WEDNESDAY, 9 MARCH 2022
The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.
KARAKIA/PRAYERS
SPEAKER: Almighty God, we give thanks for the blessings which have been bestowed on us. Laying aside all personal interests, we acknowledge the Queen and pray for guidance in our deliberations that we may conduct the affairs of this House with wisdom, justice, mercy, and humility for the welfare and peace of New Zealand. Amen.





PETITIONS, PAPERS, SELECT COMMITTEE REPORTS, AND INTRODUCTION OF BILLS
SPEAKER: A petition has been delivered to the Clerk for presentation.
CLERK: Petition of Hāwea Flat School Board requesting that the House urge the Government to reconsider its decision regarding the school bus provision for Hāwea Flat School.
SPEAKER: That petition stands referred to the Petitions Committee. 
Ministers have delivered papers.
CLERK: Annual Reports for 2021:Crown Regional Holdings LtdElectricity Corporation of New ZealandAir New Zealand Shareholder Review 2021Air New Zealand Annual Financial Results 2021Government response to the report of the Petitions Committee on the petition of Paul Jackson. 
SPEAKER: Those papers are published under the authority of the House. 
Select committee reports have been delivered for presentation. 
CLERK: Report of the Environment Committee on the briefing into the Department of Conservation's permit protocols and proceduresOn the petition of Michelle CarmichaelOn the petition of Niamh Peren. 
SPEAKER: The briefing is set down for consideration. 
The Clerk has been informed of the introduction of a bill.
CLERK: Russia Sanctions Bill.
SPEAKER: That bill is set down for first reading.





ORAL QUESTIONS
QUESTIONS TO MINISTERSQuestion No. 1—Oceans and Fisheries
1. Hon EUGENIE SAGE (Green) to the Minister for Oceans and Fisheries: Does he stand by his statement in October 2021 that "We have ambitions to lift New Zealand's marine protected area so that we get closer to that 30 per cent"; if so, when can New Zealanders expect to see new marine protected areas established to help us reach that target?
Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for Oceans and Fisheries) (remote): Yes, it is Government policy to seek protection of 30 percent of marine areas over time. I'm currently working with the Minister of Conservation to create 18 new marine protected areas in the Hauraki Gulf. This will increase marine protection in the region to almost 18 percent by area, an almost threefold increase. In addition to this, we are progressing a proposal to create 12 new protected areas proposed by the South-East Marine Protection Forum off the south-east of the South Island. The proposed marine protected area network covers 1,267 square kilometres, or 14.2 percent of the south-east region considered by the forum. We also remain committed to creating the Kermadec / Rangitāhua Ocean Sanctuary to protect one of New Zealand's most biodiverse areas. The Government also plans to advance reform of the marine protected areas legislation. This is needed partly because the Marine Reserves Act only covers the territorial sea and not the exclusive economic zone, and partly because the Marine Reserves Act has rigid conservation measures that may not be appropriate for all marine protected areas. 
Hon Eugenie Sage: When can we expect to see any of those proposals actually established as marine protected areas?
Hon DAVID PARKER: Decisions in respect of the Hauraki Gulf marine protected areas are probably likely to be the first off the block, and decisions on that are expected to be made later this year.
Hon Eugenie Sage: What steps is he taking to give effect to the kaitiakitanga of hapū and iwi such as Ngāti Kuri and Te Aupōuri in the marine environment, including around Rangitāhua?
Hon DAVID PARKER: There has been engagement with all interested Māori groupings throughout the course of the last four years, since we've tried to bring to fruition the Rangitāhua / Kermadecs protection issue. It's not constant with all iwi all of the time, but I am aware that another round of consultation is about to take place.
Hon Eugenie Sage: Will increasing the extent of marine protected areas in New Zealand waters include banning bottom trawling on seamounts, and, if not, why not?
Hon DAVID PARKER: Well, I suppose if the member wished to include reductions in the scope of areas that are subject to bottom trawling, the percentage that would be called marine protected areas in the Hauraki Gulf would be much higher than the 18 percent that I have already claimed. In respect of the effects of bottom trawling, we do have a separate piece of work that we're engaging upon with the industry and environmental groups to advance those issues.
Hon Eugenie Sage: Does he stand by the Government's oceans and fisheries work programme when there has been no apparent progress establishing new marine protection around Rangitāhua / the Kermadecs or on the South Island's south-east coast, both of which are listed as key items in that initial work programme, and if he stands by that work programme, why?
Hon DAVID PARKER: It's not correct that no progress has been made.
Hon Eugenie Sage: Will he commit to establishing new marine protected areas at Rangitāhua and on the South Island's south-east coast by the end of the current parliamentary term?
Hon DAVID PARKER: We're doing our utmost to achieve that.




Question No. 2—Prime Minister
2. CHRISTOPHER LUXON (Leader of the Opposition) (remote) to the Prime Minister: Does she stand by her statement, "The debate is not whether inflation has increased and is impacting people. The debate is what we should do about it"; and if so, will she adjust the income tax brackets to account for the last four years of inflation?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN (Prime Minister): I do stand by the statement. I also said, "The Opposition has proposed cuts to the top tax rate and getting rid of policies to help first-home buyers. We, on the other hand, have worked consistently to increase focused support for low and middle income earners. That's why we've overseen a $5 increase in the minimum wage, benefiting around 300,000 workers. We've increased Working for Families … [which] will make around 346,000 families better off by an average of $20 each a week. We created the winter energy payment, starting again from 1 May, benefiting over a million New Zealanders during the winter months. We've made the largest across the board increases in benefit incomes since the 1940s, and we've increased the pay of new police officers by 19 percent since 2017, 16 percent for primary teachers, and 21 percent for new nurses." Our Government is choosing to target support to those on low and middle incomes who need help the most through raising wages and increasing support. Families earning between $40,000 and $70,000 will benefit by an average of $21 per week through our proposed increase in the family tax credit rather than the Opposition's proposal to cut taxes for property speculators and the highest earners.
Christopher Luxon: Does she accept that with prices rising twice as fast as wages, it's clear we have a cost of living crisis under her Government in New Zealand?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: As I have consistently answered in this House: from the moment we took office, we worked very hard to ensure that we saw wages increase at a faster rate than inflation—and we did that. Right now, though, I absolutely accept that New Zealand, alongside the UK, alongside the United States, Scotland, Ireland, are all reporting the impact of the increase in the cost of living as a result of an increase in inflation—and add to that the war in Ukraine, which is putting pressure on energy prices. So we're all experiencing that. The debate we're having in this House is whether or not a cut to the top tax rate, as the member is proposing, which would come at a cost of $600 million, is the answer, or whether or not, as we propose, continuing to support low and middle income earners across a range of areas is the answer.
Christopher Luxon: How does she reconcile her claim that she's just made—that wages have grown faster than prices under Labour—when, actually, since she became Prime Minister, we've had total inflation of 11.5 percent but total wage growth of less than 9 percent?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Because since quarter one of 2018, wages have increased at an average annual rate of 3.5 percent and Consumers Price Index inflation has averaged 2.2 percent over the same period. What we're, of course, acknowledging is the experience we're having right now—as a result of the simultaneous COVID recovery that is going on around the world, the extra demand, the shortages in supplies, supply constraints, and, add to that, a war—is causing a range of pressures for households. We are committed to continuing to try and ease that pressure—1 April, you see those family tax credit changes; 1 April, you see the increase in the minimum wage; and in May, you see the winter energy payment. In contrast, the Opposition is proposing for some of those families to get a grand total of $2.15 whilst top-income earners would receive a substantial tax cut.
David Seymour: If the Prime Minister believes that the National Party's proposed tax cuts would be inadequate for helping middle New Zealand deal with a cost of living crisis, would she then consider ACT's proposal of cutting the middle-income tax rate, affecting those on $48,000 to $70,000, giving the average working family $2,000, or $40 a week, more in the pocket?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Again, our proposals around the family tax credit changes—as I've said—for many of those low and middle income earners, outstrip what has been proposed by National and doesn't, at the same time, come at the great cost of reducing the taxes for the highest-income earners, which inevitably means then you see cuts to things like health and education. But what I would point out to the member is that he's not only proposed, as he said, changes for middle income earners; he is also proposing changes that will see costs increase for them in other areas. We are not. We want free lunches in schools, we want under-14-year-olds to still be able to go to the doctor for free, we want to see a continued investment in healthcare. Those are all things the member's policies do not support.
David Seymour: Is the Prime Minister saying that if ACT can demonstrate it's possible to give the average family $2,000-plus in tax relief without reducing health or education spending, then she would support it, and, if not, why not?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I'm merely pointing out that the member's policies include cutting KiwiSaver support, first-home buyer grants, everything as well—our investment in research and development through Callaghan, the investment we've made in regional jobs through the Provincial Growth Fund. The member even proposes getting rid of the Ministry for Women. So no, I don't support his policy proposals.
Christopher Luxon: Does the Prime Minister agree that for a family with two parents earning the average wage, an increase in their living costs of $5,000 in one year is absolutely a cost of living crisis; and, if not, what would she call it?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: The member has continued to have a debate where there is none. We of course have acknowledged the increases that families are experiencing at this point of time. I think perhaps the reason the member is choosing not to hear my answers on that is because he does not wish to have a discussion over whether or not he is still promoting the policy he introduced to the country on Sunday when he said, for instance, "My commitment is I'll reverse Labour's tax policies. National will repeal each of these new taxes." On Newstalk later, he said, "We'll reverse them when we get into power in the first term." On Wednesday, he said, "What we're saying is in principle we're going to remove the tax increases." I'm happy to have a debate with the member if he will choose to stick with a policy proposal we can actually debate.
Christopher Luxon: Why won't she adjust that same family's tax brackets for inflation so they actually get to keep more of what they earn, given they've faced an increase in their living costs of $5,000 in the last year?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Again, as I've said, we have chosen to take a much more focused approach on supporting families, and I've already given the examples of where, on 1 April, the changes that we'd make for the family tax credit for many families would far outstrip that member's proposals and would not come at the cost of a fiscal hole that means National would not be able to fund adequately our health services and our education services. They also sit alongside, for instance, free doctors visits for under-14-year-olds; making sure that we have, for instance, 200,000 children getting free lunches in schools; for instance, the winter energy payment—the number of things that we have done across the course of our time in office where if the Opposition were in charge, they would simply not be able to continue because none of their policies add up.
Christopher Luxon: What is the Prime Minister's response to the 1.6 million Kiwis earning $48,000 or more who would get an average gain of $820 in tax relief if her Government adjusted the tax brackets for the record inflation of the last four years?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Again, as I have said with examples in this House before, if you take a person earning $55,000 per year who may have children, they would receive an average of $21 per week under the proposals that we have that come in on 1 April. Under National's proposals, it's $15. Someone on $150,000 under National's proposals are nine times better off than someone around the $40,000 mark. It demonstrates that again we have a different set of priorities here. We want to support our low and middle income families, whereas on that side of the House they want tax cuts for those who are in the wealthier bracket. And my other message to those families would be that they must also ask themselves the question how National would fund the other priorities those families have. I quote from a report I see today: "This is a problem for the party as the 2024 Budget, which would be National's first budget should [they] win [an] election, currently has only $3 billion of new operating spending allocated to it. This would be totally absorbed by the tax package, unless National plans to deliver no new services, or cut spending elsewhere."
Christopher Luxon: Doesn't she think that people on the average wage—the tradies and the hairdressers—deserve a break; and, if not, why won't she adjust their tax brackets at the Budget to give them some relief from the cost of living crisis?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: As I've said and repeated in this House multiple times and again today, I've talked about the efforts that we are making in that space, and I would also, again, highlight that, as I said yesterday, whether or not it's a new teacher, we've seen an increase since our time in office of them receiving an additional $227 a week, if you take an example of a teacher with family. If you take the example of someone working 30 hours at a minimum wage with kids, $336 better off. If you take, for instance, a primary school teacher, $11,000 better off; a nurse, $16,000. These far outstrip the examples that the member has presented in this House, by some margins, and none of those changes the member would be able to commit to in office because he has a massive fiscal hole.




Question No. 3—Finance
3. Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central) to the Minister of Finance: What recent reports has he seen on the New Zealand economy?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): The construction sector is continuing to support the economy. Yesterday, Statistics New Zealand reported the volume of building activity jumped 8.9 percent in the December quarter, more than offsetting the 8.4 percent decline in the previous period, due to the Delta outbreak. Residential construction rose 5.2 percent, while industrial and commercial building activity increased 16 percent. Stats New Zealand also reported last week that annual building consents issued for January rose 22 percent to 48,707 compared with the previous year. Economists are continuing to expect momentum in the construction sector, despite the challenging environment that it is operating in. 
Dr Duncan Webb: What support is available for businesses as the economy deals with the challenges of Omicron? 
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The Government has responded with the new targeted COVID support payment which will help viable but vulnerable businesses through the peak of Omicron. So far, this payment has paid out $280.51 million to 56,775 applicants. On a regional basis, Auckland has received 56 percent of the payments by amount going to business, followed by Christchurch on 8 percent, and Wellington on 7 percent. I would also note that sole traders make up nearly half of the amount that has gone out—a distinction of our scheme in New Zealand, where we've continued to support sole traders throughout this period. This is about providing cash flow and confidence to help protect jobs and support New Zealand businesses through this very difficult time. 
Dr Duncan Webb: What other reports has he seen on proposals to support economic activity?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I have seen reports of proposals directed to me as the Minister of Finance that would propose cutting taxes and a range of other initiatives designed to fund transport and make housing more affordable. It's important to note that such proposals would not be one-off but would be reflected into future Budgets. The effect of this on the New Zealand economy would be significant. For example, one proposal that I was asked to adopt by the Leader of the Opposition would wipe out the whole of the Budget 2024 allowance, leaving no room for spending on health, education, housing, or other investments. 




