WEDNESDAY, 16 FEBRUARY 2022
The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.
KARAKIA/PRAYERS
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): Ke tau lotu. 'E 'Otua Mafimafi, kuo mau taa'i mālie 'i ho'o 'ofá mo e ngaahi tāpuaki hono kotoa. 'Oku tuku homau lotó ka mau hū atu ke ke malu'i ange mu'a 'a e Kuiní, mo tataki 'emau fua fatongia 'i he Fale Aleá 'aki 'a e poto Faka-'Otua, 'ofa pea mo e 'ulungaanga malū, ko e 'uhí ko e mo'ui mo e melino 'a e fonuá. 'Oku mau kole atu 'a e ngaahi me'á ni hono kotoa 'i he huafa ho 'alo ka ko homau fakamo'uí, 'Emeni.





PETITIONS, PAPERS, SELECT COMMITTEE REPORTS, AND INTRODUCTION OF BILLS
SPEAKER: No papers have been presented. No bills have been introduced. 
A petition has been delivered to Clerk for presentation
CLERK: Petition of Save the Children New Zealand requesting that the House retain the Children's Commissioner as a named role with authority to report directly to the Prime Minister, and consult with children before progressing the Oversight of Oranga Tamariki System and Children and Young People's Commission Bill.
SPEAKER: That petition stands referred to the Petitions Committee.
Select committee reports have been delivered for presentation.
CLERK: Reports of the Environment Committee:on the 2020/21 annual review of the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, andon the petition of Vandana Erin Ryder.





ORAL QUESTIONS
QUESTIONS TO MINISTERSQuestion No. 1—Finance
1. Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central) to the Minister of Finance: On what date will Budget 2022 be delivered, and what will its priorities be?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): I'm pleased to inform the House that Budget 2022 will be delivered on Thursday, 19 May. We will continue to progress the goals the Government set at the start of this parliamentary term to keep New Zealanders safe from COVID-19, accelerate the recovery, and rebuild from the impacts of COVID-19, and lay the foundations for the future, including addressing key issues such as our climate change response, housing affordability, and child poverty. Our investments in Budget 2022 will be guided by the enduring objectives that were set at the first Wellbeing Budget and are based on evidence, advice, data, and science as to the areas that New Zealand needs to focus on to meet the long-term opportunities and challenges that we have. The Budget will include a particular focus this year on the Government's health reforms and investing to meet our climate change goals.
Dr Duncan Webb: How will health be addressed through Budget 2022?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: COVID-19 has highlighted how vital a joined-up and prepared health system is for protecting New Zealanders. There is also longstanding evidence that our health system has not delivered equitable outcomes, particularly for Māori. Budget 2022 will make significant investments in establishing the new entities on a sustainable basis that will replace district health boards, and begin delivery of the health system shifts envisaged through reform. Managing rising healthcare costs will be a major challenge in the coming decades, and we need to ensure that the new entities have a solid base for tackling that challenge. The Budget will also begin a multi-year approach to funding the health sector. Initially, this will be a two-year funding path, and then, from 2024, we will move to three-year funding, in line with New Zealand's first health plan. This approach is essential to give certainty to the sector and to tackle our long-term health challenges.
Dr Duncan Webb: How will climate change be addressed in Budget 2022?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: We're also investing in initiatives to reduce emissions and meet our climate goals. As we announced at the Budget Policy Statement on 15 December last year, the Climate Emergency Response Fund will hypothecate or recycle the revenue generated from the emissions trading scheme (ETS) into emissions reduction projects from 2022 on. This fund has been established with $4.5 billion from the ETS based on forecast proceeds over the next four years. This will ensure an enduring multi-year funding mechanism to support our transition to a low-emission, climate-resilient economy in a way that protects vulnerable families.
Dr Duncan Webb: What is the economic environment in which Budget 2022 will be delivered?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The economic conditions that we face are constantly evolving as a result of the Omicron outbreak and global supply constraints and other conditions. We face Omicron in a strong fiscal position, and we will continue to protect the lives and livelihoods of New Zealanders and address long-term challenges. The Government's books are forecast to return to surplus in 2023-24, three years earlier than forecast at the Budget in May. Our balanced approach has seen net debt forecast to peak at 40.1 percent of GDP, compared to 48 percent at Budget 2021. We will continue to take a balanced approach that prioritises important projects that need to be done, along with the ongoing need for fiscal sustainability.




Question No. 2—Prime Minister
2. CHRISTOPHER LUXON (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Does she stand by all of her Government's statements and actions?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN (Prime Minister): Yes. In particular, I continue to stand by our decision to increase the minimum wage to $21.20. This Government remains committed to supporting New Zealanders by raising their wages, and we continue to stand by this policy that will directly benefit approximately 300,000 workers—many of whom who have gone above and beyond during the pandemic. Our position has not changed; just as, I see, the member's position of not having a position has not changed either.
Christopher Luxon: Does she agree with the Salvation Army, who said today that housing has become "more than a crisis, it is a catastrophe.", and does she think rents going up $7,280 annually, under her Government, has made things better or worse for vulnerable New Zealanders?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I absolutely agree we have a housing crisis, and the member across the aisle belongs to a party that when in Government refused to acknowledge that, and that is why they did not build enough houses. It's absolutely clear that we continue to play catch-up, and the Salvation Army will know well the work that we are doing, given we have partnered with them in our building programmes—many of which are innovative in the way that we are trying to partner together to grow supply. We have created over 8,000 housing places since we've been in Government we will not stop there. I'd be interested to hear what the member's plan is, because, so far, he's opposed every initiative to grow housing stock. 
Christopher Luxon: Why should anyone believe this Government is serious about tackling benefit dependency and hardship, when there are 37,000 more children growing up in a benefit-dependent home than when she became Prime Minister? 
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I have to say I am surprised, because I thought the member may actually move away from the tired old tropes of the National Party when it comes to Government support. I would like to reflect, also, so that we can actually make sure that we're dealing in the facts: if you look at a quarter-by-quarter analysis of this period post one of the biggest crises we've had in a hundred years, we currently have, roughly, 11 percent of our population on main benefits versus post the global financial crisis (GFC) 13 percent. So, despite the fact this has been a huge crisis, on this side of the House we have supported people to get back into work and done so, some might argue, more successfully than even after the GFC.
Christopher Luxon: Is it her Government's approach simply to make poverty a slightly less miserable experience or does she agree the best approach to tackling hardship is to get people back into work and independence?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Again, deep irony being asked in that question by the leader of a party who saw child poverty worsen; when, on this side of the House, we, against nine indicators of child poverty, have turned each of them around. Is there more work to do? Absolutely, which is why we have increased funding into the flexi-wage to support businesses to take on workers who may be receiving Government support; why we created Mana in Mahi, which has seen our young people into training and education; why we brought back the full training incentive allowance, which, of course, the National Party when in Government slashed. We have a record of moving people into work and we have done that; if you look at the National Party, sadly, they did the opposite.
Christopher Luxon: Does she believe work is the fundamental source of people's dignity and that under her Government the number of Kiwis dependent upon a benefit, instead of being able to provide for themselves through work, has increased significantly?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I do believe that work is the source of dignity; I'm the Leader of the Labour Party. I also believe that work should also be able to put food on the table, which is why I support an increase in the minimum wage, and, clearly, that member does not.
Christopher Luxon: If she can't get people from welfare into work and independence now, at a time of low unemployment and widespread labour shortages, when will she?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I'd actually point out again, based on fact, that the Government has. Because of its investment in things like the wage subsidy and our programmes like the flexi-wage, Mana in Mahi, and our other investments, particularly in young people, we have 96,273 people less on the main benefits than Treasury forecast. Our efforts have actually outstripped the expectation that many had around the number of people who would require Government support during what has been a one-in-100-year economic crisis.
CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Does she accept that under Labour more Kiwis are getting trapped on a benefit for longer and more children are growing up in benefit-dependent homes because her Government can't get people from welfare into work?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Again, I utterly reject the member's assertion. I'm going to come back again to the facts. If you compare the percentage of working-age population on a benefit in December 2021, it was 11.7 percent, compared to 13.1 percent in the December 2010 quarter, when the National Government was in and we'd experienced the GFC. What we have just experienced was profoundly worse and yet we have done better than in the GFC. Also, the number of people on a benefit for one to two years who went into work in the last quarter increased by 96 percent; those on a benefit for two to four years saw the year-on-year exit into work rise by 129 percent. The member, I'm afraid, is not looking at the facts.




Question No. 3—Health
3. Dr ANAE NERU LEAVASA (Labour—Takanini) to the Minister of Health: What recent announcements has he made about online mental health support for parents?
Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Health): On Friday, I announced the Positive Parenting Programme—Triple P—and this suite of online programmes offers practical advice, easy-to-use resources, and strategies for parents to help their children and teens cope with life's ups and downs. Just as the vaccine programme has been key, supporting mental wellbeing has also been a vital part of this Government's response to COVID-19.
Dr Anae Neru Leavasa: Who will be able to access the Triple P programme?
Hon ANDREW LITTLE: During last year's Delta lockdown, the programmes were made available to parents in Auckland. We received very positive feedback from that, and now the programme will be available to parents anywhere in the country. We know COVID-19 has caused stress for many families, with worries about money, work, and schooling, and all of this affects people's mental health. This is about supporting parents and children to manage their wellbeing over the long term.
Dr Anae Neru Leavasa: What supports are available through the Triple P programme?
Hon ANDREW LITTLE: The free Triple P suite of online programmes that are available include Triple P online, teen Triple P online, and fear-less Triple P online. We know that this pandemic has been particularly tough on young people, and, for some, the return to school after an extended break may add to the stress. These programmes enable parents to help their children and teens get on top of anxiety and become more happy, confident, and resilient, and I would encourage anyone who wishes to access the programme to go to www.triplep-parenting.net.nz.




Question No. 4—Finance
Hon SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga): Does he stand by all of his statements and actions on new spending in Budget 2022?
SPEAKER: Have one more go.
4. Hon SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga) to the Minister of Finance: Does he stand by all of his statements and actions on spending in Budget 2022?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): Yes, in the context in which they were made and undertaken.
Hon Simon Bridges: In light of his statement to me last week that "a big chunk" of his $6 billion of new spending in Budget 2022 is "making sure that we reform the health system", does he accept that this expensive Labour Government restructuring won't deliver a single new hip or cataract operation, won't speed up immunisation or emergency department waiting times, and won't deliver any more ICU beds, in and of itself?
SPEAKER: The Minister can answer one or more of the four questions.
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: No, I do not accept that. What I do accept is that New Zealanders have learnt through the COVID-19 pandemic the importance of a well-funded, joined-up health system. That is what we will be delivering. We cannot go on with the things that have failed. The National Party, as ever, would like to do nothing, but, on this side of the House, we believe New Zealanders deserve better.
Hon Simon Bridges: How could he tell me with a straight face last week that not spending billions on an expensive restructure is equivalent to "health cuts", when the restructure itself won't deliver any more services or benefits, other than to highly paid Wellington consultants?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The member is just plain wrong. On this side of the House, we know what it takes to invest in the health system, unlike the Opposition over there, and whatever spin Mr Bridges wants to put on it, a Government that invests in the healthcare system of New Zealand is one that is investing in the future of New Zealand. Every single New Zealander knows the National Party's record on health: cut, cut, cut.
Hon Simon Bridges: Is he really saying that either everyone agrees with every last dollar of his $6 billion in new spending—the biggest Budget spend ever—or it's simply signing up for health cuts?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: No. What I'm saying is the National Party have a track record of heath cuts, and, on this side of the House, we know that the answer to delivering New Zealanders the health services that they deserve is not to do nothing; it's actually to get on with the job of supporting people. And I would add: if the Opposition say to us that there is no inequity in health, that we don't need to do more for Māori, and that we don't need to do more for rural New Zealand, well, that's fine, but that is not correct.
Hon Simon Bridges: How about he actually just deliver more services rather than wasting a whole lot of money on fancily paid Wellington consultants?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Over the last four years, I have been working hard with the Minister of Health and with the Ministry of Health to make up for the fact that the previous National Government had two years where they decided there needed to be no capital investment in health—none; none whatsoever. That is the legacy of that side. On this side, we're going to get on with delivering to New Zealanders the health system that they deserve.
Hon Simon Bridges: Won't his "big chunk" of his unprecedented $6 billion spend-up, that's to be spent on health restructuring—
SPEAKER: Order! Order! Now, I have been pretty flexible with the member, and I think he knows that, but I am going to haul him back into asking straight questions. Thank you.
Hon Simon Bridges: Won't his "big chunk" of his $6 billion in new spending, that's to be spent on health restructuring, simply result in uncertainty and disruption in our health system, and, on top of that, more inflationary pain for New Zealanders, so that the best thing to do is scrap that wasteful spending right now in advance of his Budget 2022?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: No, and none of David Farrar's talking points are going to work, Mr Bridges, because New Zealanders want health spending that makes sure that they're able to live their lives well, that makes sure mental health services are available—that's the commitment of this Government. The do-nothing, typical National Party approach is what put New Zealand's health services at risk. We've been fixing it for four years; we're going to keep fixing it.
SPEAKER: There's a lot of people who want to take calls from their seats, but I think we'll go on to question No. 5.




Question No. 5—Foreign Affairs
5. Hon EUGENIE SAGE (Green) to the Minister of Foreign Affairs: Will Aotearoa New Zealand be supporting a target of protection for 30 percent of the world's oceans in negotiations on the Global Oceans Treaty at the United Nations in March; if not, why not? 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Attorney-General) on behalf of the Minister of Foreign Affairs: Aotearoa New Zealand is committed to seeking the conclusion of a new United Nations agreement on marine biodiversity beyond national jurisdiction. The convention is needed to halt the ongoing decline that we see in these areas and to promote restoration as well as sustainable use of marine biodiversity in these areas beyond national jurisdiction—the long title is sometimes shortened to BBNJ. We're seeking wording in both the BBNJ and the concurrent negotiations towards a new global biodiversity framework that reflects strong qualitative elements as well as an acknowledgment of indigenous rights. The 30 percent proposal is under consideration. 
Hon Eugenie Sage: Does the Minister recognise the value of marine protected areas on the high seas in protecting habitats and species, helping fish stocks recover, and providing resilience with a changing climate and rising sea surface temperatures, and, if not, why not? 
Hon DAVID PARKER: Yes—absolutely. But we're advised, and we accept advice from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, that in order to have an effective convention, you need strong qualitative elements, not just targets. I'm not decrying the importance of targets, but without qualitative elements to support outcomes that include ecological representation and connectivity and management effectiveness, the convention just would not work. 
Hon Eugenie Sage: What is the Minister's view on the commitment in the Carbis Bay communique from the G7 summit in Cornwall last June "to champion ambitious and effective … biodiversity targets, including … protecting … at least 30 per cent of the global ocean by 2030."? 
Hon DAVID PARKER: As I'm answering that on behalf of the Minister, I'm not aware of that particular quote. 
Hon Eugenie Sage: Does the Minister agree that the Government has a strong public mandate to push for a target of 30 percent of the world's oceans being protected by 2030 after the delivery of a 60,000-signature petition in support to Parliament last week; if not, why not? 
Hon DAVID PARKER: On behalf of the Minister: I was alongside the member when that petition was delivered to Parliament and valued the civil expression of civil society's support for doing more in that area, and we support that ambition. 
Hon Eugenie Sage: Point of order. I think the Minister is mistaken. That was a bottom-trawling petition. There was another petition delivered to Minister Mahuta and myself and Golriz Ghahraman last week. 
Hon DAVID PARKER: Mr Speaker, speaking to the point of order, that's exactly what I was referring to. 
SPEAKER: A further supplementary? 
Hon Eugenie Sage: How does she respond—how does he respond—to the 2016 resolution of the International Union for the Conservation of Nature supporting a network of representative protected marine areas covering at least 30 percent of each marine habitat with "the ultimate aim of creating a fully sustainable ocean, at least 30% of which has no extractive activities,"? 
Hon DAVID PARKER: On behalf of the Minister: as I've previously said, it's important that this goal, which is the protection in areas beyond national jurisdiction, is achieved in a way that doesn't undermine existing rules and institutions, including the likes of the Antarctic Treaty, and that it properly factors in Māori interests and supports Pacific aspirations. That said, the current mandate does not explicitly refer to the 30 percent target, but Cabinet will be considering that before the next round of the negotiations in the next few months. 
Hon Eugenie Sage: If Cabinet hasn't yet made a decision on the mandate for a 30 percent target, what does the Minister see as major requirements for a strong and effective global oceans treaty, and will it include provision for a robust process for environmental impact assessment of damaging human activities such as deep-sea mining; if not, why not? 
Hon DAVID PARKER: I've already addressed parts of that question in a number of the supplementaries, and I would just emphasise that it's important that there are effective mechanisms sitting in the treaty to make sure that it's not just hot air. 




Question No. 6—COVID-19 Response
6. BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Deputy Leader—ACT) to the Minister for COVID-19 Response: Does he stand by all of the Government's statements and actions?
Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Associate Minister of Health) on behalf of the Minister for COVID-19 Response: Yes. In particular, this Government's overall response to COVID-19, which has put the safety and interest of all New Zealanders squarely at its centre, and has seen the historic delivery of over 10 million doses of the vaccine administered in a single year.
Brooke van Velden: Why won't schools be eligible for the Close Contact Exemption Scheme, and can he assure parents that there's going to be enough teachers available to teach at the peak of the Omicron outbreak, given the seven-day isolation rules?
Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: Schools are eligible for the Close Contact Exemption Scheme, and advice from the Ministry of Education to schools reflects precisely that circumstance, that the scheme is to be used in case there is a risk that staffing levels aren't adequate.
Brooke van Velden: Has he asked the Minister of Education how many teachers are likely to have to isolate as close contacts at the peak of the Omicron outbreak, and, if so, what was the outcome of that conversation?
Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: This isn't quite as interesting as the question might have been had I also been answering on behalf of the Minister of Education. I am not aware of advice on that particular issue, but I am aware of estimates from overseas where, for example, the United Kingdom, that has very similar close-contact isolation requirements that we will at phase 3, has approximately 4 percent to 6 percent absentee rate due to self-isolation across a variety of sectors.
Brooke van Velden: How bad will the shortages of teachers have to get before schools are allowed to become part of the Close Contact Exemption Scheme and not simply just in cases where critical workers' children are close contacts?
Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: I believe I have addressed that in my answer to the earlier supplementary, that in situations where attendance at school is compromised, then that will be situations where the scheme could be activated by a school.
Chris Baillie: How can he assure parents that their children will have teachers to teach, when nine teachers at a Nelson school are needing to self-isolate after one student tested positive?
Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: I'm not aware of the particulars of that particular contact tracing exercise, but what I can say is that the definitions of contacts have changed now that we are in phase 2, and they will even further at phase 3. This is to enable important services to continue to operate. In addition, schools have access to the Close Contact Exemption Scheme.
Brooke van Velden: Why does he not believe teachers are critical workers, and is it the case that schools are not part of the Close Contact Exemption Scheme, excluding simply in the case of critical workers' children, because the Government has created a shortage of rapid antigen tests?
Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: I reject the premise of that question. There is a shortage of rapid antigen tests because the Omicron variant has created a worldwide shortage in the supply of them. I believe I have addressed the question about whether schools are critical workers three times in my preceding answer.




Question No. 7—Housing (Public Housing)
7. TERISA NGOBI (Labour—Ōtaki) to the Associate Minister of Housing (Public Housing): What recent announcements has she made regarding the regulation of property managers?
Hon POTO WILLIAMS (Associate Minister of Housing (Public Housing)): This Government is following through on its manifesto commitment to regulate residential property managers and provide greater security and certainty for both landlords and tenants. That's why today I announced the Government's detailed proposals to achieve this important piece of work. New Zealand is one of the few countries in the OECD that has an unregulated property management industry, which makes it difficult to calculate how many property managers currently operate in the market. Officials estimate there are between 2,000 and 7,000 property managers across the country. While many abide by appropriate professional standards, the sector as a whole is not required to meet minimum practice standards. These proposals will change that. The detailed proposals announced today are now open for public feedback until 19 April, and I would encourage everyone to have their say.
Chlöe Swarbrick: Why did the Government decide to limit regulation of the rental market operators to just property managers, when they manage a minority of rental properties compared to landlords, as outlined in that discussion document?
Hon POTO WILLIAMS: Property managers manage about 42 percent of the market. Currently, private landlords are covered by regulation within the Residential Tenancies Act (RTA); property managers are not.
Rachel Boyack: What are the proposals included in today's announcement?
Hon POTO WILLIAMS: The proposed changes included in the discussion document released today are designed to promote public confidence in the delivery of residential property management services. This will be achieved by establishing professional entry standards, embedding a code of conduct, and providing accountability through an independent and transparent disciplinary and complaints resolution process. These changes will provide more certainty to the nearly one-third of New Zealand households who currently rent.
Rachel Boyack: What will these changes mean for landlords and renters?
Hon POTO WILLIAMS: As the residential property market has grown, so too has the role of property managers within it. Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment bond data suggests that property managers are responsible for managing around 42 percent of all rental properties. That's why there's a strong interest for both landlords and tenants to have confidence in the service provided by property managers. These changes will provide more security and certainty to both landlords and tenants by putting in place a regulatory system that will provide property managers with more guidance, as well as a robust process for tenants to raise their concerns.
Chlöe Swarbrick: Point of order, Mr Speaker. Just with regard to my question earlier, as outlined in the proposed discussion document from the Government and to the Minister's answer about landlords being covered by the RTA, property managers not—this goes substantially further with regard to education and also the requirement of professional entry requirements.
SPEAKER: So I'm not sure what the member's point of order is.
Chlöe Swarbrick: That the Minister did not answer the question.
SPEAKER: Well, the Minister is not required to answer the question. The Minister addressed the question, and the other point, which I think the member should know now, is that we don't wind back the clock. Once we've moved on to—and I think we've had two further supplementary questions after that. You don't, at that point, decide that there's a point of order; not that there was one anyway. [Interruption] Can I just say that commentary on Speaker's rulings—I don't know which of the two members are being particularly noisy, the young men at the back—
Hon Member: Oh, me? You're talking about me?
SPEAKER: It was this time—but just if they could cut the commentary on Speaker's rulings, that would be helpful.




Question No. 8—Housing
8. NICOLA WILLIS (Deputy Leader—National) to the Minister of Housing: Did a Cabinet minute of 12 March 2021 note that policy proposals brought to Cabinet "risk leading to increased rents, which could have negative impacts on child wellbeing and child poverty", and how much, in dollar terms, have national median weekly rents increased since the Government's housing package was announced in March 2021?
Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister of Housing): The member's question is a cautionary tale in only reading the summary document—or, in this case, the Cabinet minute. A read of the full Cabinet paper and its companion papers would clearly show the member the policy was refined, following officials' advice, to address the risk the member outlines. The Cabinet paper from which the minute is drawn explains that introducing the new-build exemption would mitigate the impacts on housing supply and rents. The new-build exemption would encourage investment in new builds to increase supply.
Nicola Willis: How much?
SPEAKER: Order!
Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: Increasing supply is the best way to address affordability. The final Cabinet paper also noted that the proposals could risk leading to increased rents. It also noted that the magnitude of any potential impact was uncertain, and we have no evidence to show the recent rent increases are driven by the housing policy proposals announced last year. I'd also like to draw the member's attention to the other paper at the time, which made up the March housing package, which was aptly titled "Increasing housing supply and improving affordability for first home buyers and renters". The paper established our $3.8 billion Housing Acceleration Fund—
SPEAKER: Order! Order! The member will resume her seat. I'm now going to ask the member to get on to addressing the second clause of the question.
Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: OK. So, to answer the second part of the question, from March 2021 to December 2021, national median weekly rent has increased by $40, according to bond data from Tenancy Services. However, I would note that the national median price does not account for the changes in types and sizes of properties being rented at different times. And, as I mentioned in the House last week, the national median alone does not account for regional variation—for example, in Auckland, where we have seen additional supply, the increase was limited to $20.
Nicola Willis: Does she agree with the Salvation Army, who say in their State of the Nation Report out today that soaring house prices and rental costs are putting a significant strain on families, with a ballooning State house waiting list, suggesting many are struggling?
Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: I agree with everything that is in the Salvation Army report. We as a Government acknowledge that we have a housing crisis, and it's why, while we have been in Government, t we've turned around selling off and reducing the number of public houses that we have in this country to building more public houses than any Government has in a generation. I'm still waiting to hear what the Opposition's plans are in order to increase public housing—or will they sell them off like they did last time?
Nicola Willis: Will the Minister, in light of that, support my build-to-rent housing bill, provided to her in October, which would boost supply of high-quality rental housing; or do we have to wait—
SPEAKER: Order! Keep going, but the Leader of the Opposition needs to know that he cannot do his support while his deputy leader of the National Party is asking a question.
Nicola Willis: Mr Speaker, may I start again?
SPEAKER: No, you can pick up from where you were.
Nicola Willis: Or how much longer do we need to wait for action on build to rent?
Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: I believe this is in the realm of a hypothetical question, because I understand the member hasn't actually lodged the bill in the members' ballot. But, no, from what I've seen in the media about what the member has talked about her bill, no, we won't be supporting her on it, because we have been undertaking a programme of work since March of last year which will address the issues, unlike the bill the member has been talking about.
Nicola Willis: Does the Minister consider that the Government's changes to the tax treatment of rental properties have contributed to the biggest ever annual increase in median rents, and, if she doesn't share that view, what is driving soaring rental costs?
Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: There are a range of factors that are driving rental increases, and we can see this across a number of countries. If we look at countries that are also experiencing increases in inflation associated with COVID—such as the UK, such as Canada—their economists are also pointing to rent, along with fuel, being one of the drivers. It is a phenomena that we are seeing around the world. In terms of whether or not I sheet this back to the changes that we made back in our March package: no, I don't, because we are a Government that has put in place mitigations, namely exempting the interest deductibility from the rentals, and also the brightline exemption for those as well.
Nicola Willis: Was Cabinet advised that tax changes for landlords were "likely to result in increases in rent or the sale of properties by landlords, leading to displacement of renters", and can she tell the House how many additional families have been forced on to the State house waiting list since her housing package was announced?
Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: In answer to the first part of the question, what Cabinet was advised, in both the paper that the member has referred to in the minute, and its companion paper that went the following week to Cabinet, the one that was entitled "Increasing housing supply and improving affordability for first home buyers and renters"—that Cabinet paper advised Cabinet that it was likely to positively impact those groups who are currently renting and/or unable to buy a home. This was, of course, the $3.8 billion Housing Acceleration Fund that we set up for infrastructure funding in order to increase supply. I point that member to the evidence. Where we are seeing increases in supply, we are seeing much more constrained increase in rental prices.
Nicola Willis: How many additional houses have been built resulting from the fund she announced in March last year?
Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: The member will need to put that question in writing, but I can point the member to the fact that, if I take the announcement of eastern Porirua alone, the announcement that we've made of around $156 million, off the top of my head, is going to result in an additional 2,000 houses. It shows the naivety of that member if she thinks that will have resulted in houses by now, and why she is part of a party that has never come up with a solution to the housing crisis.




Question No. 9—Economic and Regional Development
9. HELEN WHITE (Labour) to the Minister for Economic and Regional Development: What announcements has he recently made about supporting the events sector?
Hon STUART NASH (Minister for Economic and Regional Development): On Saturday, I announced that the Events Transition Support Payment Scheme (ETSP) will be extended to 31 January 2023 and expanded to include business events, delivering certainty and support for the events sector. Extending the ETSP by expanding it to include eligible business events of at least 200 attendees will give much-needed certainty to this industry. These changes will provide confidence to those operating in these sectors so they can plan knowing that the Government will underwrite 90 percent of their unrecoverable costs from now until next summer.
Helen White: Why has the Government moved to provide additional support to the sector?
Hon STUART NASH: The Government moved quickly to provide support for event organisers due to the precarious nature of this industry in times of uncertainty. As a consequence, thousands of New Zealanders were able to enjoy large concerts and festivals over summer. But Omicron has changed the game and we have adapted our plan in response. We know that under the current Red settings, large events cannot proceed. This is devastating for event organisers, artists, and everyone associated with large-scale events, including attendees. The changes I announced last week will provide a degree of certainty so that event organisers can continue to plan despite the ongoing unpredictability due to COVID-19. Already, event organisers in Auckland and Mangawhai have received funds paid out of the scheme, 17 events have been delivered with our help, and we expect 53 still to proceed over the next few months.
Helen White: What feedback has he seen from the sector?
Hon STUART NASH: This announcement was welcome news for a sector that has been under considerable pressure since the start of this global pandemic. Business Events Industry Aotearoa's Lisa Hopkins said they were "overjoyed" that the Government had acknowledged through the expanded scheme "the key role business events will have in New Zealand's recovery". Wellington Homegrown event director, Andrew Tuck, said, "If it wasn't for the Government's scheme, we'd probably be looking down the barrel of not being able to run again." And the organisers of WOMAD in Taranaki said that they acknowledge "the Government's Events Transition Support Scheme recognising the important role our festival plays in the region of Taranaki and ensuring the future of the festival."




Question No. 10—Immigration
10. ERICA STANFORD (National—East Coast Bays) to the Minister of Immigration: Does he stand by all his answers given in question time yesterday; if so, can he confirm the date the immigration instructions were amended to include the border exception for 200 rural contractors that was announced by Minister O'Connor on 12 December last year?
Hon KRIS FAAFOI (Minister of Immigration): Yes, particularly as the immigration system has supported the primary sector during the border closure, with over 6,000 workers brought in through the class-exemption process to support our economic recovery. These decisions have supported sectors and have helped to keep New Zealanders safe. With regard to the rural contractors' exception, the date the amended instruction was signed out by me was 19 January—not the 21st, as the member said yesterday. That was two days after they were given to me, and in line with a Cabinet decision in December last year to implement in early 2022. This decision was made to manage significant pressure on managed isolation and quarantine over the summer break.
Erica Stanford: How can he stand by his answer yesterday—that he was told by Rural Contractors New Zealand that immigration instructions needed to be in place by February—when an email sent to him by Rural Contractors New Zealand and copied to the National Party in December states, "When will visa applications be open to contractors to ensure they are in the country as soon as possible in January?"?
Hon KRIS FAAFOI: Because when we spoke to the rural contractors late last year and outlined the plan, February was the time frame which they could work with.
Erica Stanford: How can it be that when the Minister receives two emails from Rural Contractors New Zealand, dated 24 December and 7 January, it took him another—maths—couple of weeks to sign off instructions to allow those contractors to apply for visas?
Hon KRIS FAAFOI: The member should listen to the primary answer. Cabinet made a decision to implement in early 2022. That's exactly what we did. 
Erica Stanford: What does the Minister say to farmers who were relying on those 200 rural contractors signed off on 12 December, who are now unable to harvest crops in February, because only 40 of those 200 rural contractors have continued with the process and none are due to arrive this month, despite urgent emails from rural contractors—
SPEAKER: Order! The member asked the question some time ago. 
Hon KRIS FAAFOI: I'd also note to the member that I believe on 21 December last year, given a forecast for a potential Omicron outbreak, the Government had to change its plans to reopen the border. As the member or the Opposition may have noticed, we are still trying to deal with a global pandemic, and keeping New Zealanders safe and making sure we change some of our plans and do that in a safe way was done on 21 December.




Question No. 11—Internal Affairs
11. SHANAN HALBERT (Labour—Northcote) to the Minister of Internal Affairs: What progress has she seen on the Government's investment in protecting New Zealand's heritage and archival documents?
Hon JAN TINETTI (Minister of Internal Affairs): Recently, I was incredibly privileged to take part in the turning-of-the-sod ceremony at the Aitken Street site to mark the commencement of the building of our new archives building. This is a significant milestone in the Government's Tāhuhu programme, a once-in-a-lifetime project to create a national documentary heritage campus for Archives New Zealand, the National Library, and Ngā Taonga Sound and Vision. When we came to office, it became clear that our archives building, where some of our most prized taonga treasures and our national story are kept—it had been, frankly, neglected and was in a dire state needing repairs. Our archives building is at capacity and at the end of its economic life. Thanks to the funding allocated in Budget 2020, we are able to progress initial development of the project.
Shanan Halbert: How will the new specialist buildings benefit New Zealanders?
Hon JAN TINETTI: Archives New Zealand has never had a national purpose-built facility before. We can say with confidence that best-practice standards have been applied to this specialist building. This new building will provide a state-of-the-art archives repository and specialist facilities. It's our aspiration that staff and visitors will feel a sense of pride and a place when they walk through the doors, knowing that our nation's taonga are being well cared for. The new building will be physically linked to the National Library, creating a new public record and documentary heritage campus for all New Zealanders to access our stories, taonga, and heritage, held on behalf of the nation by the three institutions. This is a substantial construction project that is expected to create around 500 construction jobs over the next three to four years and scheduled to be open to the New Zealand public in 2026.
Shanan Halbert: How has the design of the buildings incorporated tangata whenua and Te Ao Māori world view?
Hon JAN TINETTI: The design process for these buildings is an example of Te Tiriti and the strong Māori Crown relationships in practice. Taranaki Whānui Te Ati Awa representatives have worked in partnership to co-design this building with a Te Ao Māori world view, connecting the building with the celebrated kāinga of Pipitea, the ancestral home of hapū Taranaki Whānui Te Ati Awa. It is vital that these buildings are a true reflection of our history, our tīpuna, and our tangata whenua.




