've actually been a little bit slow in this area. Part of the reason we've been a little bit slow is because we are a small isolated country at the bottom of the South Pacific, where shipping and airline activity is fundamental to everything we do. The only way in and out of our island nation is by air or by sea. We are an exporting nation. We are a country that depends on trading in the world. And what happens is that for years and years and years the fuel that's used on ships that ply the waters in and out of New Zealand has been fuel that is not the most environmentally sound and has a higher than one would want degree of sulphur component. So this legislation is the result of work that has been done over a long number of years and it is, as my colleague Christopher Luxon earlier on in this debate stated, an actual Act, that there's something going to be done. It's not just a slogan. It's not just political speak. This is an Act that will have an impact, a physical impact, that will actually be of benefit. That's unusual for this Labour socialist Government because they are usually a Government that spends a lot of time talking about slogans, talking about left-wing doctrine, talking about trade unions, and talking about things that have no particular physical impact. But this piece of legislation is different. It does have an impact and it's probably not before time.
I sat on the Environment Committee that between March and June of 2020 considered our obligations under the MARPOL Annex VI treaty of international obligations. We heard from a number of submitters, not the least of which was the recently retired executive director of the New Zealand Shipping Federation, Annabel Young. And I want to commend to the House—she's a former member of this Chamber, and she is a person who has, during her time with the New Zealand Shipping Federation, acted diligently, carefully, and with great advocacy on behalf of the Shipping Federation and their members that ply the waters around coastal New Zealand. What she emphasised at select committee, when we were considering it back in 2020, was that they believed the official advice underemphasised the likely impact of higher fuel prices and the difficulty of sourcing supply. 
So here we have the practical challenge that comes with a good environmental step but it comes at a cost. It comes at a price. That's the trade-off that we have to make often in environmental matters—that doing the right thing does have a cost. And so in this case, the cost will be a higher impost on ships that are arriving and leaving New Zealand waters. The fuel that they use will be cleaner and more environmentally sound, and that's a good thing. But there will be a cost and the cost ultimately flows on to consumers and individuals and is yet a further impact on the cost of living. But that's a trade-off that we as a Parliament and we as a society are happy to make because the environmental benefits are in this case, I think, worthy of the trade-off. 
So the National Party is going to support this legislation to select committee. We're looking forward to what will, I think, be a useful analysis by the select committee. I'm grateful that the Government has given, I think, a reasonable amount of time, not a long amount of time, but a reasonable amount of time for—
Barbara Kuriger: Good for their standards.
Hon SCOTT SIMPSON: Yeah, good by their standards; not necessarily good by traditional democratic standards of New Zealand, but good by their standards. They'd almost say that this was, probably, open and transparent. Well, it doesn't quite reach that mark, but it's a modest step in the right direction. So the select committee will give due consideration, and I won't be at all surprised that the New Zealand Shipping Federation will make a submission along with a number of other international shipping organisations. And I'm sure that the environmental non-Governmental organisations will also want to make their contribution. 
So in terms of where we go on this piece of legislation, we take our typically blue-green approach. We want to see that the elements of sustainability are at the core of this decision making. We are, of course, on this side of the Parliament, the party of practical environmentalism—
Christopher Luxon: Get stuff done.
Hon SCOTT SIMPSON: —and we get stuff done, as Christopher Luxon says. We get stuff done. So we'll be looking carefully at the legislation. We'll be looking at the wording, what it means—what it means for shipping organisations and what it means in terms of our overall economic impact, and, of course, what it means for individual New Zealand consumers. So, on that note, I'm happy to join with my colleagues in supporting this bill to select committee, and we'll see how it goes.





HELEN WHITE (Labour): Talofa lava. I just want to make two short points about this bill. This bill will actually do something really significant for our community. It's about climate change, yes, but I just want to talk for a second about the health issues involved in this. The study that I read—it's called Mission Possible—showed that worldwide, if we adopt this standard, it will save 40,000 lives a year. That's a lot of lives, and it's worth remembering. I commend this bill to the House.
Motion agreed to.
Bill read a first time. 
Bill referred to the Transport and Infrastructure Committee.
The House adjourned at 9.56 p.m.