Question No. 4—Finance
4. DAMIEN SMITH (ACT) to the Minister of Finance: Does he stand by his statement that the Government has "no intention" of giving tax cuts; and if so, why? 
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): I stand by my statement in its full and proper context, which is that the Government's focus during this period and in the upcoming Budget is on making sure that we support those in low and middle income households to get through this period of time, whilst also continuing to invest in important parts of the New Zealand economy and society such as our health system, our education system, and in housing. It is my view that untargeted tax cuts are not the best use of money right now. Instead, we need to be investing in long-term challenges that are facing New Zealand in the form of healthcare, climate change, and affordable housing, and supporting people through the current rises in the cost of living. 
Damien Smith: Does the Minister accept that taxes taken per person by this Government and grabbed from their household budgets have risen by $2,138, even when adjusted for inflation, and, if not, why not? 
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: What I accept is that this Government campaigned on increasing the top tax rate from 33c to 39c. We have certainly seen more people in work and more people earning higher wages during that period of time. It is important for any Government to make judgments in a given period of time as to what their priorities are. What we have had to face is the fact that the whole world has had a COVID-19 pandemic, and members of the Opposition might like to reflect on the fact that they not only, at times, supported the wage subsidy scheme and the COVID-19 Support Payment but actually asked us to go further and spend more. We believe we've got the balance right. 
Damien Smith: So does the Minister believe people who have appeared in the media recently who say their household expenses have increased by $5,000 to $7,000 per annum, and, if so, can he understand why they would see these circumstances as a real crisis? 
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: As I've said both today and yesterday in the House, and the Prime Minister has repeated it again today in the House, there is considerable pressure on a number of households from the rising cost of living. That rising cost of living is driven by inflation, many of which of the causes are out of the control of the Government. What is in control of the Government is making sure that we continue to support those families—particularly those on low and middle incomes—through initiatives such as, as the Prime Minister has said today, the increase in the family tax credit, which will deliver considerably more to those middle-income households than the kinds of tax cuts the member is proposing. 
Damien Smith: So what is wrong with letting the average earner keep over $2,000 more of their own money to battle rising prices under ACT's policy, or does he believe we can grow our way out of these challenges, effectively? 
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The difficulty for the member is that these things don't happen in a vacuum. If the decision was taken to adopt the ACT Party's policy as he has just articulated, that would mean considerable trade-offs, including cutting very important parts of our social security safety net, as well as very important parts of the Government's work programme. There are no easy choices when you're in Government. We believe we've got the balance right. 
Hon Chris Hipkins: Can the Minister of Finance confirm that essential workforces like our nurses and our teachers, who have received significant pay increases under this Government, got that after nearly a decade in which their salaries remained relatively stagnant? 
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Yes, I can confirm that, and that is one of the issues that this Government has had to face on coming into office. [Member interjects] It was not only the chronic underfunding of the health sector but also the fact that the wages of those in the health and education sectors had slipped so far behind. As the Prime Minister indicated in her answers both yesterday and today, we've seen significant lifts in teachers' salaries and in nurses' salaries. We believe that is an important thing to do, but we have to be able to pay for it, and if we have parties advocating large-scale tax cuts, they won't be able to do that. 
SPEAKER: Before I call Damien Smith, which member interjected while Chris Hipkins was asking his supplementary? It was a member, I think, in that quartile somewhere. 
Damien Smith: Does the Minister believe that under ACT's tax policy, nurses and teachers would be better off? 
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: No, I don't, for the reasons that I've articulated. While the member might like to propose in a vacuum a particular tax cut, it has to be set in the context of everything else that a Government is required to do, and those teachers and those nurses want to make sure that they're in good quality hospitals, that they're teaching in good classrooms, and that they're supported to do their work. That is what we are doing.
Rt Hon Jacinda Ardern: Does he believe nurses would support ACT's policy that all of the decisions taken to try and keep COVID away from New Zealanders for as long as possible was actually the wrong decision, and they would have rather traded lives instead? 
SPEAKER: Order! Order! Even at a stretch, that doesn't come within this Minister's responsibility. 
Hon Chris Hipkins: Would it be possible for a Government to give pay increases to essential workforces like teachers and nurses if the entire new spending allowance in Budget 2024 was given out in tax cuts? 
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Absolutely not, and that is the issue here for those who are proposing tax cuts which they say are about one Budget. The reality of Government accounting is that that carries on, and if we're going to go around slashing all of the other things that have been proposed by the Opposition, then, in Budget 2024, there won't be a single cent in new operating spending for paying teachers and nurses more. 




Question No. 5—Corrections
5. Dr EMILY HENDERSON (Labour—Whangārei) (remote) to the Minister of Corrections: Does supporting a person to have a bank account upon release from prison help them to reintegrate into society; if so, how?
SPEAKER: Order! Before I call the member, I'm going to ask Dr Henderson to read the question as it is written down, especially the name of the Minister.
Dr EMILY HENDERSON: My apologies. How does supporting a person to have a bank account upon release from prison help them to reintegrate into society?
Chris Bishop: Point of order, Mr Speaker. My understanding is that that is not actually the question. The question is "Does supporting a person to have a bank account upon release from prison." Because I think you might have changed it, because the—
SPEAKER: Yes, yes, I take responsibility for the changing, but I'm saying to the whips it's their responsibility to make sure that members asking the questions are told when it's changed.
Chris Bishop: I mean it's a patsy question, it's not that hard to get right. You literally email it, and then she just stands up and reads it. I'm happy to provide a tutorial if—
SPEAKER: Order! I think we're not for the days for tutorials on that sort of thing. Now—I think we've got the gist of the question. It's one of the problems of operating remotely. The Hon Kelvin Davis.
Hon KELVIN DAVIS (Minister of Corrections): Mr Speaker—
Hon David Bennett: They can't even ask a question properly.
SPEAKER: Order! The Hon Mr Bennett will stand, withdraw, and apologise.
Hon David Bennett: I withdraw and apologise.
Hon KELVIN DAVIS: Recently, Corrections implemented the Bank Accounts Upon Release scheme, or New Start. This scheme was piloted in 2020 with phased roll-out to all prison sites concluding in late 2021, and is a core part of our Hōkai Rangi strategy where the sixth pou states, "People released from the care of Ara Poutama Aotearoa have the necessary life skills, levels of education, and tools for full participation in society." It may sound like a small thing, but this support means that when a person leaves prison they should be able to walk out with the tools necessary to immediately access their funds, which is a core step in removing barriers to reintegration and increase their likelihood of living safe and offence-free in the community.
Dr Emily Henderson: What reports has the Minister seen that support this implementation of the New Start scheme?
Hon KELVIN DAVIS: I've seen a report from Westpac New Zealand, where the head of consumer operations said, "New Start helps give prisoners the best chance possible of resuming normal life." They went on to say, "A bank account is like a passport to the economy, which is why inclusion in the banking system is so important. Without one it's hard to get a job, pay the rent, receive a benefit or do many of the other things we take for granted in our lives."
Dr Emily Henderson: Is the Minister aware of any previous prisoners who support the initiative?
Hon KELVIN DAVIS: Yes, there's been reporting of a prisoner who was in Tongariro Prison who accessed the scheme. This person was bound to have difficulties with regards to getting a bank account on his own because he had previously had three names, no birth certificate, and no photo ID. He said about the scheme, "It was a good feeling knowing that I had a bank account to go out to. It changes everything for me."




Question No. 6—Finance
6. Hon SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga) (remote) to the Minister of Finance: Does he stand by his statement yesterday that it's a "challenging period for many households"; if so, will he use a portion of his operating allowance in Budget 2022 for tax relief?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): In answer to the first part of the question, yes, I continue to acknowledge that many households are feeling under greater financial pressure as we work through this period of elevated inflation. In answer to the second part of the question, I would, firstly, note the member's agreement that the operating allowances for Budget 2022 are at an appropriate level after he has spent the first part of this year demanding that the allowances be reduced. I do stand by my statement that global inflationary pressures, recently exacerbated by the Russian invasion of Ukraine, mean this is a challenging period. In terms of using the Budget 2022 allowances to help address some of this pressure, I am pleased to inform the member that we have done just that through a pre-commitment that funds the family tax credit increases the Prime Minister and Minister Sepuloni announced late last year. From 1 April this year, 346,000 families will be better off by an average of $20 per week as a result. I would also point out to the member that the billions of dollars of policies his leader has announced do not just affect Budget 2022; they still have to be paid for in future Budgets, which do not have the one-off increase in Budget allowances that we have this year. What this means is it would wipe out all of the Budget 2024 new-spending allowance, which the member would have to explain if he ever ended up in that position.
Hon Simon Bridges: Shouldn't meaningful tax relief for wage earners be an urgent priority when inflation is running at 5.9 percent and wage growth at only 2.6 percent, so that, on average, New Zealanders' real wages are going backwards right now?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The issue for the member is what constitutes meaningful tax changes when we have got a worker getting $2 as a result of the changes that the member is replacing. I repeat what I said in my answer to an earlier oral question: there are no easy decisions when you're in Government; it is always a matter of balancing different needs. It is important that we support people through increases in the cost of living at the same time as investing in health, education, housing, and other essential items.
Hon Simon Bridges: Is the Minister really telling us that we're not giving out too much or proposing to, but also that our policies cost too much? And if $1.7 billion is wrong, what does he say the true cost of tax indexation in the first three income tax brackets actually is?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: No, what I am saying is that the unfocused, untargeted approach that the member is promoting—that would benefit those on the highest incomes—is not the appropriate approach to be taking now, and what I am also saying is that the kind of tax changes proposed by the member's leader do not just stop in Budget 2022; they carry on and, on the numbers given out by the member's leader on the weekend, would wipe out the entire new operating allowance for Budget 2024, meaning there would be no money to spend on health, education, or housing that is new.
Hon Simon Bridges: Shouldn't meaningful tax reform for workers be on his agenda today given that his Government's minimum wage changes on 1 April will mean that someone on the minimum wage who works 44 hours a week is set to face a marginal tax rate of 30c in the dollar and many believe we're in a cost—
SPEAKER: Order! Order! Two legs to supplementaries, not three or four.
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: As I said, this Government has made the decision on behalf of New Zealanders to get a balance in our approach to the Budget. That means supporting people, for example, through the family tax credit changes that will put money into their pockets whilst, at the same time, knowing that we have to continue to invest in health, in education, and in housing. What the Opposition is proposing will mean tax cuts that, effectively, make inequality worse, that mean congestion in Auckland will get worse, and that mean it will be harder for first-home buyers. That's their decision, but that is not one the Government is taking.
SPEAKER: Further supplementary?
Hon Simon Bridges: I apologise, Mr Speaker. I appreciate I was meant to do that through the system. Why can't just a portion of the upcoming Budget's historic $6 billion in new spending go on tax relief to hurting New Zealanders as the cost of living crisis continues to worsen?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I'm not sure if the member heard what I said in my primary answer, but Budget 2022 does indeed change family tax credits so that people in New Zealand—346,000 families—will be significantly better off. The Government has chosen to take a focused approach to supporting those on low and middle incomes to get through this period of time whilst continuing to invest in health, in education, and in housing. The member can't have it both ways. He needs to explain what he would cut if he were to go ahead with the tax polices his leader announced on Sunday.
Hon Simon Bridges: Is the real reason he won't prioritise tax relief because he believes he spends Kiwi workers' money better than they do, and why won't he trust Kiwi families to make good decisions with their own money?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: No, the reason we are doing this is that, on this side of the House, we understand that when Governments are faced with difficult choices, our job is to make sure that we look not only to the short term, to support those on low and middle incomes through this period of increased prices, but also to continue to invest in the health and the education and the housing sectors. The member's party completely failed to do the latter when they were last in office, and we're still making up for it now.
Hon Chris Hipkins: Does the Minister of Finance believe that a tax cut package that gave a Cabinet Minister a $5,500 to $6,000 a year tax cut while the people cleaning that Minister's office only got less than a cup of coffee a week from their tax cut would make a meaningful contribution to the rising cost of living?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: It would be demonstrably unfair and unjust that that would be the case. It is also unfocused and untargeted at a time when the Government needs to strike a careful balance between keeping debt in check, making sure we support those in need, and investing in long-term issues.




Question No. 7—COVID-19 Response
7. Dr LIZ CRAIG (Labour) (remote) to the Minister for COVID-19 Response: What recent announcements has he made on New Zealand's COVID-19 response?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister for COVID-19 Response): Today I announced that the isolation period for COVID-19 cases and their household contacts will reduce from 10 days to seven days. This will come into effect from 11.59 p.m. on Friday. Household contacts will need to have a rapid antigen test if they become symptomatic during their isolation, or if they don't get symptoms, they'll be required to have a negative test at day 6, prior to ending their seven-day isolation period. 
Dr Liz Craig: What public health advice has he seen to support this decision?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: We've received advice from the Ministry of Health on how to get the balance right between effectively controlling the current Omicron outbreak and the flow-on effect on essential goods and services. Omicron and its transmissibility has meant that many more positive cases are being detected, but many also have moderate or mild symptoms. Our high vaccination rates are also contributing to that. As case numbers have increased, we're seeing large numbers of positive cases and their household contacts isolating. This is having a wider impact on many parts of our lives, including on our food supply chains and on businesses' day-to-day operations. The public health advice was that the societal impact of a longer isolation period outweighs the public health risk associated with a shorter isolation period. This is in line with similar changes made in other countries and with increasing international evidence that people are most likely to transmit the virus earlier in their infectious period.
Dr Liz Craig: What other announcements has he recently made on New Zealand's COVID-19 response?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Today I also announced that quarter of a million Novavax vaccinations have arrived in the country and people can book these over the phone or online from tomorrow. While Pfizer remains the preferred COVID-19 vaccine for New Zealand, Novavax is now available for those people who would prefer or require an alternative. It's available to people 18 and over only. It requires two doses, with a three-week gap between them. It has not yet been approved as a booster dose. People will be able to choose appointments at a limited number of sites. It won't be available at every vaccination site around the country. Details are available on the Ministry of Health website. 