Question No. 12—Local Government
12. SIMON WATTS (National—North Shore) to the Minister of Local Government: Does she stand by all her statements and actions in relation to Three Waters reform, and is she still committed to the legislated "all in" approach to Three Waters reform?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance) on behalf of the Minister of Local Government: Yes.
Simon Watts: Why did Cabinet agree to a legislated, all-in approach to three waters reform in June before the consultation period with local government even began, and what has she done since that revelation to ensure local government voices are heard in three waters reforms?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: On behalf of the Minister, in answer to the first part of the question, I reject the premise of the member's question. In answer to the second part of the question, the member will be well aware that the working group is currently taking a look at matters of representation, governance, and accountability.
Simon Watts: So, in light of that answer, what does she say to the 27 member councils of Communities 4 Local Democracy, who say that—and I quote—"The Government has stymied opposition to its plans by effectively muzzling Local Government New Zealand and hand-picking representatives for the working group, rather than having wider consultation. This is not good faith consultation."?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: On behalf of the Minister, with respect, I say that I do not agree to that and what I further say to those mayors is that this Government is committed to making sure that New Zealanders have safe drinking water, effectively and efficiently managed storm and waste water, and to making sure that we save money for ratepayers. I think all of us would agree that those are good aims. We will continue to work with councils on the final development of the proposal.
Simon Watts: In light of the overwhelming opposition from local government and the New Zealand public, will she now admit that it is time to re-think her three waters reforms?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: On behalf of the Minister, this Government is prepared to face up to a decades-long under-investment in our three waters infrastructure. We need to bring together entities that can borrow enough money to be able to make up for that under-investment. We're committed to making sure that these stay in public ownership. We're committed to making sure that New Zealanders have the highest-quality water services. There is an option here, which I know that National Party would prefer, as they would on everything we've covered today: do nothing. That is not the option this side of the House favours.
Hon Eugenie Sage: I apologise for my confusion before, Mr Speaker and Minister Parker. But on this one: does she support any of the alternative options for three waters reform proposed by Communities 4 Local Democracy, and will she and officials seriously consider and engage on those options, and, if not, why not?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: On behalf of the Minister: the Minister has met with that group. She has encouraged that group to submit to the governance group and we will seriously consider all things that come from that group.
Simon Watts: Just say no. You don't listen to anybody.
SPEAKER: The trouble is that with my hearing aid in, I do listen.





DEBATE ON PRIME MINISTER'S STATEMENT
Debate resumed from 15 February.
Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development and Employment): In the Prime Minister's priorities speech, she covered six points across my portfolios that I am looking forward to discussing today. Last week, the Prime Minister outlined our Government's ambitious plans for the year. As has been the theme for our previous years in Government, there is a lot to do in lots of areas, not least of which social development, employment, ACC, disabled people, and arts and culture. We have some big changes planned this year and we are very well advanced in our work.
One of the big changes will include the establishment of the long overdue and yet to be named Ministry for Disabled People. Last October, the Minister of Health and I announced major changes to the disability system. The current disability system is broken and there are many barriers in place which make it hard for disabled people and their whānau to find and get the support needed to live their best lives. We, as a Government, want a true partnership between Government and the disability community, and that's why a new Ministry for Disabled People will be established on 1 July this year. The new ministry will be the first of its kind anywhere in the world, which is a massive achievement for disabled people.
In her statement, the Prime Minister reaffirmed our commitment to build on previous work by the disabled community and roll out the Enabling Good Lives approach across the country. This will be a key role of the new ministry and will transform disability support services for over 43,000 disabled people, their families, whānau, and communities. We've learnt from the Enabling Good Lives demonstrations happening across the country that this approach creates more meaningful engagement, gives more voice, choice, control, and flexibility, and is reaching people who hadn't accessed disability support services before. It also ensures that support is reaching the most vulnerable parts of our disabled community. I've been told that the MidCentral prototype has seen a 60 percent increase in tangata whaikaha Māori and Pacific disabled people connecting with the system. 
Setting up a new ministry doesn't mean that every other Government agency will not also have to have a focus on ensuring that they are providing for disabled people. The new ministry will be a leader, but other agencies will continue to be responsible for the way in which they serve disabled people as well.
The Prime Minister also confirmed our commitment to introduce the Accessibility for New Zealanders Bill to the House this year. The framework that will be set out in the bill has been developed in consultation with the Access Alliance and provides progressive approaches to identifying, preventing, and removing barriers to participation for disabled people and their families, tangata whaikaha Māori, and Pacific peoples. This will apply to a range of areas, including new or redeveloped buildings, transport, education, health, information, and events.
I want to move to ACC. Fifty years after it was set up—and it is 50 years old this year—ACC remains a unique and world-leading scheme. It is an integral part of our social support system in New Zealand and has become part of the fabric of our country. As Minister for ACC, I want to make sure that this system assists all New Zealanders who have had an injury, and is fit for purpose for New Zealand in the 21st century. That means continuing to reverse the cruel cost-saving changes that National made to the Accident Compensation Act in 2010 which unfairly disadvantaged tens of thousands of New Zealand workers. It also means looking hard at the equity of the ACC scheme and whether it is serving women, Māori, Pacific peoples, other ethnic minorities, and disabled people in the way that New Zealanders would expect.
Last year, I requested data from my officials that showed that women made fewer claims to ACC than men and have fewer injuries covered by the scheme than men, and each woman's claim costs the scheme a third less than a man's, on average, in entitlements. These gender disparities are not surprising when you think about the fact that this scheme was set up to support the largely male New Zealand workforce back in the 1970s, but it is time for us to begin addressing them.
That is why the Government has taken the first step in this mahi by introducing a bill that will extend ACC cover to a list of maternal birth injuries. The extension of cover will benefit up to 18,000 more women per year who will be able to receive cover for maternal birth injuries. This change will make a massive difference for these women, but we know that there is more work to do to address inequities in the ACC scheme, and we, as a Government, are committed to doing that.
Let's move to the Ministry of Social Development (MSD). MSD will continue to prioritise our welfare reform work programme, but some of the key milestones we will see happen this year are the roll-out of our increases to main benefit and increases to Working for Families tax credits. The increases to main benefit levels represent the largest increases to main benefits in a decade and are a continuation of our commitment to address income adequacy. We know that addressing poverty in our nation is not just MSD's job; it is the job of multiple Government agencies, and our combined work programme this year will see us progress towards our ultimate goal of eliminating child poverty.
MSD will also continue its focus on employment. We've invested heavily in work-focused, front-line case management. The specific actions we've taken include 263 new front-line staff in Budget 2019 to help people into work. We've invested $150 million in Budget 2020 to help people into work, invested a further $99 million in work-focused case management and services in Budget 2021, and invested $86 million to sustain the additional front-line work-focused staff we employed through COVID-19.
The quarterly benefit figures show that our Government's investment is beginning to deliver results and meaningful outcomes. He Poutama Rangatahi has supported 7,047 at-risk rangatahi to overcome barriers to employment, education, or training. Mana in Mahi has supported 4,446 people into placements since 2018. There's been a total of 11,193 flexi-wage placements, and our Apprenticeship Boost scheme to help employers retain apprentices and encourage more people to take up apprenticeships has already benefited 40,314 apprentices. These are excellent results, but there is more to do.
Last but not least, I'd like to touch on the arts, culture and heritage portfolio. The Government's strong economic management and landmark $374 million investment in the arts and culture sector in response to COVID-19 has protected jobs, supported livelihoods, and cushioned the blow for the arts and culture sector. The COVID-19 cultural recovery package impact report on the initial impacts of the four-year Arts and Culture COVID Recovery Programme shows that up to June 2021, our Government's significant investment in this sector has created over 1,500 jobs, many of these in the arts and creative sector. I think I saw somewhere it had saved just under 3,000 jobs in the screen sector.
There is no question that the Omicron phase of the pandemic poses fresh and serious challenges for the arts and cultural sector in 2022. It will not be an easy road. In early February, I announced $121 million in further support for the arts and culture sector to further cushion the blow and protect jobs, incomes, and livelihoods of those who make a living from delivering arts experiences and events, and we should not underestimate the important role that the arts and cultural sector has to play with regards to supporting the wellbeing of New Zealanders but also the economic contribution that the arts and cultural sector make to our country. We continue to listen closely and engage with the sector to ensure we pivot, where needed, to ensure the cultural sector continues to make a significant contribution to our economy and to our collective wellbeing.
This Government is ambitious for New Zealand's future, and we are delivering. The work programme you will see coming out of my portfolios this year are ambitious, but will make a difference to the lives of many New Zealanders. I'd like to thank all of the officials who are working on these incredibly important changes and all of the community organisations and iwi that are working alongside us. It is a programme of work that is well under way and I look forward to delivering it.





Hon MARK MITCHELL (National—Whangaparāoa): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I'm going to speak about my portfolio areas that I asked our incoming leader, Christopher Luxon, for when he became our leader. The reason why I did that is because I'm deeply passionate about them, with the first one being police, the second one being the counter-terrorism role, and the third one being the Serious Fraud Office.
When I first became a proud member of this House back in 2011, I was also very proud of the fact that I had had a policing career myself. But I didn't seek any law and order - type portfolios because, number one, I was very conscious, coming into this House, that you can be labelled, and I didn't want to be labelled just as being focused on law and order. The second thing was that I was very fortunate to have had a decade with a business career overseas and I'd become very passionate about trade and our economic future. So I stayed away from the law and order portfolios to a large extent, but the reason why I ask for the police portfolio now is because, certainly, at no time that I can remember, and, talking to a lot of my colleagues that are still either serving or have retired from the police, can we ever remember the situation in this country being so bad in terms of the growth of gang numbers, the proliferation of weapons and gang members willing to carry weapons, and the worst thing is they're willing to use them. 
I know for a fact that in my own community, my own electorate of Whangaparāoa, we've been very lucky to have been gang-free, and our local police have worked very hard at keeping the gangs out. We had the Comancheros, who tried to buy residential property in Ōmaha, and our sergeant up there was very effective in working with our local real estate agents in ensuring that they were blocked. We had the Mongrel Mob, who tried to buy a pad on the Hibiscus Coast, and, again, the police worked very proactively in ensuring that they were blocked and they didn't come into our community. But, unfortunately, two years ago, we had the Hell's Angels buy commercial property in Silverdale, and they've set up a pad there, and then we had the Comancheros move in. In the last month, we've had the Hell's Angels and the Mongols decide that it's cool to have a stand-off and violence, and to discharge weapons in the community. 
Now, I'm working at a local level with our other elected representatives—our councillors, our local board—and I meet every month with my police area commander. We've just lost Mark Fergus—I want to pay a tribute to him; he did an outstanding job for the last six years—and we've welcomed in our new area commander. We make it very clear to them that our community has an expectation that they will police professionally but they will use every tool available to them to put as much pressure on these gangs, and we will find ways of pushing them back out of the community and get rid of what they bring, and that is organised crime, recruitment of our young people, the peddling of drugs, and house burglaries.
But the problem is I can do that and try to be as effective as I can in my own patch, but they're just going to move somewhere else. They'll move across the boundary. They'll go and set up somewhere else if we do that. We've got a massive problem in this country with gangs and gang-related crime. 
I was in Palmerston North last night. I had a public meeting in Palmerston North last night, and I had a young female police officer come along to that. She is completely, totally demoralised. They go out and they deal—especially up there—with these boy racers. They'll take action against them, they'll arrest them and they'll charge them, and the next day they'll be out dealing with the same offenders, and it's demoralising for them. They join the police, primarily, with one thing in mind, and that's keeping their communities safe. Of course, you will have seen in the media that there was a police officer in Palmerston North who was assaulted, who was attacked, by some brave boy racer that decided to come up and strike him from behind—king-hit him; could have killed him—and he's still in hospital recovering.
We've had young Matthew Hunt and David Goldfinch. Matthew Hunt was gunned down by Eli Epiha in broad daylight on the streets of West Auckland—a gang member that had easy access to high-powered, military-style rifles. We had David Goldfinch, a father of two young children, that through his own perseverance and his own quick thinking was able to actually extract himself and survive, although survive barely. He's got injuries that will follow him along for the rest of his life.
We're going to have a debate in this country, and it's an important one, around the general arming of our police, and whether or not we think it's right to send them out to deal with armed gang members with firearms, and whether we think it's right that they can possibly be put in the same position as Matt or David. It's wrong. 
I can tell you one thing: when I was in the police, I didn't care about politics. I was a young guy. I was motivated by the same things today that our own young police officers are out there doing—that is, they want to be effective, they want to look after their community, and they want to know that they're backed. They want to know that the leadership is behind them and that when they go out and do their job, they don't have to be watching their own backs, because they know the bosses have got them. 
Now, there's a quid pro quo, and that is that they have to act professionally and they always have to look at the least amount of force if they're having to use it, in terms of what they're trying to achieve. The police service is not perfect, like any organisation. But, in my experience, any rotten apples are identified and drummed out very quickly. We have got one of the most professional, world-class police services in the world, and I talk to that with some authority because I've been lucky enough to have worked, trained, and watched other police forces around the world operate and I'm extremely proud of the police service that we have here.
This debacle out here at the front, they now have to try and clean up and deal with. That's not of their making. The making of that starts in here, because there wasn't proper communication and because we have Kiwis that are deeply affected and upset by vaccine passports and mandates. We supported those. We supported—
Hon Michael Wood: Right, you're going to defend the lawbreakers now? 
Hon MARK MITCHELL: —no, I don't need an interjection from Wood—a light touch on those, because we recognised the importance of them, but we were also very clear that they weren't to go too far and they were to be removed as soon as practicable, because we could see very clearly that it was divisive. Now, you've got a big mess sitting on the lawn that you expect the very police force to deal with that you'll not support on a daily basis.
I can tell you now—and I'll come back to it—when I was in the police, Mr Wood, I didn't care about politicians. I wasn't even that interested in who the Minister of Police was, but I can tell you right now that the young men and women that I talk to when I come into this precinct, out the back here, that stand out in the rain, that put up with the verbal abuse, that are there to protect us—they've got no faith in their police Minister. They don't believe in her. She might be a lovely woman and she came into this place, like we all do, with a passion for something. But I can tell you one thing: it's not a passion for our police force. It's not a passion for our men and women on the thin blue line. She's not behind them. She doesn't even understand what they do, let alone what they need, and when you pick up a portfolio and within the first two months you come out and you accuse the very service that you're meant to be supporting of being racist, then you're going to lose the support.
For the first time that I've ever seen in this country, police officers know who their police Minister is, OK? They've got zero faith, and the best thing that this Government can do and the Prime Minister could do, if she wants to show some leadership on this matter—because I acknowledge and respect the fact that she grew up in a police family. I have a lot of respect for her father, Ross Ardern. Make a positive move and change the police Minister, because I tell you what, our police service deserves much better leadership than what it's getting at the moment.
I see shaking of the heads on the other side, so I take that to mean that the Labour Party think they are getting the support that they need and that they are getting the leadership that they need. Well, I tell you what, here's a good idea: go outside this building, walk out the back door there, go and talk to some of them and just thank them. Just say, "Thank you for being here. Thank you for doing what you're doing." They're under enormous pressure. 
The other thing that you could do is the 1,800 police officers that were meant to be delivered in July of 2020: how about delivering them? You're 500 behind, and now you're saying July 2023. The best thing you can do for them is this: back them, support them unequivocally, and give them the number that they need. Actually, a bit more pay would be good too, instead of pay freezes, in terms of the job that they have to do.
So my message to the Labour Government and the Minister, quite simply, is this: get out and support your police service—
SPEAKER: Order! The member's time has expired. Rachel Brooking—a five-minute call. 





RACHEL BROOKING (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker, for this opportunity to speak on the Prime Minister's statement and the year ahead. Before I get started into what I'm really wanting to talk about, I would after that last speech like to acknowledge, as I have done over the past few days whenever encountering a police officer, and thank them for the great work that they are doing. In terms of the year ahead, hopefully we can focus on some other issues as well. 
For me, I'm excited. As somebody who is particularly interested in urban planning, biodiversity, housing, and climate change, this is going to be a big year. It's a big year for the environment. We have on the work plan the replacement RMA—that's the Resource Management Act. That's with both the Natural and Built Environments Bill and the Strategic Planning Bill, eventually to become Acts. 
This is a big deal—reforming resource management. Resource management is intrinsically difficult. There are always trade-offs to make. There are always people who have the status quo on their side. They don't want to change the system. There are few incentives to protect the environment. There are lots of plans, there are complicated concepts—often introduced by resource management lawyers in case law—and, of course, the fault of this place is that the legislation has been amended frequently. There are many inefficiencies and perverse outcomes.
So the changes need to be outcomes-focused and user-friendly, have environmental bottom lines, have explicit trade-offs, and enable councils to work together. In addition, there's also the need for strategic planning in the much longer term so that we can look across a region for the planning of infrastructure, growth areas, and climate adaptation, among other things. We'll hear more about this, in part, in a debate in I think our next sitting week, where we'll discuss the Natural and Built Environments Bill exposure draft. That was an interesting process that the Environment Committee has already gone through, and that's feeding into the legislation that will come into the House later this year. 
One of those issues in terms of the spatial plans is looking at where growth should go, and we all know that housing is of great importance to the country. We have our $8 billion Housing Acceleration Fund in use. There's planned public housing of over 2,000 houses this year. There are programmes towards warmer homes, healthy homes initiatives, and there are commitments for Government buildings themselves, where they're over a certain value, to be certified as Green Star buildings. We've also got the Commerce Commission looking into building supplies, and late last year, we passed the enabling housing legislation. This year, councils will be putting out their plans in August to enable more of those houses and the National Policy Statement on Urban Development.
There's also a lot going on in terms of climate mitigation. We have the first emissions reduction plan, providing many opportunities to New Zealanders and businesses, this year. There's a focus on innovation and clean technology and being at the heart of the transition to a low-emissions economy. We're going to have emissions budgets for the next 15 years, and it's important here to reiterate that decarbonisation is important not just for the international agreements that we've signed up to—both sides of the House—but also for our trade and for our exporters, because the markets are changing. 
On that, I note that the Prime Minister will be undertaking some visits this year. She intends to go to Australia, Asia, the United States, and Europe. We know that there's already been very good progress on the UK free-trade agreement, and, hopefully, we'll get further with the European one.
There's a lot of work going into decarbonisation, with support to move to clean industrial processes—that's with the Government Investment in Decarbonising Industry Fund. There's a planned new national environmental standard prohibiting new low and medium temperature coal boilers and beginning the phase out of all of the existing ones.
This Government is dealing with a range of very tricky and difficult issues. It's not putting its head in the sand and doing nothing. Thank you, Mr Speaker.





BARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise in support of the Prime Minister's statement and categorically do not support the amendments put forward, as it is clear those amendments are fundamentally wrong and miss the point. For example, on the other side of the House, perhaps the member Mark Mitchell, who said he knows the police portfolio, would have a look at the 2018 Budget and see that in 2018, New Zealand Police received the biggest investment it has ever had, of over $500 million. If he knew the portfolio, he would have a look at those papers, because this Government does deliver.
Another case in point: last year, our Prime Minister made it clear that one of our priorities was the vaccine, to ensure the vaccine was accessible to our communities to keep our people safe. That is still our priority in 2022. Keeping people safe and accessibility of vaccine is grounded in what this side of the House stands for. As articulated by a very good friend of mine and colleague, the Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall, "Labour is in the fight against COVID because we believe that people's lives are worthy of protection, because our old, young, or disabled are equally members of our community as the economically or politically empowered."
As the Deputy Prime Minister said earlier in this debate, "There are no easy decisions in COVID-19. At each and every stage we have been presented with difficult and worse options. We've had to shift and adapt, but New Zealanders know that we have kept to our word that we would save lives and we would save livelihoods." This is what we have done, and this is what we will continue to do.
I remember standing here as the last speaker in 2021 in the adjournment debate, giving my thanks to the hard-working teams in our vaccination and health centres across the country for their work in administering what is now over 10 million doses. Today, my thanks remain. 
As the Prime Minister set out in her statement, our high vaccination rates have defied predictions of a summer surge and prevented the Delta destruction that health systems across the world have faced. We turn now our focus on ensuring our people are prepared to encounter Omicron, to face COVID-19 for the first time on a scale we have not yet experienced, as we see that today with record numbers.
Over this last week, while others were putting their energy to occupying the front lawns and surrounding streets of this House, principals, teachers, Tiaki—which is our care and community lead in Mana—health providers, Whānau Ora providers, community leaders, our local supermarkets, and my electorate team were putting their energy into dealing with positive cases in our community, including in four of our schools in Porirua. Teachers were preparing for online learning and school packs to deliver to children who had to isolate so that they could still learn. Food packs and care packs were delivered to positive cases and those in isolation. Schools that were safe to remained open, and, like this Government, schools know that to close their doors is a decision that is finely balanced. When I spoke to these school principals, they were grateful for the support they were receiving from the Ministry of Education and the Ministry of Health. I thanked those leaders for the work and the energy they are pouring in to keep their doors open, to keep their schools safe, and provide assurances to their students and family.
I finish my contribution by going back to the case in point where this Government has delivered and it is keeping our people safe. Over the summer, I lost my 93-year-old grandmother. She was the last matriarch of her generation. My grandmother was born in the time when Samoa was recovering from the 1918 influenza pandemic that wiped out almost a quarter of their population. She was a survivor. She became a solo mother of 10, and was one of the hardest workers I know.
My last thanks goes to the people of Aotearoa, especially of Māngere, South Auckland, where she lived for 30 years. Because you followed the rules over the last few years, it prevented the spread of COVID, and my grandmother got to live the last few years of her life in dignity. 
Because the majority of us had vaccines, we were able to hold her funeral under the COVID protection framework and have people visit our family at home and in church to pay their last respects. Although we didn't have all the grandchildren here in New Zealand, when the borders opened for a short period last year, my cousins were able to come over here and kiss their grandmother farewell. These are the freedoms that are afforded when we set policies to keep people safe.
Labour is in the fight against COVID because we believe that people's lives are worthy of protection, because our old, our young, or disabled are equally members of our community as the economically or politically empowered. We on this side of the House will keep fighting for that, and we will never take people's lives for granted. 





Hon EUGENIE SAGE (Green): Te Māngai o te Whare, tēnā koe. In Ōtautahi Christchurch, there's a plaque on a seat beside the Ōtākaro Avon River, near the hospital. It remembers the 460 Christchurch victims of the influenza epidemic of 1918, half of whom died at Christchurch Hospital or nearby at the Royal Hotel. More than 9,000 New Zealanders died in that pandemic in a little over two months. I can't imagine a city where 460 people died from one event in two months. I can't imagine a country where 9,000 people died, and the impacts that this would have on families, on whakapapa, on our social and mental wellbeing—the overwhelming grief that we would feel.
We've avoided that with COVID because the Government's strategy has been about "we", not about "me". It's been about acting on behalf of all of us and protecting as many New Zealanders as possible from dying or getting seriously ill. That is the crucial role for any Government, and it's one that the Greens strongly support. So I, like many others in this House, am enormously grateful for the huge mobilisation of effort behind the vaccination programme, for getting 90 percent of New Zealanders who have had their two jabs and are now getting boosted, and for all of the preparation for the next stage, of Omicron.
But the need to tackle the climate crisis is as serious as outmanoeuvring the pandemic. Scientists predicted years ago that we'd have with warming temperatures more intense weather events, as we had with the remnants of tropical cyclone Dovi last weekend—huge anxiety and heartbreak, particularly to people in Westport, in Buller, and other areas in the North Island where there was extensive flooding.
The Prime Minister spoke about putting climate change at the heart of our economic strategy. That's really important because we need that substantive change to reshape our economy so that we can reduce our emissions, protect the climate, protect nature, and improve our wellbeing. For too long we've seen the climate crisis and the nature crisis as things that are separate, in two silos. That's a recipe for failure. This year, next year, the year after that, and the year after that, we have to integrate the solutions to the climate crisis and the nature crisis.
We had the $1.3 billion investment in Jobs for Nature as the centrepiece of COVID recovery last term. That's bringing a huge number of jobs and connection with Papatūānuku through the programmes that Minister Allan is now rolling out. But we need much greater funding for nature and for the climate crisis, and we need major changes to policy and law to protect and restore our wetlands, to reduce the browsing pressure that deer and possums put on our forests, to protect soils and oceans, to sequester more carbon, and to protect the climate.
One of those key areas is exotic forestry, and there needs to be major change there and a major overhaul in the role of forestry in the emissions trading scheme (ETS), and I note that today, Beef + Lamb and Local Government New Zealand have come out with a discussion paper on that, calling for a much more strategic approach to forestry in the ETS. As the Climate Change Commission made really clear in Ināia tonu nei, relying too much on forests will not lock us into net carbon zero. To achieve meaningful decarbonisation before 2050, we need to reduce emissions, not just try and offset them through extensive pine planting. Dame Anne Salmond has said really recently that—and I quote—"The ETS is a spreadsheet designed in a silo, and an ecologist's nightmare. It privileges the planting of monocultures of exotic conifers … while failing to assess their … impacts".
With the Government spending $100 million on wilding conifer control, the largely uncontrolled spread of exotics is meaning we're creating those problems for the future. One area that really needs change is the Overseas Investment Act: the way in which the special forestry test privileges overseas companies and individuals who want to come in and buy farmland for forestry. It means they don't have to prove that there's an identifiable benefit to New Zealanders. So, in 2021, we had the Overseas Investment Office approving 36 applications over 7,464 hectares. There is major concern in the Hawke's Bay about the Huiarua Station: 5,000 hectares there that are potentially going into overseas ownership and pine. We need major change around forestry for the climate response, for the emissions trading scheme, the privileges it gets under overseas investment, and much better regulation so that its impacts are managed. Kia ora.
SPEAKER: This is a split call, I presume.





JAN LOGIE (Green): This is a split call, Mr Speaker. 
SPEAKER: Jan Logie. 
JAN LOGIE: Thank you, Mr Speaker. This afternoon, I'd like to speak primarily to one sentence in the Prime Minister's speech—the only sentence where she mentioned child poverty—and that sentence was: "Climate change is a challenge we cannot and will not postpone,"—yay! Just like child poverty, housing, and mental health, it sits firmly on this Government's agenda, just as it did before and during this pandemic. 
Now, I've got concerns about this sentence because, as a country and as a world, we need more climate action than what we've seen on child poverty, housing, and mental health. Four years on from putting those things on the Government's agenda, we still have thousands of children in poverty: 25 percent of Pasifika children, about 20 percent of Māori tamariki, and disabled children. Basic needs are not being met in this country. The demand for food parcels recently has just skyrocketed, and this needs to be understood when we hear too that poor nutrition plays a role in two out of five deaths in this country.
It's been acknowledged today from the Salvation Army that we have a housing catastrophe and an entrenched, if not building, mental health crisis. This situation can on some measures, as we hear sometimes from the Government, be still technically described as progress—and how grim is that?—and the Government points proudly to all the actions they've taken to increase benefits. Yes, that is so much better than nothing—100 percent—and the stop of the sale of State homes and the start of the rebuild of our housing stock—yes, yes, yes. But this is not a world in balance. This is surely not what success looks like, and I am genuinely frustrated that this pace and this impact that we're seeing at the moment could represent the extent of the Government's ambition for our children. 
So we really need to do better on climate action than we are doing on this point, but we also need to do better on child poverty and the deeply interconnected issues of housing and mental health. When Dame Cindy Kiro, our now Governor-General and then chair of the Welfare Expert Advisory Group (WEAG), said, on the launch of the WEAG report, "We can't just tinker with the so-called welfare system. It's just not going to cut the mustard.", child advocates agreed, and they still continue to express real frustration that they're not yet seeing anything that could be described as much more than tinkering.
Now, reportedly, only eight out of the 42 WEAG agreements have been partially implemented. Four years on, or however long it has been, none of them have been fully implemented, and the most recent changes to Working for Families, being possibly the worst example between the gap between possibility and this Government's action, is that the Government increased Working for Families by a small amount for the lowest-income earners, but paid for it by taking that money away from middle-income earners. The Prime Minister didn't mention any new initiatives to step this up, and I hope that she's just holding her powder dry and this is going to be a focus, because we need action and we need it urgently.
The last Budget injection did not finish the job. At the time, Max Rashbrooke commented that meeting the child poverty targets over seven years would require "new spending on child poverty that is over a billion dollars a year, on top of previous spending". Last year's Budget announcement didn't even meet that threshold. We need more, and now is the time to act because this is part of the COVID response, this is part of COVID response recovery, and this is part of climate justice. We need the WEAG items ticked off. We need guaranteed, adequate incomes and fair pay agreements. We need rent control and we need more State housing, and we need it now.





Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): Thank you, Mr Speaker. As I take a call in support of the Prime Minister's statement and in opposition to the amendment to the associated motion from the Opposition, it's quite pleasing to me as I've listened to a number of contributions that there is widespread recognition that, as a country, we have done very, very well with what is the greatest challenge that we are currently facing, which is COVID. I think it's been an outstanding response from New Zealanders that has enabled that. Yes, it's been coordinated by the Government, but notwithstanding the protests from a very small proportion of our population that we see outside, there has been a unified response from the people of New Zealand that has enabled us to overcome the pandemic in the way that we have until now.
We are now into the third year of the pandemic, and because of vaccination rates—and, really, only because of vaccination rates—we can now approach Omicron in a way that we couldn't previously. It is with some confidence that we approach the challenge of the Omicron wave that is building in our country. 
I think that New Zealanders, nervous though they are about Omicron, can take heart from the fact that the plan that the Government has adhered to with the support of New Zealanders has enabled us to have the best result in the OECD for two years in a row, and those are, of course, the two years that we have data for during the pandemic. We've had the lowest hospitalisation rate, the lowest rate of confirmed cases, and the lowest death rate, and it's no coincidence—that didn't happen by itself. It happened because of New Zealanders pulling together and doing the sensible things that we have done as a country. Yes, some of them have been hard. It's been hard for people who have been separated from their loved ones and the business consequences for some businesses have been very difficult. But with support from the Government through wage support schemes and by doing this in as compassionate a way as possible, we have got through, and what an amazing result in the last year to have had 10 million doses of the vaccine taken up by New Zealanders.
I also know from my dealings with people that there is an enormous gratefulness on the part of the New Zealand population that for two years in a row, we have had a relatively normal summer, and we've needed it. People have needed a break from the consequences of COVID, and we've managed to deliver one. I think that's a fantastic thing that we should be celebrating as a country, and I know the vast majority of New Zealanders do. 
Over Christmas, of course, we had to wind back slightly the relaxation of managed isolation and quarantine (MIQ). I know that the Opposition was running a petition before Christmas saying, "End MIQ now", which has since been changed to "End MIQ" because they've realised that they were on the wrong side of that one, given that if we had reopened to Australia as was originally planned, we would not have had the largely COVID-free summer that we have had. 
We're one of the only countries in the world that beat Delta. We didn't completely stamp it out, but we bent the line down, and we haven't been overrun with Delta deaths in the way that other countries have.
In the meantime, of course, the other business of Government goes on, and I haven't got time to talk through in any detail the huge range of policy that we've got improving the country and the new deliveries that we're doing across health, education, and climate. I note that the last contributions from the Green Party noted the importance of climate. Well, we actually have a Green climate Minister, and this year there's going to be a focus on climate mitigation in the Budget. In respect of child poverty, I do note—and I didn't see this mentioned by the last speaker from the Greens—that all nine indicators of child poverty, we've got progress on. The Prime Minister said that in question time today, and that's something we're immensely proud of.
In respect of health, of course, we've got the work that the Hon Andrew Little is leading to do away with health boards and to have a unified system. But in addition to that, we're rolling out new hospitals and mental health infrastructure, in contrast to the last two years of the National Government's Budgets, where there was no contribution to capital spending for health in the last two Budgets. 
Hon Michael Woodhouse: That is just not true.
Hon DAVID PARKER: That is true. There is some background capital expenditure, but in terms of contribution to capital spending from the Budget—
Hon Michael Woodhouse: That is not true, either.
Hon DAVID PARKER: Well, you can ask a question in the House on that, Mr Woodhouse, because we've heard the Minister of Finance contrasting the contributions to capital spending from the health sector. Remember those hospitals that were so poorly maintained that they had sewage running down the walls? Remember that fact that there were very few new hospitals being built in the country? Remember the complaints about mental health inadequacies of spending that followed the reality that the last National Government removed the ring-fencing of mental health funding? Health boards that were under pressure took the money that was meant to be applied to mental health and applied it to other areas, and as a consequence we inherited the mental health problems that we have. 
In education, we reformed trades training in the polytechnic sector in a way that it really is working. We've got 100,000 extra people in trades training. One of the reasons why we're coming out of this post-COVID recession so much better than the last Government achieved in respect of the global financial crisis is that instead of cutting back on spending on training, we increased it, and therefore we're training the workforce that we need to, for example, build houses.
In my own responsibilities, having in recent years reformed the freshwater management in New Zealand, the big push this three-year term is to reform with the Natural and Built Environments Bill. We're already in the meantime reforming the Resource Management Act through its repeal and replacement with the Natural and Built Environments Act, implementing the Randerson report, which the Hon Tony Randerson QC chaired during the last term of Government. But in addition to that, of course, we're already adding to housing supply through the likes of the up-zoning legislation that we passed last year with the assistance of the National Party, and I thank the Hon Judith Collins in particular for that. I think that is something that history will thank the honourable member for.
In respect of the other big crisis that we inherited on housing, I do want to take the last 2½ minutes to just list the huge array of efforts we have that are behind the near doubling of the number of houses that are being built in Auckland. There's a danger in this sort of speech of listing all of the things that have led to an outcome and then not leaving enough time for the outcome. In Auckland, from memory, the number of houses that was being built annually when we came into office was 10,000, whereas we've got that up to 19,000 in the last year, which is an over 90 percent increase in the number of homes being built. New Zealand - wide, the number of houses being built has increased to around 44,000 to 47,000 a year—47,000 last year and 44,000 predicted for this year, and if last year is anything to go by, we'll probably beat those estimates as well.
There's been an enormously complex range of levers pulled to achieve that. We've had the $3.8 billion Housing Acceleration Fund to help councils build the infrastructure needed to enable houses to be built. We established the Ministry of Housing and Urban Development. We've developed our urban growth agenda to deal with land supply. We've established Kāinga Ora. We've passed the Urban Development Act and the Infrastructure Funding and Financing Act, and we have the National Policy Statement on Urban Development, which we tweaked last year with the help of the National Party. We passed the COVID-19 Recovery (Fast-track Consenting) Act. That has consented more than 3,400 residential units in the 2021 year. We've established the Progressive Home Ownership Fund. 
We've changed the tax system. I know that the National Party hate this, but we actually have changed the tax signal in a country where we've got a very distorted tax signal around the housing market. We've done something to actually preference first-home buyers over investors, and it's working. 
Hon Michael Woodhouse: How's that going? 
Hon DAVID PARKER: It's working really well. It's working really well. We directed housing investment into the building of new homes rather than bidding up the prices of existing homes, and we see that in the way in which house price inflation is rapidly going down in Auckland. House price inflation has been rocketing for years in Auckland, and in the last quarter, it is getting closer and closer to zero in real terms inflation in the Auckland housing market, and that's a consequence of all of these measures. Of course, we've exempted the builders of new homes from these changes to interest deductibility in the brightline test because we want new supply. 
It is working. We've got a big work programme on outside of COVID, and we're proud of it.





Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN (Minister of Conservation): Tuatahi māku e tuku he mihi ki a koe e te Māngai o te Whare nei i raro i te taumahatanga o te āhua kei waho rā. Ā, heoi anō kei roto i tēnei Whare kei te mihi ki a koutou ki a tātou katoa.
[Firstly, I'd like to send a greeting to you, to the Speaker of this House, in consideration of the difficult circumstances outside. However, inside this House, I send my greetings to one and all.]
I stand here to unreservedly speak in support of the Prime Minister's statement. I want to just commend our boss, the Rt Hon Jacinda Ardern. At a personal level, I feel incredibly privileged to be standing on this side of this House, under the mantle of her leadership. She is a person that is a humble leader. She is a woman driven with a sense of compassion who has this innate wisdom and a very clear sense of purpose, which provides a sense of clarity for all of us on this side of the House as we navigate some of what have been the most tumultuous of waters, standing here amidst a global pandemic—and we do.
Right now, we are living in a time of a global pandemic that is stretching out across the world and—with my emergency management hat on—we are also living in a time that we have seen some of the worst weather that has hit across regions, having absolutely gut-wrenching results up and down the country. We have people currently that have had their homes destroyed. Two states of emergency were declared down in the West Coast over the past three weeks. Up North, we have fires that have been tearing through the environment there for a month, and there's a sense of uncertainty that people are feeling that I don't think people have felt in quite some time. But what we have seen through it all is that our country, men, women—people from across the isle—have come together. We've pulled together and we've done our hardest, done our damnedest, to make the best of what has been thrown our way. 
Minister Parker just left some encouraging words on the floor, and he stated it quite clearly: New Zealand has been one of the only countries, really, that did beat Delta. Yeah, we had incursions left, right, and centre, but nothing that was predicted. Here we are, standing at the forefront of this wave that is Omicron, and we saw some of the highest numbers come in this morning. But here we are with a population that is up in its mid - 90 percents for double vaccination, and getting boosted at a rate that is incredibly high per day. Our young children from the age of five and upwards have commenced their vaccination programme, and as far as a country could be prepared for this incursion that is Omicron, we could not have been better prepared.
Hon Members: Oh, really?
Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: And if anybody has any doubts across the other side of this House, I would love to have heard a single plan but for the one that they proposed. What was it—what was it? It was "Open up the borders.", "Shut the borders.", "Open up the borders.", "Shut the borders.", "Get rid of MIQ now—I mean, not now. Maybe a little bit later—no, no, just get rid of it altogether.", "Oh, no, do it last year."—I don't know. 
We've all been on a bit of a wave, a wave as they've gone through their turbulent times with their leadership. We've been on a wave as they've gone through their turbulent reckons when it comes to this pandemic. Thank goodness they haven't been anywhere near the helm, and thank goodness they have not been anywhere near the purse strings of this country as we have weathered this storm, because it sounds like during the midst of a pandemic, all the folk on the other side of the House want to see costs cut, but they won't tell you what programmes they're going to cut—no, no, no. Anyway, it's not about them. They can dither in their own whatnot.
But what I do also want to commend is our Minister of Finance and Deputy Prime Minister, Grant Robertson. Grant Robertson, the Minister of Finance—
Hon Kris Faafoi: Top man.
Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: —is a top man, as Minister Faafoi says. He has ensured that our economy is positioned as being on track better than any other in the OECD, or is one of the few that is in the position that we are in, due to better than expected financial accounts and our record of incredibly low unemployment.
We've always said that whilst we've been enduring the tides that are before us, we too have been just cracking on with the day-to-day business. For me, the thing that is bringing me joy at the moment is seeing how many New Zealanders are getting out there and protecting our environment. As our economy became afraid—with the wisdom of the Cabinet prior—they saw that we were going to have to offset some of the economic turbulence by creating programmes that would ensure that we could capture those that had been displaced as a consequence of COVID through programmes like Jobs for Nature. 
As part of the Government's economic recovery, we continue to roll out the Jobs for Nature programme. For the Department of Conservation - led projects, Jobs for Nature has delivered nearly 2,700 jobs so far. More than 1 million hours have been worked up and down Aotearoa by young men and women and people who strap on their boots, day in and day out, to get out there and look after our environment. We're only 18 months into this programme, and there is plenty more to come. Under the Department of Conservation (DOC) mantle—it's a three-tiered beast. But under the DOC component that I'm responsible for, we have 200 projects on the books as we are rolling out into 2024.
Alongside driving our economic recovery this year, we'll see a huge focus—as has been stated across the House by Minister Parker just prior and others—on climate change across all of our portfolios. While the climate crisis is well-known, something that many of us have been yelling for folks to hear too is that we also have a biodiversity crisis. That is often seen as a bit of a poorer cousin to climate change, but it is incredibly important to our country's values. I strongly believe that both of these crises are interlinked, and the more we can deliver nature-based solutions and protect and enhance biodiversity and reduce emissions, the better. A big part of my focus this year will be on implementing the Aotearoa New Zealand Biodiversity Strategy 2020, and we'll have more to say on that in coming months, including how our collective biodiversity response can help drive our emissions reduction.
In December, I announced as well that we will be stepping up work to address longstanding problems in conservation law while laying the foundations for future law reform in conservation. Better legislation will equip us with the tools to deal with some of the biggest emerging threats to biodiversity today: invasive species, climate change, habitat loss, pollution, and the fragmentation of landscapes and ecosystems. We can start making improvements now to help relieve the pressure by tinkering with the way in which concessions work which are leading to unsatisfactory outcomes across the board, and that will be a part of the law reforms that we are tackling this year. 
We've also launched a first-principles review of the Wildlife Act, which is over 60 years old and is often incredibly unclear, unfit for purpose, and incredibly difficult to implement. It doesn't do a good job when it comes to protecting some of our most endangered species and, to be honest, it doesn't really work well for anyone. Good progress has been made on a crucial stewardship land review and reclassification process, a task where far too little ground was made when DOC was established in 1987, and it was a promise that we undertook to do then. We've kicked that up into full blow this year, and it's rendering some results.
Over the last four years, Labour, in partnership with the Greens, has delivered the biggest ever investment in nature and biodiversity protection. Kiwis back us on this, up and down Aotearoa, as we traipse up and down the country. They know the value of our natural landscapes, both for our identity as people and for our economy and brand in the world. 
National's track record for nature is poor: funding freezes and cuts to DOC, polluted rivers, opposition to any real action on climate change, and unrestrained and unplanned land use conversions. However, may I please just take this opportunity to thank the Greens for their constructive work alongside us, and, in particular, their conservation spokesperson, the Hon Eugenie Sage, for the work that we do together.
This is an exciting time to be in Government, albeit sometimes a little challenging. But on this side of the House, we're up for the challenge, and I stand to speak and commend the Prime Minister's statement.
SPEAKER: Before I call the Hon Michael Woodhouse, I'd just like to ask the Hon Kris Faafoi to turn off the torch on his phone. When he moves it around, it's sort of getting me in the eyes. It's not as bad as the lasers that are coming in from our friends out the front, but it does hurt. Thank you. 





Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Thank you, Mr Speaker. That could be a member's bill. I am recalling Dr Cam Calder's laser bill. Perhaps we need a "Kris Faafoi Light Bill".
Honestly, I think I'm in some kind of hermetically sealed parallel universe, listening to the speeches—
Hon Kris Faafoi: You are—it's your caucus.
Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: —that are coming from the other side—and Mr Faafoi agrees with me—because if there's anything that underscores how arrogant and out of touch this Government is, it's in the Prime Minister's statement. It was 23 pages of "Aren't we great and best in class, and oh what a great job we've done with COVID.", and yet the reality is something very, very different. In my 40 years of adult life, I cannot remember a time where there has been more division, more despair, or more anxiety, anger, and frustration as there is right now, and I don't excuse the protesters who are outside this place, but on a level I can understand it. They want to know what this Government is going to do to restore their freedoms and to live their lives free of unnecessary interference from the State, and they're not getting those answers.
We've acknowledged year one, pretty solid—not perfect by any means—but year two and now we're into year three, things are falling apart, and I'm not even sure what we're trying to do here. Who are we trying to protect? Are we trying to protect the vaccinated? No, they're vaccinated. The likelihood of them being seriously harmed by COVID is extremely low. Are we protected the unvaccinated? Well, remember the initial target was 70 to 75 percent. We're now at 94 percent, and those few New Zealanders who have chosen for their own reason to be unvaccinated don't want the Government's protection. 
So here's what I think they're trying to protect: they are trying to protect the health system, and they're trying to protect a health system that they have failed to build capacity in. There is no extra capacity, no extra beds, no extra ICU places, no extra staff—goodness knows, the Minister of Immigration couldn't get off his chair to get the doctors and nurses we need in, and, in fact, it's worse than that, because the ones we did have have left. 
It's a scandalous reality that at Dunedin Hospital, a 12-bed extension to their ICU was completed nearly 3½ years ago. How many patients have been in that unit? Zero. It's a Yes Minister moment. It's an ICU with no patients, because there are apparently problems with heating and ventilation. Well, I've run a hospital. I know that is a complication, but in the UK, where some of those hospitals are 400 to 500 years old, those buildings, they're able to do it. Why can't we, in the middle of a pandemic, find a solution and get a unit that we have spent millions developing actually open so we can respond to a COVID outbreak if those beds are needed?
I have been having a look at some of the data. I hear, and it's even in the Prime Minister's statement—how many times have we heard this—the best economic response is a strong health response. Well, I argue that even through the narrow lens of COVID, the health response has not been strong. But I also am very, very concerned that that lens is so narrow, because not a single member of this House has avoided the heartbreaking stories of the cancers that have gone undetected, of the heart disease—of the heart attacks where people with chest pain have stayed at home because they're afraid to go to hospital, probably at a cost of their lives.
Now, researchers are able to equalise those impacts, and they can do analysis on what they call QALYs—quality-adjusted life years—or wellbeing years, and they can measure the costs and benefits of different interventions. We know a lot about the costs of COVID through the lockdowns, and the Government crows about how many lives they might have saved, but how many have been lost? How many life years have been lost by the heartbreaking stories of cancer and heart disease? 
You know, we've lost some older New Zealanders. How many New Zealanders have not been born because IVF treatments were stopped? There is the maternity care where the partner has to be prevented from going into the hospital and the self-harm that's gone up in our rangatahi—about a third more self-harm in the last two years—and how much of that is attributable? 
The analysis that I have seen indicates that the non-COVID costs to our health and wellbeing may exceed the benefits of the COVID response by two and a half to five times. Now, that's got to be international research, because we, as far as I can tell, have not done that research. The lens is too narrow, and I think that's why countries like Sweden, Morocco, Israel, the UK, and the USA have said enough. It's not because they've necessarily defeated COVID, but they know that the costs of carrying on the way they were are so much greater than that, and they're doing that at 73 to 74 percent vaccination rates, but they are opening up, they're dropping the restrictions, and they're flooding their countries with rapid antigen tests. That is a scandal in my view: the fact that we have had nearly no access to rapid antigen tests months after so many countries used them as a screening tool that would stop what's about to happen in Queenstown, where it's not hyperbole to say that that town could well collapse by the weekend because of the COVID outbreak and the requirements of staff to self-isolate, rather than actually get a rapid test that could conclude very quickly whether or not they and their clients and colleagues were at risk.
But what about that economic response? I left a Government that grew wages at twice the rate of inflation. Now, we have inflation at twice the rate of wage growth—that's a scandal. Inflation is now touching 6 percent. The Finance and Expenditure Committee was told this time last year that it was going to be temporary and would max out at 2.7 percent. Well, I think they were right based on the information they had, but they had no idea of the spending binge that this Government was going to go on in an overinflated economy. 
You don't even need to know fourth form economics to know that when you pump that much money into an overcapacity economy, inflation will grow, and I predict it's going to keep growing. It's certainly hitting those people who are least able to afford that growth in wages the hardest. Food prices are out of control. Housing costs, which we've talked about—in Dunedin, it's gone up 40 percent under this Government. The average price of a house in Dunedin is now something like $731,000. Mr Parker goes, "Oh, apparently it's flat-lined."—no. It went up 20 percent last year in Dunedin, 27 percent across the country, and they still pour billions more into the economy. The people who are going to have to repay that debt have not even been born yet.
So when they say they're best in class, when they look at themselves in the mirror and say "Aren't we great?", look at the whole costs. Look at the non-COVID health costs, look at the future costs of the legacy that we are leaving for our grandchildren and our great-grandchildren, and then ask this: strong though that initial response was, for how long can we continue to do this? They say, "Oh, we don't have a plan." Yes we do: flood the country with rapid antigen tests that are a reliable indicator of who might be at risk, protect the most vulnerable, maintain very strong constraints on those immunocompromised and elderly New Zealanders who are most at risk even of Omicron even if they're vaccinated, and let the rest of the country get on with its life. We cannot continue to go on the way we are. 
That protest out there is going to be a Moutoa Gardens—79 days that lasted. Well, what are we at—day eight or nine? I think we're a long way away from, not moving them, but easing the anger, frustration, and anxiety that brought them here in the first place. 
It's got to stop. This Government does not have a stated plan to get us out of the restrictions that they have put us in. They said they would govern for all New Zealanders. Well, most New Zealanders don't feel as though they're part of the team of 5 million any more, and this statement really smacks of the arrogant and out-of-touch Government that they are.





Hon KRIS FAAFOI (Minister of Immigration): It is my privilege to rise and speak in support of the Prime Minister's statement. Madam Speaker, just before you assumed the Chair, Speaker Mallard asked me to turn the light or the torch of my phone off. It was a mistake, but I'm beginning to think I should have left it on and pointed it at the Opposition, because at the moment the Opposition is a very dark, dark place. 
You would think from the Opposition that the efforts of the entire country over the last two years to make sure we can get through a global pandemic have come to nothing. You would think from the words of the Opposition that everything that every individual has done here in New Zealand over the last two years—to scan, to vaccinate, to boost—has come to nothing. Well, I am very proud to stand on this side of the House and to support the Prime Minister's statement and the decisive leadership of the Government to make sure we have weathered, on the whole, better than any other country in the OECD. 
I am proud of the decisions we've made. As difficult as they have been, the New Zealand public have bought into it, because there are 4 million New Zealanders out there who got vaccinated. There are 1.2 million New Zealanders out there who have had their third booster shot, because they know that they are doing their part to keep following through on the efforts of the last two years to keep New Zealanders safe from the ravages of a global pandemic—of a global pandemic—something that the Opposition seems to be completely and utterly ignorant of. 
I am proud of this Government and its actions because at every turn, we've acted early and we've acted decisively to prevent the worst impacts of the global pandemic. It is sad because some families in New Zealand have lost loved ones, and I want to acknowledge that. But the early and decisive action of this Government has made sure that on the whole, New Zealanders have been safe and are faring better than most other countries that we compare ourselves to. In terms of confirmed cases, hospitalisations, and deaths, we have been the lowest in the OECD for the last two years, and I want to take my hat off to not only the decisions that we have made but the officials who have helped us implement that, the health workers who have worked tirelessly, and our community workers who have worked tirelessly to keep us safe and keep people alive. 
I heard a saying a couple of months ago that might work its way around public health circles: when public health actions work, nothing changes. You get to, relatively, live the life that you want. Now, obviously we haven't been able to do that, but the decisive public health measures that we have taken have kept us safe when other countries, both close and afar, have suffered a much higher incidence of COVID, much higher hospitalisation rates with COVID, and, unfortunately, much higher death rates because of COVID. I am proud that our Government over the last two years has acted decisively in the best interests of New Zealand to keep us safe.
The measures that we have taken have saved lives. There are challenges still ahead of us. But also the work—and I want to acknowledge the Minister of Finance here—that we have undertaken over the last two years has protected jobs and businesses as well. I want to acknowledge—because we can see the number of cases going up—that we're not through all of those challenges, but we've got to this point in better shape than most other countries, and the plan that we have followed has worked. 
We've got a more immediate challenge, and in this part I'm not talking to the people in this Chamber; I'm talking to the people who are at home who maybe, for some strange reason, want to listen to my speech. We know the onset of Omicron has grown. We've seen that from the cases that have happened or have been reported in the last two or three days. It's now really important that we support our friends and family to get ready for that, and to make sure—importantly—that if you can get a booster shot, you do it, because we know from some of the numbers we've seen offshore that the rates of hospitalisations and death dramatically reduce if you have had your booster shot. So my main message to people who might be listening or watching is if you haven't got your booster and you're eligible to get your booster, please go out and get that done. 
Then each family—and friends and neighbours—needs to make sure that they've got a plan to look after each other. I'm nearly finished with my plan to make sure I've got all the medication that I need, and I've got a plan to make sure that someone is able to look after me or my loved ones if I am asked to self-isolate. But please, to those listening—you might be driving; you might be heading home on the bus this afternoon—make sure you are having those conversations so that you've got the absolute basics if you need to self-isolate. It will help you and your family or your neighbours to make sure you can get through what is forecast to be an increase of Omicron. 
Can we also make sure that we're looking after our health workers. It's been two years and I have certainly heard of stories of the stress that they've been under because of the heavy workload, and I want to acknowledge that, but also let's make sure we're looking after them in the way that we're dealing with them too, because I've also heard stories of them being abused, etc., as well. So as we enter this next challenge, can I ask that we are kind to the people who are looking after us—to those who work at supermarkets and to those who are making sure essential services continue to run but very much our health workers.
Look, our economy is in good shape considering the challenges that have been thrown at us. Record low unemployment: I want to take my hat off again to the Minister of Finance and all the support that he has given over the last two years in terms of supporting jobs—so keeping people in their jobs to support family—because that has meant a lot of New Zealanders have been able to stay in their jobs. Record numbers of New Zealanders are moving off main benefits and into work. Over 100,000 more people employed now than 12 months ago and some of our sectors are actually having a bit of a boom time in terms of export earnings, and I want to acknowledge that, because that has assisted us in terms of the economy. 
Speaking as Minister of Immigration, we've also set a path to reconnecting. A couple of weeks ago, I joined the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister in Auckland to announce our five-step plan to reconnecting. That begins later this month, to allow New Zealanders and those who are able to come to New Zealand from across the Tasman to come here. We open up again a month later to New Zealanders from around the world. Step three, by April: I think, importantly, it allows the likes of working holiday visa holders to come to New Zealand, and I think a lot of industries like tourism and the horticulture sector will welcome that. Then step four and five, which is from July or from October: we're able to increasingly allow more people into the country, especially visitors, and able to be fully open from October. I think that is both a very careful and considered and balanced approach to make sure we are managing the public health, economic, and social factors that we need to when we're opening the border. 
I'm also proud that we've been able to get on with business, and this week I'm especially proud of a piece of legislation that started out as an idea within our party. We went through it and it became a manifesto commitment at the last election and, last night, it became a piece of legislation around the Conversion Practices Prohibition Legislation Bill. I want to acknowledge all the hard work of Rainbow Labour caucus, Rainbow Labour, the policy committee, and all the advocates who were pushing to make sure that this was something that when we stand up in this House and this Parliament, it draws a ring around us, and all of us are supporting it. 
I also want to acknowledge the journey that we have had to get there, and also acknowledge the weight of support that that piece of legislation had in this House, with 112 members of this Parliament supporting it. I think that sends a very strong message out to the country that no one's sexual orientation or gender identity is broken or is in need of fixing, and people who want to love the way they want to love have more protections and freedoms in that respect. 
That is the kind of thing that we're getting on with, as well as protecting the country over the last two years from a pandemic. We've got to keep the course and decisive leadership will do that, and that's why I commend the Prime Minister's statement.





Hon STUART NASH (Minister for Economic and Regional Development): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker, and we love you, Minister Faafoi, and the work you've been doing. I was in a bottle store recently buying something for my wife, of course, and the guy there said, "Are you Stuart Nash?"—I was all masked up, of course—and I said, "I am." He said, "Please say thank you to Minister Faafoi. I became a resident yesterday." Every single one of the MPs of both sides of the House have heard these stories, because we have made a real difference, Minister Faafoi, and thank you very much. 
I have been in Cabinet ever since COVID reached our shores—ever since we heard about COVID—and one thing I will say is that every single decision that this Government has made and every single meeting that the Prime Minister has chaired where COVID has been brought forward has put the health and wellbeing of our communities at the very centre. Every single discussion we have is about how we can protect the health and wellbeing of our communities. You will have heard the Prime Minister say and you'll hear the Minister of Finance say that there is no global rulebook or playbook for managing a pandemic, and we acknowledge in hindsight that perhaps a couple of the decisions we made, we would have done things differently. But we went forward with a no-regrets policy, and I honestly believe that when the history of COVID is written, the Government led by our Prime Minister, Jacinda Ardern, and the economic response led by our Minister of Finance, Grant Robertson, will be at the very top of performance around the world. As every single member has alluded to, we have the lowest death rate and the lowest hospitalisation rates.
I used to do a show. I did it for five years—it was on Mike Hosking—and we kept talking about the Government's response. Mike Hosking is one of these guys who is always right in hindsight—he is always right in hindsight. He kept going on about the Government's response, and I said to him, "Mike, we have the lowest death rate in the world." He said, "Oh, well, that might be one measure.", and I said, "Well, I think how many Kiwis have died is a pretty important measure." 
He used to talk about Sweden—"We need to follow Sweden." Well, what I can tell you is that in Stockholm, there are about 990,000 people. There are about 1.5 million people in Auckland. There have been about 4,500 deaths from COVID in Stockholm. Imagine the conversations we would be having in this House, let alone around the dinner tables and barbecues, if there'd been 4,500 deaths in Auckland. They would be completely different to the conversations we have been having. We would not have had the summer we've just had. If you have a look at the economic intelligence unit's report, we were number two in the world in terms of democratic institutions. I absolutely believe, as mentioned, that I think history will prove us right that our response has been at the very top.
The other thing I'd say about Mike Hosking is I made a bet with my good friend but Opposition MP Mark Mitchell and Mike Hosking in September that we would reach 90 percent double-vaxxed by the end of the year. Mike said to me, "Not a hope in hell. It's never been done anywhere around the world, and I'll take you up on that bet, but I hope I lose."—those were pretty much his words. Well, he lost. He said, "It's impossible." We said that there's a difference between impossible and aspirational, and if there's one thing this Government is, it is aspirational, because we backed Kiwis. We knew we could get there, we knew the Kiwis would buy into the reason for getting vaccinated, and they did. I won that bet by about a month, and Mike Hosking still hasn't paid—Mike, pay up, mate.
But we won that bet. When Mike said, "It's never been done anywhere around the world.", well, Jacinda Ardern said, "It doesn't mean that we can't do it, and we're not going to say we won't do it because we know we can.", and Kiwis bought into it. As mentioned, every single decision that Jacinda has taken has put our best interests at heart.
The second thing I would say is that not every sector of our economy or our community has done particularly well. As the Minister for Tourism, I'm in charge of a portfolio where there are many businesses that have done it really, really tough, and I would like to acknowledge the men and women who work in tourism—the men and women who, pre-COVID, had a fantastic business model and were delivering a magic experience to all the international visitors who flocked to our wonderful country—and they have done it tough. As the Minister for Tourism, I would have been down to Queenstown about six times. I've been to every single district that we have identified had a reliance on international tourists and I've heard the stories, and they are of men and woman, as mentioned, who could never foresee this. A number of them have managed to adapt their business model, but it is still tough. But the message I want to give to them is that we are nearly there. We have a plan in place and we are nearly there, so hang on.
We've already provided $600 million in direct support to tourism. We provided $600 million in resurgence support payments to tourist and hospitality businesses, so there has been an immense amount of support, and I know for a number of them it is still really tough. But I want to say to those businesses, thank you for the work that you have done, thank you for holding on, and thank you for believing in us. We believe in you and I back you 100 percent, and we will get there and, once again, deliver the tourism experience that meets or exceeds the expectation of every tourist who comes to this country.
However, I have been very clear that tourism won't look the same as it did pre-COVID. Pre-COVID, there were 875,000 tourists in Milford Sound every year. That was not sustainable and we were losing the social licence with our communities. We need to take that back and we need to move from sustainable to regenerative tourism. Regenerative tourism is about tourism adding value to our communities, and we're working very closely with the sector to deliver on that.
Small businesses: before COVID, I used to say that this will be the last generation of business owner that will survive, let alone thrive, without being digitally enabled, and the reason I said that was because, as the Minister of Revenue at the time, Inland Revenue were moving everything online. Every single initiative we were putting in place rested on a digital platform. But what's happened is that because of COVID, this whole digital transformation has been brought forward by a substantial amount. McKinsey & Co. believe that in the United States, about five years' worth of digital transformation took place in eight weeks, and I believe the same has happened here. 
But we recognise that for a number of businessmen and businesswomen, they were very good at what they did, but they weren't digitally capable in a way that we needed them to be. Hence, the reason why we put in Digital Boost. It's a free service. There are hundreds of videos so businessmen and businesswomen can start their digital journey right from the very beginning or jump in at any point in time. So far, there are 27,000 businesses that have taken up that challenge, and I think they'll be a lot better for it when we get out of this.
I did hear a member talk about our police, and I do want to say that I was a very, very proud Minister of Police. I oversaw the investment of 1,800 graduates. We backed the police in a way that we have never done before. When I took over the police portfolio, I took over in a period where the numbers had dropped in the previous three years of the last Government—and I can see one of the former members, Judith Collins, there. But the thing I'll say about her is I saw the Cabinet paper she put up and she was overruled when she wanted more numbers. 
But we oversaw that. I went to every single graduation, except one when I was in Mexico and another one when COVID hit—they said, "You couldn't get back if you went to this."—and, goodness me, I saw the fantastic men and woman who chose the New Zealand Police service as a career. I back them 100 percent. I think they do a magnificent job at keeping us safe, and the thing about our police service is that the vast majority of Kiwis just do not know what they do 24/7 to keep us safe. I'm very proud of the way that we have really moved the police service into the 21st century. 
The last thing I'd like to say in the final couple of minutes is about economic development. This is very important in a post-COVID world, and the thing that will lead us out of this is our industry transformation plans. We understand that as a country, we have a number of global competitive advantages, a number of unique selling points. We can go out to the world and say, "Buy New Zealand." They used to say that we can feed the world. We can't; we can feed about 50 million people. That's the figures, and Mr David Bennett knows this—he's a dairy farmer.
So what we should be doing always is aiming at the ultra-premium end of the market, whether it's our food, whether it's our services, whatever we deliver, or whether it's tourism—that ultra-premium end of the market—because that's where we need to play, and that is where the industry transformation plans will take us. It's about looking at sectors—advanced manufacturing, forestry and wood-processing, Minister Clark's leading IT, tourism, agritech, construction, food and beverage—and saying, "What do we need to do to encourage these industries and businesses that operate within these industries to be the absolute best?" We recognise that the Government does have a really important role to play to work alongside these industry sectors to help them be the best they possibly can be. We don't tell them what to do; we ask them how we can help them be better. The process so far has been transformational, but we're just along that path at the moment.
I would just like to finish by saying I am incredibly proud to be a member of this Parliament, to be the MP for Napier, and to be a member of Cabinet as we have made what are, I believe, some of the toughest decisions any Cabinet has had to make for a generation. Thank you very much. 