Question No. 8—Housing
8. NICOLA WILLIS (Deputy Leader—National) to the Minister of Housing: Does she have confidence that Kāinga Ora is effectively exercising its obligations as a public sector entity, including delivering value for taxpayers' money?
Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister of Housing) (remote): Yes, I have confidence Kāinga Ora is effectively exercising its obligations as a public service entity. I stand by this Government's actions to tackle the national housing crisis, including through the establishment of Kāinga Ora. I'm proud that Kāinga Ora has delivered over 9,000 warm, dry public-housing places since 2017, including building more than 7,000 brand-new-build public homes. This Government is building more homes than any Government since the 1970s. I'm also proud that through this build programme Kāinga Ora has supported over 500 apprentices. Our Government believes it's the role of the State to invest to provide public and affordable housing, particularly during a national housing crisis. I do acknowledge that not every decision Kāinga Ora has made has met my expectations of a public service entity and I will continue to hold Kāinga Ora's chair and board accountable, as is appropriate. I will be receiving regular reporting from the Kāinga Ora chair and board who are fully committed to meeting this expectation.
Nicola Willis: Does she stand by her statement that on 3 August last year she "made it clear to Kāinga Ora that it did not meet my expectations of Public Service neutrality" in relation to its decision to publish a taxpayer-funded ad about a political candidate; and if she was clear, then why did the chief executive in an email some months later tell staff he would stand behind the judgment call to publish that article?
Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: Yes, I do stand by that statement. I previously tabled in the House an email that my office sent on my behalf to Kāinga Ora on 3 August, making it clear that I was not satisfied with material that I had seen in an Official Information Act request. In terms of the email that the member is referring to, which was sent at 9.54 a.m. on 11 November, this was before I subsequently spoke to the chief executive at 12.30 on 11 November, followed by a phone call to the chair and then to the Public Service Commissioner. I do think the member is a bit confused about the sequence of events, and I would like to draw that member's attention to paragraph 34 of the Public Service Commissioner, who makes it clear that in the course of undertaking his investigation, the email that she is referring to of 11 November was indeed used in that investigation.
Nicola Willis: Why does she continue to have confidence in the chief executive of Kāinga Ora when he so clearly, as per that email, paid very little heed to her expectations of him; and when did she first learn of the email I read in Parliament yesterday?
Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: In answer to the first part of the question, I think that I covered that off in answering a previous supplementary, and I think if the member carefully reads through the report, also in paragraph 34 of the Public Service Commissioner's report, he notes that the chief executive was not adequately briefed on some of the material that is part of the findings of the Public Service Commissioner not only of a culture of minimisation but of too much devolving of responsibility in what has been rectified in there. The email, as I said, was sent at 9.54 a.m. That was prior to my conversation with the chief executive at 12.30 of that same day. So I think the member is incorrect to say that he sent that email after having communication with me. In regard to when I first became aware of the email of 11 November, that's when I reviewed it in an Official Information Act request. It was sent to the member asking the question.
Nicola Willis: Is she confident she can trust that Kāinga Ora's chief executive will exercise better judgment over the $8.3 billion borrowing facility her Government has granted Kāinga Ora than it did over this matter, and what makes her think he takes her seriously now when he so clearly ignored her earlier warnings in August?
Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: I reject the premise of the member's question. As I've outlined in previous answers to supplementaries, the chain of events the member is trying to put together simply do not stack up when the facts are considered in terms of time lines. In terms of why I have confidence in Kāinga Ora to deliver value for money to this Government in terms of its build programme, I just need look at the evidence. If I have a look at the value that Kāinga Ora is giving the New Zealand taxpayer under our Government compared to what the much smaller Housing New Zealand was under the previous Government—if I have a look at the head count of staff per cost of construction, we can see that for the total annual residential construction spend by Kāinga Ora in 2017-18, it was 3.7 staff per $100 million. In 2021, that was down to 0.9 staff member per $1 million spend. This is not even taking account for the far expanded functions that Kāinga Ora had from the sell-off housing agency that Housing New Zealand had become under the previous National Government. So I look at the evidence in front of me, and that's why I have confidence.
Nicola Willis: Will she join me in asking that the Public Service Commission reopen its investigation into these matters, given the email I tabled in Parliament yesterday was first requested in November under the Official Information Act and was not released until more than three months later—strangely, on the day the Public Service investigation was published—and does she think this conduct meets the standard expected of a public sector entity in meeting its statutory obligations?
Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: No, I won't be joining with that member in calling for the investigation to be reopened, because I encourage that member to read the memo that the Public Service Commissioner produced last week. I direct the member to paragraph 34. There are three bullet points in that. It's the third bullet point, and it's sub bullet point 5. The final sentence of that clearly reads, "In associated email correspondence on 11 November, the chief executive indicated support for the judgement call to publish. He later clarified the agency would likely exercise its judgement differently in the future." So I won't be joining that member, because the Public Service Commissioner has already looked at the email.




Question No. 9—Transport
9. GREG O'CONNOR (Labour—Ōhāriu) (remote)  to the Minister of Transport: What recent announcements has the Government made on keeping New Zealanders safe on our roads?
Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister of Transport): I'm pleased to report that yesterday the Land Transport (Drug Driving) Amendment Bill completed its third reading. This legislation authorises random roadside drug testing, which aims to deter drug-impaired driving, leading to safer roads for all. Driving under the influence of drugs can result in preventable yet very serious harm. In both 2019 and 2020, over 100 people were killed in crashes where a driver was found to have drugs in their system. This is just one part of the Government's Road to Zero strategy to save the lives of people on our roads. We want to see less deaths and serious injuries on our roads, and a 40 percent reduction target by 2030, and the passage of this legislation is a step in the right direction.
Greg O'Connor: What response has he seen to the passing of the drug-driving bill?
Hon MICHAEL WOOD: There's been a very positive response. It was commented on by the Automobile Association as being "a significant step forward in road safety." They said that "the introduction of roadside testing devices will not only be welcomed by the vast majority of drivers but also by many of the families that have lost loved ones because of a drug-impaired driver." Drug-driving is a much more complex area than drink-driving, because of the range of substances involved and more variation in the ways that drugs can affect individuals, but the Government has come up with a well-balanced approach which, when implemented, will make our roads safer.
Greg O'Connor: What other work is the Government progressing to make our roads safer?
Hon MICHAEL WOOD: Our Road to Zero strategy is part of a plan to build the safest road system we can, and work towards zero deaths and serious injuries by 2050 and a 40 percent reduction by 2030. We're targeting all aspects of the transport system to get there and are investing $2.9 billion in Road to Zero activities over the next three years. This includes safer infrastructure, people into safer vehicles, safer speed limits, and an extensive record-breaking road maintenance programme, and we're refocusing on targeted and effective police enforcement. The measures that are being introduced are internationally proven and have reduced deaths and serious injuries when they are systemically rolled out.




Question No. 10—COVID-19 Response
10. CHRIS BISHOP (National) to the Minister for COVID-19 Response: Has he seen the official advice regarding vaccine certificates which states, "There are also issues around maintaining social licence over the management of the pandemic and social cohesion. Over time, this measure may no longer be justifiable as vaccination rates increase and the public health rationale becomes diminished", and has he received advice from officials on at what point vaccination certificates are no longer justifiable?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister for COVID-19 Response): If the member's referring to the joint briefing by the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet and the Ministry of Health that I requested and then subsequently proactively released on 10 December, then the answer to that first part of the question is yes. In answer to the second part of the question, the ongoing use of vaccination certificates continues to be a conversation with officials. We've yet to receive formal advice on when would be the right time to stop using vaccination certificates, but it continues to be something that we keep under active review.
Chris Bishop: Has he been provided with advice from officials on the impact of the Yardley v Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety High Court decision on the legality of other vaccine mandates imposed by the Government; if so, what does the advice say?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Without getting into the specifics of the legal advice that has been provided to the Government, it is important to note that the Yardley decision, when read in totality, was actually a very narrow decision and cannot be applied to other vaccination mandate decisions.
Chris Bishop: Does he agree that the utility of vaccine mandates are considerably diminished, given more than 95 percent of the eligible New Zealand population has now had two doses of the vaccine, and the impact of vaccination on transmission under Omicron is nowhere near what it was under Delta?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The use of vaccination requirements for certain workforces is something that the Government keeps under review. As I've previously indicated, it is possible that some workforces will find those requirements removed before others and will do that based on public health advice and based on a proportionate risk assessment as we make those decisions.
Debbie Ngarewa-Packer (remote): Thank you, te Pīka. What support, if any, has Government given to whānau who lost their jobs due to mandates and Government vaccine certificates?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Many of the workforces covered by the vaccination requirements—so for people to continue to do those jobs they needed to be vaccinated—are in the public sector. The first course of action for those workforces was to find opportunities for redeployment. Where redeployment was not available, then people have been worked with to see whether there are other options available to them. Termination of their employment has only been used as an absolute last resort and people will have had plenty of time to work through that process. In terms of people in the private sector who may have been affected by that, there are supports available—for example, through the Ministry of Social Development. 
Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Does Government intend to support unvaccinated whānau to secure jobs once Government vaccine mandates have been lifted; if not, why not?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: My message to all of those whānau is that vaccination is safe, it is effective, and it is something that I would strongly encourage them to do. Of course, we'll continue to look to support people into employment wherever we're able to do that.
Chris Bishop: Why are unvaccinated nurses who don't have COVID unable to go to work in hospitals due to the mandate, while we've got to the point where vaccinated nurses who do have COVID are able to go to work?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: In terms of the recent decision that was announced in the last couple of days around allowing people who have COVID-19 to work in our health system, it's important to note that there are some very narrow parameters around where that could be applied. For example, where someone was COVID-positive and was working in a ward with COVID-positive patients, there may be a justified reason to have someone in there in order to ease the pressure on the rest of the workforce. Or where a surgeon was performing a life-saving surgery and they were the only person available to do that and without them doing that that person would die, there may well be a justified reason for that person to go to work. But it is not a blanket exemption that says that people in the health workforce should be going to work even if they have COVID-19.




Question No. 11—Customs
11. TĀMATI COFFEY (Labour) (remote) to the Minister of Customs: What initiatives are Customs providing to small-to-medium importers?
Hon MEKA WHAITIRI (Minister of Customs): Ongoing supply chain disruption has meant many businesses in Aotearoa New Zealand are placing larger or more frequent orders for their products from overseas. This means they are having to make regular payments to Customs to stay within their credit limits. One initiative increases credit limits for low-risk small to medium enterprises so they can more easily import larger or more frequent shipments. Other initiatives include deferred payments, which allow businesses to defer their payments to Customs, including duties and GST charges.
Tāmati Coffey: How have businesses responded to this initiative so far?
Hon MEKA WHAITIRI: Insofar as the credit limit increases initiative, as of 11 February 2022, 7,268 small to medium importers have been notified of the credit limit increases, with 6,300 opting to take up this offer—an 86.6 take-up rate.
Tāmati Coffey: How does increasing imported credit limits support New Zealand's economic recovery?
Hon MEKA WHAITIRI: It is increasing the economic resilience of thousands of small to medium sized enterprises, enabling them to increase the number and volume of orders for their products or materials from overseas and providing certainty during a time when the supply chain is unsettled. Increasing credit limits has given businesses more breathing room with their cash flow, allowing them to pay for the essentials—like employee salaries—that keep enterprise afloat and the economy thriving.




Question No. 12—Workplace Relations and Safety
12. Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National) (remote) to the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety: What additional costs have been imposed on businesses, if any, as a result of Government decisions since November 2017 for which he is responsible, and what impact, if any, have those additional costs on business had on the cost of living?
Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): I reject the premise of the member's question that Government decisions have imposed costs on businesses that have contributed to the cost of living and I note that the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment's modelling indicates that the inflationary impacts of policies like minimum wage increases are very limited—and this was, in fact, modelled at just 0.12 percent this year. Our Government has sought to build a modern and fair workplace relations environment through policies like increasing sick leave entitlement to 10 days per year, increasing paid parental leave from 18 to 26 weeks, and increasing the minimum wage from $15.75 in 2015 to $21.20 in April of this year. The benefits of these policies are far-reaching—for example, a minimum wage worker working 40 hours a week in 2017, compared to 1 April this year, will receive $218 a week more and we've achieved that while keeping unemployment at record low levels. On this side of the House, we reject the outdated and binary view of workplace relations in which any investment in the workforce is seen as a negative for business. We believe that fair and decent conditions are a foundation for good workplace relationships and a productive economy.
Hon Paul Goldsmith: Is the Minister saying, or rejecting the idea, that increased costs to businesses inevitably flow through to costs to consumers?
Hon MICHAEL WOOD: I'm saying two things. One is I've given a very specific example of the fact that some of the costs that that member and his side of the House regularly cite, the minimum wage increase—which some of them have supported and some of them haven't supported—this year was modelled at only having an inflationary impact of 0.12 percent, and as we've rolled out those increased minimum wage increases, we've brought unemployment down to a record low 3.2 percent, which is hardly evidence for it strangling businesses, as that side of the House claim every single year. Secondly, I'm making the point that as opposed to that side of the House, which always views investments in a better life for workers as a negative for businesses and the New Zealand economy, this side of the House actually has a view supported by plenty of international evidence that good terms and conditions for workers, good relationships between employers and unions, can actually lead to a better and more productive economy for everyone. 
Hon Paul Goldsmith: So what does the Minister think happens? Government imposes higher costs on businesses and they magically absorb those costs with no impact on prices—is that what you think happens?
Hon MICHAEL WOOD: No, that is not what I think happens and I ask the member what he thinks should happen in reverse.
SPEAKER: Order! Order! The member does not ask the other member anything; he answers.
Hon MICHAEL WOOD: No, that is not what I think happens. What I think happens in the economy and under the workplace relation settings of this Government is that we've ensured that workers do have a good minimum wage, we've ensured that workers do have a good minimum conditions like decent sick leave, and under that workers and businesses have worked productively together, we've delivered a growing economy, and we've delivered record low unemployment. It's going pretty well and we'll continue to pursue those policies that give workers a fair go, that look after the most vulnerable, and that bring workers and employers together to develop a fair and productive economy.
Hon Paul Goldsmith: Does he think all Kiwi workers deserve a 6 percent pay increase this year like those on the minimum wage have received; and if so, what impact does he think that would have on inflation expectations?
Hon MICHAEL WOOD: Well, as I look around at the performance of some workers I don't think that they probably do all warrant an increase at that level, Mr Goldsmith, but for the most part, we do believe that workers do deserve to receive fair compensation for their earnings. Of course, across our system, employers, workers, and unions will negotiate their particular employment relationships, but as far as the Government's role is involved, we've been very clear that when it comes to the lowest-paid workers, those on our minimum wage, we will support a decent increase. These are the cleaners, the supermarket checkout workers, and the bus drivers who have got our country through COVID-19. That side of the House is prepared to see their living standards decline; this Government will support them.
Simeon Brown: We'll give you a pay cut next year.
SPEAKER: Order! Mr Brown will stand, withdraw, and apologise.
Simeon Brown: I withdraw and apologise.
SPEAKER: Mr Goldsmith, despite all that noise, would you like another supplementary?
Hon Paul Goldsmith: Does he accept that with average wage growth for Kiwis of only 2.6 percent in 2021, and inflation running at 5.9 percent, the majority of Kiwis who are not on the minimum wage have been going backwards with their wages not keeping up with the rising cost of living?
Hon MICHAEL WOOD: What I accept is that under this Government's policies, wages, whether they are measured by average hourly earnings or average weekly earnings, have consistently outstripped increases in the cost of living, and that if we follow the policies that member advocates, then our most vulnerable workers, including those on the minimum wage, would see their living standards go backwards.
 





DEBATE ON BUDGET POLICY STATEMENT
Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Chairperson of the Finance and Expenditure Committee): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I move, That the House take note of the report of the Finance and Expenditure Committee on the Budget Policy Statement 2021-22 and Half Year Economic and Fiscal Update, December 2021.
SPEAKER: The question—
Hon Grant Robertson: You have to speak now, I think.
SPEAKER: The member might want to keep going, or—
Dr DUNCAN WEBB: No, I think I'll keep going if I may, Mr Speaker.
Chris Bishop: It's a good thing you didn't sit down!
Dr DUNCAN WEBB: I didn't sit down. Silence is golden, Mr Bishop, and I thought I'd start with a pause. You might want to try it.
First of all, I'm very pleased to be standing to talk about this Budget Policy Statement (BPS), and I'm very much looking forward to the delivery of the Budget by the Minister of Finance. But I do want to recognise, at select committee, the submitters, of whom there were about 98, and a number of those—about half—submitted in person. I want to say that we did listen very carefully to them. A lot of them were very focused. They focused on things like climate change, on transport policy. I particularly enjoyed the free bus fares lobby group, which actually has a very good message to send about access to transport, and also, of course, a number of submitters who endorsed and encouraged the Government in addressing poverty—[Interruption]
SPEAKER: Order!
Dr DUNCAN WEBB: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Each of those things is obviously important, and the Budget Policy Statement in particular sets out the direction that the Minister of Finance intends to travel to reach those destinations. What the BPS says is that the issues that matter most to New Zealanders are the ones that this Government is intending to address, particularly those long-term challenges. The priorities set out by the Minister are familiar. Obviously, the Budget Policy Statement is very much under the shadow of COVID and continuing to keep New Zealanders safe from COVID-19. Accelerating and reinforcing the recovery and the rebuild from the impacts of COVID-19 is an important part of the Budget Policy Statement—and also, in addition and at the same time, laying the foundations for the future, including addressing those key issues of climate change and our climate change response, housing affordability, and child poverty.
The overarching feature—and I'll get to the select committee proceedings shortly—was the need to get on and help New Zealanders, even in the face of the COVID pandemic, and a reflection of the fact that we're in a financial position to do that because of the strong recovery to date, careful management of the books, and a strong fiscal position, and the fact that those protections were put in place not only to protect the health of New Zealanders but also to protect jobs, protect businesses and livelihoods. And, as we've seen today in question time, that is ongoing. And, of course, a headline feature of discussions was the one-off $6 billion in Budget 2022 to invest in major programmes and an acknowledgment that the health reforms feature heavily in that—but also acknowledging that those operating allowances will reduce, over time, to $4 billion in 2023, and $3 billion in 2024-25. And important recognition, also, of multi-year funding so that agencies, including the new health agency, can have a considerable certainty over what their Budget allocations will be from year to year.
Also in the Budget Policy Statement, of course, Government debt was an important topic of discussion, and in the statement it was forecast to peak at 40.1 percent of GDP, which, whilst high for New Zealand's historical standards, is still significantly lower than was forecast in Budget 2021. That puts us in one of the lowest net debt positions in the world, certainly in terms of our OECD neighbours, and gives us a resilient economy to start with. The Minister did talk about debt and, in particular, was asked in committee about what a prudent level of debt was. Importantly, he noted that GDP is not the only question to be addressed there but also what the social and economic needs of the community are. And, of course, avoiding long-term infrastructure deficits was one of the things he identified where having a low debt certainly wouldn't be prudent if what that meant was ongoing decay of infrastructure. So a specific number was something that was avoided.
The committee also heard from the Minister that the Government was focused on a just transition to a climate resilient, sustainable, and low-emissions economy, and also focused on the physical and mental wellbeing of New Zealanders. In particular, the Budget policy was focused on improving health outcomes for all New Zealanders, including COVID-19 response, and, of course, a focus on improving the wellbeing and opportunities for Māori and Pacific peoples, including through access to affordable and stable, sustainable housing. And a final priority, an obvious one, was around child wellbeing and a reduction in child poverty, including access to housing and stable housing. Obviously, the district health board (DHB) reforms were focused on the replacement of DHBs by Health New Zealand, and making that transition to make a much more efficient, effective, and equitable health system. That's part of, in the long term, managing rising health costs. And, again, as I think I noted, that's one area where that multi-year approach will be of critical importance.
In terms of climate change, the Minister referred to the emissions trading scheme and the fact that the proceeds of that will be recycled into emissions reduction programmes through the Climate Emergency Response Fund, noting that the initial allocation was $4.5 billion. I think it's fair to say he noted that that was very much an initial allocation and, in the future, more will be needed.
And, of course, at the Finance and Expenditure Committee, there's always robust discussion. The ACT Party unsurprisingly talked about the tax burden, but the Minister really responded, when challenged particularly on the 39 percent tax rate, that it's appropriate for people who are earning over $180,000 to pay at that rate, also noting that the Minister noted that the economy has been very, very strong. Most people are in work, and therefore the amount of tax paid as a proportion of the economic activity remains very stable. And he thought the balance was about right. And so, in terms of the tax take as a proportion of GDP, and also the total amount of Government spending, which is about 35 percent of GDP, the Minister noted that was at the higher end, but also, as set out in the Budget Policy Statement, that is projected to return to a stable level of about 30 percent—and, if I recall rightly, slightly below that.
Mr Watts focused on the costs of establishing the new health entities and the deficits of the DHBs, but the Minister did respond to that, emphasising the importance of the two new entities and the importance of making sure that they get off on the right footing—that they begin life in a stable position and aren't given any legacy problems that they may have over from the DHBs, and that they will therefore be a much more effective way of delivering health services and deliver real fiscal benefits, and will be a real break from the current system.
And, of course, Treasury also presented on the Half Year Economic and Fiscal Update and, as was to be expected, inflation was touched on. The question was asked whether Government expenditure would increase inflation, but the secretary was very careful in the response, noting that this isn't necessarily the case at all; it depends on the quality and nature of that spending, and, of course, what the tax revenue is, noting that taxation dampens inflation. And, from that, we could draw that tax cuts would do the opposite.
So, in summary, we still have the continuing shadow of COVID-19, but the Government's strategy has proven effective. This is still a wellbeing Budget focused on the wellbeing of New Zealanders, giving New Zealanders the capability to live lives of purpose, balance, and meaning to them, and I'm very much looking forward to seeing the Budget in due course.





Hon SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga) (remote): Thank you, Mr Speaker. The Budget Policy Statement, along with the Half Year Economic and Fiscal Update (HYEFU), commences Budget cycle for Budget 2022 and, make no mistake, as we heard, this is an incredibly important Budget, taking us from the height of the pandemic to a world of tumult and uncertainty in every regard, but certainly economically. New Zealanders are caught bobbing on the economic ocean, and the seas are rough, and the Budget is going to set the direction for New Zealand, for that cork. 
Looking at the international papers this morning, what jumps out is a Federal Reserve that is saying it will increase the cash rate in the United States by 50 basis points. The ANZ and others here are saying that's what our Reserve Bank are going to do. And the reason for that, and for that discussion, is because inflation is a big, entrenched problem—that is, it's around much longer than people had thought, and it's going to be higher. And the papers are talking about a real risk, and we broached this in the Budget Policy Statement (BPS) discussion of stagflation or even recession, and I'm not necessarily predicting that but that's certainly the flavour that is coming through internationally. So is it actually too late in terms of these interest rate hikes, or will they spur on these phenomena of stagflation and recession? 
Yes, inflation's international, but it's also domestic, and we talked about that, and it is higher in New Zealand than much of the Western World. During the height of the pandemic, Grant Robertson and the Government, as is shown in the figures, spent more than almost any other country in the OECD—in fact, every other country in the OECD other than the United States. And we grew our debt—yes, it was low—but we've grown that public debt, according to some and on some measures, by more than any other country in the Western World. It was, of course, right to be increasing spending to keep people in work and to keep businesses going, but we did it to excess. And that means, in our remote, isolated economy, we're fuelling inflation higher, and it has a cost of living implication. In fact, it means—we believe, in National, and many others do as well—we are in a cost of living crisis. Higher inflation is leading to higher interest rates and other economic consequences which I've talked about, and that means more pain for New Zealanders, for longer.
Jacinda Ardern and Grant Robertson—and, again, this came through in the Budget Policy Statement discussion with him—don't believe there is a cost of living crisis. If there is, they think that it'll all be over before we blink. But everyone else, as I say, and certainly on this side of the Parliament, we know that we have one, and that it's here for the foreseeable future. Possibly, even, it's a new normal, as food prices have risen by 13, 14 percent, as gas is over $3 and could possibly even get to something like $3.50—something I never thought we'd see. Housing and rent costs have grown exponentially. In fact, everything has been affected by the inflation that we're seeing. 
And we're hearing, in polls like the Ipsos international poll of our country, that the cost of living is New Zealanders' number one issue, and this came through, actually, in the submissions from a bunch of NGOs, that women feel the brunt of it disproportionately—from a gender pay gap that we have still in New Zealand, and also from oftentimes women making household decisions when it comes to those things I've been talking about, like food and the like. Every other survey we saw backed these sort of themes up, from Consumer New Zealand, to the banks and their confidence work, to other NGOs. The other group quite clearly affected by all of this—and it's come through in the submissions and also from the likes of that Ipsos poll—are those earning $50,000 to $100,000 a year; $80,000, in New Zealand, is not high on the hog any more; actually, it can be very tough, with a family, to be living on that kind of income. And so this theme of cost of living in crisis came through very clearly in our Budget Policy Statement discussions: high inflation relative to anything I've seen in my adult lifetime, and much lower wage growth, meaning real wages are going backwards. It's a crisis, whatever Jacinda Ardern and Grant Robertson want to believe and want to call it. 
The fact of this, of our cost of living crisis, should inform every aspect of Budget 2022. It should be at its heart; not the only thing, but at its heart. And it would be a real Wellbeing Budget—because Mr Robertson told us that's what this is again, when he came and presented in regard to the Budget Policy Statement—if that was at its heart and not just merely, as I suspect it is, a rhetorical device. Government has the capacity to provide meaningful relief for New Zealanders who are feeling pain; to provide that relief on the way through, as we also deal with the other big, often long-term issues that New Zealand has, and that we've heard about in the Finance Committee over the course of our hearings on the BPS, whether it be climate change, whether it be issues of dependency, and the like. 
On Sunday, we, of course, in National—and Chris Luxon—put forward what we think should happen; in a sense, gave an alternative to the views that we've heard from Grant Robertson. That is, New Zealanders are slipping into higher and higher tax brackets, and paying more tax simply because of inflation, and we should do tax indexation. And I've asked Grant Robertson about this, and about the issue of adjusting the first three income tax brackets, and, again, if you take that person earning $80,000, say, they're not high on the hog, but a policy like that in the Budget, coming from the BPS and HYEFU, wouldn't mean anyone gets rich but it would help in a crisis, as well as helping other income earners and superannuitants—a policy of around $1.7 billion. 
These sort of issues that have been canvassed aren't inflationary or, at least, it's not right to say, "Well, that's inflationary—giving people back their own money—but if the Government spends it, it's all fine". That's a ridiculous proposition. And, when it comes to spending cuts, actually, another issue that seems to be raised, again, given as we've heard in the BPS that Grant Robertson—and he didn't deny this when I asked him this in the committee—is giving to himself and the Government the biggest single operating allowance or new spend-up in $6 billion, ever. That means there could be meaningful relief for New Zealanders if it were $1.7 billion alongside that, and leave significant funds to do more. 
Mr Robertson told us, and has already said, that much of what he'll be spending will be on Labour's health restructure for a new centralised bureaucracy, and a new climate change fund. The thing about the restructure is that it, of itself, won't deliver a single new operation or ICU bed. In fact, the only people it will deliver for are the Wellington consultants who'll dine out on it. Even the DHBs speak of the serious disruption that will come from a restructure in the middle of a pandemic. As for climate change, it depends whether it's just spending or real investment and, excuse my cynicism, but, just as Labour's Provincial Growth Fund or the COVID fund have seen money wasted—spent neither in the regions, nor on COVID, respectively—so it well may prove for climate change. Grant Robertson isn't smarter and doesn't always spend it better than the rest of us. 
My view has always been that there are several reasons for our high inflation but big Government spending in an overheated economy is certainly one of them, and the one the Government could do most about. We should provide tax relief to New Zealanders on the way through, whilst also reining in Government spending through a focus on discipline and quality investment. Thank you, Mr Speaker. 





Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): Mr Speaker, thank you very much. And I thank the Finance and Expenditure Committee for their consideration of the Budget Policy Statement and for their report that we have in front of us in the House here today.
This will be the fourth Wellbeing Budget that this Government has put forward, and we continue to have a focus on making sure we have more joined-up services, that we think intergenerationally, and that we make sure that we focus on the evidence-based issues that were identified in that first Wellbeing Budget in 2019. In addition, for this year, in Budget 2022, we have three main priorities: that is, firstly, to continue to keep New Zealanders safe from COVID-19; secondly, to accelerate the recovery and the rebuild from the impacts of COVID-19; and to lay strong foundations for the future—including addressing issues such as our climate change response, housing affordability, and child poverty.
The Budget Policy Statement draws on the Treasury's half-yearly economic and fiscal update, and that did—in December—indicate a very strong fiscal picture, which continues, albeit with the new challenges that have come upon us in 2022. What that Half Year Economic and Fiscal Update shows is that the Government's books will go back into surplus in 2023/24—significantly earlier than forecast and significantly better than we have seen in other times when the crises have hit the country and New Zealand has been impacted that way. That is down to the disciplined, careful, and balanced approach that we are taking to the economy, and the hard work of New Zealanders in making sure that we have rebounded from COVID-19 very well.
Also, as has already been mentioned, net core Crown debt is now forecast to peak at 40.1 percent of GDP—again, much higher than New Zealanders have been used to seeing, but comparatively still amongst some of the lowest levels of public debt in the OECD. As a country, New Zealand is well positioned fiscally to be able to manage a shock like COVID-19. As we have also discussed, the Crown's core tax revenue has increased as more people have been in work as the economy has grown. At the same time, we have been careful about the expenses that the Government is putting out there. We are up around the 35 percent of GDP level—that is a similar level to what the National Government had when they were coming out of the Canterbury earthquakes and the global financial crisis. But we bring that back down again to around 30 percent of GDP by the end of the forecast period. Again, a careful and a balanced approach to making sure that we look after New Zealanders, we invest in addressing the big challenges that are facing us, but we also have a mind to the future generations and what debts we leave them.
The two big focus areas that I highlighted in the Budget Policy Statement are indeed in health and in climate change. There is a one-off operating allowance of $6 billion in this Budget. That is because, as I've stated, on the day that we released the Budget Policy Statement, the major restructuring of New Zealand's health system requires a significant reset within the health Budget and to make sure that we set that health system off on a stable path. This is a significant and important reform to ensure that New Zealanders get the healthcare services that they need and deserve. We want to end the postcode lottery of healthcare. The Opposition finance spokesperson said that DHBs thought this would be disruptive; well, it certainly is disruptive to the DHB model, because we are getting rid of it, because we're actually moving to the Health New Zealand and Māori Health Authority model, which will mean that we can provide consistent quality of services to New Zealanders wherever they live. And it is also those iniquities that every New Zealander knows exists in the health system that we are trying to address through this. I am extremely proud that this Budget will fund the Māori Health Authority so that we finally, once and for all, ensure that health services deliver for Māori in New Zealand. Equally, other populations in New Zealand who have suffered from those inequities, including in rural areas, also can look forward to a system that actually makes sure that they get the support that they need as well.
We also will have a dedicated public health agency within the Ministry of Health that would learn the lessons of COVID-19. This will be a multi-year funding pathway for the health system and it will deliver better health services to New Zealanders. This is an investment many decades in the making and the one-off allowance takes that into account.
The other quite unique element of this Budget is the creation of the Climate Emergency Response Fund, another multi-year fund. This is where we are recycling the revenue of the emissions trading scheme directly towards emissions reductions initiatives. This House has a serious responsibility to support New Zealand in meeting the climate change targets that we have set. Not only is that important for the health of our planet and the health of our people, it is also where economic opportunity lies for New Zealand. And so the Climate Emergency Response Fund will be used to make sure that not only do we meet those targets but that we seize those opportunities. This is a fund that is outside of the Budget allowances, it is hypothecated—to use the technical term—it's designed to target and make sure that we are making progress on meeting those emissions reductions plans. 
Alongside the formation of the justice and natural resource clusters, this is all part of our public finance modernisation approach to move away from the single-year siloed budgeting approach which makes it difficult for Governments to address complex problems. We are now addressing that directly by having multi-year funding and joining agencies together with clear priorities that they agree. This is an important step forward in this Budget, and the Budget Policy Statement, I believe, does show that we are continuing along the path of wellbeing. What the Budget Policy Statement doesn't do is that it doesn't set out on a path that would mean New Zealand was unable to afford investments in health and education and in housing in future years. We have chosen very deliberately over the course of the last couple of years to make sure that we support those on low and middle incomes to be able to deal not only with COVID but now the period of time we have with high inflation caused as it is by significant global supply constraints and the increasing cost of oil—which has been exacerbated by the Russian invasion of Ukraine.
What we have heard from the Opposition is that they somehow or rather think that they can take some funding out of the operating allowance, the one-off $6 billion operating allowance, and then magically not have to deal with the consequences of those decisions in future Budgets. That is simply not true. It's not how Government budgeting works. Those costs carry on, and the Leader of the Opposition said he wants to carry on with those tax changes. He also—I think—wants to get rid of the Government's 39c tax rate. We've had a bit of coming and going about that in the last few days, but it does appear to still be the Opposition's policy to do that. They also want to reverse the changes that the Government has made to make it easier for first-home buyers to afford to buy a first home in terms of interest deductibility and the brightline test. They also want to get rid—
Simeon Brown: That doesn't help one bit.
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON:—Mr Brown, I'm coming to you—of the Auckland regional fuel tax, which would mean Mr Brown would have to return that photograph of him at the Eastern Busway, which is funded out of that; so that's gone. And when we add all of those things up, we come to a $3 billion bill, according, I see, to Thomas Coughlan, who was in the New Zealand Herald today, a $3 billion bill in Budget 2024—and that's the total of the new spending allowance that is available. So, once again, the National Party think they can promise everything, but they can't. They cannot promise to cut taxes, to reduce debt, and to increase spending. That is the fiscal Bermuda Triangle—that's where Paul Goldsmith fell down, and unfortunately for Christopher Luxon and Simon Bridges, that's where they are falling into that once again, because it's not possible.
Every single Government has to make tough decisions, trade-offs, when it comes to putting a Budget together, and we believe we have the balance right. Because in this Budget, we are lifting the incomes of low and middle income earners. We have the family tax credit that very nearly 350,000 families will benefit from increases in, we have increased the minimum wage, we have lifted the incomes of those on benefits. We've done that because we know those are the communities most affected by increases in inflation and increases in the cost of living. What we don't need and what this Budget won't do is deliver an enormous tax cut to people on the highest incomes, because what that would do would be a sign of the priorities of a Government that felt that rewarding those on the highest incomes was more important than making sure that we support and protect those on low and middle incomes, and we actually have decent health services, a decent education system, that we actually build houses for New Zealanders.
Those are the things we have to be getting on with. We've got to be getting ahead of issues around climate change to make sure that we meet those challenges and we seize those opportunities. The Budget has to be a balance of all of those things while keeping our fiscal position strong. That is what the Government has achieved over the last four years while supporting people through COVID-19, and that is what this Budget will deliver. The recipe that the National Party are putting forward will make things worse for New Zealand. This Budget will make things better for New Zealanders.





NICOLA WILLIS (Deputy Leader—National): Here we are with the Minister of Finance presenting his Budget Policy Statement, and the most animated he got and the most excited he got about spending billions of dollars of New Zealanders' money was when he talked about National's plan. Is it any wonder, because that finance Minister is now in a position where he is defending his right to take billions of dollars out of New Zealanders' back pockets at a time when they are doing it tougher than ever, and he says he has to make tough decisions. He has to make difficult calls. Well, I'll tell you which side he has come down on when he's gone to make those difficult calls. What this Budget Policy Statement sets out very clearly is that he has decided to take New Zealanders' money and spend more of it than ever. That's the tough decision that he has made. 
So what is the context in which this Budget Policy Statement is published? We are facing a cost of living crisis in this country. 
Dr Duncan Webb: Tax cuts are inflationary. 
NICOLA WILLIS: Kiwis are doing it extraordinarily tough, and Duncan Webb may agree with the Prime Minister that there's no crisis, but let me tell you that the everyday New Zealanders I meet with and the everyday New Zealanders I speak to when I say, "What are the financial concerns you have?", they don't say, "I'm really concerned about how I really want Grant Robertson to put billions of dollars into a health restructuring fund and a climate change pet project fund." That's not what they say to me, Duncan Webb. What they say to me is, "I'm really concerned that every time I go to fill up at the pump, I feel like I'm being fleeced. I feel like it's more expensive every time." What they're saying to me is, "Every time I go to buy my groceries, they seem like they're more expensive, and every week I seem to have less money in my bank account than I did the week before." 
Dr Duncan Webb: $2.15 a week. 
NICOLA WILLIS: Do you know why they feel that way, Duncan Webb—and you should have asked the Treasury about it when they came to brief you about this Budget. The reason New Zealanders feel they are doing it tough is because they are. 
We have rampant, record inflation at the moment—a record in 30 years—running at 5.9 percent. So prices are getting more and more expensive, but are wages keeping up? No, they are not. Wages have increased at only 2.6 percent, so the truth is that New Zealanders are spending more and getting less. They are facing a cost of living crisis, and it's not just these costs. It's things like rents, which under Labour have increased, on average, by an additional $140 a week, so that your typical renter in the past year has seen their rent go up by $50 a week. That is the gift that this Government has given working New Zealanders renting their own homes. 
The prospects look even bleaker, because what New Zealanders are faced with over the months that this Budget Policy Statement relates to is not only continuing inflation, continuing increases in the petrol price, and continuing increases in the price of groceries but also ratcheting interest rates. So those people who have saved hard and who have struggled to get into a home will see that their mortgage payments will get ever-bigger and will eat more and more into their disposable income and into the savings they are making for their family. So we have ahead of us, Labour members, difficult times for everyday New Zealanders. 
What does the Minister of Finance think is the right response to that reality? Well, he thinks that this is the time to have a record spend-up. He thinks that this is the time to have the biggest operating allowance ever in a New Zealand Budget in history. So I want to ask Dr Webb whether he's understood where that money comes from, because we on this side of the House understand where Grant Robertson gets his money from. He gets it from hard-working New Zealanders, who, under this Labour Government, have been paying $12.5 billion more in tax than when Grant Robertson came into office. Every dollar that they give Grant, the Minister of Finance, is a dollar that they don't have to spend themselves, and yet at this time, when they so badly need to keep more of their own money, Grant Robertson's priority is to put half a billion dollars into restructuring the health system—that's right; in the middle of a pandemic, he wants to spend half a billion dollars on a back-office restructure—and then he wants to put together some funds for some pet projects for climate change. That is his priority. 
Now, he spent four minutes of his speech being very animated about National's plan, so I'm sure that the Speaker will engage me to suggest an alternative approach to this Budget Policy Statement. That is to actually focus on putting more money in the pockets of New Zealanders who are doing it tough, and National would focus on doing that—it is their money. 
Inflation has meant that people are in higher tax brackets. They are paying more and more tax, and Grant Robertson is collecting more and more of their money. So National has said, "Well, let's be sensible. Let's make some adjustments to the tax thresholds through modest adjustments so that people who have been caught in higher tax brackets than we ever imagined they would be get some relief.", and we have put forward a package that would achieve that. 
Now, it's a modest package. Actually, Grant Robertson has given himself a $6 billion operating allowance. We've said, "Look, you could achieve this with just $1.7 billion of that allowance—so less than a third of your allowance." Grant Robertson would still have $4.3 billion left over, which, by the way, would still be the record highest spend-up by a finance Minister in a Budget operating allowance ever. 
Our package would achieve meaningful relief for New Zealanders. It would mean that a family with two adults on the average wage would benefit from about $1,700 a year. Now, I'm the first to admit that that's not going to make anyone rich, but what I also know is that when you're a struggling family, every dollar counts, and $1,700 is more meaningful than a restructure at the Ministry of Health. For someone on $55,000 a year, on a more modest wage, they would be paying $800 less tax. That is the benefit they would get. 
For a couple on New Zealand superannuation—and I don't know whether members opposite have actually spoken to a superannuitant lately, but I'll tell you what they have been saying to me. They have been saying, "It's really hard, Nicola, because super is actually paired to after-tax average wages, and my super is not keeping up with inflation. It is not keeping up with the growing cost of living. I'm on a fixed income. I'm finding it harder to afford the bills each week." So our tax plan would give them relief. They would see their superannuation payments increase, if they were a couple, by $546, and we think that that shows where our priorities are and where our values are. 
So you have to ask yourself what's the alternative approach that Grant Robertson is suggesting, and we had this hackneyed response today—actually quite intellectually moribund—in which he tried to hoodwink New Zealanders into believing that the choice they face is between having some relief in their material circumstances and having some tax reduction, but the only way that that can be achieved, according to Grant Robertson, is through a slash-and-burn of the health and education systems. I find this despicable, because Grant Robertson knows that these tax reductions that we propose can be achieved and still maintain every dollar that's being spent in New Zealand right now. 
What we have to ask ourselves in this House is: do we really believe that this Government is already extracting maximum value from every dollar of taxpayer money that it spends? I put it to you that the answer is absolutely not, and I want to just run you through the small example of what's been going on with housing in this country. Here we are with a Government that's given Kāinga Ora, the State housing entity, an $8.3 billion borrowing facility, and, at the same time, that State housing agency has overseen a quadrupling in the State house waiting list. We have more people in need than ever before. 
This Government is spending the money—that's absolutely true—but is it getting the results for that money? I'll tell you where that money has actually gone: 1,300 new staff have been hired at Kāinga Ora, more than doubling the number of people getting a Government wage to work in that agency. I'll tell you where else that money has gone. Instead of actually into building houses, the Government is now spending $1.2 million a day on emergency motel rooms for people that it can't house because it hasn't built the houses for them, and what we see is that there are still 52,000 State houses that haven't been brought up to the healthy homes standards that the Government says every private landlord in the country must meet. 
So what we see from those small examples is that Grant Robertson, in asking New Zealanders to believe that he spends their money better than he does, simply isn't supported by the facts. National can see that this is the time of a cost of living crisis, and we continue to urge the Government to give New Zealanders the tax relief that they deserve. 