Hon DAVID BENNETT (National): Thank you, Madam Speaker. That was Stuart Nash, the Minister for Economic and Regional Development. It took him to the last minute to actually talk about economic development, and there's a lesson there for Stuart that I think he needs to understand. It's not the Government that's actually going to make these—
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Order! Order! 
Hon DAVID BENNETT: —businesses plans work. It's businesses—
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Order! Order! The member will refer to other members in the House with their full name.
Hon DAVID BENNETT: The Minister Stuart Nash. It's not Government that will determine the transformation of New Zealand business; it's actually businesses themselves, and if he doesn't understand that, he will never achieve anything in that portfolio. 
When we look at his thing that he promoted at the last Budget, the Regional Strategic Partnership Fund, that was his big thing to take away and replace the Provincial Growth Fund with. That was $200 million that was to be spent in New Zealand regions for businesses. Guess how much he's spent!
Hon Members: How much?
Hon DAVID BENNETT: Zero—not one application has been approved by his mates in Cabinet. None of his applications have been approved. 
Now, to Stuart Nash's credit, he, apparently, has taken something to Cabinet. He won't actually specify what he's taken to Cabinet. He's actually taken something there—stay, Stuart Nash, stay—but he's up to zero in his approvals. 
So what does it matter? Where's this regional economic development? Where's the money when the country needs it most? This is a country in a very difficult part of its history. It needs the Government to actually fund and help businesses, if that's what they want to do. But there have been zero applications approved under the new regional fund, which was glorified in the Budget as the Labour Party's answer to the Provincial Growth Fund. The late—well, the past Minister in that area, Winston Peters, would actually be turning in his, up in Auckland, thinking about what this actually means, if his great Provincial Growth Fund has been replaced by a fund that's had zero applications approved.
Now, the last hours of this debate have been pretty sickening—listening to Labour members singing the praises of the Prime Minister. They all must be wanting to get on that plane to go to that Harvard speech and to see the Prime Minister amongst all the other lefties of the world, talking about how they've done so well, and "Pat me on the back." and "Praise me." and "Have I been the greatest Prime Minister?" and "Have I done this for New Zealand?"—all those things that the Labour members have been saying. But let's put some facts on the table: New Zealand is an isolated country at the bottom of the world, where it was always going to be difficult for COVID to get to New Zealand in the sense that we have seen it in places like Sweden, where they don't have the opportunity to do what we did. In Europe and America, they just didn't have the same scenario that we did.
Now, the other Minister over there is shaking his head and saying no. Well, Australia was in exactly the same position as New Zealand—probably even more connected in the world than we are—and they got the same result. We're just a couple of months behind them. You know, Omicron's here, it's coming. It's here—it's around. People will get it, just like you have seen in Australia, and the fortunate thing for New Zealand hasn't been the Government. The fortunate thing for New Zealand has been that vaccines have come along and the new strain, although easy to catch, hasn't had the same effect. That is the scenario in which the gods have looked after New Zealand. 
It's nothing to do with a great Prime Minister that's actually done anything good; in fact, what we actually need to look at is how you utilise the scenario that we are in and make it the best it can actually be for this country. That is where a Government comes into play, and that's where this Government has fallen down consistently. They have stopped immigration. They have stopped international education. They have stopped tourism—even if you were going for the high-level tourism that Stuart Nash talked about, you could still have done that. They have stopped the New Zealand economy in its tracks. They have used lockdown after lockdown. They have used red settings, which are, effectively, community-based lockdowns. They have taken this country to the slowest point they can do. 
Now, some may say, and the Labour members will say, that this is in the best interests of New Zealand. It is not used in the best interests of New Zealand. This is a definite plan by the Labour Party to achieve its political purposes. It never wants to see migrants come into New Zealand, because it knows they're hard-working people that actually believe in the values of the National Party. It doesn't actually want to see New Zealand have international education in our schools, because it thinks that it can control our school network. It doesn't actually want to have tourism—and we heard that from Stuart Nash then. They only want the elite German tourists to come here. They don't want people to come and see what New Zealand is like. That is what has happened under this Government.
Let's look at the facts. They have used COVID. They have used it to create their own isolated, hermit kingdom, as some people have described it, but it is the true socialist idea, where you control the population, you limit a population's ability to understand what's going on in the real world, and then you actually control the decision making of people. That's the ultimate plan the Labour Party is engaged in. It is a plan that is doomed to failure. 
The public have seen through it. You're seeing it in the polls. The people have said no to that approach. They know it will never work. 
They actually wanted a Government that utilised the strengths of New Zealand at the bottom of the world and when we had the opportunities out of COVID, but we would actually take that and make a stronger economy that actually delivers more for New Zealanders. The impact you'll see of the Government's policies is going to be very soon seen by New Zealanders in inflation and other economic tests, because by restricting the ability of people to come here and by restricting the goods that came into New Zealand, they have, effectively, bumped up the price of the cost of living for New Zealanders, and that is the impact that you see from silly economic policies on the other side of the House.
The question for New Zealand isn't whether we had the best COVID response in the world. We were always going to have a good COVID response, as Australia did. The question for New Zealand is whether we actually used that scenario that we are in as a country to create the best economic advantage going forward, and they have failed on that miserably. They have failed because they are led by ideology, because they actually wanted to achieve their political purposes at the same time. That is heart and soul of it. Kiwis are smart enough to see through this Government, and they see that.
The other part that's the irony of it is that the people that actually saved them and actually spent the money was one of the groups they actually hated the most—that's our farmers. They actually wanted to stop production in New Zealand, but they actually found that "Oh, we need that cash coming in. We actually do need to have a dairy payout like that. We actually do need our farmers." They have hated them from day one and they have tried to attack them from day one, and they now need them like they've never needed them before. 
They are paying the bills for this agenda that the Labour Party wish to pursue, but it's an agenda which will never go far because the worm has turned on that Government. They know it. The next Minister speaking—he knows it. He's been around Parliament long enough. He's seen this happen before. They know what it actually means. Public opinion is now against them. The public have seen through the rhetoric and the sham that is this leadership in Government.
The public actually wanted a Government that utilised New Zealand's opportunities and that dealt with COVID appropriately but also meant that New Zealand could take advantage of our opportunities in the world going forward, and that's what they would have got out of a National Government. That's the difference between a National Government and a Labour-Greens Government, and that's what people know. They understand that, and they see that. 
Whatever rhetoric that will come out of that side and whatever Harvard speeches they may do, it's not going to save them from the inevitability of the public knowing that on that side of the House, they tried a failed plan that has failed throughout the history of mankind and will never work. We are just another example of how that experiment is a failure, and New Zealanders know better than the Government and the Labour-Green parties that think they know it all. Thank you, Madam Speaker.





Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister for the Digital Economy and Communications): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I think we've just had an illustration of the old saying that one should never let the facts get in the way of a good story. The member opposite talking about the economy—such doom and gloom. I mean, you wouldn't think that New Zealand had had one of the highest growth rates in the OECD for the past year listening to that member speaking—4.9 percent growth over the past year, which isn't to say that some sectors haven't been doing it tough, because they have. Let's be honest, COVID has brought incredible challenges globally, but the New Zealand economy overall has proven more resilient than most, and I do want to acknowledge the extraordinary leadership of our Prime Minister through this period in inspiring the confidence in our economy and of our Deputy Prime Minister, and finance Minister, Grant Robertson. The settings that they have led have ensured that we have had that economic growth, that we have been able to take advantage of the global opportunities presented to New Zealand with those record international commodity prices and so on.
But, fundamentally, the success has lain in the collective effort of New Zealanders. The leadership which said the best health approach is the best economic approach has proven to be true, but New Zealanders have got behind it. Kiwis have said, "We will do our part. We will work together and we will look after each other." And that has put us in a position to respond so well to a one-in-100-year global pandemic.
If we look at the facts we'll see that New Zealand, of course, has had the lowest hospitalisations and deaths in the OECD. The prior member will talk down that achievement. He will say it was inevitable, but there is nothing inevitable. We've seen such differing responses around the world, and New Zealand has retained that health approach and, with it, the extraordinary growth, really, in the global conditions that we've faced. We've got record low unemployment—record low unemployment. Again, that is all credit to the collective effort of New Zealanders who have worked together to make sure that we build back better, to make sure that we take advantage of the systems that have been set up to support businesses through the challenges that they've faced in the lockdowns that we've had.
So I do want to also acknowledge that in the collective response that there's been, we now have 1.9 million New Zealanders who have received their COVID-19 booster. Every DHB has reached the target of 90 percent first doses for COVID protection. We've had Pfizer vaccines to 95 percent of our population—and double dose. We are better protected than others, and that has been through careful management and through New Zealanders stepping up to play their part in making sure that those around them are protected, those who are vulnerable are protected, by reducing the likelihood of transmission and severe illness, by keeping our hospital systems able to operate through a global pandemic that continues to go on. It's years long, and our hospital systems have continued to be able to operate, and the health workers I've spoken to—the doctors, the nurses and allied health workers—have said how grateful they are to not be in hospital systems that have been overrun by COVID during the past few years. And that has all been deliberate on the part of New Zealanders choosing to be a part of a collective response to look after fellow citizens, to look after themselves, to make sure they are doing what they can do to keep us safe, and to provide the opportunity for us then to build our economy back in a way that we would want to see it.
We do want to build our economy back in a way that positions New Zealand well for the future too, building a high-wage, low-carbon economy, making sure that we have a robust economy that is diversified and protects us in good times. I want to say a little bit about some of the work going on in the area I'm responsible for with our digital technologies. We've consulted on our plan to put together a digital economy plan, a strategy for the country, and we've received feedback on that. Later this year, we will launch that digital strategy for Aotearoa New Zealand; again, something the Prime Minister saw as an opportunity, with the creation of a portfolio that brings together the digital economy and communications for the first time in order to position us well as a country to take advantage of the connectivity that we've got. Now we're up to about 85 percent of New Zealand connected or able to connect to ultra-fast broadband (UFB). We are aiming to have 99.8 percent connected before too long to better services than they used to have. The rural broadband initiatives have made huge gains during our time in Government. We've seen a huge uplift in the connectivity stats in New Zealand—I'll come to them a little later on. But in laying out a strategy so that we have a coherent vision as a country to take advantage of the opportunities, we are looking at making sure we're doing inclusion well to make sure that we are building on our reputation as a trusted nation internationally. Our cyber-security companies do well internationally; overseas capital looks to buy them up because our brand as a country is so trusted. To make sure our own citizens trust technology and are able to leverage the benefits for them personally and to make sure we get the economic growth opportunities in a part of the economy that is growing at nearly twice the rate of the general economy—that is the opportunity we have here: high-value jobs, sustainable jobs, low carbon footprint. We want more of these jobs. And toward the end of last year, I was able to announce a border class exception for 600 much-needed tech specialists because we want to grow our capability here. There are vacancies in that workforce and with those people able to come in they can support the tech development that we need also amongst our own citizens.
The tech sector itself, NZTech, I do want to take my hat off to them for their work on our industry transformation plan (ITP) and the leadership they're providing in building skills across New Zealand. They have said industry needs to play a greater role in making sure we've got the right talent and skills coming through our school system, through our educational institutions, and their words around this are that New Zealand doesn't have a skills shortage, what it has is a skill mismatch, and we need a deliberate plan to build that back better. And Minister Nash spoke about the ITP that I'm leading in this area, and I do want, as I say, to acknowledge the sector and the work that they have done, particularly in the education space and the steps that are moving forward there. There will be more announced around next steps on that to come.
So that class border exception for specialist tech workers, further steps on that will be announced shortly if they haven't already by NZTech and the sector, making sure that those who are going to be brought in through that border exception have salary requirements met. They have to be good paying salaries. They have to be rare skills that we're bringing in. And then there is a pathway to bring more folk in through that channel.
And, of course, connectivity—I mentioned that I did want to say a little bit more about connectivity. I had the privilege a couple of months ago to travel to the Chatham Islands and to see what a difference connectivity is making there. Their first cell tower with 4G has gone in there and it has been transformative. The mayor shared with me stories of people who had what seem to us commonplace stories now, you know; one story about somebody finding a phone on the beach and being able to ring up the person whose phone it was and tell them, "I found your phone." Things that seem so intuitive to us now, but indeed, when you're first encountering that technology on a widespread basis, are fantastic. Another story of somebody phoning to check out the technology on Pitt Island and not being able to connect. And it turned out that the phone they had was from the mainland, what they call "New Zealand", and was very dated technology and obviously needed to be upgraded. But it's transformative over there, transformative round the country: 416 marae are now connected across the country to UFB as a part of an initiative led by this Government.
The increase in connectivity provides opportunities for our citizens, and that's what we want. We want to see more New Zealanders taking advantage of the jobs in this sector, and we think particularly of software as a service, which is being promoted as one of the big opportunities under our digital strategy–cyber-security also, and the gaming sector, which has enjoyed some extraordinary growth in New Zealand due to some very committed Kiwis and some very successful firms that are selling their products to the world.
There is huge opportunity in this sector. I want to thank all of the workers who continue to bring the inspiration, develop the products, and make sure that we grow off that $6.6 billion base to continue to grow that sector, because the opportunity for weightless exports makes a big difference if you're a small, trading nation a long way from market—high-value jobs that transform our sector and transform our country and boost our economy so we can continue to enjoy the kind of economic growth that has been made possible under Grant Robertson's leadership as our finance Minister. Kia ora koutou. 





Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister of Transport): I'm very pleased today to be able to stand and commend the Prime Minister's statement to the House in 2022. It was a statement that I think set out a clarity of leadership and hope in what are enormously challenging times here in Aotearoa New Zealand, but in every country around the world, as we continue to face the global pandemic. It is a pandemic that carries on, that continues to claim tens of thousands of lives around the world most days of the week. While most of us would like to be able to wish it away—and, indeed, some who have spoken in this Chamber in this debate have acted as if we can do that—we just can't. If we want to continue to keep our people safe, if we want to continue to maintain standards of living by having an economy that moves forward, if we want to look after the vulnerable people in our society who continue to be at the most risk, then we need to continue with our health- and people-focused approach to the management of COVID-19 and Omicron. The Prime Minister very eloquently set out the absolute determination of our Government to carry on with that.
But what I really want to focus on in my opening comments is the clarity of vision that the Prime Minister set out in her speech. Clarity is really about knowing where you stand. It's not about being obstinate and saying that you won't pay account of changing conditions or facts on the ground—any sensible Government will do that, and we have, as we've dealt with this pandemic—but it's knowing what you will stand for and it's being prepared to make the tough decisions.
In dealing with a crisis like COVID, the biggest public health crisis in over 100 years, the biggest shock to the world economy since the Great Depression, a Government can't just make the easy decisions that make people happy or get the right headlines on any given day of the week, as are sometimes put to us from members opposite. A Government must sometimes make decisions that are tough, that will have tough outcomes for some people, but they're the right decisions for the country and for the common good.
We've had the debates in this Chamber about some of those tough decisions, about some of the tough public health measures we've taken, about the alert levels, about our judicious use of lockdowns, about the way in which we've evolved towards a traffic light system, about the way in which we have used managed isolation and quarantine (MIQ) to keep the people of our country safe—tough decisions and they sometimes carry costs. But we stand here confident and clear in knowing that every single one of those decisions has delivered the outcome that we have in New Zealand with one of the lowest death rates, one of the lowest rates of serious illness, one of the highest rates of economic growth and the lowest rates of unemployment in the world after two years of a global pandemic. We are very proud of that, and so proud of the leadership of our Prime Minister at the front of that effort.
I do have to contrast that clarity with the muddle that we hear from the Opposition benches over the course of this debate and in recent days. We've heard it over mandates—"They should end." "They shouldn't end." We've heard it over MIQ—"They should end now." "Maybe they should end at some stage." "We didn't say they that." "Oh, actually, we want them to end." You cannot lead a country during a global pandemic with that lack of clarity, that lack of precision in leadership that we see from the other side of the House.
We've seen it in recent days over the minimum wage. I stand proud, as a Minister in a Government who's delivered increases in the minimum wage to our lowest paid workers—those cleaners, those supermarket checkout workers, those retail workers, those hospo workers who have carried so much over the last few years. We would not stand there and see those people's living standards go backwards. So I'm proud of the work that we've done in that area. We've shown that we can deliver sustainable, good increases to the minimum wage and still have the lowest rate of unemployment in over 30 years—lower than that lot ever got it to. Three point two percent—world leading.
So I was very pleased over the weekend to see the deputy leader of the National Party, Nicola Willis, confirm the National Party's support for that minimum wage. I decided not to make a political point out of that, but just to acknowledge that and say it was good to hear that. But from Mr Luxon today, her leader, on Morning Report this morning, we couldn't get a straight word out of it. When asked time and time again what is his position and what is the position of the National Party on minimum wage, we couldn't get a straight answer, a yes or a no. Do you support that or do you not support that? He's entitled to take either view, of course, but he couldn't take a position. That is a failure of leadership. That is a contrast between that side of the House and this side of the House.
I want to talk about something else very serious in this respect. I've been concerned by some of the drifting rhetoric I've heard from members opposite in this House about the events in the occupation that we see out the front. The words I say now I say with some precision and I say really carefully, because I think we need to take great care with this. Out the front of this place, there are people who I think we all feel for. There are some people who are confused, there are some people who are scared, there are some people who have been manipulated by an avalanche of misinformation. There are some people who have been hurt over the past couple of years and they're lashing out. We feel for those people. 
But underneath all of that, there is a river of filth. There is a river of violence and menace. There is a river of anti-Semitism. There is a river of Islamophobia. There is a river of threats to people who work in this place and our staff. Those are things that we should not in any way be condoning, things that we should be apologists for, things that we should be overlooking with the rhetoric that it's all just good people and maybe we should talk about it and maybe we should put the mandates up for negotiation. I would say that there is a river of genuine fascism in parts of the event that we see out the front of this Parliament today. I just urge colleagues in this House—decent and honourable members of the centre-right parliamentary parties in this Parliament—that a lot is actually on them to not give succour and comfort to an emergent and dangerous far-right movement. I just ask those members to reflect upon that.
As the Prime Minister said in her statement, COVID's not over. There's a lot of work for us to do to continue with our response of keeping Kiwis safe. But it's not just about that this year for us; it's about getting on with the agenda, those long-term challenges that have been forgotten about and ignored for so long.
I was really pleased that the Prime Minister spoke about our plans for a true, linked-up rapid transit network for Auckland, plans that we announced last month and that have been received incredibly positively across all parts of Auckland. This issue has been kicked down the can for 50 years since Mayor Robbie first put forward his plans to link up our biggest city. Because of the failure of successive local and central government administrations, we have the problems we see in Auckland today—chronic congestion, bad air quality, sprawling suburbs in which people have no choice but to use their cars for everything. That's not what people want. We're only going to fix those problems if we deliver that proper linked-up mass rapid transit system across Auckland in the way that all modern, successful growing big cities around the world have. We all see that when we travel. Why shouldn't we have them in our big cities, in Auckland? It's not easy stuff. It's not quick stuff. But we've got to start, and this Government is grasping the nettle and getting on with that plan.
I put forward my comment again in this House: this is a long-term project for the benefit of our biggest city. When our biggest city does well, our country does well, I want to work with other parties across this House to move through the politics and to see if we can find some accord on that big long-term plan. The other thing I will say in this area is that it's not just about Auckland, it's not just about the light rail; it's about the alternative Waitematā Harbour crossing and getting that public transport link to the North Shore, it's about the growing north-west, but it's about our other big cities as well. I expect later this year for us to be moving forward with plans for mass rapid transit here in Wellington, but also to be furthering that conversation in Christchurch, a city that has waited for too long and in which there was such a missed opportunity in the recovery from the earthquake.
Finally, I was delighted that the Prime Minister also spoke about our plans to move forward with fair pay agreements in this parliamentary year. Over the last two years, I think Kiwis have been reminded about how much we rely on so many of our low-wage workers, and they've been devalued for 30 years. How would we have got through COVID without the work of our cleaners, without the work of our bus drivers, without the people who pack up our groceries at the supermarket? But they've been devalued and their work is so important. It's time for us to turn the tide on that 30-year experiment of a highly individualised labour market that has enriched a small number and has totally devalued the work of hundreds of thousands of hard-working Kiwis. It's not fair. It hasn't led to increased productivity, as we were promised back in 1991. This Government is going to move forward with a well-researched, well-thought-out, clear plan for fair pay agreements to stop the race from the bottom and to make sure that those working people have some justice and dignity, and that good employers up and down New Zealand aren't constantly undercut by someone coming in and getting a saving by paying their workers low wages and low conditions.
As I said at the outset, I am so proud of the clarity of leadership, the future focus, and the hope that was inherent in the Prime Minister's statement to the House this year. I'm proud of our response to COVID-19. There is more work to do, but there are so many other things that this Government will be getting on with this year to lead New Zealand into a place that is better and fairer for all of our people. Thank you, Madam Speaker.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Golriz Ghahraman—five minutes.





GOLRIZ GHAHRAMAN (Green): Thank you, Madam Speaker. As I rise, having heard much of this debate this week, I note that almost all of us are centering the global pandemic. It is, though, a global pandemic. It is a global shared common crisis and so I want to talk about global affairs—foreign affairs and trade—two of my favourite portfolios.
New Zealand has done incredibly well. There is no doubt that in terms of our domestic response we should all be proud. We've saved lives, we've stood with our front-line people, we've stood with the immunocompromised, of which I am a member, and we've saved lives here. But being a global problem, the thing that this common crisis has shown us is that unless all of us are OK, none of us are going to be OK. So two major global issues still form the forefront of the Green concern that I think New Zealand can do a lot more about. 
One is what's been described now as the vaccine apartheid forming across the globe, and the other is the problem of Third World debt. The vaccine apartheid is something that was brought to our attention by two nations early in 2020, after the pandemic started to rage across the globe. And it became clear that our response in the global west, whatever that constitutes, was to self-isolate, to lock down, and, in terms of New Zealand, we came up with a progressive, transformative solution of actually upholding people's wages so that they could do that. 
The global south is less able to do that, and they told us almost immediately, via a call led by India and South Africa, that vaccines were what would save them but that the costs were too high. Now, New Zealand has stood with our Pacific neighbours. We have shared the vaccines that we've bought with the Pacific, and that's great. That's charity. It's not transformative change. It's not systems change. It's not getting at the problem of global inequality and healthcare access. What India and South Africa were asking for is that we go to the World Trade Organization—which is allowed; it's part of the rules at the World Trade Organisation (WTO)—and we lift the intellectual property costs of the vaccines so they could be manufactured cheaper and made more accessible. New Zealand, shamefully, did not support that call until late last year. Both those countries have now been the forefront of new mutations of this virus: first Delta in India, then Omicron in South Africa. So we've seen how global inequality in healthcare access has actually harmed us all. 
New Zealand has come to the table now. We actually came to the table after the United States Government did in support of the Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights waiver, that old socialist institution that is the United States Government. But what are we doing about it? How are we using our trade connections, our allies? How are we actively working to make the vaccine more affordable to lift the intellectual property costs at the WTO? It is very unclear. 
Next, there is the issue of debt. Cycles of debt lead as the cause of global inequality. Poverty rages through the Pacific worse than the virus. And as we all come out of this thing, this crisis across the globe, it's going to be that form of inequality that's going to keep the global south—the Third World developing nations, whatever we're going to call them—down. It's the cause of historic inequality, of colonisation, and that debt responsibility falls on us. We can use our voice, our much celebrated voice of principle and the global moral compass that we see ourselves as, to advocate for equality. The World Bank—again, another little socialist entity—called for debt alleviation and cancellation of Third World debt as part of the COVID response last month. So it's time that we lead by example, that we make global inequality in the COVID response the forefront of our work on the global stage. Thank you.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): I call Teanau Tuiono—five minutes.





TEANAU TUIONO (Green): Madam Speaker, this is not, as Shakespeare would put it, "the winter of our discontent" because it's the wrong season, but rather is "the summer of misinformation". Misinformation has undermined our public health response, has undermined our response to the climate crisis, and undermined faith in the democratic process, and in some cases undermined belief in a common reality itself. I mean, how can you have a conversation with someone about maths if they don't believe in numbers? How do you tell someone that the YouTube videos and Facebook videos that they keep sending you are not a replacement for an in-person engagement with an expert in epidemiology or microbiology—experts in real life. 
I've watched a YouTube video on how to fly a plane. However, I think it would be very unwise for Air New Zealand to let me fly a plane, even though I watched that video twice. So I am—and I think we all should be—perplexed in the situation that we have found ourselves in.
Todd Muller: You'd be a natural.
TEANAU TUIONO: I'd be a natural, Mr Todd Muller says. Citizens need timely and accurate information about their rights and responsibilities, knowledge of our political institutions, and an appreciation of each other's needs, interests, and aspirations. An independent media must rest on the foundation of a strong regulatory framework that reinforces responsible self-management. Of course, the media play a part in disseminating those ideas and information, and I reflect on a documentary I watched while I was flatting in Aro Valley in the 1990s, and it was by Noam Chomsky, which was about how corporate ownership can influence the framing of news stories. It was called Manufacturing Consent. 
However, I'm not sure how much the corporate overlords have over the editorial decisions of the press gallery, but I felt an incredible sense of uncomfortable irony by some outside denouncing the corporate control of mainstream media while broadcasting those opinions through the corporate control social media. These people are telling us that these journalists are controlled by corporate media and, by the way, they're telling us that by another medium of corporate control media. For me, this is a contradiction in terms. I expect that there is an editorial process and decisions are made—stories are aired—by actual live people. I don't know. I'm not a journalist. I'm assuming this about them. But you don't have that in social media. Anyone with any crazy conspiracy theory which hits the algorithm and the engagement will get the likes and people become engaged in it.
But how many people have disappeared down rabbit holes because of some absolute bollocks they've seen on Facebook? I think what we are in the midst of is the undermining of the democratic institutions, and we've seen that with what happened at Capitol Hill in the United States, currently what's happening at the US and Canada border, and also what's happened with religious and nationalist violence in India as well. And while mainstream media may have editors and directors who may or may not be under the persuasion of their corporate masters, their algorithm, the AI is not human and that is what has been driving social engagement on media because its primary motive is to make, in the case of Facebook, money. It determines that the thousands of contents that show up in our social media feeds are amongst the hundred things that you will engage with on that day or in that time.
The media wields significant social, cultural, and economic power, which must be used responsibly, and that, in my view, must include social media. The media should inform, educate, and entertain in a way that supports citizens to participate effectively in democracy, and we have seen that being hijacked by extremist right-wing elements. So for me, it's not just about the freedom of speech but also about the freedom of reach. No one should have the right to algorithmic amplification and this House needs to take responsibility for that. It's something that the Government must take grip of, but also us as parliamentarians around the House as well.
When people talk to me about freedom, I say to them, "If your freedom ends and begins with your individuality, then you are being coerced and guided into more extreme right-wing fringe elements." and we've seen that outside.
So, for me, one of the ways that we can ensure that we can pull people out of the rabbit hole or to make sure that they don't go down the rabbit hole at all is to make sure that their surroundings are as stable as possible. So that it includes making sure that everybody has liveable incomes, warm housing; making sure they have access to essential services, free N95s—these flash masks as well. All of these things combine to make people and families safe and secure. When they have that safety and security around them, they are less likely to tumble down into the rabbit hole. We've got a lot of work ahead of us. It must be about regulating the big corporate social media giants, but also—
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): Order! Thank you. The member's time is up. The next call is a split call. Helen White—five minutes.





HELEN WHITE (Labour): Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the Prime Minister's statement, wholeheartedly. Earlier today, I heard David Bennett say that this Government is led by ideology—as if that is a bad thing.
Hon David Bennett: It is; you're socialists.
HELEN WHITE: That is what leadership is, Mr Bennett. It is a way of making decisions that are actually comprehensive, that are cohesive, and that are driven by a set of values. Without this, you are left with negativity, no ideas, and no direction, and, unfortunately, that is the state your party is in at the moment. You are lost; you are in the weeds. The statement that the Prime Minister put to us the other day is one that is expressive of strong, clear direction and values at a time of great challenges. We face the pandemic, we face climate change, and this statement seeks to address those very real and critical things. I also would like to mention the Hon David Parker's speech because he was very interesting, and I'm proud to be part of a Government of which he is part, because he talks about how well we have done, and he talks very compellingly and accurately about the things that have been done.
I have the privilege in Auckland Central of seeing people doing that work, and they are doing it not for money but because they are actually well aware of their obligations to each other. The police force is one of those groups that I am very impressed by. They have been doing exemplary work, and they have been doing it alongside mental health workers and health workers, and the Ministry of Social Development, and they have been doing it alongside voluntary organisations. 
There is a group that I'm involved with called the rough sleepers steering group, and all these groups come together and they talk about how they're going to cope with Omicron, and how they're going to look after people in community care. Body corporate groups have been busy contributing to make sure that the rules and the connections that are in place in our apartment blocks actually work and make people's lives better when they have Omicron. These are really important things.
I want to mention our small businesses which are suffering under the current situation—our hospitality and retail sector, our arts sector. These are the sectors that we will now need to focus on supporting. I would also like to mention those groups that I think really need a shout-out: one is our elderly. They are actually in a situation where there will be a lot of trepidation, there will be a lot of fear. I'd also like to mention those people who got vaccinated despite hesitancy—I have one of those in my own family, my mother. It took a lot of arguing to get her to take up the vaccinations, and it was a real lesson for us all in the fact that it didn't just matter to her, it mattered to us that she got that vaccination. It was such a great relief and, for me, it reinforced the fact that we are all connected. I am now relieved to say my mother has had her booster, and I thank her for doing that. And I thank all the people who may have been hesitant but they have stepped out of their comfort zone and they have adapted because they can see the connection between people.
I'd like to talk about those greater connections because the connections that this Government has been making between transport and housing and wellbeing are very real, and they have directed the policies that will happen in the next year: things like, actually, light rail; things like intensification of housing; things like electric buses; things like the infrastructure that allows affordable housing. These are very, very real things that will connect us as a society.
Finally, I'd just like to talk about renting, for a minute. Today, there was an announcement that we would be looking at the regulation of property managers. Actually, affordable rent is an incredibly important thing but so is a rental situation where you're not subject to damp, where your children won't get rheumatic fever. These are important settings, and this is part of the puzzle. And so it's not just a case of the price of rental—that is important—but it's also the case of not turning our backs on that becoming an affordable and sensible choice, not only for our young people but also for our elderly, and for people who simply choose it because they want to. So I commend this Government, and I am very supportive of the Prime Minister's statement.





Dr LIZ CRAIG (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It's an absolute pleasure to rise in support of the Prime Minister's statement. And I'd like to spend a bit of time talking about our Government's proactive response to COVID-19. Looking back to my public health training, what we did as trainees is we needed to know about the New Zealand influenza pandemic action plan. This was something that we studied for our part two exams, and at the time it seemed quite theoretical. So it was something where the ministry ran these pandemic exercises preparing the health system we had to study. And looking through the documents there was talk about closing schools, it was talking about restricting public gatherings, there was talk about these things called CBACS, or community-based assessment centres, but they seemed quite theoretical, quite remote. And I think, looking back, basically, it didn't really prepare us for what we've confronted today.
I think the other difference was we were preparing for a different virus. All the models were based on the fact that what they were thinking was we'd get 40 percent of the population experiencing the virus over an eight-week period. So what they were expecting was that the rates would come and peak at about week three to week five. And so none of us really thought that we'd be in the situation that we face today, where we're now entering our third year of a global pandemic, and we're actually sitting down now preparing for the Omicron wave.
So for me, thinking through, the other thing I never envisaged was that our Government had taken this very simple plan for another virus but adapted it using real-time data. And then they'd use it to create a world-leading response to COVID-19, which has resulted in us having some of the lowest COVID-19 case rates, hospitalisations, and mortality in the world.
So I think the other thing we've thought through over the last two years is none of us ever envisaged that we'd have to be creating this huge health infrastructure and we'd be having to do it for such a significant period of time. Thinking through, we've had to stand up fully functioning managed isolation and quarantine facilities and run them for a period of time, we've had to upscale our COVID contact tracing, we've had to upscale our testing capacities, and in the last year we've had to run a full national vaccination campaign. Basically, we've delivered whole other aspects: the wage subsidies, the business supports, making sure that our businesses can get through these very difficult times. And so as a result, as we await the Omicron wave rolling out across the country over the next few weeks and months, we're coming to it with very high vaccination rates by global standards, but also historically some of the lowest unemployment rates we've seen as a country.
And in that, I'd just like to acknowledge the Prime Minister, Jacinda Ardern, I'd like to acknowledge our Minister of Finance, Grant Robertson, our Minister for COVID-19 Response, Chris Hipkins, our Minister of Health, and our Associate Ministers of Health for the huge, considerable role that they've played in taking us through these difficult times. I'd also like to acknowledge, though, the people I think about down where I am based in the South—those that have got up every day and have gone out and run our testing centres, they've run our vaccination campaigns, those that have been on the phone lines; basically, when people ring in, providing that support, providing that advice. I'm thinking of our GPs, thinking of our pharmacists, and thinking about those working in our hospital system, and the huge role they've played in keeping us all safe. And looking back over the last two years, just thinking about how many of us—we never know whether it would have been us or not; the role they've played in potentially saving our lives. And as we look back and as they look back on this time in years to come, I hope they're really, really proud of the role that they've played in this pandemic.
But looking ahead: I think many of the people I talk to down South, looking ahead as we face the Omicron outbreak, what they really, really want is for the next few months just to fast-forward. They want to be able to see Omicron in their rear-vision mirrors. And I think it's important to remember when we're looking ahead to the next few months that we do have a plan. We've planned for this, we've put the structures in place. And the majority of people who've gone out and had their vaccination, have had their booster dose, if they encountered Omicron they're going to end up with a mild to moderate disease that they're going to be able to end up managing very well at home, but the hospital system will still be there for those who need that extra support.
But I also think it's our role to look after each other, and that means getting out, getting vaccinated, and continuing to scan our COVID tracer apps so that if we do test positive, people can be notified very, very quickly. It means social distancing, it means mask wearing, as we're doing in the House today. So for me, I'm really proud to be part of a Government that's led a world-leading COVID response, and it's something I never envisaged when I was reading those public health documents all those years ago.





Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Kia ora, Madam Speaker. Thank you for that. Can I just say what a real pleasure it is to stand up here and have the opportunity to reflect on the Prime Minister's statement, and I would commend anyone to give it a really good read, not only because of the plan that it sets out but because of the values which underpin it. It's that consistency of values and of approach which has stood us in such good stead—the idea that we put people first and that the wellbeing of our people across the board is the primary objective of the Government—and the Prime Minister, in her speech and in the statement that's on the Table, makes that abundantly clear.
It's always troubling to me when I hear other politicians in other parties say, "Turn the spending taps off. It's all going to go terribly wrong.", and have these cries that come from decades ago, cries for austerity in a time of need. I think it's absolutely right that we should be looking now at the really significant challenges that face us—the climate challenges, the health challenges, the infrastructure challenges—and investing now because it's prudent to do so. Now, we know that debt is rising, but debt should rise. When your children are sick or when your roof is leaking, you do not stop spending. You fix what needs to be fixed so that you're strong and resilient for the future, and that's what we have ahead of us.
If we look at what we're doing—the focus on health, for example—we inherited a health system where there had been no capital spending for years—
Hon David Bennett: Oh, that's rubbish. What a lie.
Dr DUNCAN WEBB: —and where DHBs had been underfunded year on year. Well, it's—
Kieran McAnulty: Point of order, Madam Speaker. I'm very sorry, and I apologise to my friend and colleague Duncan Webb, but there is one word that you cannot accuse a member in this House of being. The Hon David Bennett just used that word, and I will use it if I have to, but I think he should apologise. He cannot accuse another member of being that.
Hon Todd McClay: He didn't. He said it was rubbish.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): He also said—and I heard it—that those are lies. So I will ask the Hon David Bennett to apologise.
Hon David Bennett: I withdraw and apologise, but note that the Waikato District Health Board was rebuilt under the National Government.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): I will ask the Hon David Bennett to withdraw and apologise, and leave it at that.
Hon David Bennett: I withdraw and apologise.
Dr DUNCAN WEBB: Thank you, Madam Speaker. The point being, of course, that the time for genuine investment in health is here and it's now, and the health restructure ahead of us is of pivotal importance so that we have an equitable and efficient health system, not the rundown, broken, and underfunded health system of prior years.
The Māori Health Authority—
Todd Muller: What nonsense.
Dr DUNCAN WEBB: —is a huge leap forward, and you, Mr Muller, may call it rubbish, but they're inequities that have been systemic. [Interruption] You can chip away, Mr Bennett, but only the other day I was reading, on an entirely different topic, Kemp's Deed, and do you know what that is? That's when Ngāi Tahu had 13 million acres wrested from them on a promise of reserves being set aside and, what's more, hospitals and schools being built. They got a trivial 6,000 acres in reserves, and what did they get in terms of hospitals? Nothing, and that party over there would now chip away and say that we shouldn't address the systemic inequities of years that the Crown and the Government, year in, year out, have failed to address. So come to the table, and come and be constructive. Where is the proposition? Yes, you're in Opposition. You're going to be in Opposition for a long time if you take that attitude.
What's more, we need to invest in our climate infrastructure, as well. Year in, year out, we've had the Opposition saying, "Not now, it's too early. It would cost too much. Industry can't manage it.", but we know that if we take that approach, not only will it get harder but the catastrophe will be larger, and that's what we are going to address. So we've got a $4.5 billion fund from the emissions trading scheme—a scheme that they put on hold—whilst we had to reinvigorate and redesign in the last term of Government so that can actually spend the money we need to get to a low-emission economy, and also address the adaptation issues.
Maureen Pugh: Stop burning coal, then.
Dr DUNCAN WEBB: You would do nothing, Maureen Pugh. We know your views on all kinds of things. You'd be building new mines on the West Coast for a couple of votes. Well, good luck to that.
We're here for a low-emissions economy, one which has clean energy, and absolutely investing in the New Zealand Battery Project. The idea that we're going to be innovative and try things and do things that that party on the other side never dreamt of doing. Absolutely, our Minister of energy is going to make all kinds of explorations because it's the right thing to do.
Look, I'm going to also talk about housing. We know there's a housing crisis, but I want to tell you the things not only that we've done, and there are many, but all the things that we are also going to do, of which there are many. Do you know what? We are making real progress. A housing crisis that was nine years in the making, and we've turned the corner. Only today—only today—figures have come out to show that not only have prices stabilised but there's been a small drop in prices across the country, and that is indicative of the progress that we have made.
How many houses did that lot build when they were in Government? Well, they sold some, but I don't think they built any. This Government, in the four years it's been here, has built 8,000 new houses. We have turned the Housing Corporation into a renter, a property developer, and a responsible landlord—2,400 in the last year, and do you know what? The Prime Minister said in her statement that we would have 2,000 more built in the next year. We will absolutely address these issues.
Forty thousand building consents were issued in the last year. For the first time in a long time, we're building more houses than there are people needing them. The Resource Management Act (RMA) fast-tracking legislation is being able to open up whole new developments so that we can have more housing development, and, of course, the RMA reforms—the Natural and Built Environments Bill—is going to progress that. I give the party on the other side credit because they have come to the table and talked about housing intensification, and that's a good thing, because we need neighbourhoods which are compact, walkable, livable, and effective. So good on you for that. There's one little feather you can have in your cap there.
Building Act reforms: Poto Williams has pushed those Building Act reforms for new and innovative building materials. The Māori infrastructure fund, so that Māori can build papa kāinga houses, and a whole lot are on track there—thousands of houses there.
Progressive homeownership for people who might not otherwise be able to get together a deposit for a house. The ability to get into an ownership situation where you own a little bit of the house at the time, and there are up to 4,000 people who will be able to own their own homes when they wouldn't have previously been able to.
Warmer homes, the idea that we need to go and make houses not only livable and warm but healthy as well, and our Residential Tenancies Act reforms and Healthy Homes reforms as well—awesome. On top of that there's $3.8 billion set aside for infrastructure funding so that we can unlock the potential of areas of land to make new strong communities with housing for everyone.
This is a Government that doesn't sit on its hands and say that the problem is difficult. It is difficult, but we will try everything we can because we know what's good for New Zealand. This is a wellness approach. It's an approach which puts equity first as well to make sure that everyone across the board is looked after.
So this is a Government which cares and which tries. I must say, listening to Michael Wood's speech was really good, because I was really proud of his approach to the Auckland light rail, seeing it not just as a big money spend but something which was about communities and also something that was part of a wider plan, a plan that wasn't just transport—transport across the whole of Auckland, to North Auckland and West Auckland as well—but also something which was about linking communities together and unlocking the potential of that great city that is Auckland. Of course, I was very excited to hear him talk about the Christchurch light rail as well. I know there are a lot of proposals there, and I'll be talking with him about that in the not too distant future.
But on top of that, whilst we've been doing all this, and whilst we've got low unemployment and whilst we've got one of the strongest economies in the world, we've raised incomes. We've raised incomes for those that need it most. So the benefits have been raised across the board: 109,000 families, our most needy families, now have $175 a week more, or at least they will on 1 April. That's a huge amount for a lot of people, and one of the net effects of that and a whole range of other initiatives is 43,000 children who have been lifted out of poverty—43,000 children. We are making real progress on child poverty. When the National Government was in place, it went backwards, it went behind—200,000 students receiving school lunches.
I'm so proud to stand up here and talk about what we've done, what we're going to do, the values that underpin it, and the approach taken by the Prime Minister. Kia ora, Madam Speaker.





Hon TODD McCLAY (National—Rotorua): Madam Speaker, thank you. He weaves a real web, that Duncan, the last speaker in the debate. Because, actually, if you just say you have a plan and everything is OK, the public will believe you! But that's actually not the case as we look around the country today. Mr Webb said they're not a Government that sits on their hands, but in housing, if they did just sit on their hands, actually, the country might be better off, because, rather than that, they're putting their hands up in auctions and buying houses from the private sector that mums and dads, those first-home buyers he was talking about, are not able to buy because they don't have—it's not the taxpayer's cheque book behind them; it's actually the money the Government is borrowing that the taxpayer will have to pay for in the future to take houses out of supply.
He also said—and this is from his notes. He wasn't reading a speech, but it's from his notes. So this must be the lines that their research unit have given them after the Minister has signed off. He said, "For the time, we're building more houses than are needed." Well, hallelujah. The 45 motels in Rotorua that have people in are full of emergency housing. Those people that were promised a house and have been languishing day after day, week after week, year after year in those motels all of a sudden don't have to stay in the motels tonight, because the Government says they are building more houses that are needed. But here's the thing: they are not. They are buying more than they should; they are not building more than is needed. In fact, they are not building anywhere near enough.
They talk very proudly of how they are helping people out of poverty. They talk about the minimum wage increase as if that is the panacea to fix everything. They don't say that, actually, rents have gone up $140 a week over the last 4½ years, and they haven't scratched the surface with the minimum-wage increases. Those that have the least in New Zealand have even less because of the cost of living and how quickly it's escalating. And, actually, the costs they're placing on businesses make it harder—harder—for those businesses to survive. This isn't actually a debate about whether the minimum wage should go up or not; it's that Government action actually pushes prices up. And the $145 a week extra, when it comes to rents that people are paying around the country, is the reason that we have unprecedented numbers of people in motels, and the reason that there aren't enough houses is because the Government is then buying those houses because the individuals themselves cannot afford them.
With the self-congratulations we've heard from every single speaker in Government, behind that of the great job they've done and how wonderful they are, and how lucky the country is, are at least 10 to 15 to 20 to hundreds of tourism businesses who are struggling to survive or who have closed. When the Prime Minister announced a few weeks ago—just before one of the TV stations started polling—that the border was opening, she forgot to say, "The border is opening for everybody except those who we actually need to get here safely." So, later this month or next month, Kiwis can return if they're double vaccinated, and they can go and stay at home for—it was 10 days; it'll now be seven days. But, for the tourism sector, they are not expecting an influx of Kiwis from Australia to come and start doing tourism. When the Prime Minister says the border's open and there is help coming for the tourism sector, what she doesn't say is that the average Australian comes to New Zealand for a holiday for five days. If they have to come here and self-isolate in a hotel for seven days, as lovely as it is in Queenstown or Rotorua or the West Coast, they're not going to extend the average stay of their visit by two days to look out the window of that hotel or order Uber Eats. They are not coming.
Yet next week, in Australia, if you are double vaccinated from anywhere in the world and you travel to Australia and you've passed a test before you leave and when you arrive to show you haven't got COVID, you are welcome. What the Prime Minister hasn't done is send a signal to the tourism sector in New Zealand about when the Government may consider similar rules here. All they've said is October of this year, visitors will be welcome if they're double vaccinated, but they will have to go to a hotel to self-isolate for seven days. Guess what! They are not coming. That is not a lifeline for the tourism sector, who, today, across the board, are calling for help. Some of them are asking for Government money, but, actually, what they are really saying is, "We do need help. We need paying visitors. And if you can just, Prime Minister, for once tell us when this might happen." Not October, perhaps, maybe, we could change the rules, but they are going to have to sit in a hotel, when, actually, you may look to level the playing field with Australia. If it can't be today, when will it be? Explain why the Australians have different advice than you do, so they can start planning.
If I look at my home town of Rotorua and what's happening there, because tourism is a very important part of our economy, I am very sad to say that the Top 10 holiday park in the centre of the town, owned by the same family for 30 years, has had to close. That business supported a number of families, paid for the kids to go to school. It was their livelihood. It's the centre of town. It's heartbreaking that that family has had to make that decision. Why is that? Because they were told they would have a good summer and people would come, but it didn't happen. Actually, what happened for them and so many other tourism businesses in New Zealand, they either just broke even or didn't lose as much money as they had been. And you cannot run a tourism business on school holidays and the odd long weekend. 
Now, that's a heartbreaking decision for that family to have to have made, but if they knew—because they were actually reliant upon Australian visitors before COVID came and the Government closed the border—that the Prime Minister would be looking to do the same thing in New Zealand as the Australian Government is doing just next week, and if they knew it was three months away or six months away, they could plan for that. Perhaps their bank would have said to them, "You know what? You had a great business before. We know Australians like to come here. The Prime Minister says they are going to come here in droves. We can get you through a few more months—three or four more months." But the problem they've had for the two years is "We might do it later on. We could do it later on." There has been no certainty. They haven't been able to plan, and they have pulled the pin. I hope desperately that they haven't made the wrong decision. I hope desperately that the Prime Minister doesn't announce in a few weeks' time, "We will be like Australia." Because this Government does show urgency only when they're forced to, and it's always too late. For that business and other businesses around the country, it is far, far too late already.
I spoke about the cost of living earlier, and inflation and interest rates. We will hear from the Government again and again that it is happening everywhere in the world. Well, for hard-working Kiwis who have done everything asked of them over the last two years, who have sacrificed, who have taken on debt, who have paid others before themselves, who have gone through great uncertainty, the team of 5 million who have dug so very, very deep, they're not interested in what's happening around the rest of the world; they're interested in what's happening here. When the Government members stand up and read out a litany of things they believe they are doing well, well, I'm not sure that's the case on the street, because, for every protestor who is here outside, there are hundreds and hundreds back in our electorates who are law-abiding, who have got their vaccines, who have done everything asked of them, and the contract was—the deal was—"If we just get to 90 percent vaccination rate, your life will go back to normal." Well, in the case of the tourism sector, it hasn't gone back to normal. And of the case of the people who are working in tourism still or in our restaurants and our bars, it hasn't got back to normal.
Around the country this month, the spend in restaurants and bars is down by 27 percent—32 percent down in Queenstown. They are now saying 70 percent of cafes and restaurants are saying they're looking to cut staff or reduce those hours. So how does it work when the Government says, "Everyone is better off. We're better than the rest of the world."—that there are still people losing their jobs, when the cost of living has gone up, and their petrol costs more, and their rent costs more, and their food costs more, and every single thing you can measure costs more? But members of this House opposite, in Government, stand up and say, "Actually, Kiwis are better off than their Australian neighbours." Well, whether that was the case or not, I don't think it works when you say, "You're feeling unhappy, you can't pay your bills, but you're not as bad as the guys over there, who can't pay their bills even worse." This Government has an absolute responsibility to the people of New Zealand not to congratulate themselves, not to say that they're sitting on their hands, but to actually get out there and make life better for everyday New Zealanders.
And whilst they may say, 'Well, businesses can afford everything.", this is a country that's built on the back of small-business people. Mums and dads who get out of bed, who take the risk, who have borrowed against their homes, who go to work every day—they pay their bills and others before they pay themselves. It is their pride—that small business that they run—and they haven't had the help, actually, that they need, and they are certainly not getting the help that they need today. They need clarity. They need a decision that the Prime Minister will make—decisions as we see in Australia—but, more than that, a Prime Minister who will front up and explain to them exactly why it is she won't do—
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): Order! Order! The member's time is up.





WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour—Northland): E te Māngai o te Whare, tēnā koe. Thank you for the opportunity to speak on the debate on the Prime Minister's statement. Unfortunately, I haven't been able to sit through all the debates this afternoon, but I have been able to tune in and out of some of the contributions. I'm not going to focus on any of the criticisms from the other side. I'm going to focus on the job that we've got ahead of us this year, and it is a big job. In fact, when I look at the Prime Minister's statement, it is 27 pages of jobs for us to do this year.
I was reflecting back—we usually start the beginning of our year with a caucus retreat, and the honourable member for New Plymouth, Glen Bennett, has just left the room, but we had our caucus retreat in New Plymouth under Maunga Taranaki. What a beautiful way to start the year with our whānau there as well. The Prime Minister began by outlining for us, her Labour caucus, what was going to happen in the year ahead of us, what were the challenges, what was the job for us to do. I was asked, following that, what I thought this would be the "year of"—the media were questioning us as we went out for morning tea. My immediate reaction from listening to the Prime Minister and thinking about that was: I think it's going to be the year of the booster. I kept thinking about that afterwards because I thought, "Oh, that doesn't really sound that inspiring, 'year of the booster'.", and I sort of thought, well, you know, maybe there was something more ambitious. But that is actually quite ambitious when I thought about it—I don't step back from that. Actually, when I heard her describe the challenge with Omicron facing us, and the thing that we could do to protect ourselves the most—it was the booster.
I think about my people of Northland, our vulnerable population, and I hope that the booster isn't the focus for us for the whole year, but it certainly is the focus for us in this first part of the year—we are racing against a virus. This is actually the month of the booster. We are trying to encourage as many people as possible to do as much as possible to protect themselves from Omicron.
I'm pleased that last year, the Prime Minister said this was the year of the vaccine, and I think that we actually did far better than many expected that we would. We've had some difficult conversations. It's been challenging out there in our communities. Northland has just got to 90 percent first vaxxed. We are the last in the country, but I'm so proud of Northland because every single one of those vaccines required whānau encouraging each other, our providers being out there, making themselves available in the most remote parts of our community, and we got there. We're going to get there with the second dose, and we're going well on our boosters at the moment.
We can all do our bit to slow the spread and keep our communities safe, and that's what the Prime Minister said. Together, we have risen to the challenge of COVID-19. The pandemic has affected us all and some in very tragic circumstances, but it's also drawn us together. Yes, we have a protest outside at the moment, but I think about the more than 4 million people who have been vaccinated. And I just want to mihi to our team of 4 million that could get vaccinated, but also to our whole country for the efforts to date. It's been two long, hard years. I know everybody's hōhā, I know everybody's over it, but guess what? COVID isn't going away. It's a virus, it keeps adapting and so too do we have to.
I'm really proud of my colleagues who are in Cabinet, who have had all of those conversations, difficult debates, and been put in a situation of making really difficult decisions but making the right decisions, because what they did was they prioritised people's health, their lives, and their livelihoods. I'm really proud of what we have achieved, and the other side has criticised us for patting ourselves on the back over here. I don't take that credit just us as the Government—that was the team of 5 million who has helped us achieve that so far, but we need to keep going. Kia kaha tonu tātou. He waka eke noa.
[We must stay strong. We're all in this together.]
The challenge is not over yet.
So I'm proud that we can report today that there are now over 2 million who have received their booster shots, over 46 percent of our tamariki receiving theirs as well, but there is more work to do.
The other thing I wanted to pick up from in the Prime Minister's statement was the other work that that is going on. It's not just COVID that our Cabinet are focusing on. At the same time, they are continuing with major health reforms. They are working—I'm looking at two Ministers who are going to be making announcements shortly in the employment space. We heard the Minister of Tourism, the Minister of Small Business, talking earlier; the Minister of Immigration, the Minister of Justice, talking on things that we have been progressing. Just this week, we passed our first piece of legislation, which came through the Justice Committee, to ban conversion practices. All of that mahi continues while we are managing a pandemic, while our economy is strong and we have the best results in the OECD and the world, We should all be proud of that, us as the Government, but also Aotearoa, because everybody has played their part in it.
Now, what I wanted to pick up on is this plan for us, the 27-page work plan over here, and I know every member and every Minister has gone through it and picked out the things that have been specifically said that they have a responsibility for in their portfolio areas. One of my portfolio areas is I am a member of the Pae Ora Legislation Committee. I've just come off the select committee to come in to do the speech this afternoon. On that committee, we have had five days of hearings. I think it was from 9 a.m. in the morning to 6 p.m. in the evening. Five days—we received over 4,600 submissions on the Pae Ora Legislation Committee. Now, for those who maybe don't know what that is in the House or who are tuning in tonight—that is for the reform of our health system. We are going to be disestablishing the DHBs, setting up a health authority, a public health unit, and, proudly, a Māori Health Authority.
It was a challenging five days of hearings, especially after a long summer break. It took a little bit of getting back into the swing of things. But what was particularly difficult for me, was that, unfortunately, the majority of the submissions from individuals were opposed to this bill and they were tending to be single-issue focused, and it will be no surprise to many in this House that the main thing that they were objecting to is the hauora Māori provisions, in principle. It was really sad to have to sit through those submissions and to hear that we still have people who do not understand and also do not accept that we have major inequities within our health system, and here we are trying to propose something because the status quo is unacceptable, and, unfortunately, we received this huge number of submissions in opposition. So we have our work cut out for us this year.
I want to absolutely acknowledge the Prime Minister, who said that we are a united team, we are a focused team, and that we will continue to manage the pandemic, but we must also continue to do all of the other things in health—as I just spoke about, and we're making good progress on that—and in housing, and I do take issue with the comment made earlier criticising us for buying and building when all that side did was sell.
There are a couple of other things that I'm really excited about this year. We are—
Hon Member: That's a killer line.
WILLOW-JEAN PRIME: Just, look—sell, full stop. That's it, there's no more to say.
There are a few other things that I'm excited about this year. This year, we will celebrate the first uniquely Aotearoa public holiday, and that is Matariki. So we will be celebrating that in June this year and I'm really excited about that as people will get to have a day off and, hopefully, reflect on what Matariki means, learn about some of that mātauranga Māori. It is also the year that schools are going to be receiving resources to teach New Zealand history in schools. I'm really excited about our tamariki getting the opportunity to learn that history of Aotearoa New Zealand. I hope that with that, along with Matariki, we're going to see the next generation have the opportunity to learn more about our tangata whenua, about our unique place in the world as Aotearoa, and that everybody will have access to that. I really hope that by having that, we might see a different type of submission to our select committees in the future as we try and tackle issues that we are facing, where we try to reduce the inequalities, where we try to ensure that everybody has the best opportunity, their wellbeing is provided for to the greatest extent possible, and that we do that for one another, like we have our approach to COVID. Nō reira, tēnā koe e te Māngai o te Whare.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): The next call is the very last call in response to the Prime Minister's statement, and we only have five minutes left.





KIERAN McANULTY (Labour—Wairarapa): Thank you, Madam Speaker. If they just sat on their hands, the country would be better off.
Hon Todd McClay: Exactly.
KIERAN McANULTY: That's what Mr McClay said in his contribution, and now he is backing it up by saying "Exactly." Doesn't that sum the National Party up? If they just sat on their hands, the country would be better off. I think that absolutely sums up the do nothing, conservative, small Government, low taxes, low spending approach from the National Party. I ask this House, where did that get the country during the global financial crisis? Investment was cut, spending on health was cut, spending on education was cut, and when we came in in 2017 we had to clean it all up.
When you look at the problems that this country is facing in housing, if we just took our hands off, the country would be better off, they say. That's exactly the approach that that side took on housing. That's why the number of Government-provided social houses went down under their watch. That's why they sold every single house, every single social house, in Wairarapa in 1999. Throughout their nine years of Government, they didn't put a single social house in Wairarapa. And I'm proud to say that this Government is finally building Government social houses in Wairarapa, yet again.
Exactly the same with climate change. When they were in Government, they signed us up to all these accords and all these treaties, and then did absolutely nothing about it. Every single time we, as a Government, have put in measures that are actually going to help us meet the agreements that they signed us up to, they've voted against them.
The minimum wage is exactly the same. When they were in Government, every single year they put the minimum wage up, and they waived their blue flag and they said "Look at us. How great are we?" And then whenever we do it, they say "That's a terrible idea. That's hurting business." What they fail to know is that New Zealanders can see through the politics. New Zealanders know that it is the minimum-wage workers that have worked the hardest, alongside our frontline health workers, that have got us to where we are now in this COVID response. They don't agree with it. Or do they? Who knows? The other day, I was sitting next to Nicola Willis doing our weekly radio slot with Newstalk ZB, and she said "We do not oppose raising the minimum wage." What does the leader say? I don't know, couldn't form a position. He didn't have the ability to stand up and say yes or no. He fluffed about. So we don't even know where they stand on the minimum wage. But here we are, as a Government, helping 300,000 workers, lifting their wages, and contributing to this economy. Because what that side knows but don't say, is that small to medium businesses, the ones that they've spent most of their time talking about, their revenue is dependent on people's capacity to spend. If they don't raise minimum wages, like some of them are encouraging us to do, their ability to spend money goes down in real terms. Small to medium businesses miss out as a result.
They haven't learnt a thing about the way in which this country has responded to COVID. It was the investment from this Government that kept people in jobs, that kept businesses going, and it is that spending that they now are criticising and saying that that's causing inflation, even though they know that this is an international phenomenon. When they are asked to give examples of the things that they would cut, they cannot give an example that would make any impact on inflation. The only examples they've given has equated to 0.1 percent of Government spending. That is not going to make any difference to inflation. If they were upfront, they would say that yes, the way that they want to deal with inflation is to make cuts, and it's back where we started with these guys under the global financial crisis. It's cuts to health. It's cuts to education. It's not spending money on infrastructure. It's not putting the planning ahead that we need.
This is the Government that actually has a plan. We are the ones that are investing in a plan to increase primary exports by $40 billion. They oppose it. They just want to tread water. This is the Government that is actually putting the investment in to make sure that rural communities get the health they need and rural schools get the investments they need. And if you don't believe me, here's a question for you: how many times did Chris Luxon mention agriculture or farmers in his response to the Prime Minister's statement? None. Not one mention. They spend all the energy they like saying they care about farmers, they've got the biggest platform of the year, and they say nothing. I am proud to support the Prime Minister's statement.





A party vote was called for on the question, That all the words after "That" be deleted and replaced with, "this House has no confidence in this Government that returns to Wellington at the start of each year with yet more promises it has no intention of keeping and fails to deliver."
Ayes 43
New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.
Noes 75
New Zealand Labour 65; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.
Amendment not agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That this House express its confidence in the Government and commend its programme for 2022 as set out in the Prime Minister's statement (Rt Hon Jacinda Ardern) and the amendment proposed to it.
Ayes 75
New Zealand Labour 65; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.
Noes 43
New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.
Motion agreed to.





INTELLIGENCE AND SECURITY COMMITTEE
Membership
Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development and Employment) on behalf of the Prime Minister: I move, That, under section 196 of the Intelligence and Security Act 2017, this House endorse Nicola Willis as a member of the Intelligence and Security Committee, nominated by the Leader of the Opposition under section 195(1) of the Act, and in accordance with section 194(2)(c) of the Act, replacing Dr Shane Reti.
Motion agreed to.





COVID-19 ORDERS
Approval
Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development and Employment) on behalf of the Minister for COVID-19 Response: I move on behalf of the Minister for COVID-19 Response, That this House approve the following orders made under the COVID-19 Public Health Response Act 2020:COVID-19 Public Health Response (COVID-19 Vaccination Certificate) Order 2021 COVID-19 Public Health Response (Air Border) Order (No 2) Amendment Order (No 14) 2021 COVID-19 Public Health Response (Vaccinations) Amendment Order (No 5) 2021COVID-19 Public Health Response (Vaccinations) Amendment Order (No 6) 2021COVID-19 Public Health Response (Protection Framework) Order 2021COVID-19 Public Health Response (Infringement Offences) Amendment Order 2021COVID-19 Public Health Response (Protection Framework) Amendment Order 2021COVID-19 Public Health Response (Isolation and Quarantine) Amendment Order (No 5) 2021COVID-19 Public Health Response (COVID-19 Vaccination Certificate) Amendment Order 2021COVID-19 Public Health Response (Maritime Border) Order (No 2) Amendment Order (No 3) 2021.
Once more we are asking the House to approve COVID-19 orders to ensure that they are not revoked within certain time frames. The House has considered a series of these motions over the past two years or so. The collection of orders before us today is perhaps the most significant so far. It demonstrates the necessity of a system that enables us to respond to the rapid pace of change that is characteristic of COVID-19 but that ensures that parliamentary debate and approval remains an essential part of the process. There are 10 orders in the motion before us today. The presentation of My Vaccine Passes has quickly become part of everyday life for the overwhelming majority of New Zealanders—to be shown to be able to enter certain areas, places, or premises, or to receive some services. The system was established by the COVID-19 Public Health Response (COVID-19 Vaccination Certificate) Order 2021 and its subsequent amendment, both of which are in today's motion. They are a critical component of New Zealand's world-leading COVID 19 response.
Chris Bishop: Point of order, Madam Speaker. We're in a slightly unusual situation here where we don't have the actual Minister for COVID-19 Response, or indeed the Associate Minister, moving the motion and I think I'm right in saying that the Minister who is presumably acting on behalf of the Minister didn't actually move the motion on behalf of the Minister for COVID-19 Response—
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): She did.
Kieran McAnulty: She did. You're too busy complaining to listen.
Chris Bishop: Yes, well where are they? She's here today, where is she?
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): The member will take his seat.
Chris Bishop: Just because the Government whip can't organise the House properly—
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): Order! The member will take his seat.
Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: Speaking to the point of order, Madam Speaker, I just want to make the point that no member is allowed to point out the absence of another member and I feel that that was a deliberate attempt to do so.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): That is fair to say. I would like to call the Hon Carmel Sepuloni to continue with the speech and may I suggest, Chris Bishop, that if you are to listen carefully, you would have actually heard that she moved the motion.
Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: For the benefit of the members in the House—and I do hope that they are listening now—I thank the members of the Regulations Review Committee for their work in examining these orders. The committee's comments on successive orders have contributed significantly to improving the process ever since the passing of the COVID-19 Public Health Response Act.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is—
Chris Bishop: Oh, are we going to—sorry, Madam Speaker. I intended to take a full call here.
Hon Carmel Sepuloni: He needs to sort himself out.
Chris Bishop: Well, I'm just making the point that I'm intending to take a full call here. Do you want me to come back after the dinner break or start now, Madam Speaker?
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): You're welcome to have a speech, Chris Bishop. It will only last a couple of minutes, though.
Chris Bishop: I think we've changed the rules on that.
Kieran McAnulty: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I believe it's within the presiding officer's ability within five minutes of the dinner break to call it off, and I express no opposition to the member coming back and doing a speech in full after the dinner break.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): We'll resume the House after the dinner break, at 7 p.m.
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7 p.m.





ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): The House has resumed. When the House broke for the dinner hour, the House was considering Government motion No 2. And I see Chris Bishop seeking the call.
CHRIS BISHOP (National): Thank you, Madam Speaker, and I want to start by just apologising to the House for, I think it'd be fair to say, an unseemly little spat just before the dinner break, which involved a bit of a tête-à-tête between myself and the chief Government whip and also the Minister moving the motion, Minister Sepuloni.
I want to explain why I got a little bit perturbed by what the Government was doing, and that is that what the House is doing here is very important. We are approving far-ranging, significant orders under public health legislation that impose onerous duties on many New Zealanders. We only need to look at a couple of hundred metres from this House to see the level of upset that some people have with those duties, and it behoves the Parliament to take that job seriously. And unfortunately, we had a Minister moving the motion that has no relevant public health portfolio responsibility in the Parliament, nor was it the Minister for COVID-19 Response or indeed the Associate Minister or even the Minister of Health. I thought that was regrettable, because it's very important that Parliament give these issues due consideration. And, frankly, the speech from the Minister was cursory at best. I think we got 90 seconds, or potentially two minutes, in relation to what the House was being asked to approve. That was why I was annoyed, and—I think I was annoyed, but I do want to apologise for the bit of a set-to with the chief Government whip.
I do just want to start by making that point, that what Parliament is doing here is very important because the motions that we are being asked to consider are the first motions made under amendments to the public health COVID Act last year, which relate to, obviously, the traffic light framework and the various duties that come with vaccination and COVID vaccine certificates or vaccine passes under that Act. So it's very important. The Regulations Review Committee has done a very thorough job investigating that, and I want to echo the words of the Minister who moved the motion and say thank you to them for their hard work.
One of the things that we said last year, in relation to the passing under urgency of the COVID public health Act amendments, was that there were mistakes that would be made, that legislating in such haste would present problems down the line that the Government would have to fix. And, unfortunately, that has proven to be exactly the case. I would draw the House's attention to the very thorough report of the Regulations Review Committee, which has examined the orders that the House is being asked to consider. There are four concerns that the committee had with the orders. I'll just read them out, because I think it's instructive as to the haste with which the Government both passed the Act and also promulgated the orders.
The committee says: "We have four concerns about this order … Unclear relationship between COVID-19 orders". Secondly, "Consistency with the Act?" Well, that's pretty big. Consistency with the Act—that goes through the whole legality of the orders that have been promulgated. Consistency with the Act is pretty fundamental, actually. It goes to whether or not an order is vires the empowering legislation. Thirdly—it gets worse—"Not in accordance with the objects and intentions of the empowering Act". So in other words, the Minister—in this place, the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety, who I see is in the House—has promulgated an order that is potentially not in accordance with the empowering Act. And, fourthly, "Drafting error with significant consequences". A drafting era with significant consequences.
Now, some of these things have been fixed through the process of the back and forth between the Regulations Review Committee and the Minister, and that's a good thing. That's a very good thing. But I think it speaks to the urgency and the hurry that the Government moved on all of this last year. But the Regulations Review Committee has done a good job.
One of the interesting things about these orders is—and this speaks to the first point, which is the unclear relationship between the various orders. One of the points that some of us made during the debate on the empowering legislation or amendments last year was the high degree of confusion in relation to the various orders. Now, I accept that this is a technical and a complex area, but the Regulations Review Committee has echoed some of that criticism. So we've ended up with a situation where there are two different orders that do slightly different things but had the same purpose. And the committee notes, "We are concerned that having two orders with the same purpose is unclear and confusing." One relates to public health rationale, and one relates to orders in the public interest.
The other point is that, as the committee notes, "the amendments made to the Act in 2021,"—these are the amendments in December—"to provide for the making of section 11AB orders, may not be sufficiently clear as to the intended interrelationship between the orders made under sections 11 and 11AB". Now, the good news is the Regulations Review Committee is doing an inquiry into the regulation-making powers in the vaccinations legislation and the public health response order. And that's a good thing, because there is definitely an issue here that requires ventilation, and definitely an issue that requires the House's attention.
We will approve the orders made because, ultimately, the Government has made them and placed them before the House for the approval of the Parliament and we are satisfied that the committee has done a good job in tidying up some of the issues with them, as the committee always does. But I want to warn the Government that there is going to come a time when some of the various orders made pursuant to this legislation will have to expire. As I said to the House in December last year, the big issue in 2022 is going to be the temporal nature or otherwise of mandated professions, mandates generally, and the issue of vaccination passes. And that issue has only become more pressing as Omicron spreads throughout the community, and we can see the clear division in our society at the use of mandates and passes.
So I said in December, and I repeat again, that we are going to have to have a thorough conversation as a community and as a society about those issues. It is not good enough, I believe, for the Prime Minister to simply say, "Yep, they're going to go at some point, but we won't tell you when and we won't tell you under what circumstances, and we won't tell you how." The House deserves more than that, and the House deserves a thorough and serious conversation around that. I said in December that that would be an issue this year; here we are in February, and it is definitely becoming an issue. And so we are going to have to have a look at that. 
I note today that the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet (DPMC) told the Governance and Administration Committee that there is a review pursuant to Cabinet direction under way as to the traffic light framework and how it works in light of Omicron. We welcome that review, because the thing about Omicron—as we've discovered from overseas, but also we're now experiencing here in New Zealand—is it's highly infectious and busts through vaccination. And, actually, most of the cases, in the last two days, of people who have contracted Omicron—or, we assume it's Omicron—are vaccinated. Are fully vaccinated. And they're getting it in places where COVID vaccine passes are required—cafes and other places.
That does raise serious issues around the utility of passes. Passes under Delta made sense, because the transmission effects were so significant. When the transmission benefits are much more diminished because of the infectiousness of Omicron, the utility does diminish, and we deserve a conversation around under what circumstances passes and mandates will be required and, indeed, where they're useful. I understand that the DPMC review that will be going to Cabinet will be looking at those issues. Those are not easy issues. The science and the evidence is emerging on that, and we can look overseas to some of that evidence and see what's going to happen in New Zealand, because our trajectory is not that much different to other countries in terms of case numbers. And so we'll look at that, and we welcome that review. That's an issue that the House is going to have to grapple with in 2022. Thanks, Madam Speaker.





BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Deputy Leader—ACT): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I'll keep my comments very brief, but I think I will echo what my National Party colleague has said in that there is a lot of law that comes through this Chamber that is done under the matter of urgency, and it leads to a lot of issues that we've seen through the Regulations Review Committee. In particular, if I look at one of these, this is the COVID-19 Public Health Response (COVID-19 Vaccination Certificate) Order. The committee said, "We're concerned that the order gives an electronic system the power to make a decision without specifying who's actually accountable for those decisions". I mean, that's a pretty big oversight, and it's throughout a lot of these orders.
You can see another order that came through was the Public Health Response (Protection Framework) Order, and, in particular, the problems that the committee raised were ones that I was dealing with, with members of the public in the community who were in the middle of moving home. And this was a huge issue for a lot of people—it created a lot of stress. In particular, one person said that they had sold their home within Auckland and were moving south to Hamilton but, because of the restrictions through the protection framework, they weren't legally allowed to move into their new home. But that created a huge challenge because they had settled on their home; somebody was expecting to come in and move into that home on the Thursday, and they had no legal right to leave Auckland. And then other people said, "Well, why don't they move into a hotel or move with family?" Well, should the Government be putting restrictions in place on people that actually costs them money? Not everybody has thousands of dollars to move all of their stuff into a hotel, let alone all of their goods into storage facilities, when there could have just been an easier solution: letting people, who are in the process of relocating, through the border.
These are issues that we see when we rush legislation through, and it imposes huge costs on people. We need to make sure that we're getting public policy right, and that we're doing these laws correctly.
Another aspect that is increasing when we are passing these laws is clauses that are completely redundant. I see the committee also noted there were around 30 COVID-19 provisions in Part 2 of one of these orders that are currently redundant. What are they still there for? We are passing laws that are confusing for people to even read, because there are clauses in them that actually have no effect. People will be reading these orders, thinking that what they're reading is in fact the law when, in fact, it's not. How, at that point, can you trust what you are reading, that is passed by Parliament? We have a right and a duty to make sure that our laws—and what restrictions we're putting on people—are simple and easy to follow. And I think it's a real shame that people would mistakenly read our COVID orders, thinking they're doing the right thing, but they're so unsure that they actually are.
When it comes to the Public Health Response (Vaccinations) Amendment Order, I think we really do have to start having a conversation about whether we are going to see steps in the coming weeks and months that show when these orders are no longer needed, and when we can move on, and what the Prime Minister actually has in place for what we will move on to. The ACT Party has stressed, since last year, that we shouldn't in fact have heavy-handed vaccine mandates; we should have a vaccine or test requirement. There is an alternative that the ACT Party has been putting out there for months, and we would encourage Parliament to pick it up, because we are seeing a lot of division, and we are seeing a lot of people starting to ask the question: "Well, when do we move on to something more?". When do we actually allow people to have some of their rights and freedoms back, because we are limiting people's rights and freedoms under the law, and there is a real need to show people a way forward—a way forward of hope and unity rather than division—and that's what the ACT Party stands in favour of.
And so, Madam Speaker, the ACT Party is, quite frankly, getting sick of how many orders the Government puts through under urgency, and how shoddy that makes our legal regime. People have a right to know that the laws are written down in black and white, that they can trust what's in front of them, that there's been due diligence, that we're getting it right, and that we also have a path out of limiting people's right and freedoms. That's why the ACT Party is standing opposing these orders today.





Dr ELIZABETH KEREKERE (Green): Aroha mai for before; I had a mask malfunction, so tēnā koe e te Māngai o te Whare.
I rise on behalf of the Green Party to support these COVID orders that were presented to the House between 30 November and 9 December, are already in effect, and, as my colleague here as mentioned, have already been superseded. It's always interesting when we consider these motions, because we do them in blocks, because of how far we've moved since those things happened. Alert levels seem like a distant memory when Omicron is setting new records every day and we have a super-spreader event happening on our front lawn.
The Green Party acknowledges the efforts of those keeping us safe: from contact tracers and border workers to researchers and vaccinators. We have always supported a response to COVID-19 that is equitable and keeps people safe. We're guided by our commitment to Te Tiriti o Waitangi, and we recognise the importance of Māori-led strategies for Māori. We also acknowledge the disproportionate effect of COVID-19 on Pasifika communities, especially in South Auckland. We support a Pacific-led response for their communities. Finally, we acknowledge the particular toll this pandemic has had on immunocompromised people and people with disabilities, who deserve the very best care we can give.
These orders include moving away from alert levels to the traffic light system. We were wary of this approach as we were staunch supporters of the elimination strategy, and we know our low rate of hospitalisations and deaths were absolutely because of it. But as the virus evolves, then so must we. We're still not big fans of the traffic light system. It might have worked well as a transition from the elimination, but even the red light has proved to be no match at all for Omicron. We're heavily relying on our vaccinations and boosters to see us through. That's a worry for some of our communities because still, unfortunately, only three out of 20 DHBs have got over 90 percent of double vaccinations for Māori. So the high rates of boosters that we're hoping to see are a very, very long way away.
The biggest risks remain in our communities for our children and for the many of us with underlying health conditions, so these orders also include the mandates that many New Zealanders have been concerned about. We recognise the inconsistencies for how these have been rolled out. There is huge confusion out there of what it means for marae, for businesses, for workplaces. You know, people think they're following the rules and at the last minute something changes. People think, "Can I work here; can I not?" People are finding out a week later they can go back to their jobs. It's really, really difficult. We fully support the science. We have always supported the health advice to vaccinate. We've maintained, though, that those who are unvaccinated for whatever reason should not be second-class citizens in this country. But that is what we're seeing.
We support widespread access to rapid antigen tests so people can work and attend events with a negative test, and free masks. The investment in prevention is always going to be worth it. And coming back to the orders, perhaps the Government might like to develop one to deal with violent protests triggered by COVID mirroring protests that we've seen in other parts of the world, because yet again we see the double standards of the police response: a huge police presence at real occupations such as Pūtiki, where the protectors were dragged out and arrested, or at Ihumātao, where guardians were pulled from their beds, whereas here indecision reigns because the protesters wouldn't leave when they were asked to.
The Greens are a party of activists and we support protests. We support people coming out and saying what they need to say. We believe in non-violent solutions. We do not want any violence happening out there. We want approaches that absolutely de-escalate any tension, but we'd still like to see a solution, and we haven't got any clarity on what that might be, because we know that there are people out there with very legitimate concerns about mandates and what that actually means for them in their lives, in their whānau, and in their work. I think if we are able to have a conversation we could come to some sort of solution.
But as someone who has been a lifelong activist myself and been involved in many, many protests, there's some tips I would like to offer. If someone wants to be heard, clarity of message is important. If they want to negotiate, leadership is important. If they want to be taken seriously, perhaps don't associate with right-wing extremists, white supremacists, and people threatening to execute MPs. If they want to call for freedom, awesome; do that. Perhaps don't trample on the freedom of someone else who wants to wear a mask; who wants to safely access their own workplace; who wants to catch public transport; who wants to safely walk to school without a security guard, which is what St Mary's, just up the road, has now had to do because their kids are not safe walking around this block; or to present a petition. Save the Children were forced to go to the back of Parliament House, not have their democratic right to come to their House of Representatives and present a petition to MPs. Our co-leader, the Hon Marama Davidson, Jan Logie, and our colleague Harete Hipango from National went to receive that petition at the back of the House. They were still interrupted. They were still yelled at. So, absolutely, call for freedom, but no one else's freedoms should be compromised.
It's been all through this pandemic that we see this, this balance of freedoms. The freedom of health constricting our freedom of movement, requirements to wear masks—all of those things. We're doing it in that bigger belief of our collective health and wellbeing, but people's patience is so strained. We look forward to the day when COVID does not govern every aspect of our life, when it's not in every conversation you can hear people talking about as you walk down the street. In the meantime, these orders are already there. I look forward to the time when we're just doing our normal legislation and we don't need to worry about urgency for how we deal with this pandemic. Kia ora.





A party vote was called for on the question, That this House approve the following orders made under the COVID-19 Public Health Response Act 2020: COVID-19 Public Health Response (COVID-19 Vaccination Certificate) Order 2021, COVID-19 Public Health Response (Air Border) Order (No 2) Amendment Order (No 14) 2021, COVID-19 Public Health Response (Vaccinations) Amendment Order (No 5) 2021, COVID-19 Public Health Response (Vaccinations) Amendment Order (No 6) 2021, COVID-19 Public Health Response (Protection Framework) Order 2021, COVID-19 Public Health Response (Infringement Offences) Amendment Order 2021, COVID-19 Public Health Response (Protection Framework) Amendment Order 2021, COVID-19 Public Health Response (Isolation and Quarantine) Amendment Order (No 5) 2021, and COVID-19 Public Health Response (COVID-19 Vaccination Certificate) Amendment Order 2021.
Ayes 108
New Zealand Labour 65; New Zealand National 33; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.
Noes 10
ACT New Zealand 10.
Motion agreed to.





HOUSE IN COMMITTEE
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): I call on Simeon Brown.
SIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga): Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you for the opportunity to discuss the Land Transport (Clean Vehicles) Amendment Bill. We were debating—
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): May I ask the member to take a seat please. I'm sorry, there is one motion that needs to put through. The House is in committee for further consideration of the Land Transport (Clean Vehicles) Amendment Bill and the Land Transport (Drug Driving) Amendment Bill, for the consideration of the Crown Pastoral Land Reform Bill, and for further consideration of the Commerce Amendment Bill.





LAND TRANSPORT (CLEAN VEHICLES) AMENDMENT BILL
In Committee
Debate resumed from 15 February.
Part 1  Amendments to Land Transport Act 1998 (continued)
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Members, we come first to the interrupted consideration of the Land Transport (Clean Vehicles) Amendment Bill. When we were last considering this bill, Part 1 was being debated. The question is that Part 1 stand part.





SIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga): Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for the opportunity to take another call on Part 1 of the Land Transport (Clean Vehicles) Amendment Bill. We were debating this piece of legislation and a number of tabled amendments last night, and so it's good to be back discussing this particular part of this legislation and trying to get from the Minister some answers to the questions that I think New Zealanders are wanting answers in regards to, and particularly around some of the very significant powers which this bill gives to the Minister in regards to the decisions.
So we still have a number of questions that we are seeking answers from the Minister for. One of the issues that was debated at length last night was around excluded classes. We had a discussion around the exclusion of utes, and I think that issue was well traversed. We had a discussion around the issue of disability vehicles and we had an assurance from the Minister that there would be some form of exclusion for disability vehicles. My first question to the Minister is: what other classes of vehicles is the Minister seeking to exclude under regulations? Are there other classes that are being considered? My understanding, through written questions, is that the officials already have drafted regulations, and so I'm assuming that that's an answer that the Minister will be able to answer quite quickly.
The second question I've got is in regards to clause 5, which inserts new section 167A(6)(b)(v). This is in regards to the issue, and I think we'd just got to this point yesterday in regards to the overs and unders of the charges. It says here "the imposition and level of fees or charges are appropriate, after considering—whether the estimated revenue to be received from the charges is sufficient to meet the costs and expenses of the clean vehicle discount scheme funded under section 9(1E) and (1F) of the Land Transport Management Act". It would be good to get from the Minister an answer to the question about actually what is the cost and what is the expense of actually administering this scheme—
Mark Cameron: He didn't answer me that last night, Simeon.
SIMEON BROWN: Sorry?
Mark Cameron: He wouldn't answer that last night.
SIMEON BROWN: No. Well, I think it would be very helpful to actually get an understanding of what that actual cost is, because New Zealanders will be paying for this, effectively. The idea is that there'll be some overs and unders, and we sort of got some generality from the Minister yesterday. There'll be some overs and some unders, and it will generally sort of wash out in the end. But the question is: what is the cost of actually administering the scheme on a year-by-year basis? Because, ultimately, there will be a cost—there will be an administrative cost for administering this scheme. There'll be officials at the New Zealand Transport Agency who'll be tasked with coming up with the systems to operate it and to make sure that car importers are abiding by the rules and regulations, that they're paying the appropriate fees, receiving the appropriate subsidies, etc. What is the cost that has been budgeted on an annual basis for that? Because that money, effectively, has to be taken off consumers. This is where the overs and unders, effectively, have to mean that you have to get extra money off New Zealanders to not only pay the subsidy but also to pay the administration cost.
So it'd be interesting to know from the Minister what it is going to look like and what sort of percentage of the overall costs that people will be paying. So if you do buy a higher emitting vehicle—you may not have a choice, as we discussed last night, or you may choose to. Those people will, effectively, be paying the administration of this system. What is the percentage of the money raised which will be going towards administering the scheme?
There's another question I'd like to ask in regards to clause 5, which inserts new section 167C, "Regulations for purposes of Part 13 (clean vehicle standard)". The question here is in regards to the issue of requiring vehicle importers to include among the vehicles they import in any given year a minimum proportion of vehicles with zero carbon dioxide emissions. This was another issue which was raised by a number of submitters. Some submitters requested the exclusion of this particular paragraph. So it'd be good to get from the Minister some of the rationale as to why he is dismissing that request to remove this particular paragraph. Effectively, what this paragraph—paragraph (m) in new section 167C(1)—does is t says if you're importing vehicles, a certain proportion, and we don't know what that proportion might be, has to be zero carbon dioxide emission vehicles—so, effectively, at this stage, an electric vehicle (EV) in the future, potentially using some form of other zero carbon emission type of fuel.
But the question I've got in regards to this particular subclause is, I guess, firstly, who this relates to. Is this relating to the car yard down the road who brings in a bunch of cars and goes to the auctions over in Japan or wherever they get their cars from and purchases vehicles, so they need to make sure that a certain proportion of those vehicles are that they bring in are zero carbon dioxide emissions? Or does it just relate to more of an importer, such as a brand, for example, Honda or Toyota, and that they are therefore required to bring in a minimum portion of vehicles with zero carbon dioxide emissions?
I guess the following question from that is if it relates to a major brand and importer—for example, one of those brands. The question is: if they don't currently produce EV vehicles or a zero carbon dioxide emission vehicle and so can't currently actually fulfil zero carbon dioxide emission vehicles into New Zealand, does that, effectively, mean they're unable to continue to import vehicles into the country until they're able to start manufacturing? As the Minister will be aware, if you're manufacturing vehicles, it takes time to investigate, to design, to build, and then, of course, test and then bring something to manufacturing. We know that the vast majority of manufacturers have already invested in this technology, but some have not. So therefore they will not potentially be able to meet this criteria in the short term, at least. So does that mean in the short term they won't be able to bring vehicles into the country under this particular subclause?
The following question, which I think is also deserving of some attention from the Minister is what is meant by a minimum proportion of vehicles? So the question is—well, of course, the legislation doesn't actually describe what the minimum proportion of vehicles is. I assume that, again, is something which the Minister in his infinite wisdom will be able to decide. What criteria will he be looking at to decide? Is it going to be 5 percent, 10 percent, 15 percent? I mean, for some manufacturers, they'll be able to produce 100 percent. If you're Tesla, no problem; 100 percent straight away. So they don't care what that percentage is. They're very, very relaxed about it. But if you're a company which has just started producing electric vehicles, they may not be able to actually bring that many to the market, and they may already have commitments to other markets already. That's what we're seeing with supply chains around the world at the moment in the vehicle manufacturing space. Those supply chains are incredibly strained due to a number of reasons and therefore their ability to actually fulfil whatever that minimum proportion of vehicles is could be significantly challenging in the short term.
So the question I've got is has the Minister already decided what the minimum proportion is? What is it, if he has decided? What consultation has he had with the industry? Does he believe that the industry is going to be able to fulfil that? And if those particular manufacturers or importers are unable to bring in those proportions in the short term, what those consequences might be for them to be able to continue to import vehicles into New Zealand?
I guess the other question which I'd appreciate some clarification, but I did touch on it at the start, is if you are, for example, an importer, you bring in a bunch of vehicles, you're not attached to one of the main brands. What does that mean for someone who purchases cars, for instance, from Japan, and sells second-hand used vehicles? Will they also be caught by this? And will that mean that they will have to therefore bring in a proportion of zero carbon dioxide emissions? Noting that the Japanese market doesn't actually have significant numbers of zero carbon dioxide emissions—they have a large proportion of hybrid vehicles—and that zero carbon emission vehicles is something which is the Japanese market is still developing. So I look forward to some answers to a wide variety of questions on those issues.





Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister of Transport): Thanks, Madam Chair. Look, happy to provide a couple of responses. I do note that in a number of these areas we are not so much talking about the substance of the bill any more but what might happen as a result of the regulations, which are enabled by the bill, but none the less I'm happy to be as helpful as I can in that area. That applies, for example, to certain categories that might be excluded under the legislation. That's not actually a matter that's set out in the bill. That is something that the Minister, through an Order in Council, can consider. I have signalled that we'll be doing that. Certainly we're considering that, subject to Cabinet decision making, in respect of disability vehicles, but also special interest vehicles, motor sport vehicles, and low-volume modified vehicles as well. They're the ones that we're considering, but, again, that's actually about what Cabinet now or in the future might determine is appropriate.
The same applies to the member's other question about the cost of the scheme. It's not actually a matter that's in the bill, but the Government has provided adequate funding for the programme to move forward. The set-up costs are approximately $6 million and approximately $8 million ongoing; that's Crown funded.
In respect of the member's other question about the—again, these are empowering provisions, I'd point out new section 167C sets up empowering provisions in the bill, and does provide the ability through an Order in Council process for a minimum required number of zero-emissions vehicles to be required. So that won't happen when the legislation comes in, but the Minister, through an Order in Council, can in the future choose to do that. We've signalled pretty openly that we don't see that happening in the short term, but it's enabled under the bill. What would happen there would be that the provision would apply to the entity who is importing the vehicles, as defined in the underlying legislation. And in respect of any importer who was not able to source electric vehicles, it wouldn't be that they couldn't import any vehicles, but a charge would apply in that instance.





Hon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): Thank you, Madam Chair. It's good to, again, pick up on the conversations that were commenced towards the end of the sitting day yesterday. We're still on Part 1 of this Land Transport (Clean Vehicles) Amendment Bill. I've got a couple of questions relating to the detail of the legislation proposed in the Minister's name. This is a piece of legislation that's actually quite complicated in terms of its implementation. So if we go to—the area related to category 1 light vehicles in proposed new section 178, "Category 1 light vehicle importer may bank overachievement of carbon dioxide emissions" and then go to proposed new section 179, "Category 1 light vehicle importer may defer obligation" in both those sections there's a reasonably prescriptive and, some would say, complicated process by which both those objectives can be achieved.
So, first, if we come to the issue relating to a category 1 light vehicle importer being able to bank overachievement of carbon dioxide emissions in terms of the target, the legislation states that "If the actual average vehicle carbon dioxide emissions across the fleet of vehicles imported by a category 1 light vehicle importer in an obligation year are less than the fleet target applicable to that importer, the excess reduction in emissions may be carried forward to the next obligation year (banked) in the vehicle importer's carbon dioxide account in accordance with the regulations." Now that creates, of itself, some issues that relate to accounting, recording, and stylistically for the vehicle importer. I asked some questions towards the end of the session last night about the definition of an importer, how many vehicles would be required each year to become an importer under the legislation, and I'm still hopeful that the Minister might answer that question now we're into this continuation of the debate.
So going back to that part about being able to bank overachievement of carbon dioxide emission targets, I'm keen to know what the rationale for that process is. Wouldn't it have been tidy and neat to have just had an annual process, and either the emissions targets were met or they weren't met? Simple, black and white kind of thing. But this process of being able to roll over to a second year seems to me to be a degree of complication that will cause some concern and angst in the sector. And then similarly, proposed new section 179 refers to the same category 1 light vehicle importer being able to defer an obligation. Now this section says "applies in relation to obligation years 2023, 2024, and 2025.", so it's limited in that aspect. But a " vehicle importer may apply to the Director, in accordance with the regulations, to defer their obligation to meet the category 1 light vehicle importer fleet target for an applicable obligation year (year 1) until the following obligation year (year 2).", and so it goes on. This, again, formulaic, heavy on regulation approach seems to be fraught with difficulty from an administrative and logistics point of view. And so my question, really, to the Minister is: what is the rationale for both the ability to bank, and what is also the rationale for the ability to defer obligations as set out in this part of the legislation? 





Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Junior Whip—Labour): I move, That the question be now put.





SIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga): Thank you, Madam Chair. There's still a range of areas in this Part which still need to be discussed in terms of the impact that this legislation has. I'd like to ask a question of the Minister in relation to Subpart 2, which is regarding the "Clean vehicle standard" and new sections 175 and 175A, inserted by clause 7.
So section 175 sets the targets for reducing carbon dioxide emissions, and, again, this was another issue which was raised significantly by submitters in the select committee stage, with a number of submitters raising different points in relation to whether they were too fast or too slow in terms of reducing the emissions. But the question, I think, which was particularly raised was in regards to the emissions reductions set out in the 2026 and 2027 year, with a number of submitters raising the point that the drop between 2025 and 2026 was going to be challenging in terms of being able to meet those particular targets. I know the Minister's talked about how ambitious he is and how he is wanting to create change, and we wish him, you know, good luck if that's what he wishes to do with this piece of legislation. However, the reality is also the fact that the market needs to be able to actually deliver, and as we've talked about before, the risk here is that the market is not able to deliver the number of vehicles and therefore, either people pay for higher emitting vehicles and pay the taxes and the charges or they simply hold on to existing vehicles for longer. That was something which I think is a significant risk of this piece of legislation.
So the issue that was raised in the departmental report from officials was the suggestion to actually amend the emissions target for 2026 from 84.5 grams for type A vehicles to 90 grams and for type B vehicles, from 116.3 grams to 139 grams. I'd like to ask the Minister why it appears he's rejected that particular piece of advice or proposal from officials and also why he seems to have rejected the advice, which was for the 2027 year, to have those targets set by regulation instead of being put here in the primary legislation, which is currently where it is at.
So that brings me to the second question, to which, I guess, his response will be: "Well, I'll be reviewing the targets anyway in June of 2024, and that's my opportunity to sort of deal with those particular issues." The question I've got there in regards to this particular section is symbolic of the challenges in this legislation in that, effectively, again, it just gives the power to the Minister. So instead of the industry having certainty leading up to 2026, now the industry is going to have to wait to see what he or she—whoever the Minister may be—will decide at that point. But, again, the review has a number of criteria here in terms of what the review must take into account, but then it says, "The review may be undertaken by any method the Minister considers appropriate."—any method. Effectively, the Minister could decide however he or she wishes for this particular review to take place. From my perspective, that doesn't sound very methodical when you're dealing with something which is actually—these are big industry players having to plan ahead and the Minister, effectively, has the power to simply just decide how he or she wishes to undertake a review. So whilst a review sounds like a good idea—particularly as the market changes and manufacturing and technology capability no doubt only improves—the other point here is, actually, this just seems to be another power grab by the Minister to decide.
And the next subsection says: "In conducting the review, the Minister must consult such persons as the Minister considers appropriate." Again, the Minister can, effectively, decide who he or she decides to talk to. That's something which I think is a significant concern, and the fact that the industry is not even a required component of that review.
So I asked the Minister a number of questions there—those proposals, those proposed changes, and then in regards to how this review is actually structured.





Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister of Transport): I'll respond to the questions from Mr Simpson and Mr Brown because they sort of go together. Mr Brown's raised questions about the targets, their level of ambition, and the review mechanism. The targets do represent a level of ambition, although I note that by 2027, they effectively take us through to what would be about that the mid-range of what comparable countries are looking to achieve by way of the targets that they have in place, noting that many of those countries are actually in the process of increasing the level of ambition that they have. So I'm very comfortable with the way that they've been set.
But the point I make here, this is coming to Mr Simpson's question, is that we've built considerable flexibility into the scheme through the ability to defer and through the ability to bank and through the ability to transfer. That means, for example, if in years one, two, or three an importer is perhaps finding it a little bit difficult, and perhaps that is because they're waiting for a cleaner supply of vehicles to come on stream, they have the ability to defer any of their obligations to such a point where they might well be able to overachieve and balance it out. Similarly, the ability to transfer means that those firms who overachieve are able to transfer those credits to those in the industry who don't. 
So as I said it in the debate yesterday, when we were also traversing this territory, the scheme is designed to support importers to meet the targets, and those points that Mr Simpson raises—the banking, the borrowing, the transferring—are about effectively providing a market mechanism within the system—common in virtually all the overseas schemes that we've looked at, by the way—to enable them to do that. And that to some degree—in response to Mr Brown's question, even though the targets are ambitious; I agree—will support importers to be able to do that.
I'd also note that in 2021, after the implementation of stage one of the Clean Car Discount, within a few months we already at a national fleet level reached the 2023 targets, such was the positive effect of a Clean Car Discount in getting cleaner vehicles into New Zealand. So I'm actually quite positive about the ability of our sector to adapt and to get the outcomes that everyone wants in this space.
In respect to the review mechanisms, I just note to Mr Brown that there has been a change to the legislation here to specifically set out the review and the things that must be taken into account as part of that. This is a pretty standard methodology within the legislation. We talked yesterday about the questions about whether particular organisations should be defined in the legislation. I gave my view that that's a little bit of a problem—you don't necessarily know who the organisations might be in a few years' time—and gave my commitment to make sure that we engage widely and in good faith. And, of course, any Minister who doesn't do that will potentially face a challenge in the making of those decisions.





JOSEPH MOONEY (National—Southland): Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to ask the Minister whether—and if not, why not—there is not exemption for selected sectors until meaningful alternatives are available, particularly for the rural sector, for farmers, for contractors, etc. I note this is a matter that has been raised by Federated Farmers. I also note that Groundswell—it's been one of the key issues that they've raised as well and it's quite a sensible one because what they're saying is there aren't any alternatives available yet and so why not make an exemption for those sectors that do not have a realistic alternative until that alternative is available? 
Farmers and tradies say the Government's clean car package is an unfair tax on them because there are no realistic alternatives available at the present time. You know, without being too silly about it, they can't take a Tesla out the back of the farm, and a Nissan LEAF isn't going to cut it either. So there are electric utes in development overseas, and they look great, the farming sector tells me, but right now they're not here, they're not available, and they probably will be about $200,000—throwing out a figure there—when they do get here. So the rural sector can get behind this with a recognition that those utes aren't yet available so they can do their job and keep the economy going. 
I note the comments by Central Otago beef and dairy farmer Ben Gillespie, who with his wife, Anna, last year won an environment award for the approach they take on their farm, when he said he was on board with the sector doing more to address its impact on climate change but this measure missed the mark. I'll just speak briefly about them. They were commended for preventing negative environmental impacts. Their farming operation includes buffer zones, precision irrigation, and a "right pasture, right time, right place" philosophy. They've established two new wetlands, an onsite nursery growing native plants for riparian planting—
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): I'm going to require the member to come more specifically back to Part 1.
JOSEPH MOONEY: So these are people are walking the talk to really ensure that they are addressing climate change. They're addressing the environmental impacts, they are addressing biodiversity on their farm. They are fully on board with this. They've been recognised as regional supreme winners for their approach on-farm and they just saying, "Look, can you just listen to us? We want to engage, we want to have electric vehicles, but the ones that we need are just unavailable yet." So why not have an exemption for selected sectors until meaningful alternatives are available?





CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Order! Before I take another call—and I will take another call—Part 1 is the substantive part of this bill; there are a number of technicalities and I am trying to follow closely as members speak. And there is a newly introduced Minister's tabled amendment, which brings the proposed amendments up to 10. So it is complex. But what I am looking for now is contributions and questions to the Minister in the chair that related directly to Part 1. I'm not looking for a wider debate, which may well be more suited to what is going to be a subsequent third reading. So with those words I will accept a call.