Hon KELVIN DAVIS (Deputy Leader—Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. The member who just sat, Nicola Willis, asked the question, "Have any of the Labour MPs spoken to a superannuitant?" And let me tell you that I have spoken to a superannuitant, and what that superannuitant said to me is, "Thank you. Thank you for leading us through the biggest financial crisis in a century. Thank you for guiding our country through that crisis. Thank you for keeping us safe. Thank you for keeping us alive. Thank you for the spending—the money that you have put into making sure New Zealanders are protected from COVID."
She also asked about the results that we've been getting from the spending. Well, I can tell you that a 3.2 percent unemployment rate is fantastic value for that money. But I'd just like to join in the congratulations of that superannuitant to our Finance Minister, Grant Robertson. Grant Robertson has done an incredible job at leading New Zealand through this most challenging, this most difficult of both financial and health times. Grant Robertson had our economy at the point where we were able to ride out the COVID crisis better than most countries around the world. Grant Robertson needs to be thanked over and over again for his incredible leadership when it comes to running the Budgets. 
Now, I keep saying that my father once said to me, "Doing what is right is not always easy, but it is always right." And what Grant Robertson has done in guiding us with his Budgets over the last couple of years has been right, because it has kept New Zealanders alive. We did hear from the ACT Party yesterday that they don't place much value on human life; instead, they have other measures of success, but human life is not one of them. And things aren't easy right now; we understand that. We understand that New Zealanders have been doing it tough for the last couple of years. But it would have been a lot more difficult if we didn't have the leadership of both Grant Robertson, in the finance portfolio, and the Prime Minister.
We have protected New Zealanders from the ravages of the virus that takes no prisoners and, if it had been left to run its course, would have devastated our country. And I've spoken about my whānau being one in the last 100 years that has felt the impact of the influenza pandemic, when my great-grandmother passed away in 1919—leaving my grandfather and his three equally young brothers without a mother. And as a Government we had a couple of options: one was to do nothing, one was to do a little bit, and the other was to go for broke. And we decided that we had to go for broke because it was the right thing to do. Leaving more boys and girls motherless or fatherless wouldn't have been right; it would have been a dereliction of duty. So we had to act and we had to act fast, without the benefit of a manual to guide us.
And did we as a Government ever believe that we would receive unanimous support for the path that we took? No, never. Did we as a Government believe that making the hard decisions was going to win us universal adulation? No, never. Did we as a Government ever think that political opponents would see this as an opportunity to belittle and deride everything we did to promote their own personal political aspirations? Of course we did. But we're up for the challenges, and Grant Robertson has shown that he is up for the challenges, because being belittled and derided by political opponents and those challenged by reality is simply the price a Government pays for doing what is right.
So closing the borders was the right thing to do and lockdowns were the right thing to do and vaccinations and boosters are the right thing to do and vaccine mandates were the right thing to do and wage subsidies were the right thing to do and the COVID-19 Leave Support Scheme was the right thing to do. All of those things cost money, and yet we hear Simon Bridges sitting there, saying that it was excessive. Now, tell that to all the people who would have lost their jobs, tell it to all those workers who were supported, tell it to those businesses who were able to keep their doors open that Simon Bridges and the National Party believed with all their hearts that all that support—that financial support—was excessive.
But we can see light at the end of the COVID tunnel, and winding back those protections safely is also going to be the right thing to do. But none of them have been easy, and none of them have been unanimously popular. There are always those out in the communities who wanted more, and there were businesses that wanted more—they wanted more for themselves, for their niche needs—there will always be those that throw out criticisms and personal insults and threats because they don't get what they personally want. And those criticisms, those threats, and those personal insults aren't easy to do deal with, but that is the price a Government pays for doing what is right.
As the finance Minister said, the Government is continuing our work on our wellbeing approach and we're continuing to make progress against our core goals, and those are: continuing to keep New Zealand safe from COVID-19 and accelerating the recovery and the rebuild from the impacts of COVID-19 and laying the foundations for the future, including addressing the key issues such as climate change, such as housing affordability, and such as the child poverty response. And I as a Māori Minister know how important it is that we supported Māori through COVID-19 and to helping with the future. We created the $120 Māori Communities COVID-19 Fund to support Māori as we moved to the protection framework. And we built on this and recently announced the $140 million to support Māori and Pacific health providers to support their response to Omicron. 
And overall, in health, we allocated over $250 million to support Māori communities' response to COVID-19, and you can also see our commitment to Whānau Ora. Since the onset of COVID-19, this Government has contributed—or has invested, I should say—over $150 million to support the Whānau Ora COVID response. But again, Simon Bridges has said that all that investment in keeping people alive, keeping Māori alive, is excessive. And it goes to show how little value that not only the ACT Party but also the National Party put on human life. 
So the strength of this Government is in the way that we work with iwi and other community organisations. And that has been highlighted in the response to COVID-19, where we have met consistently with the National Iwi Chairs Forum, with other iwi leaders not associated with that forum, with other iwi leader groups in geographical-specific areas such as Tāmaki-makau-rau. Even this afternoon, I have another three separate meetings with leaders from those significant Māori groups to continue to see how we can make sure that our response for Māori is successful.
We've got to remember: we have had 65 deaths too many over the course of COVID-19—65 too many, but we've got to remember that's not 65,000 deaths that we're talking about. That's not 65 deaths a day. The investment that this Government has put into addressing COVID, and will continue to put into addressing COVID, is going to continue.
These results continue our record of delivering for Māori and our record of delivering for our people. This Government has been well led, and this country has been well led, by Jacinda Ardern and Grant Robertson. And I go back to the very first question that I addressed: have we spoken to superannuitants? Of course we have, and they are saying, "Thank you." We know that there are people out there who are so grateful for the investment that this Government has put into keeping New Zealanders safe, and we will continue to keep putting money into keeping New Zealanders safe, because that is the right thing for us to do as a Government.





CHLÖE SWARBRICK (Green—Auckland Central): E te Māngai, tēnā koutou; tēnā koutou e te Whare. In a flood, you could have 10 people working together to build a boat that would house all of them through that crisis, or you could have one person hoarding nine-tenths of the materials necessary to make that boat, scolding the others for not working hard enough. The boat would not be built. Those rising waters wouldn't care about who held the most status or the most money. In moments of crises, we tend to realise we've got to cast aside the dead-weight ideas that hold us back. Psychologists call the exhaustion and the brain fade that many of us are experiencing two years into this global pandemic "moral fatigue". It is when things keep shifting and changing, when you're not quite sure what others are doing, when it feels as though you're having to think really in-depth about every single step or decision that you make and the potential impacts or consequences of those decisions, when you feel as though you are fighting just to survive. 
This brain fuzz is related to the ever-increasing onus that politicians are putting on what we call "personal responsibility", making excuses for what we have traditionally called "collective or social responsibility" in our politics. This exhaustion has a lot of people rightfully asking, what are we doing all of this for? What are we aiming for? Where are we going and why? For some reason or another, this has some—particularly some in this House—yearning for what they call "business as usual", because when everything feels as though it is in crisis, when everything feels as though it is on fire, perhaps it's better the devil we know, right?
But the devil we know, business as usual, isn't our future; it simply cannot be, and we heard that in the many submissions to the Finance and Expenditure Committee. "Business as usual" is not our future, because it is those very settings that drove the greatest wealth inequality in this country, on record. It gave us the housing crisis. In "business as usual", Aotearoa New Zealand produces four times the amount of climate change emissions than the limit required to keep our planet under 1.5 degrees of warming. Everybody deserves security and hope to be free from this exhaustion, but we will not get there by focusing on individualistic, short-term ideas, such as those that have been floated by the Opposition. It is that kind of thinking that has created this exhaustion in the first place. It is only by working as a collective—the infamous team of 5 million—that we will create security and hope and a better future for all of us, it is in realising our strength and working together and pooling our resources to do bigger and greater things than any one of us could do by ourselves.
We hear a lot about the economy, but we don't tend to hear a lot about what the economy actually is. We're told that we've got to sacrifice for this economy to get our economy back on track. That basic, boring story neglects that the economy is all of us—our relationships with each other, the things that we create, our planet and its resources—
Simeon Brown: Oh!
CHLÖE SWARBRICK: —the time we spend at work, unpaid labour—such as parenting, Mr Simeon Brown—the skills that we learn, the problems that we have, and the ways that we decide to fix them. It's about how we work together to achieve our communities' and our country's goals and aspirations. It is supposed to serve us, not the other way around. 
The late, great Jeanette Fitzsimons said in her 2006 state of the planet speech, "If the task of government is to promote the well-being of all people, how could it do that? I suggest to you that it has everything to do with offering a vision for a better way of life rather than more growth; it has to do with inclusiveness, with justice, and with protecting our commons—our common environment and resources, our common culture, our public health and our education systems." Jeanette's challenge was to question what we call the economy. What are our goals and who do they serve? What is economic growth really working towards? Is it protecting our planet? Is it protecting all of our people? She suggested that those most in need were not the benefactors of economic growth, and, unfortunately, the data proves her correct. 
Since roughly the time of that speech in the early 2000s, we have seen the price of basic necessities skyrocket faster than overall inflation. We've seen soaring house prices, yawning wealth inequality, and, as the Child Poverty Action Group submitted to the Finance and Expenditure Committee, persistent levels of child poverty. It is clear who the economy and its rules are currently working for.
So when we hear the words "the cost of living crisis", we need to question, like I hope we question all political rhetoric, what that statement actually means. At what point are we willing to call inflation a cost of living crisis? Is it 4 percent, 5 percent, 6 percent? Statistics New Zealand's household living-costs index shows that those with the least wealth in Aotearoa have experienced, roughly, double the rate of inflation as those with the most for many years. It is an inequality crisis. The lowest-income New Zealanders, the half of New Zealand who own just 2 percent of the wealth in this country—this is a "business as usual" crisis. 
So what causes this inflation and what does it suggest about our policy response? Well, the Treasury told our committee that it's a complicated story, including COVID-related disruptions to supply chains, rising oil prices, elevated wages, and cost pressures. As with all stories, however, there is a long and important part that is left out, cultural norms that are assumed, because hidden within that story of inflation is one of economic power and growing inequality. Just yesterday, the Commerce Commission report into supermarkets plainly describes the sector's excess profits. KPMG's annual review of the financial sector showed pouring fuel on the fire of the housing crisis helped commercial banks in this country rake in the highest profits that they have ever seen. Economists have suggested that, as a result of the choice to heavily rely on unconventional monetary policy over the last two years and high trust supports only for the big end of town, we've seen an acceleration of a nearly trillion-dollar wealth transfer to the wealthiest in this country.
In response to this cost of living crisis, the Opposition have revived their old faithful trickle-down economics, floating tax cuts, cuts to spending, cuts to workers' and renters' and beneficiaries' rights—straight out of the 1980s tax book—playbook, rather. These aren't solutions; they are once again declaring a war on the poor, which is why I implore the other side of the House, Labour, to stop playing by this tired neo-liberal playbook. The Nats will always be able to argue that they will tighten up the books. It's because they don't care about the people and the planet that they have to sacrifice to get there. 
So about that—planets—which has been on the back-burner, literally back-burning while too many politicians and commentators pretended as though, after we got through this recent pandemic, we'd just go back to business as usual. The House finally declared a climate emergency just after the 2020 election. As the member who initially almost got kicked out of the House in 2019 for trying to press that motion, I am fundamentally dedicated to ensuring that the Government is accountable to that symbolic declaration. But, unfortunately, at the end of last year, in the name of the COVID-19 crisis, this House passed a law which delayed the introduction of the inaugural emissions reduction plan. As I said in the Finance and Expenditure Committee reports back then, and I'll repeat today, the Government has given itself time to get its plan right and must use that time to work with submitters and others to make sure that the emissions reduction plan is the best it can be. Anything less than a Budget that delivers on the necessary investment to implement the emissions reduction plan will not be enough.
So here we are, eight years away from a point at which scientists said global emissions had to be half of what they were in 2005, and a little over two months away from the emissions reduction plan and the climate budget we were assured would help get us to that point of action. The Greens have used every ounce of leverage and power to enable necessary transformation to happen. The emissions reduction plan is itself a product of the change that we brought to Government in the last term, born of the grassroots-inspired zero carbon Act, every dollar of the Climate Emergency Response Fund, as a result of the changes that we have made to ensure that the biggest polluters start to pay for the harm that they have caused to our planet. Is it enough? No. It will never ever be enough until we have curbed emissions below 1.5 degrees necessary for our survival. Responsibility now rests, however, for better or for worse, with Labour Ministers sitting around the Cabinet table, finalising what happens within their sectors. 
Past leaders have, as Paul Hawken said, "stolen the future, sold in the present, and called it GDP". Nearly 100 years ago, in the wake of traumatic world wars, this Parliament decided to do something radical: it built the social safety net. In the subsequent decades, we have seen successive Governments at their worst tear holes out of that, and, at their best, only make minor repairs. 
This Budget must be a Budget for an economy that serves both people and the planet. We cannot afford anything less, because people and the planet are, frankly, exhausted and we're organising.





DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): I rise on behalf of ACT in opposition to the motion that the House take note of the Finance and Expenditure Committee's report on this Budget Policy Statement. I would much rather that the House took ACT's minority view, which I have to say is an excellent view of the Budget Policy Statement, and if we were to take that then this whole country would be on a much better trajectory. Why is that? Well, the first thing it points out is that taxation under this Labour Government has increased. How much exactly? Well, for every person in this country, adjusted for inflation—which is considerable, and we'll get to that—taxation has increased by $2,138. That's from the middle of 2017, when this Government was elected, to the middle of last year, the last financial year that we had. It will have gone up more since last June. Every person, from every six-month-old baby to every retiree—if you take the amount of tax the Government's taken and divide it by the number of people, it's taking $2,138 more than it was four years ago, adjusted for inflation. 
A lot of people say, "Well, I don't mind paying tax so long as we get some quality of service out of it." A lot of this Budget Policy Statement—well, the Minister says and the chair of the select committee says it's about a Wellbeing Budget. "We're improving people's wellbeing." Where oh where is the evidence for that? We've got Kelvin Davis here in the House. He's the Associate Minister of Education, allegedly. We have to ask ourselves what has been the performance of the education system? What have we got from the 1,300 extra bureaucrats that have been hired by—
Hon Kelvin Davis: You obviously don't understand kura kaupapa or kōhanga reo. 
DAVID SEYMOUR: And I want to say to Kelvin Davis—he's taking off his mask to heckle me. Now, he should talk to the Minister of Health and ask what are the rules for taking one's mask off. Naughty boy, Kelvin Davis. He should follow the health rules, and at least if he was doing that it would make up for his performance as the alleged Associate Minister of Education. What's been happening on his watch, especially in Te Tai Tokerau, in the electorate he represents, is fewer kids are showing up to school, fewer of them are passing, fewer kids are prepared, and that's before the COVID response required them to take all that time off school. So there we go. 
Hon Kelvin Davis: What do you know about kura kaupapa? What do you know about Māori medium schools?
DAVID SEYMOUR: And here he goes again. 
So what have we got in education for 1,300 extra Ministry of Education bureaucrats, all paid more than a teacher at the top of the scale? Nothing; $2,138 extra, and education is going backwards. We're going backwards in the Programme for International Student Assessment. We're going backwards in the Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study. We're going backwards in the Progress in International Reading Literacy Study. Every one of the measures of how well our kids are prepared to navigate the 21st century is going backwards, including whether they even show up to school in Te Tai Tokerau, where the alleged Associate Minister of Education lives and purports to represent.
Then we come to healthcare. What's going on in healthcare? Morale is at an all-time low; $2,138, and can we deliver even a couple of dozen more ICU beds in the middle of a pandemic? No, we can't. 
Then we ask: what's going to happen next? Well, the facts are that New Zealanders face a crisis in the cost of living—a cost of living crisis, as we've been saying since December. It's become so popular to say it that I've heard other people start to say it lately. There is a crisis in the cost of living, and the solution is simple. If the Government can't control the price of oil, and if inflation is all coming from offshore as they say—well, that's not quite true, but at least the Government could stop profiting off it, because what happens right now is the price of a litre of petrol goes up, and people pay at the pump, but you know what else they pay? The Government doesn't mind, because they're getting their 15c in extra GST. 
So when people say that the cost of living has gone up $5,000 in their household for their groceries and their petrol, and the Prime Minister—she's a bit like that Supertramp album, Crisis? What Crisis? Well, actually, there is a crisis for those people, because they can't make ends meet. Of that $5,000 extra that people are paying at the pump and at the checkout, how much of it is being taken by the Government? Well, the Government's happy when prices go up, because they're getting 15 percent in GST. The Government's happy when the price goes up, because if people do get a pay rise, they go into a higher tax bracket. 
The ACT Party says the solution to that is simple—not to give a few dollars more, to quote that old Western movie. The question is whether we're going to cut taxes by $2,000 on the average earner—take that 30 percent tax rate right down to 17.5, and give the average worker back a bit over $2,000. You know what's interesting about that number is that that's what the increase in taxation has been on the average New Zealander. It doesn't seem too bad. 
Then the Prime Minister gets up—and there's Kelvin Davis. He's taken his mask off again. I hope he's not going to say anything, because it hasn't worked well for him before when he's opened his mouth. Then they ask, "Oh, but if we don't spend all this money, we won't have any health or education." That's simply rubbish. Every single household in this family is having to reduce their spending as the prices rise. They have to tighten their belts. They have to make economies. They have to save money. They have to sometimes choose if they put one thing in the supermarket trolley or the other. Some people are taking things out when they get to the supermarket. They have to decide if they can fill their car right up or maybe just put 50 bucks in this week and drive really carefully. Everyone else is facing those realities. Do you buy extra clothes for the kids this week or put it off to next payday? Everyone is facing those realities, but not this Government. They say if we spent one dollar less, oh, there'd be no more hospitals. Yeah, right! It is simply not plausible. 
So let me tell you what needs to happen in this Budget and future Budgets. This Government is going to have to start coming down to earth and facing reality like everyday Kiwis already are. If they're having to tighten their belts, if they're having to make savings, guess what! The Government's going to have to too. It's going to have to stop standing up in the House and saying, "Oh, we're so, so tight. Tax revenue only went up $14 billion last year. We're only taking an extra $2,138 for every New Zealander since we got into power. We couldn't possibly find any kind of savings. You guys will have to do that. There's no crisis. You guys save. You guys deal with the rising prices at the petrol pump and at the checkout, and this Government will just keep taking the tax because we couldn't save anything." 
Well, I say to this Government that they're going to have to find that, actually, they are wasting money. They're wasting it by the billion. They need to stop wasting New Zealanders' money on things like Kāinga Ora, which has a $2 billion fund of money that they're borrowing at the taxpayers' expense to go out and bid for land and bid for builders and project managers and materials—anyone seen any GIB board lately? Kāinga Ora are going out, buying it all up with taxpayer money, and they're actually bidding up the price of housing. That's how insane this Government is. 
What about the bike bridge? No one wanted it except for old Michael Wood over there. He wanted it, but then he got some polling and he discovered he was all alone, so he cancelled it. You know what? The sad thing is for the New Zealanders that have to pay 50 million bucks so he could design the fantasy. It's a very extensive fantasy, but nothing compared with this train set down Dominion Road that no one even knows why it's there. He knows politically he's got to build something but he doesn't know if it's to get to the airport or to intensify Mt Roskill. He doesn't know if it's actually being put there in order to go through Mt Albert or Dominion Road or above the ground or under the ground. He doesn't really care, as long as he builds something. It's the most purposeless, directionless infrastructure project in the history of New Zealand. It's going to cost $15 billion, and that's before the price escalations occur. 
There's no shortage of activity that is pointless and wasteful and that could be reduced just as New Zealanders are having to save their money with the cost of living crisis it's facing every day. The Government's going to have to make some economies too. We're very happy to show them in this Budget how they could save money—how they could cut that middle income tax rate of 30 percent that you pay from $48,000, drop it all the way down to 17.5 percent, and give $2,000-plus back to the average earner to make up for the $2,000 extra that this Government is taking off every single New Zealander. Thank you, Madam Speaker.





ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): Before I give the next call, I do want to remind the member who has just resumed his seat, and all members, that you are allowed to take your mask off momentarily to take a drink of water, and I do not actually need a running commentary on who is having their mask on or off as you're making your speeches.
David Seymour: Point of order, Madam Speaker. Actually, members on both sides of the House have pointed out at various times that members have not been wearing their masks, and Speakers have actually admonished them for taking their masks off and heckling. I don't see how it helps the order of the House for you to point that out to me when I've done what everyone else has been doing, unless you are actually trying to admonish me for something everyone else has done, which seems highly selective and unfair.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): Yesterday, I actually did point out a member of the member's own party but I didn't call out their name. Someone actually pointed out to me that that member had, after giving a speech, sat there without a mask for several minutes—
David Seymour: Were they heckling?
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): —and I chose not to name them. That is actually what I'm trying to do here. I do not need for you to actually talk at me while I'm addressing you.





BARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana): Mālō e lelei, Madam Speaker. It is really good to have you back in the House. Unfortunately, there is no mute button when you're in the House. So unlike the contribution from the member before, it would have been good to be able to press the mute button.
So it's great to be able to take a call on the Budget Policy Statement and to recommend that the House note the report. As a member of the Finance and Expenditure Committee that reviewed the Budget Policy Statement, again, can I add my thanks to the 46 submitters who came and provided submissions on the various points within the statement. As members will be aware, the Budget Policy Statement commences the Budget cycle and sets out the Government's strategy and policy goals for Budget 2022, which is on 19 May this year. 
I think, though, what is most important about this year's Budget Policy Statement is the very first sentence in the forward by our Minister of Finance, the Hon Grant Robertson. This forward was written in December 2021, and I quote, "Budget 2022 is being written in the continuing shadow of the COVID-19 pandemic. Around the world as countries seek to open up, a fourth wave of the virus is taking hold and the Omicron variant has emerged. In New Zealand we are managing our transition to a new framework to minimise the effects of COVID-19 and protect our population as vaccination rates increase and we seek to reduce restrictions."
The Minister is certainly showing his Nostradamus qualities very strongly on many platforms, having successfully picked the Opposition leadership and finance spokesperson change in his speech on this debate back in April 2021. Yes, in April 2021 he picked Christopher Luxon as the Leader of the Opposition and Simon Bridges as the finance spokesperson. But perhaps it is less about being psychic but, actually, more that the Minister is a careful and prudent Minister of Finance, having carefully drafted the Budget Policy Statement that reflects the Government's strategy and has proven to be a successful approach to managing the health impacts of this virus whilst still keeping the economy going.
Budget 2022 will make progress towards the goals the Government set at the start of the current parliamentary term, and the submissions received on the statement support these goals. Briefly, they are: continuing to keep New Zealand safe from COVID-19; accelerating the recovery and rebuild from the impacts of COVID-19; laying the foundations for the future, including addressing key issues such as our climate change response, housing affordability, and child poverty. As noted in the statement, we are lifting the operating allowance to a one-off $6 billion per year for Budget 2022 to invest in major programmes. The allowances will then reduce to $4 billion at Budget 2023, and then $3 billion in Budgets 2024 and 2025. This increase is designed to ensure we forge ahead with the major reform programmes that will have long-term benefits for New Zealand. The remainder of the allowances will cover significant cost pressures and fulfil our manifesto commitments. 
I'd like to spend a moment on one of these key reforms, and that is the health reform. There is need for substantial investment to ensure that Health New Zealand and the Māori Health Authority are established on a secure and stable footing, and are able to address the pressing health sector needs. For Pacific people, the greater focus on primary and community care will serve us well. There is longstanding evidence that the DHB-based system has not delivered equitable outcomes across the country for Māori and Pacific peoples, and particularly for those in rural areas. Māori and Pacific people are twice as likely to die young from conditions that could have been treated, and being Māori or Pacific determines what sort of treatment you receive. The establishment of a new Māori Health Authority to drive hauora Māori and commission health services directly in the creation of a dedicated public health agency are the steps that we're taking to reduce fragmentation, address the challenges caused by historic underfunding, and support the structures that will enable the health system to improve outcomes for New Zealanders.
The healthcare service that a person receives should never be dependent on where you live. In our future health system, instead of that postcode lottery which determines the care that people can access, we will have a better balance of national consistency for hospitals and specialist services, and local tailoring of primary and community care. This will improve care quality and equity, while ensuring the services you receive close to your home reflect the needs of your community.
But what concerns me the most is the alternative as argued by the opposite side of the House. The Opposition has proposed tax cuts to the top rate, but the maths to pay for this doesn't add up. Now that they want to spend the operating allowance, the problem is they have not accounted for future years. The $3 billion cost expected in 2024 and 2025 for their tax cuts would eat up all of the $3 billion of new operational expenditure for future years, which I set out earlier in the speech. This would leave no room to increase expenditure on the likes of health, as our population ages; education; or salaries for nurses and police.
And yet, unlike the other side of the House that sees the mentioning of the cost of living as a KPI for their MPs, as noted by Chris Penk yesterday in one of his speeches, we on this side of the House, though, have worked consistently to increase and focus support for low and middle income earners since we came into this Government in 2017. That's why we've seen a $5 increase in the minimum wage, benefiting around 300,000 workers. That's why we've increased Working for Families changes that would lead to 346,000 people better off by an average of $20 each week. That's much more than the $2.15 proposed for those on lower-income rates. We've created the winter energy payment, starting again on 1 May, benefiting over a million New Zealanders during the winter months. We made the largest across-the-board increases in benefit income since the 1940s. And probably something for the ACT Party, who noted that we haven't done anything for primary school teachers, well, since 2017, there's been a 16 percent increase for primary school teachers. We've increased the pay of new police officers by 19 percent since 2017, and 21 percent for new nurses. The Government's plan is providing targeted support to New Zealand families to deal with the cost of living, while also investing in critical services and, importantly, keeping a lid on debt. 
So I summarise my contribution: Budget 2022 is being written in the continuing shadow of the COVID-19 pandemic. The Government's strategy has proven to be a successful approach to managing the health impacts of the virus while keeping the economy going. This will be our fourth wellbeing Budget, and the Labour Government is committed to achieving its policy goals using an approach that's designed to drive investments to improve New Zealand's living standards by tackling longstanding system challenges as well as addressing the pressures immediately in front of us. Wellbeing means giving people the capabilities to live lives of purpose, balance, and meaning to them. As the Minister of Finance has said earlier today, there are no easy choices when you're in Government, and we believe we've got the balance right. Thank you, Madam Speaker.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): The next call is a split call. I call the Hon Louise Upston.