Hon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): Thank you, Madam Chair, for your guidance and advice. Just before I commence my contribution, at this point I just want to thank the Minister for his positive engagement to the questions that are being asked. It's appreciated on this side of the Chamber. This is technical, complicated legislation, and it is imposing a new regime on a sector that isn't used to such a thing. So they're coming to terms with it, just as members of this House are. I want to, in this contribution, speak to the provisions in section 177, and then 182, inserted by clause 7, which are kind of similar, except that the first one, section 177, relates to category 1 light vehicle importers, and section 182 relates to category 2 light vehicle importers. The questions I'm particularly wanting the Minister to answer relate to the specifics of the dollar figures chosen for inclusion in what is black-letter law when this legislation will be passed.
So section 177 creates, at subsection (2), the charges from 1 January 2023—and this is for light vehicle importers. It will be $22.50 per gram of carbon dioxide in excess, multiplied by the number of used vehicles in the fleet, and $45 per gram of carbon dioxide in excess, multiplied by the number of new vehicles in the fleet. Then, from January 2025, it bumps up to $33.75, and then $67.50. So my first question is to the Minister: why and how were those figures determined? What was the rationale? What was the reasoning? What was the mathematics? What was the science, if you like, behind the selection of those very precise dollar amounts? And in a time when we have now rapid—some would say out of control—inflation and increasing concerns about the cost of living, is it appropriate and wise, in this legislation that has a limited time frame—and we accept that on this side of the House—to actually set the fees in the statute? Because changing them, if it's necessary, either up or down, will, I think, as I understand it, then require a change of legislation by way of amendment to be brought back through the House, to go through a process again. And that seems to me, on the face of it, to be something of a cumbersome exercise when, maybe, it could be that the dollar figures that are set out and calculated in both sections 182 and 177 could be achieved a different way.
So my primary question to the Minister is: how and what was the rationale to land on those precise dollar amounts? And those are just a couple in the legislation. I'm not going to waste the time of the committee in going through all the other parts of the legislation where there are specific and detailed mentions of precise dollars and cents terms. So if the Minister could answer those questions, I'd appreciate it.





SIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga): Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you for the opportunity to take another call. I'd like to, in this instance, ask the Minister to answer a question in regards to what appears to be a tabled amendment that the Minister has recently hand written for us in regards to clause 11, new section 243(1B). It amends new section 243(1B) by saying replace "any charges prescribed" with any fees or charges prescribed under section 167—and I think that's 1J, or is it IJ; not quite sure by the handwriting there. But it'd be helpful just to have the Minister answer exactly what the purpose of this tabled amendment that he's just written in and put on the Table actually will do, and why he has brought this tabled amendment so late to this debate. I think it was tabled at 7.40 p.m. tonight for consideration. Thank you.





Dr JAMES McDOWALL (ACT): I would just ask, is the Minister not concerned by comments by industry, or industry types, like the Motor Trade Association (MTA) that penalties will simply wind up being paid for by consumers, perhaps even on electric vehicles themselves, if they're trying to spread the costs out. I'd also ask, and this relates to a Supplementary Order Paper as well, SOP 119, but, you know, adjusting it slightly, why wouldn't the Minister consider creating at least a stand-down period of, say, five years, for example, for the rural sector and for tradies, just to allow the manufacturing, allow the sector to actually create new vehicles and do a bit of catch up so this is actually a little bit more relevant. 





Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister of Transport): Just briefly, in response to a few of the questions that have been raised, the first from Mr Simpson questioning the levels of fees that are set out in the legislation. The fees were consulted on very widely, going back to 2019 when the previous Associate Minister first kicked off engagement around the clean car standard with the sector. They went through a very significant consultation exercise. They were roughly halved from the original proposals that were put forward in response to engagement with the sector, and they're designed—as I said in comments yesterday—to kind of get the tension right within the system. We don't want them to be so exorbitant that they do add significant cost into the sector but, also, they are designed to put some positive pressure on, within the system, to send the incentive to get stock of cleaner vehicles. I note, in response to another comment, by definition the scheme can't be inflationary because it basically nets out at zero in the end so, in as much as there are fees which are in the system, on the other side there are discounts within the system as well, so there is no overall impact there. 
In answer to Mr McDowall's question, there's no scenario under which a zero-emissions vehicle would end up attracting fees, under either the standard or the discount. In answer to Mr Brown's questions about the tabled amendment, this is a point that officials have picked up—admittedly relatively late in the piece—which is just about the consistency of language across the legislation, where fees and charges are referred to consistently across other parts of the legislation, and they weren't in those parts. There's no significant flow-on effect from that, but it was important to have consistency of language in the legislation. 





Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Junior Whip—Labour): I move, That the question be now put.





SIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga): Thank you, Madam Chair, for the opportunity to take another call on Part 1 of the Land Transport (Clean Vehicles) Amendment Bill.
I'd like to ask a question in regards to category 2 light vehicle importers. And this is where vehicles are imported vehicle by vehicle and where charges are placed upon those vehicles dependent upon their carbon dioxide emissions. My understanding of this is, effectively, that each of those cars gets treated as an individual car rather than the type category A light vehicle importers, which, effectively, are looking more of a fleet level in terms of what are the charges and the overs and unders. And the question I've got in regards to the charges, it says in the new section 182(2), in clause 7, that "The charges are,—from 1 January 2023,—(i) $18.00 dollars per gram of carbon dioxide by which a used vehicle exceeds its target; and (ii) $36.00 per gram of carbon dioxide, by which a new imported vehicle exceeds its target;". My understanding of the difference there is that a used vehicle will come in later in its life, and therefore it has a shorter period of time. But the question I've got in relation to these charges—is there going to be a cap on the maximum amount that can be charged based upon these particular charges? And so if I was to import a used vehicle and it exceeded the target and I had to pay $18 per gram of carbon dioxide, what would be the maximum fee, if possible—is there a maximum fee? It doesn't seem to be that there is any sense of maximums set out in the primary legislation, so I assume that is something which may be considered as part of the regulations. If it is part of the regulations, is that something that the Minister has determined, that it will be a maximum fee? Will that maximum fee therefore also be different between the two different types of vehicles? So if I have imported a used vehicle I would assume, therefore, that the maximum fee for a used vehicle would be about half that of what the maximum fee of an imported vehicle would be.
And so I guess the issue which may become apparent here is that if those maximum fees were the same, then there's effectively a disincentive once the new vehicle exceeds a particular point; actually, you're effectively creating an opportunity to bring in more higher emitting vehicles without actually that continually—costs just continuing to go up. So the question there is: is it just a raw "This will be how much you will pay if it exceeds the target for every single gram?" And will there be a maximum fee? And if so, will those maximum fees differ between a used vehicle and a newly imported vehicle?





Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister of Transport): In answer to the member's question: there is not a maximum fee. It's not really possible to compare the way it plays out across used or individuals because, as the member notes, for the used vehicles the fee will apply on an individual basis. In respect of new importers, the clean car standard applies across the average of emissions imported by that importer over the case of a year, not to an individual vehicle.





Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Junior Whip—Labour): I move, That the question be now put.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the question be now put.
Ayes 77
New Zealand Labour 65; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.
Noes 43
New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.
Motion agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is that the Minister's amendment to clause 7 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 128 and the tabled amendment to clause 11 be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 75
New Zealand Labour 65; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.
Noes 43
New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.
Amendments agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is that Simeon Brown's tabled amendment to clause 4 excluding utes from the definition of a light vehicle be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 43
New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.
Noes 75
New Zealand Labour 65; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.
Amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is that Simeon Brown's tabled amendment to clause 4 excluding disability vehicles from the definition of a light vehicle be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 43
New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.
Noes 75
New Zealand Labour 65; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.
Amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is that Simeon Brown's tabled amendment to clause 5 replacing new section 167A(5A) be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 43
New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.
Noes 75
New Zealand Labour 65; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.
Amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is that Simeon Brown's tabled amendment to clause 5 inserting a new section 167D be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 43
New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.
Noes 75
New Zealand Labour 65; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.
Amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is that Simon Court's amendment to clause 7 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 119 be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 43
New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.
Noes 75
New Zealand Labour 65; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.
Amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is that Simeon Brown's tabled amendment to clause 7 amending new section 172 to exclude utes be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 43
New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.
Noes 75
New Zealand Labour 65; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.
Amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is that Simeon Brown's tabled amendment to clause 7 amending new section 172 to exclude disability vehicles be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 43
New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.
Noes 75
New Zealand Labour 65; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.
Amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is that Simeon Brown's tabled amendment to clause 7 inserting a new section 172A be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 43
New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.
Noes 75
New Zealand Labour 65; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.
Amendment not agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That Part 1 as amended be agreed to.
Ayes 77
New Zealand Labour 65; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.
Noes 43
New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.
Part 1 as amended agreed to.





Part 2  Amendments to other enactments
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Members, we now come to Part 2, and this is the debate on clauses 13 to 26, "Amendments to other enactments". The question is that Part 2 stand part.





Hon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): Thank you, Madam Chair. As has been indicated, this Part 2 relates to the amendments to the principal Act, the Land Transport Management Act of 2003, and other enactments. There are a number of quite technical changes that need to be implemented to give the new legislation effect that will impact on other pieces of legislation. There are a couple of matters that I want to raise with the Minister and seek his guidance and clarification on, because that will not only, I think, help me understand the rationale for the changes that are required to the principal Act but also I think it will help the sector and people who have to deal with the new regime on a day-to-day basis.
I want to, first, turn to new section 9A, inserted by clause 16, which relates to "Accounting for clean car vehicle discount". Now, this sets up a requirement for the agency in its annual report to, in the financial year to which it relates, contain the following information concerning the clean vehicle discount scheme. It will require the agency to report on "(a) the revenue received from charges paid … (b) any positive amount from a previous year … (c) the expenses and capital expenditure for the purpose of administering the scheme, including—(i) rebates provided … (ii) actual and reasonable costs incurred by the Agency in relation to the administration …; and (iii) any funding provided to the Agency by the Crown for the purposes of the scheme and repayment of that funding." And it's to that last point that I want to particularly draw attention to: "any funding provided to the Agency by the Crown for the purposes of the scheme and repayment of that funding."
On my simple reading of it, it sounds like there is an expectation that, for a period of time, there will need to be a top-up provided by the Crown in order to make good the payments that have already been made in terms of people who have bought vehicles under the scheme, because the paying out of subsidies has already taken place. But what is not already taking place is the collection of revenue from people who, for instance, want to buy vehicles that are required for their work, for their farming, for their trade, or for their business. They can't buy a vehicle that is going to fit into the criteria that would warrant for them an option to receive a subsidy under the scheme.
So my question is: what does the Minister anticipate the range and funding underwrite that will be required by the Crown? And when does he think that that will get into positive territory? What are the numbers? What is, essentially, the break-even point for the scheme in terms of the dollars and cents involved?
I want to, also, speak to matters in new section 101A, inserted by clause 19, "Monitoring matters relating to clean car vehicle discount scheme". It says that "(1) The Secretary, for the purpose of evaluating the performance of the clean vehicle discount scheme, may monitor and review" and then there are a range of things, including "(a) the revenue used by the Agency for the purposes of administering the scheme; … (b) the number and nature of rebates provided in relation to the carbon dioxide emissions….", and then there are several others. It then in subsection (2) says, ("The Secretary may, in writing, request the Agency to provide any information that is reasonably required and relevant to enable the Secretary to carry out the monitoring specified in subsection (1)." So I'm keen to know from the Minister, what will be, in his view, matters that may be reasonably required and relevant to enable the secretary to carry out the monitoring specified. It's been my experience over years, both in business and also in this House, that where the term "reasonably" is used in legislation or regulation that's open to a wide range of interpretation and what is reasonable to one person may be completely unreasonable to another.
Then, the other quick matter that I want to raise is in relation to style, really, and maybe the Minister can seek some guidance from officials. I'm referring to clause 23, which relates to section YA 1 amended, its definitions, and it says in section YA 1, "insert in its appropriate alphabetical order: clean vehicle discount scheme means the clean vehicle discount scheme administered by the New Zealand Transport Agency".
Now, members of the public and members of this House will know that a vast amount of taxpayer money has been spent on promoting and rebranding the New Zealand Transport Agency as Waka Kotahi, and, in fact, that is now their preferred terminology. And yet in the legislation, there appears to be no mention of the expensive and well-promoted new branding. I'm wondering what the style guide—and maybe the Minister has sought advice from Parliamentary Counsel as to what the style guide is. Are we in a situation where the new branding should be included in the regulations and legislation? Or, indeed, is that something that just applies to members of the public and to TV advertisements and radio advertisements and the comms team at the New Zealand Transport Agency, which is not small by any manner of means? So it's really a question about drafting style and what is the Minister's preference in that regard.





SIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga): Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for the opportunity to take a call on Part 2 of the Land Transport (Clean Vehicles) Amendment Bill, which is probably the least significant part, but also still very significant in that this amends other legislation, including the Land Transport Act. And, I guess, there's a number of questions I've got, and the first one is in relation to clause 15, which amends section 9. In new section 9(1E) it says, "The Crown may, without further appropriation than this subsection, incur expenses or capital expenditure in a financial year up to an amount equal to the revenue for that financial year received from charges paid pursuant to regulations made under section 167(1)(j) of the Land Transport Act". 
And so my question there is in regards to the overs and unders, which we've had a number of discussions about, but the question I've really got for the Minister is: are we here limiting the amounts that can be effectively paid out in a financial year in terms of subsidies or in terms of administering the scheme to the amount of revenue that has been received in that particular year to fund the clean vehicle discount scheme? 
And, as my colleague Hon Scott Simpson was referring to, obviously there is Crown contributions which are thought of in part as the scheme is up and running. And my question is in relation to the timing of how long does the Minister expect this scheme to rely upon Crown contributions to continue to be able to operate? At what point does the scheme, effectively, pay for itself? And does this clause, effectively, require the scheme to be able to pay for itself?
And then the second question I've got is actually in relation to the second tabled amendment which the Minister has brought to the House this evening, which amends clause 26. Again, I believe—and please correct me if I'm wrong—that, effectively, this is about making sure that the language is consistent in that it did say in the current drafting "if the charges prescribed for the vehicle under section 167A of the Act have not been paid.", so it's referring to when the fees are paid, and it amends that to the "the fees or charges prescribed for the vehicle under section 167A(1)(J) for the purpose of section 167". So my understanding—and please correct me if I'm wrong, Minister—is the purpose is to make it consistent right through the Act. And does that consistency also include referring to fees or charges? Because that is what Part 1 refers to in the clause in new section 167, giving the Minister the ability to create regulations to authorise fees or charges.
And the subsequent question from that is—because if it is meant to be referring to fees or charges, then in clause 15 we've got an instance here where it's only referring to charges. So it says here in new section 9(1E) "revenue for that financial year received from charges paid pursuant to regulations". So we've got an instance here where the clause is referring to exactly the same empowering provision from Part 1, but it is only in this particular clause, in clause 15, only referring to charges and not fees. And so the question I've got, and he may want to answer, is: whether this particular clause should also include reference to fees or charges, since the empowering provision actually allows the Minister to be able to actually charge a fee or a charge?
And, I guess, that brings me to the question of what's the difference between a fee or a charge? I'm not sure if that's actually defined in this particular piece of legislation. And then the question is whether that needs amending, because, I note, in clause 15, new section 9(1G), it refers to charges paid. So, again, does that need to refer to fees or charges? And if it doesn't need to refer to fees or charges in those particular clauses, why are we referring to fees or charges in some clauses and then in other clauses we're only referring to charges? And if that's something which the Minister is preparing tabled amendments to fix some particular clauses, does that mean that we may need to have other tabled amendments to fix those other clauses? I look forward to the Minister's response to those questions.





Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister of Transport): Just in answer to the member's final set of questions around the fees and charging language, I can confirm that everything is accurate in terms of what has been described—and the amendment, which I have tabled, some of this relates to the fact that, mostly in Part 1, we were dealing with provisions that related to both the standard and the discount, whereas in Part 2 we're primarily dealing with matters that relate to the discount scheme only where "charges" is the correct term. So everything is as it should be in that respect.
I want to respond to questions from both Mr Simpson and Mr Brown that related to the funding of the scheme. And so just to confirm, this is a self-funding scheme that doesn't net out at any overall cost. It's funded by a repayable loan the Crown made in Budget 2021, of around about $300 million, and, over the course of the scheme, revenue coming in and money going out will balance up. So it's not envisaged that there'll be further Crown funding that needs to go into that and then that loan will be repaid within approximately a 10-year period.
The provisions that Mr Brown referred to are simply about ensuring that the boundaries of that are kept to and that the scheme can't pay out more than money is going in, to make sure that it keeps within that overall principle of fiscal neutrality. In respect of the role of the Secretary for Transport in monitoring the scheme, I wouldn't venture down too far into Mr Simpson's question about what might be reasonably required. The nature of the relationship here is quite important. Waka Kotahi is the Crown agency at, somewhat, arm's length from the Crown and the Minister. The Ministry of Transport is the Crown monitor that provides the Minister with advice to make sure that taxpayer funding is being used appropriately in accordance with legislation, and so that will be up to the secretary at the time to make sure that they are satisfied with the information that they receive in order to be able to advise the Minister. So that is a matter that I would leave to the judgment of the secretary.
Finally, I appreciate the Minister's interest in bilingual matters in this piece of legislation. It is important to note that across the—of course, we're making amendments to a number of pieces of parent legislation, all of which currently refer to the New Zealand Transport Agency, and so to ensure that we have consistency and a lack of confusion, we've kept the language consistent there with "New Zealand Transport Agency", but, yeah, possibly, at some point in the future, there could be an exercise to change all of those references to "Waka Kotahi", but it wouldn't be good practice to have both names threaded through a piece of legislation. 





MARK CAMERON (ACT): I'll just ask this question of the Minister on behalf of my colleague Simon Court, who's currently absent. How much will be spent, he asks, on developing the scheme? What is the initial capital expenditure? What will be the annual operating expenses? And will the Minister consider outsourcing the admin, to, i.e., the private sector, considering such likes as VTNZ and the AA do warrants of fitness, and have them do their licensing for these vehicles?
Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister of Transport): I answered this in the previous part of the debate: approximately a $6 million capital set-up cost and approximately $8 million per annum ongoing.





Hon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): Thank you, Madam Chair. I've got a question that relates to clause 21. That's a clause that seeks to amend the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Act 2000. And, specifically, it seeks to amend that legislation by, "prescribing requirements in relation to the labelling of vehicles in terms of their carbon dioxide emissions and any financial rebates receivable or charges payable relating to those emissions". And so my question is: what exactly does the Minister envisage that labelling to be, and in what form, shape, or format will that labelling take? Is this to be something as simple as, maybe, another line on the registration that sits in the little pocket inside your windscreen? Or is this a requirement that will see a vehicle actually having a sticker or a sign or a piece of sign writing added to it? And what form or shape will the labelling take? Will it be required to be waterproof, protected from ultraviolet degradation, robustness? How will it be affixed to the vehicle? All those sorts of questions.
So my question, really, is: what is the intention relating to the prescription that requires vehicles to be labelled not only for their carbon dioxide emissions but the label that, it seems to me on the reading of this, will require details relating to the financial rebates receivable or chargeable on the vehicle. Will the label that will be affixed to the car in some way, shape, or form, be sort of like a mark of, "There goes a dirty car. There goes a good car."? Will the label, for instance, have, maybe, a thumbs up signal for cars that qualify and meet the standard? Or will it, perhaps, have a thumbs down for those dirty vehicles that don't? I'm keen to know, if it is to be a thumbs up or a thumbs down, what colour will the thumbs be? There seems to be an increasing level of concern when you use thumbs up and thumbs down in social media about the cultural appropriateness of certain coloured thumbs up and thumbs down.
So I'm just concerned, and I don't want to make light of it unnecessarily, but I do think that this is another detail of practical application, that this legislation, it's seeking to amend legislation. We already have—and I think it is the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority that, for instance, prescribes labelling to go on domestic appliances like fridges and washing machines, and dish driers, and things of that nature. Is that the kind of labelling that the Minister envisages will be appropriate under this new clause? And—
Simeon Brown: Will it be made of plastic? 
Hon SCOTT SIMPSON: —I'm keen to know—yeah, my colleague Simeon Brown asks a good question: will they be made of plastic, these labels? Will it actually be, sort of, a degree of "greenwashing", and we'll be hailing with enthusiasm the cleanliness of the power train that is providing energy to propel the vehicle, but we'll be sticking horrible plastic labels on it somewhere, of an indeterminate size?
So, as I say, I don't want to unnecessarily make light of the situation, but I do think that the public and the sector and the potential purchasers of vehicles that will be captured under this legislation need to know what the labelling will look like, what form it will take, how it will be affixed, what size, and will it be multilingual, for instance? Following up on my previous question: will we have elements of te reo on the label? And so those are issues that I'd like the Minister to address, please.
MARK CAMERON (ACT): Thank you, Madam Chair. Just a very quick question. Does the Minister accept, perhaps, that the ACT Party would have the correct labelling for the vehicles in question, and it could be issued as a legitimate ute driver sticker?





Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister of Transport): I thank both members for their very earnest and deep consideration of this issue. I can confirm there'll be no eggplants or other emojis on the labels. But, beyond that, I think that the members will understand that we're not going to get in the business of designing label specifications in the committee stage of the House of the New Zealand Parliament. This is an empowering piece of legislation that sets up a regulation to enable the labels to be designed. That'll be done through the energy conservation Act legislation. As the member notes, this is how we organise energy-efficiency labels for other things that we regulate within New Zealand. The plain wording is pretty clear here: that the focus will simply be on the rebates receivable or the charges payable. That's the key information that the consumers need to know. The other details we won't be getting into in the legislation.
MATT DOOCEY (National—Waimakariri): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Just carrying on from that response—and thank you, Minister, for that—because I just want to drill down, I suppose, into the rebate. Under clause 15(1G), you've got "a - b = c". And, you know, fair to say, with algebra, sometimes "a - b" doesn't always equal "c". I was interested when you gave my colleague from ACT—Mark Cameron—those figures around—
Hon Member: Said like a real St Bede's boy. 
MATT DOOCEY: —capital expenditure (CAPEX) and operating expenditure (OPEX). Sorry?
Hon Member: Nothing.
MATT DOOCEY: Oh, OK. I thought my schooling was being called into question. Can you take an offence to your own side of the team, Madam Chair?
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Continue, Matt Doocey.
MATT DOOCEY: I must say, I'm probably one of the only people in Parliament where I've still got my school teacher in my caucus.
So "a - b = c". Now, if "a" is the revenue and "b", as you said, CAPEX and OPEX—and I think you just told Mark Cameron that it was—what was it?—$8 million for CAPEX and $6 million for OPEX. That's $14 million. What we're probably missing is it needs to be divided by "d", which would be the number of cars for the rebate, which would give you then "e", which would be the rebate. My point is, to that formula, what if there is no money left after that equation—
Hon Member: What about the square root of the emissions?
MATT DOOCEY: Serious, serious—with CAPEX and OPEX at $14 million? And what happens if you don't raise enough money through revenue to pay a rebate back in that formula? Thank you, Madam Chair.





Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister of Transport): The member misunderstands, so if I can clarify: the costs that I identified before relate to the administrative costs of running the overall Clean Car Discount and standard schemes. The provisions that the member is referring to relate to the confines that the legislation sets up for the actual Clean Car Discount scheme, which, as I identified before, is funded through a repayable $300 million loan. And the short answer to the main question that the member has is that that is the fund within which the scheme has to operate. It can't operate beyond that. And as we traversed in the debate on Part 1, the discounts and the fees have to be set in such a way that the scheme remains solvent. So it has to operate within that overall cap, and this formula is what ensures that happens.





SIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga): Thank you, Madam Chair. So, I guess, the question, following on from my colleague Matt Doocey's is whether, if the scheme, effectively, is charging a lot more than it's paying out, that will, effectively, mean that the charges will be reduced to match the discounts, or will the discounts be increased, and what periods will those be reviewed? This will be a question I'm sure the public would be interested in.
My question is relating to clause 19, around the monitoring matters relating to the Clean Car Discount scheme. My understanding of this particular new section 101A is that it allows the Secretary for Transport to evaluate the performance of the clean vehicle discount scheme, to monitor and review, and there's a range of different things that can be done. "(a) the revenue used by the Agency for the purposes of administering the scheme"—I guess, the question there is: is that to try to understand whether the New Zealand Transport Agency is appropriately managing and being good stewards of the money, in terms of the administrative cost? Because I'm sure that this could become quite administratively complex. "(b) the number and nature of rebates provided in relation to the carbon dioxide emissions of vehicles; and (c) the expenses and capital expenditure for the purpose of administering the scheme; and (d) any funding provided by the Agency…"—so there's a range of things that can be monitored and reviewed, but it doesn't seem to have much teeth, this particular clause. It, effectively, says that they may monitor, may review, and then, basically, may ask for some information. The only actual requirement in this clause is that, if some information is requested from the secretary, the agency must provide that information to the secretary. So, effectively, that's the only requirement; the rest is just "may".
Basically, it's setting up monitoring capability, which I don't think is a bad idea. Actually, monitoring the scheme—is it working efficiently, is it actually achieving its purposes?—those are all good questions which should be asked by the Government, because this is something which is very new. It's a very new scheme, and whilst the Minister might say, "Well, there are similar schemes around the world." and all this other stuff, it's new to New Zealand. We have a different market in New Zealand from other countries, and we have different needs, in terms of what consumers require, in terms of the vehicles that they drive. 
So why is the Minister not actually requiring the secretary to monitor and review this scheme, to review the revenue that's being used by the agency for administering it—which I think, actually, is a very good thing. I mean, the reality is that the agency could, effectively, just decide, over time, that it's going to use more and more of the revenue and grow quite an empire to run this thing. There's no requirement for efficiency in this piece of legislation. Effectively, it's just telling the agency to administer it, but this is millions and millions of New Zealand's tax dollars which are being used to run this scheme—millions of dollars being used to run this scheme—and no requirement for efficiency, and, effectively, just saying to the secretary, "Well, if you'd like to monitor it and review it, you may." Why is that not a requirement to actually have that monitoring? I think New Zealanders want to see their dollars that they spend used efficiently and effectively. If we're going to have the scheme, then that should be the expectation that the Minister should be monitoring.
And the second point is: if we're going to put this particular section in, why are we not asking for this to be done on a frequent, regular basis? At the moment, with the terminology being "may", this could be done once a year; it could be done never. It could be done, for instance, in three years' time. Surely this would be something that should be monitored on a regular basis. And I know there are some reporting requirements, but reporting requirements are very different from the monitoring and reviewing requirement from the Ministry of Transport, which I would be suggesting would be an important amendment or change that the Minister may like to consider.
The other point is in relation to the requirement to provide information. There's actually no requirement to provide that information in a timely fashion. It, effectively, says the secretary may request information and that the agency must provide the information, but it doesn't say the information needs to be provided in a timely fashion. It doesn't say it needs to be provided in 30 working days, or 21 working days, or whatever number of working days may be appropriate in this instance; it just says "must provide the information". Effectively, that could be something which becomes quite complex when these reviews actually need to be undertaken. So a number of questions relating to this part, which I look forward to the Minister addressing.





Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister of Transport): I'm happy to address the points raised by the member there. The first is, though, that I do note that in 9A there is a requirement for the agency, in its annual report every year, to be reporting on matters in relation to the Clean Car Discount scheme. So there is a direct requirement for the agency responsible not just to the Minister but actually back to the Parliament and to face select committee scrutiny, and, of course, the eyes of the Auditor-General, who will advise the select committee as a part of that process. So I'm confident that there's a high degree of transparency about the scheme and a high degree of ability to scrutinise not just from a ministerial point of view but from a parliamentary point of view. And that is important, I agree with the member.
The additional powers provided to the secretary here, we did rather traverse this in the previous discussion—or outlined the role of the Crown agent and the ministry as the Crown monitor giving advice to the Minister. I think it is appropriate to set up that power so it's, effectively, at the discretion of the secretary to fulfil that function and to be able to inquire in a way that they need. I note that if we took up the member's suggestion and said it has to happen every 12 months or every two years, that would actually be restrictive. You know, obviously, there is an annual process, but I would think that if a matter came to the secretary's attention at any given point in time, we would want the secretary to be able to make those inquiries, to be able to require the information to be forthcoming, and for that information to be provided to the Minister to make decisions, or at least to be aware. What I would say beyond that is that certainly for my own part, I already receive very regular reporting on the operation of the scheme. I get good information from the agency, good support from the ministry, and I'm sure that future Ministers will be keen to do that as well.





GLEN BENNETT (Labour—New Plymouth): I move, That the question be now put.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the question be now put.
Ayes 75
New Zealand Labour 65; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.
Noes 43
New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.
Motion agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is that the Minister's tabled amendment to clause 26 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 75
New Zealand Labour 65; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.
Noes 43
New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.
Amendment agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is that Part 2 as amended be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question, That Part 2 as amended be agreed to.
Ayes 77
New Zealand Labour 65; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.
Noes 43
New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.
Part 2 as amended agreed to.
Schedule
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is that the Schedule be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question, That the Schedule be agreed to.
Ayes 77
New Zealand Labour 65; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.
Noes 43
New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.
Schedule agreed to.





Clauses 1 and 2
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Members, we now come to our final debate. This is the debate on clauses 1 and 2, the title and commencement debate.





SIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga): Thank you, Madam Chair, for the opportunity to take a call on the title and commencement debate. I'd like to offer to the Minister some new suggestions for this piece of legislation in terms of what it could be entitled, because I think this particular piece of legislation has not been titled correctly. Currently, it has the proposed title of Land Transport (Clean Vehicles) Amendment Act 2021, and I would suggest to the member and to the House that, in fact, it should be called the "Land Transport (Ute Tax) Amendment Act 2021". Because what we know from this piece of legislation is that this legislation is going to punish our farmers, it's going to punish our tradies, and it is going to increase the costs that they have to pay for their vehicles when they do not have an alternative for their vehicles. The reality is you can't take your tools on the train. You can't take your Tesla on the farm. The reality is some people actually need a ute.
The very clear evidence which came through from the select committee and from submitters, and from the manufacturers who actually make utes and make vehicles, is that they will not be able to provide electric utes to the market for a number of years in New Zealand. So, in the meantime, the only alternative is that these people who have to purchase a ute for their work, for their farm, have to pay the tax, and that will mean paying 15 to 20 percent more per vehicle instead as they are currently paying. Now, that is a tax. That is, effectively, a tax on hard-working New Zealanders who are trying to contribute to this economy, contribute to our country, and to make a positive difference. But the chardonnay socialists on the other side don't care; what they're looking for is who they can get some money off—who can they get some money off so that they can subsidise the Teslas for their chardonnay socialist friends who can already afford to pay for those Teslas?
This bill is not about simply trying to provide clean vehicles; it is about transferring money from people who are working, working hard to pay for people who can already afford to pay and buy these electric vehicles. So I do suggest to the Minister that this bill should be retitled and renamed as the "Ute Tax Amendment Act 2021", because that is, effectively, what it is going to do.
But we know it's not just our farmers, it's not just our tradies who are going to be punished by this piece of legislation; we know it's people who can't afford to pay for the high cost of an electric vehicle who are going to be paying for those people who already can. And whether it's a young family trying to buy a slightly bigger car or it's the need to get a people mover, those people who don't have current choices in the market, they are going to be, effectively, paying.
We know what's going to happen. Effectively, what we're going to see is we're going to see people either hold on to the vehicles they already have—they're going to hold on to them for longer, meaning that they hold on to the vehicle which is more likely to be dirtier, more likely to emit more, and they're going to hold on to that for longer. They will get it serviced. They'll do whatever it takes to hold on to that vehicle for as long as possible, meaning our fleet in New Zealand doesn't actually improve over time as it should. What this legislation will do is have those perverse incentives inbuilt for a long period of time.
I do recommend to the committee that this piece of legislation is amended to ensure that it actually reflects the incorrect title.
Then, in terms of the commencement section, the feedback is very clear from the sector, in regards to whether this bill and the implementation is actually an appropriate time frame. So I have put a tabled amendment, effectively, saying it should be around six months from now to actually give officials and the industry time to be able to prepare for its implementation. The reality is that this Minister may be very ambitious but there's a whole lot of people out there who run companies, who bring vehicles into this country, who sell them, and who do a whole lot of other things, and these people aren't just sitting there just waiting for the next piece of regulation to sit into their computer system.
Andrew Bayly: Yes, they do.
SIMEON BROWN: Oh, well, according to Mr Bayly, they just sit around waiting for the Government to tell them what their next move is to do. 
Andrew Bayly: Can't wait for Mr Wood to tell them what they're going to have to do. 
SIMEON BROWN: They just can't wait for Mr Wood to tell them from his high office there in the Beehive to, "Just please, please tell us what our next business decision is that we have to do." But that's not the real world.
Out there in the real world, people are actually working hard, trying to get ahead when this Government is simply bringing in place new regulations, new rules, and new taxes every other day of the week. So these people are busy; they're already busy. They're already trying to keep their business afloat during an incredibly challenging time. They're already trying to navigate the supply chain issues, which are impacting our supply chains, which are impacting so many industries, but, particularly, the importing car industry. It is also impacting the manufacturing of vehicles around the globe. These are very real issues. So the Minister should be open, at least if he's not open to renaming the bill, to at least providing a little bit of extra time for this piece of legislation to be implemented, to give those hard-working people who are trying to keep this industry going, trying to navigate the challenges of the supply chains, so that they can actually deliver on this new regulation that the Minister is forcing upon them.
So I do commend my tabled amendment to the committee, I do ask that all parties, including the Minister, give very serious consideration to it, and I do ask the Minister to consider renaming this legislation as the "Land Transport (Ute Tax) Amendment Act" to actually reflect the taxes that it is putting on those people who are hard-working, who purchase utes for their businesses, for their farms, for their trading, and for the businesses that they do, making our economy what it is. So I ask for the Minister's consideration in support of those changes.





Hon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): Thank you, Madam Chair. Look, I want to support the comments of my friend and colleague Simeon Brown. I think he has very aptly and correctly given to the committee of the whole House a far better, more definitive proposed title for this piece of legislation than the Minister's suggested title. But that's not really the point that I want to make. The point I want to make here relates to commencement, and that is that, if members of the public and members of the Government look at clause 2, the commencement clause, it says, in subclause (1), "sections 22 to 24 of this Act are deemed to have come into force on 1 July 2021". Now, I think today is 16 February 2022, so what we are, effectively, doing with this piece of legislation is giving effect to retrospectivity of subsidies on vehicles that have already been paid out before the legislation was passed and enacted in this House.
Now, the Minister is of an age and a generation that won't recall the very key common law case that was taken in relation to a former Prime Minister—Muldoon—who, by fiat and declaration, back in the early days of his administration—he'd won the landslide election in 1975—he just said, "Well, look, people who are paying into the Labour Party's superannuation scheme can stop making payments, because I've decreed it, I've issued a fiat, I've issued a press statement, and that's what they can do." And then there was a very prominent piece of case law that followed from that—Fitzgerald v Muldoon—which ruled in the court, in the judicial system of New Zealand, that that was actually illegal, that it was only the Parliament of New Zealand that can make decisions of the sort that the then Prime Minister Muldoon sought to do.
So why is that important to this legislation? Well, there are very similar parallels. This is a Government that is increasingly, day by day, acting like former Prime Minister Muldoon in almost every respect, particularly in relation to the economy. But here we have—by governmental fiat, by proclamation from the Beehive, which is something that this Government likes to do at every possible opportunity. They've just said, "Well, we're going to put the subsidy component of this legislation into effect well before, and in advance, of the legislation itself having passed through the Parliament of New Zealand. Now, that's just not good policy, it's not good legislation, and I think it is fundamentally wrong.
Why did they want to do it? They wanted to get some runs on the board. So the Minister announced, with a degree of fanfare that people who were buying cars—eligible for taxpayer subsidy as a result of this piece of legislation—could start receiving the money, the free money, the money that was being provided by the State from 1 July, but the actual legislation giving effect to that payment has yet to be passed by this Parliament.
That is a constitutional abomination, really, and I would have thought that—notwithstanding their desire as a Government to emulate, in every possible way, the worst aspects of Robert Muldoon and his administration, particularly towards the end of that administration. Here they are adopting exactly the same kind of modus operandi that got him into trouble. It is potentially possible, I would imagine, with the passing of this legislation, that some bright-spark law student somewhere may want to dig out the judgment relating to Fitzgerald v Muldoon, and think to themselves, "Well, actually, there are very similar parallels here". And perhaps a case could be brought in the judiciary to test out the legitimacy of this Government actually by fiat, by regulation, by proclamation saying, "Oh, well, we're going to start paying out before the legislation is passed, and we'll worry about the detail, we'll worry about the mere passing of legislation in the Parliament of New Zealand—that's a mere detail—
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Order! The member's time is up.





Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister of Transport): I'm bound by the long-standing conventions of this House to consider all other members of the House to be honourable members and to believe what they say when they say things in the House. And so I have to accept at his word, the member for Coromandel's comments just now—that he actually believes what he has just said. And if it is the case that he does believe what he just said, and I accept that, then I can only conclude that he is either illiterate or incredibly lazy, because he simply hasn't read the piece of legislation that is in front of him or taken the most cursory efforts to understand how the Clean Car Discount scheme works.
The Clean Car Discount scheme, as it kicked in from 1 July last year, required no legislation to give effect to the discounts—
Simeon Brown: Why the date?
Hon MICHAEL WOOD: —that were provided to people. Well, if the member reads clause 2(1), it refers to sections 22 to 24. Has the member looked at what's in sections 22 to 24? They're not the parts of the Act that enable the Government to be able to put in place a discount scheme; they're the relatively minor parts that relate to the Income Tax Act and the calculation of fringe benefit tax. Fitzgerald v Muldoon, this ain't.





MATT DOOCEY (National—Waimakariri): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I rise to support my learned colleague Simeon Brown's amendment for the title of this bill, to change it from the Land Transport (Clean Vehicles) Amendment Bill to the "Land Transport (Ute Tax) Amendment Bill". It'd be fair to say, to start off, as Labour MPs have outlined in the House, if you look at the legacy of the former National Government in incentivising the take-up of electric vehicles (EVs) that this is a space that, on this side of the House, we support. But the reason why this bill and the ute tax went down like a cup of cold sick in parts of New Zealand, like regional New Zealand, it's that saying, "You never, sort of, told anyone anything new; you just crystallised something in their mind they already knew." This bill fundamentally shows the divide between that side of the House and this side of the House: the principle of choice.
Kiwis have an innate sense of fairness, and they know this carrot-and-stick approach is not fair. It is not fair that those people who may need to use a ute for their occupation are penalised, because they do not have a choice. And that is quite right why Simeon Brown has amended this title and moved that we would want it to represent the "Land Transport (Ute Tax) Amendment Bill".
The Government will talk a lot around equality and inequality when it suits them. But what about this bill and the inequities that this bill will drive, especially in areas like regional New Zealand, especially in the South Island? In the South Island, we pay high petrol tax, we pay our road-user charges, yet our land transport fund is constantly raided by this Government to pay for pet public transport projects in Auckland that provide the South Island with no benefit. Now through this bill, we will have hard-working people in the regions who need to use a ute who will be taxed for that under this bill. It does raise the question: why you would just not incentivise EVs and leave it there? Why the stick? Because the Government fundamentally believes that they know best. Where on this side of the House, we believe people know best. They will make the right decisions for them, and because of this ute tax—as Simeon Brown clearly outlined—some people will actually sit on their gas guzzlers a lot longer. They won't be moving to fuel-efficient vehicles, which will become counter-productive.
So, ultimately, we've got a bill that marginalises a certain group of New Zealanders, and this Government says, "We don't care about you." There was an ability and there is an ability in the bill for the Minister to carve out utes and other vehicles during the time that people have no other choice and then bring them in when they do have a choice, but this is fundamentalism. It's ideology. It's one-size-fits-all. "We'll run the country through the beltway of Wellington, we won't listen." There'll be many regional Labour MPs out there who will be feeling the pressure. Of course, when we ran the "ute tax" campaigns, it was fever pitch because New Zealanders didn't like it. The ute tax, three waters—it all lines up.
You'd have to ask yourself why some members of New Zealand will be marginalised from this bill—farmers, tradies. What about those who have big families that can't afford to buy an EV or actually need a large vehicle that is not an EV at the moment? Even the Minister's own words through this debate in the committee of the whole House, he mentioned it might take 12 to 24 months. That's why this bill should be rightly called a "ute tax", because that group of New Zealanders could have got a carve-out until they had choice. Thank you, Madam Speaker.





A party vote was called for on the question, That clause 1 be agreed to.
Ayes 75
New Zealand Labour 65; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.
Noes 43
New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.
Clause 1 agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is that Simeon Brown's tabled amendment to clause 2 be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 43
New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.
Noes 75
New Zealand Labour 65; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.
Amendment not agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That clause 2 be agreed to.
Ayes 75
New Zealand Labour 65; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.
Noes 43
New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Bill to be reported with amendment.





LAND TRANSPORT (DRUG DRIVING) AMENDMENT BILL
In Committee
Debate resumed from 9 February.
Part 1 Amendments to Land Transport Act 1998
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Members, we now turn to the interrupted consideration in committee of the Land Transport (Drug Driving) Amendment Bill. When we were last considering this bill, Part 1 was being debated. The question is that Part 1 stand part.





SIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga): Thank you, Madam Chair, for the opportunity to take a call on the Land Transport (Drug Driving) Amendment Bill. This is a bill which the National Party supports and we don't intend to spend too much time debating the various parts to this bill due to the fact that it is a piece of legislation, we believe, whose time has come. Actually, what we want to see is progress of this piece of legislation through Parliament in order to give the police the tools that they need to be able to undertake drug-driving tests on our roadsides as they do drink-driving tests. I do just want to acknowledge the fact that this piece of legislation has been a long time coming. I acknowledge former colleagues Alastair Scott and the Hon Nick Smith for their advocacy in bringing this bill to the House, but also the fact that it has taken quite some time to get to this stage where we are now debating it in the committee of the whole House. It has sat on the Order Paper for far too long. 
The points that I wish to make really are the fact that this piece of legislation does make a positive difference in terms of providing, effectively, a regime whereby the police are able to undertake random roadside oral-fluid testing for drugs. There are, of course, then the infringement penalties and criminal penalties which are able to be put against people who are found to be in breach of those limits and then the subsequent consequences. Yes, it is a complex issue and I think that its complexities have been considered quite in depth when it went through the select committee stage where submitters were able to express their views and the bill has been improved. But the reality is now we're at a point where actually what is important is that this legislation is passed, that the police are able to have the tools that they need to be able to actually start implementing it. It has been far too long and so I don't want to spend too much time on this piece of legislation. From the National Party's perspective, what we actually want to get done is get this bill passed. We want to give police the tools and we want to ensure that the police have the opportunity to do that. 
Now I do know there's a couple of amendments from the Green Party. I think one is in relation to a review and I don't think that's necessarily a bad idea. But there's another Supplementary Order Paper there, which, effectively, says that the law expires—so some sort of sunset clause. But I imagine we'll get to that when we get to the actual title and commencement and whether that's—and, of course, we don't support having this piece of legislation automatically expire after five years. The reality is, unfortunately, that drugs are part of New Zealand's society and the reality is this type of legislation is going to be necessary for the foreseeable future. 
So I think it's incredibly naive of the Green Party to, effectively, say that in five years' time, this legislation won't be necessary because actually—maybe in their dystopian world they live in maybe they'll be thinking that all drugs will be legal in five years' time and that we'll all be in our happy place and, actually, that driving down the road on a high is OK. Well, I'm sorry. That's not the future I want for myself or my children. I actually want to know that when I'm driving down the road or my children are driving down the road that actually they'll be safe from drug drivers and that there are penalties in place for people who do drive under the influence of drugs on our roads. I don't think we should be coming back as a Parliament in five years' time and, effectively, renegotiating whether that's actually something which should be OK or not. 
Actually, we need to have a regime which has a level of permanence, a level of consistency, and not one which is dreaming of some sort of world which actually is, unfortunately, not going to be a reality—and actually a world which I don't actually want, which is a world where, effectively, we sort of tolerate anybody driving down the road with anything in their system. I actually don't tolerate that. And so, actually, I want this legislation to be implemented and I want it to stay because, actually, I want our roads to become safer. 
I think it's important to note that the instances of drugged driving—and the Minister may correct me if I'm wrong but my understanding is that there are now more instances of drugged driving causing death than drink driving causing death on our roads. That is something which I think is an incredibly serious point and which New Zealanders should be incredibly concerned about, particularly as that trend has rapidly increased in recent years and is something which needs to be urgently arrested. I think it's part of the reason why the road toll has increased in recent years, and it is something which needs to be looked at.
I see the Minister of Police, Hon Poto Williams, there on the other side and acknowledge her and the police in the work that they do, but there is a real issue around their implementation of the road safety work. I do note in last year's annual report for police, they only implemented half of the breath tests that they were required to do—so they were required to do 3 million breath tests last year; only 1.5 million of those were actually completed. And so the reality is that the proof will be in the pudding and actually giving this legislation to the police and then making sure that there is the resource to actually deliver on it and that the Government actually delivers on it—hopefully, finally, next year, actually delivers on its three-year promise of 1,800 new police, which was meant to be implemented by 2020, but of course, has fallen well behind. 
So we look forward to supporting this piece of legislation. We look forward to it coming into effect and we look forward to the impact it's going to have on our roads.





Hon POTO WILLIAMS (Minister of Police): Thank you, Madam Chair. Firstly, I'd like to thank the Transport and Infrastructure Committee for the work they have done, and the officials for bringing this bill back to the House in such a way that we can be debating it with very little argument and large agreement across the House. I thank the members for their contributions, and I thank the members across the House for their support.
I want to comment on a couple of issues that the previous speaker, Simeon Brown, raised. The purpose of this bill is to deal with the invidious dilemma we have before us, the rising numbers of people who are impacted by drugs who are driving on our roads. The member was correct to allude to the fact that increasingly drugs are having such an impact on our roads that they are causing more and more fatalities—perhaps not as many as alcohol, but I know that in the last five or six years, the numbers impacted by drugs who are killed on our roads has increased to the point where we can no longer sit idle. We must act and provide the support to our police to enforce this, to keep our roads safe.
I just want to signal that in terms of the Supplementary Order Papers in the name of the Hon Julie Anne Genter, the review period that she has suggested we agree with; we think that is a useful mechanism for us to check in to know that the legislation is working well and also to make whatever decisions we may make about needing to make amendments to that. In terms of the sunset clause, that is not something we think is needed, given that we have a review period that we are going to support. I thank the members across the Chamber for their support of that review period.
I just want to say that it is an important piece of legislation that we're passing here today and it is about keeping us as safe as we can be on the road. So I'm not going to prolong my discussion in this debate, just to thank those who have worked so hard on this bill. Hopefully we will pass it very quickly.





CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is that the Hon Julie Anne Genter's amendment to delete the amendment to clause 39 in Supplementary Order Paper 96 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 97 be agreed to.
Amendment agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is that the Minister's amendments to Part 1 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 96 be agreed to.
Amendments agreed to.
Part 1 as amended agreed to.





Part 2  Related and consequential amendments
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Members, we now come to Part 2. This is the debate on clauses 41 to 43, "Related and consequential amendments". The question is that Part 2 stand part.
Part 2 agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is that the Hon Julie Anne Genter's amendment to replace the amendment to Schedule 1 in Supplementary Order Paper 96, set out on Supplementary Order Paper 97, be agreed to. This is in relation to the schedule.
Amendment agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is that the Minister's amendment to Schedule 1 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 96 be agreed to.
Amendment agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is that Schedule 1 as amended stand part.
Schedule 1 as amended agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is that Schedule 2 stand part.
Schedule 2 agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Members, we now come to our final debate, which is on clauses 1 and 2, the title and commencement.





Clauses 1 and 2
SIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga): Thank you, Madam Chair. I just want to take a very brief call in regard to the title and commencement, and I note this is where the Supplementary Order Paper 84 from Julie Anne Genter which seeks to have, effectively, an expiry provision for this piece of legislation has been put on the Table. The National Party will not be supporting that Supplementary Order Paper because, actually, as I mentioned earlier, this is not an issue which is going to go away in five years' time. It's not like we're going to wake up in five years' time and either people have stopped using illicit substances, or we've suddenly woken up and we're accepting of the fact that people just drive down the road in some sort of fairyland or in whatever type of high they want to and we accept the consequences of that. That is not the type of future I want, it's not the type of future I want for my children, and I don't think it's the type of future that New Zealanders want. So we will not be supporting that amendment to this piece of legislation. 
In fact, we want to see this legislation in place for some time because, actually, it is important to give the police the tools they need to keep our roads safe and to be able to keep New Zealanders safe as they drive down the road. So we will not be supporting that piece of legislation. 
We support the bill, as I've mentioned. It is a bill which has been coming for some time. It should have been passed when the National Party brought it in as a member's bill on a number of occasions, but the Government finally did pick it up before the last election, and, finally, we're at the final stages of this piece of legislation. I hope that we'll be able to give effect to it as soon as possible. Thank you, Madam Chair. 





Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is that the Hon Julie Anne Genter's amendment to insert new clause 2A set out on Supplementary Order Paper 84 be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 10
Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.
Noes 108
New Zealand Labour 65; New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.
Amendment not agreed to.
Bill to be reported with amendment.





CROWN PASTORAL LAND REFORM BILL
In Committee
Part 1  Amendments to Crown Pastoral Land Act 1998
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Members, we turn now to the Crown Pastoral Land Reform Bill. We come first to Part 1. Part 1 of the debate on clauses 3 to 16 and Schedules 1 to 3, "Amendments to Crown Pastoral Land Act 1988". The question is that Part 1 stand part.





Hon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): Thank you, Madam Chair. Now, this is, I think, going to be a reasonably long session because there is much in this piece of legislation that is abhorrent and fundamentally objectionable to members on this side of the House. So we will want to prosecute the questioning of the Minister in the chair in some detail, and I am looking forward to him engaging in a positive and constructive way as we go through the various parts of this legislation and the detail of it.
I might say, at the outset, that we on this side of the House fundamentally object to the intrusion of long-held and highly regarded property rights bestowed by the Crown to leaseholders in a way that is, actually, effectively throwing them in the rubbish tin and putting aside, in some cases, several generations of relationships with the Crown that have been effective, that have been good, and that have been good for not only New Zealand and New Zealanders, but for our natural environment as well.
I've got a number of Supplementary Order Papers (SOPs) in my name and my colleagues, likewise, also have Supplementary Order Papers in their names. So it's my intention, certainly with regard to the Supplementary Order Papers in my name, to take a range of calls and go through them in detail. But at the outset, and for the record, it's important that members of the Government understand that at the first possible opportunity, a re-elected National-led Government will repeal this legislation, notwithstanding that this Government, based on its ideological agenda, has currently the numbers in the House to pass it. We want to flag that and make it very clear from the outset.
So I come to the SOP in my name, lettered "H" on the table, and it relates to the proposed new Schedule 1AB in Part 1, paragraph 14, page 43 of the bill. It is to effectively delete paragraph 14 as is presently numbered in the proposed Part 1 of the bill and replace it with these words: "Maintaining existing seed sowing, including by way of direct drilling where direct drilling has been previously consented." Now, members opposite may think that, well, this is a fairly detailed piece of Supplementary Order Paper—what is the purpose, why am I talking about this, what is the reason, what is the rationale? Well, the Minister will probably have a very good understanding of it because we know that he is a person who is famous for his attention to detail and his attention to matters that relate to his portfolio area.
So, as reported back from select committee, paragraph 14, in terms of the permitted activities, does not acknowledge the property rights of leaseholders for their improvements. Now, this is actually quite fundamental, because a lease, of course, is not a freehold, but when a property is a lease property the leaseholder has ownership of the improvements to that property. They might not, in fact, own the land—in terms of our legal system—but they have a legally enforceable property right by way of lease and therefore have ownership of the improvements.
Now, pasture improvement on these leases, of which there are 170-something of them around the countryside, has for decades been a process undertaken—well, actually, it goes back more than 100 years—since the mid-1850s, if you please; well before any kind of consenting process was even thought of. Remembering that these original Crown leases were established in good faith, effectively, as a treaty between individual New Zealand citizens and the Crown. And we're familiar in this Parliament because we often talk about treaties and we often talk about the relationship that the Crown has to signatories of treaties, and yet, in this case, here is legislation that purports to just put aside, at the stroke of a legislative pen, the property rights of improvements to pasture that have been undertaken by leaseholders over several generations, dating back to the 1850s.
So the purpose of my Supplementary Order Paper "H" is to acknowledge that these improvements actually do belong to the leaseholders. They have a property right, they are an asset, and they have invested their time, energy, blood, sweat, and toil, and not insignificant financial resource in improving the lot of the land that they are leasing. And now by requiring consent to maintain all improvements by way of seed sowing, other than that which has been consented, this provides a platform for the Crown to, effectively, alienate the improvement by denial of consent to maintain that improvement. So what I'm saying there is that if under this new regime consent is not granted for the continuation of pastoral investment and maintenance, then that is, effectively, stealing the property ownership of the pasture that has been invested since the 1850s.
So I think that the Minister needs to answer questions as to why that is not something that officials and he have taken into account, because what we are dealing with in this piece of legislation amounts to property rights—property rights given and agreed in good faith between the Crown and the leaseholders. So that's the first question that I would have for the Minister: does he accept that pasture improvements belong to leaseholders? Does he accept that by this piece of legislation requiring consent to maintain all those improvements that if consent is not given then that is, effectively, stealing by the Crown by not granting consent to continue pastoral improvement, taking away a property asset and a right from those leaseholders?





MARK CAMERON (ACT): Thank you, Madam Chair. Minister, look anywhere in rural New Zealand, most people would take huge umbrage with this piece of legislation. It's nothing more than property theft, arguably—you will probably take a different position on that. I see in here in part of the legislation, it talks about the meaning of inherent value. Well, Minister, whatever happened to inherent value of the way of life in rural New Zealand? It is inherent. It's generationally inherent. I'm actually standing here quite sad that I'm actually looking at this piece of legislation, and I think arguably most people on this side of the House would be. There's 150 years of inherent value.
I'll add to that Minister, if I may, with the greatest respect to you sir, every year in rural New Zealand we have another 5 percent of the country covered in wilding pines. And we've got a Jobs for Nature programme that no one can seem to tell the side of the House what's being spent on that. And you're removing that opportunity from the very people that are mitigating this problem. I mean, 90,000 hectares Minister per year—that's 5 percent extra every year. And these are the very people, and I maintain these words: this is a way of life for them. This is generationally inherent. So do you want to speak to the inherent value that apparently the new definition excludes?





Hon EUGENIE SAGE (Green): Thank you, Madam Chair. It is astonishing—the two contributions we have just heard seem to believe that the Crown pastoral lands in the high country is owned, almost, by leaseholders. These are Crown lands. Anybody who has read any of the history of Crown pastoral lands and how there has been significant ecological loss on those Crown lands over decades will recognise that this bill is about ensuring that we have a land management regime which is much more one of partnership between the leaseholders, between the Crown, with much greater recognition of Ngāi Tahu and iwi in Te Wai Pounamu values as well in implementing the Treaty.
That this concept of inherent values, which the last speaker, Mark Cameron, was objecting so truculently to is all about ensuring that the indigenous and landscape values of these Crown pastoral lands are maintained. Because simply cultivating them and converting them to ryegrass and clover destroys the tussock land, destroys the matagouri, destroys those natural nitrogen fixers, and completely changes the high country into the Canterbury Plains.
The member has talked about wilding conifer control. The member seems totally unaware of the $100 million that the Crown is investing in partnership with a lot of pastoral landholders, particularly in areas like the Mackenzie Basin and the Te Manahuna Aoraki Project, where lessees are working with the Crown to ensure that those wilding conifers are controlled. What this bill is about is modernising the Crown Pastoral Land Act; stopping tenure review and the privatisation of pastoral lease lands, which the National Government was happy to see continue; and ensuring that we manage those lands sustainably now and into the future in much more of a partnership model.
So I would just ask the Minister if he could expand on the changes in his Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) that the Order Paper makes to the concept of inherent values, because that is new, and also to the changes that it is making around public access. Because the Environment Committee in submissions heard from members of the public, organisations like Federated Mountain Clubs, that many pastoral leaseholders are very happy to provide public access for recreational users, particularly those on foot. Sometimes they have a problem with those on four-wheel drives. The select committee ensured that there were changes to ensure that public access was considered at the time when a lease was transferred. If the Minister could just expand on the changes that his SOP is making and how it deals with that public access issue, and if he could outline what consultation and dialogue he's had about that with the High Country Accord and other representatives of leaseholders.





Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Minister of Agriculture): Thank you, Madam Chair. I thought it was important that I come down through the middle and stick to the facts on this. There's enough misinformation outside of Parliament, and I think we should stick accurately to the information and the facts in here.
This piece of legislation—and I'll acknowledge the good work done by the Environment Committee on this, and I acknowledge the previous Speaker, who introduced this. Tenure review was a process introduced in 1997, actually, early on, and then went through to a 1998 piece of legislation. I was actually here, which some might think is sad. I think it has some advantages, because I can recall the objectives of the tenure review legislation. But the Land Act 1948—what that did was that land that actually wasn't wanted by many people and was being degraded, had been farmed by people who had no secure interest in the land. So the Government of the day gave perpetual rights to pasturage in the high country through these lease arrangements. They have been upheld through court challenges over the years, and I acknowledge that nothing in this legislation undermines their rights to continue to use this land for pastoral purposes, and it enables them to make changes.
We then move on to the piece of legislation that went through in 1998, actually, and it made a few changes. It allowed discussion between the lessees and the Crown to work out what land might be freeholded and secured in their hands and what should go back to the Crown by way of, for the most part, conservation land. And that process has been under way since that time, and we've moved through a large number of leases—in fact, I should know the number; I don't—and that freeholding has occurred. But it has become harder and harder as the lease arrangements, or the high country leases themselves, are more complex, and there's been more debate about how much should go into conservation and how much should be freeholded. To the point where the uncertainty hasn't helped the farmers on the land, and many have said, "Look, we just want to get on with farming. We don't want the uncertainty and the cost of this ongoing process. So just, you know, let us get on with it." And some want to complete their tenure review processes, and some have, and some still will before the passage of this legislation. But, for those who remain on the land as lessees, they want certainty.
And so the piece of legislation has attempted to do that. One of the things was, in the 1998 legislation, that it firstly reinforced the fact that those lessees had rights to the land for pastoral purposes but didn't have any rights to the soil, which seems rather strange, but that was the reality. And it gave them exclusive rights to pasturage over the land but provides no right to the soil, which made it kind of complex when it came to farming—digging a post hole, all of those things. So, at that time, the legislation passed by the then National Government made all those activities subject to a consent—subject to a consent—which meant that, actually, all of them would have had to have gone to the Commissioner of Crown Lands and asked if they wanted to dig a post hole or do other things like that.
What happened then was there was discussion between the lessees and the Department of Conversation at the time, and they agreed that, actually, they would write a letter—and this is the letter. They'd write a letter to all of the lessees and say, "Look, we've granted you consent for all these activities." It was a letter. There's nothing more. Just a letter from the Commissioner of Crown Lands. Not very secure, some might say, but robust at the time, and it remains robust. It was things like clearing of existing vehicle or stock tracks, digging in posts, anchors, piles. Indeed, it allowed some earth works, tree planting, tree felling, but within the area enclosed by the fence around the homestead located on pastoral lease—the curtilage area; that's what it was. And I could go on and read all of the activities on farm that required a consent. And that was approved through one letter—a little insecure, you might say.
Well, moving forward with the new piece of legislation that the previous speaker had put into the House, there was a view that the certainty was important. So clearly, all these minor activities that require the consent under the National Government's legislation in 1998 shouldn't remain like that. So indeed, we've moved to have some permitted activities. It covers most of those things which most people would say are sensible. Then there are some other activities, and technology has allowed us—with better bulldozers and with diggers and actually with things like centre pivot irrigators and things—to get on and develop that land. So there's a view that in some places that's appropriate, but others it's not. So people should be required to apply to the Commissioner of Crown Lands for those permitted activities, but still subject to a consent.
Then there are some activities that are prohibited, and those might have major impacts, they might affect the landscape values, or, indeed, be intensive farming in a very sensitive area that is deemed inappropriate. Most of those things are listed in the Schedules. Actually, most people think it's a pretty fair balance.
So the things that will be permitted—that is, don't require consent, which is progress for the high country lessees—gives certainty for them. That's what we're doing in this piece of legislation. All the rhetoric and the ranting from over there about stepping backwards—actually, this is progress. The lessees did have some issues. They raised them and I have to say we listened and made adjustments to the legislation.
Then at the last minute—and we've tabled a Supplementary Order Paper—we dealt with one of the remaining issues that was around access. These are sensitive pieces of land. They're also beautiful, and a lot of the public want access to get out there, and I don't blame them. I like that myself. As was stated, most of those lessees provide access for the public, subject to sensible behaviour, which is absolutely what they should expect. There have been a couple of cases—not that many—where access has been unreasonably withheld. So after some discussion between the High Country Accord and ourselves, we worked through to what was a fair balance between land that is owned by the taxpayer, owned by the Crown, leased in perpetuity for pastoral purposes by the lessees, how we could find the right balance to ensure that unreasonable access was not withheld. So we said at the time of the transfer of a lease if someone decides to sell it—and, indeed, I hope we don't ever have another National Government, because I'm suspecting that they will open the door. They will open the door once again to wholesale overseas purchase of farmland and most likely, because these are quite expensive properties, we will see what we had seen in under previous National Governments, a lot of these iconic properties went into foreigners' hands.
Now, a lot of them are managed really well. I'm not saying that all foreign owners are bad owners. Some of them have invested huge amounts of money. But the issue of their values when it comes to privacy and access are sometimes different to those of Kiwis. In fact, we go back to Tommy Suharto, I think it was, and a property up at the top of Lake Tekapō, where he just blocked access quite unreasonably. That sparked, I guess, some of the tension that still remains today between recreational users, people who enjoy the high country, and those who own the property. That was an unfortunate incident. The vast majority, and I say almost all New Zealand owners of these properties provide reasonable access. But if someone chooses not to, then we should have some leverage. We said at the point of transfer so as not to undermine the value or the property rights of the lessee, but to say to the new one coming in, "There was an issue with access here. We haven't been able to force access"—[Time expired]
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Order! I'm sure the Minister will have ample time later on, but I had already extended. So I'll come back to you. Thank you, Minister.





NICOLA GRIGG (National—Selwyn): Thank you, Madam Chair. And I thank the Minister for his comments and explanations. But the one point that the Minister didn't touch on was the points raised by my colleague Scott Simpson that this is a binding contractual arrangement—some might call it a treaty—that the Crown is prepared to renege on. So I would like to refer to the Environment Committee's report back and the National Party's differing view, because we would say that we would oppose this bill in its entirety.
I would like to ask the Minister why end tenure review? It is a treaty that was entered into willingly by two different parties that recognised the rights for strategic pastoral farmland and the rights for strategic land to go into the conservation estate. So therefore, the major opposition to this bill has been the one-size-fits-all approach, the hammer to crack a nut. How, Minister, do you design a system to manage 1.2 million hectares of very diverse, at times very rugged, with diverse ecology, environments, weather systems, topographies. What, therefore Minister, is the review mechanism to address failures that will undoubtedly occur as a result of this legislation? How will you resolve inequities in this one-size-fits-all approach?
We believe, and I would imagine 99 percent of the leaseholders would agree, the cumulative impact of this piece of legislation will work in direct opposition to the bill's objective. It will be a detriment to the high country's inherent values. Again, I refer to the National Party's minority view—and I would expect the Minister's read it because it is very sensible. We agree with concerns raised by leaseholders that this will add layers and layers and layers of bureaucracy. It will largely duplicate regulation that has been foreshadowed in the likes of the national policy statement (NPS) on indigenous biodiversity and the NPS on freshwater. So, to the Minister, what work have you done to cross-reference? What work have you done, or have your officials done, to identify these double-ups and these crossovers? And what efforts, Minister, will you put in as the Minister of Agriculture to alleviate this burden on the sector that you represent?





CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): It is time for me to report progress on this bill. 
Progress to be reported.
House resumed.
REPORT OF COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE HOUSE
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Madam Speaker, the committee has further considered the Land Transport (Clean Vehicles) Amendment Bill and reports it with amendment. The committee has also further considered the Land Transport (Drug Driving) Amendment Bill and reports it with amendment. The committee has also considered the Crown Pastoral Land Reform Bill and reports progress. I move, That the report be adopted.
Motion agreed to.
Report adopted.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): The Land Transport (Clean Vehicles) Amendment Bill and the Land Transport (Drug Driving) Amendment Bill are set down for third reading next sitting day. The Crown Pastoral Land Reform Bill and the Commerce Amendment Bill are set down for further consideration in committee next sitting day. Members, the House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. tomorrow. Good evening.
The House adjourned at 9.57 p.m.