Hon LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō): Thank you, Madam Speaker. The Budget Policy Statement is of course about priorities and that's what this debate is and why this side of the House does not support and will not support Budget 2022. I want to give a couple of reasons why, because the third area of priorities says this: "Laying the foundations for the future, including addressing key issues such as … climate change response, housing affordability and child poverty." This is a Government that's been in 4½ years; you're only just starting to lay the foundations of the two biggest challenges—actually, the three biggest challenges—that Ardern has gone on about for five years. I want to pick on two of them. 
The number I want the House to remember today is 100,000, because Ardern promised 100,000 KiwiBuild homes—admittedly within 10 years, but they're nowhere near that. But what has happened with housing affordability? We've seen the average house price now go up by $400,000, and for the thousands of renters across New Zealand, their average rent has gone up $140 a week, which is a direct contribution to why we have a cost of living crisis. The other 100,000 that I want people to remember today is the 100,000 children that Ardern promised to lift out of poverty. How's that going? She promised to lift 100,000 children above 50 percent of the median income by 2020. It's now 2022 and it's got worse. There are now over 100,000 children—100,400 by the way—so she has failed to deliver her promise to lift children out of poverty. So the other side crow all the time about their wellbeing Budgets, but what has it actually done for children in poverty on the measure that the Prime Minister herself put out there?
In contrast, Christopher Luxon outlined a speech on Sunday in his state of the nation address, which clearly stated the realities of many New Zealand families today with a cost of living crisis. Petrol in Wellington—$3.50 a litre. So for those of us sitting in the House, it probably doesn't make too much difference for us, but there are hundreds of thousands of New Zealanders that dread pulling up to the petrol station now, and they dread going to the supermarket for the very reasons that the cost of living is going up and is going up far faster than wages. 
So that's why a very sensible, practical policy is actually giving New Zealanders a bit of tax relief, actually keeping more of what they earn. The other side tends to forget that when we have this big Budget Policy Statement and there's $12 billion - plus extra coming in tax, Grant Robertson rubs his hands with glee because then he gets to decide how to spend the money that hard-working New Zealanders have earned. So this side of the House says quite simply that in the middle of a cost of living crisis, we should enable more New Zealanders to keep more of their own money and make decisions for themselves. This side of the House trusts New Zealanders. We trust New Zealanders to make decisions about themselves, about their families, about their businesses, and about their communities.
The other side, as I remind the House—100,000 KiwiBuild homes was going to be a critical part of improving housing affordability. Well, that's a fail. That's four years of failure from Labour. On child poverty, 100,000 children would be lifted out of poverty by 2020. It's now 2022, and that's an absolute abject failure. But who pays for that? It's the children in the very households that we're talking about. The cost is on them, and this side of the House knows we should support families to support themselves.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): I call on Debbie Ngarewa-Packer, who is connecting with us remotely. Debbie has five minutes.





DEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER (Co-Leader—Te Paati Māori) (remote): Tēnā koe e te Pika. Tēnā tātou e te Whare. I stand to speak on behalf of Te Paati Māori in this debate on the Budget Policy Statement. There's been much kōrero in this House about the cost of living crisis, and the reality is poverty, of course, from out-of-reach costs of living has been affecting tangata whenua for a very long time. We acknowledge the latest child poverty stats which showed a downward trend in the last three years, but material hardship for Māori, Pacific, and disabled tamariki and their whānau remains the same. So, yes, as our Minister Kelvin Davis states, New Zealanders are doing OK, but Māori tangata whenua, tangata moana, and disabled whānau aren't. 
Now, one simple solution would have been to adopt the 2019 Government's Welfare Expert Advisory Group recommendations. It didn't, and now two years of COVID has exasperated these cruel hardships, and whānau who may have been keeping their heads above water are now caught in the tide of disparity. And please stop the peacocking, Minister Davis; stop acting as if the Government saved this nation from COVID. So you should be funding Māori response efforts—they saved your nono and are our Government Tiriti partners. Stop looking for praise for doing what should have been done. It's Māori faces that were on the front line, still is, and has always been. It's Māori faces that make up essential workers. It's Māori faces that make up Hauora, Whānau Ora. When we look at this, it's Māori faces that should also be receiving the recovery from COVID investment. Five dollars for butter from a cow on our whenua; kai, housing, fuel from our whenua, no increased income, rising inflation—undeniably, our people are hurting. 
The last two years, we've seen a huge wealth transfer from the poor to the rich. As economist Bernard Hickey has reported, the Government's COVID policies made the rich $952 billion richer, while the poor were forced $400 million further into debt to the Government. Low-income whānau now need more than twice as many food parcels as they did before COVID, and I see on the ground the whānau choosing to travel to town to get groceries and not another trip to attend doctors, specialist appointments, or vaccination. The Leader of the Opposition claims to care about the cost of living, while at the same time proposes to make this wealth transfer even worse through his new tax cuts for the rich policy. Prime Minister, e te Pirimia, it is absolutely a cost of living crisis that will create a pandemic of poverty. 
This couldn't be more obvious in the housing market where we're seeing the biggest wealth transfer in generations from hard-working whānau to the greedy property class. Since 1986, the number of Māori forced to rent has increased by 88.3 percent; 70 percent of Māori cannot afford homes and they're living in rentals. One-third of Māori live in a house considered damp or overcrowded. Māori make up 50 percent of the waiting lists for social housing; 30 percent of Māori pay rent that is over 30 percent of their weekly income; and 33 percent of Māori will shift residence every three years. At the same time, there's 191,646 unoccupied ghost houses; this is in 2019, by the way. At least 12,000 tangata whenua are homeless in their own whenua. This is an absolute disgrace, and fixing it should be our Government's top fiscal and economic priorities. 
We have generations of whānau who will never be able to afford to buy a house in this market, and we're holding them to hostage with the very real prospect of homelessness. There are solutions to housing crisis and inequality, including taxing unearned wealth through capital gains and ghost house taxes—"Horror, horror!", I hear some of you say. We must tighten up bans on foreign ownership and guarantee houses for citizens and permanent residents. We will fight and support to increase the construction of State houses and rent-to-buy placements while enabling papa kāinga housing at scale through regulatory reforms and increased investment, and stop all sales of freehold land to offshore foreign interests. We will also support low-income whānau by actually lifting their income. It is clear that we need to double baseline benefit levels and student allowance and increase the minimum wage to $25 while tagging increases in the cost of living. 
We are a low-wage economy with insecure employment. These policies will support whānau. They will stimulate the economy and help businesses as their whānau have to spend everything they earn while the rich hoard their wealth in trusts, housing, and investment schemes. It's time for a radical solution to address this shameful crisis. It's time for a new approach to economics. We must put people and the environment that sustains us first, second, and last. Nō reira, tēnā tātou katoa.
Andrew Bayly: Madam Speaker?
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): The next call is a split call and they are both connecting with us remotely. You've got up before your time, Andrew. I call on Anna Lorck.





ANNA LORCK (Labour—Tukituki) (remote): Thank you, Madam Speaker. As I Zoom into the House from the Hawke's Bay, I do so having just read the headline "Reasons for optimism for Hastings", following the release of its economic report card yesterday. The timing, as I take a call on the Budget Policy Statement, could not have been better, because it demonstrates that, even while the impacts of COVID-19 restrictions are being felt here locally, with Omicron sweeping through the region, Hastings' economy is performing, and continues to perform, very well. It proves that the health response our Government has taken is the best response for protecting and growing our economy across New Zealand, for keeping people, wherever possible, in work, and business in business. This Budget is laying those foundations for the future—a future that, according to the National Party, is nothing but doom and gloom. But not in the Hawke's Bay, and I am sure other regions are optimistic too. We are seeing businesses investing here at record levels, not retracting. And, if you visit, you will see, before your eyes, groundworks and new buildings occurring almost every week. There has been a phenomenal 59.6 percent increase in non-residential consents. That is a demonstration of optimism for the future.
Now, that does not take away from those business owners and their staff, especially our retail and hospitality sectors, who have found, and are still finding, it incredibly tough. But let me say, with as much optimism as I can muster from Hastings, we will get through it, because growing jobs, growing work opportunities, better wages, and keeping people in jobs and keeping the work coming in, matters for the people of New Zealand. That's why we need to keep building strong, resilient regions, which the Budget Policy Statement does. I know, as we move forward in the recovery, it will be the provinces of this country that will come into their own. I have demonstrated that, in Hastings, this is an excellent example of the focus our Government has and the commitment we have to the regions. We have seen record Government investment, millions and millions of dollars coming in to help back the Bay, in partnership with council, iwi, and business, for infrastructure projects that will continue into the years ahead, as we keep building more affordable homes, investing in climate change projects for our regions, and in health reforms.
But, I've got to say, as a regional New Zealander who has always fought hard to get our fair share of Government investment, hearing the Opposition leader telling us he's going to cut the Auckland regional fuel tax can only mean one thing, and that is that he and his National Party have not changed and they will be deserting the regions again. National forgot about the regions last time they were in Government, and they are clearly signalling it again, because if Aucklanders don't have to pay for their region's roading infrastructure problems, unfortunately it means the rest of us will have to pick up the tab, which will then mean there will be less money to go around for our regions' roads, and our desperately needed infrastructure projects will be cut across town and country. We will end up right back where we were a decade ago, with a two-speed economy. That's what happened under National because National neglected the regions. But, in Budget 2022, this Government will continue to keep giving them space to accelerate their recovery and rebuild from the impacts of COVID-19, and will lay the foundations for the future. It is the regions who help grow this country, and that's what our Government is backing. Thank you, Madam Speaker.





HELEN WHITE (Labour) (remote): It was an interesting submission process and it was an absolute pleasure to listen to the submissions, but, at the end of it, what I was left with was a very strong respect for our finance Minister and the leadership we have. The Budget priorities were ones that were utterly grounded, and they were grounded in the lessons learnt in the pandemic and in the values of the Labour Party. One of the things that will get money is heath, and it will get quite a lot of money. And it needs it. It needs it because it was ground down and ground down and ground down, and then we faced a pandemic. It was a very serious thing.
I used to work as an employment lawyer, and at one point I was negotiating out at the Canterbury DHB, and I was shocked to hear that that DHB received less funding per patient than anywhere in the country. It was our poorest people, and they were not getting the same service and funding that other people were, and that's really quite despicable. I'd ask the Māori Party that complained that this hasn't been a responsive Government to think about that, because that's exactly the kind of thing that this Government's done, which that party did not do when it was in coalition with the National Party. That National Party eroded the benefit. It eroded wages. It didn't agree with the kinds of things that we've done in terms of the minimum wage. The minimum wage has gone up and that is a wonderful thing, because those are the workers that I used to work for and they need it desperately.
I find it very rich when I hear from the National Party the claim that they are actually looking after low and middle income New Zealand. Look at the suggestion they've made as a counter-proposal—it would deliver to our richest people thousands and thousands of dollars, and hundreds of dollars, perhaps, to our poorest. That is nothing in comparison to what this Government is actually delivering to low-income New Zealanders. They actually find it bad taste to have people who are talking about that as a way of dealing with a cost of living surge, because this, at the present time, needs things that are targeted. What the National Party is suggesting we do is highly inflationary. It would hurt a lot of people. It pours money in an untargeted way and it gives it to people who don't need any more, and it doesn't give it to the things that are needed.
What the finance Minister is prioritising are things like paying back the debt of our DHBs. That isn't inflationary. That's a very different thing. It's actually putting money aside for the climate change response. It's being long term in its thinking, and studious, and those are things that need to be done. I would ask the party that tends to chip away and suggest that there is something they might do better, I ask them to think about that. This is a Government that has actually backed our working families. It has made 346 families better off by an average of $20 a week. And that's just one of the many things it's done. It has implemented many of the Welfare Expert Advisory Group recommendations. It is not something where you can just say it hasn't, because it's just not true—it has done that. And it will continue to be committed to those people.
I'd like to talk for a minute about the interview I heard this morning with Christopher Luxon on Radio New Zealand National. He was blaming inflation on Government spending, and the interviewer asked, "Well, give us an example of this.", and the example he gave was light rail, and the interviewer rather politely pointed out that that hadn't happened yet, so it couldn't really be responsible. Then the argument he gave was, "Oh, it's all the bureaucrats that have been employed." I thought it was very disrespectful thing to say because Mr Luxon works in an environment where he sees the impact of the people that are in the Public Service, and that Public Service delivered a whole range of things in a crisis, and they work very hard.
We had the Auditor-General in and he was talking about how well the Public Service had coped with the crisis, and how hard people had worked. I agree. They worked on things like the wage subsidy in the Ministry of Social Development, and—
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): Order! The member's time is up.





ANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I'm glad you brought that to a close—I don't know what the speaking notes are that the Labour members have been given, but I do know the first thing they've got to say: they've got to praise the finance Minister. That's how you get ahead, that's how you get back in in 2023, because we know we might lose one or two on the way, which would be most unfortunate.
But the other thing is that this argument that everything is inflationary if you do a tax cut, but no other expenditure is ever inflationary, that is something I'm going to turn to later in my contribution. But it is a pleasure to be talking on this Budget Policy Statement. I think it's ironic that it is called a "wellbeing Budget"—the whole ethos of this document is about discussing about the human capital, natural capital, social capital, financial and physical capital. And it all sounds great. I know the Labour Government, and certainly Grant Robertson, loves talking in these wellbeing terms. However, it's interesting, if you turn to social under the social capital, top of page 12, first thing we talk about here is social cohesion. Well, I've got to suggest to you that right now New Zealand is the most divided it ever has been, and that is as a result of four years of this Government. We are so divided in New Zealand and this wellbeing Budget—so-called—in this document I think will be the defining issue of this Government when it finally gets out of office. We will have to deal with the economic consequences of what's gone on, and I will talk about that in a minute, but the lack of social cohesion, the amount of division that now permeates New Zealand, I think is palpable and is probably the most damaging thing that this Government will ever be remembered for.
But it also, on the very next page, talks about the impact of what's been going on over the last 22 months. Of course, we've had these glowing reports and we heard the member from Hawke's Bay talking just before about how it's all good and great and fantastic. The reality is it has been devastating for many businesses and for many of their employees and for many of their suppliers. And guess who does that! That's people. And, of course, we've had the tourism industry just decimated; $15 billion worth. We've had the international student market devastated; roughly $5 billion worth. I've been talking to the hospitality industry, the Restaurant Association, the Franchising Association, and, of course, the arts, which are all areas that have been absolutely decimated. Of course, if you listened in and heard what many members—from the Labour Party, in particular—were saying, "Everything is fine and dandy, and just wait, because we'll just keep investing more money."
But the reality is: for many New Zealanders, it really is hitting them in their back pocket. We've heard wages have risen by 2.6 percent, but at the same time—with inflation this year at 5.9 percent—there is an impact, a direct impact in the spending power of ordinary New Zealanders. That means they have less money to spend on their families, buying the groceries, all those types of things. It's interesting, I was just looking at my phone before, there's a report that's just come out on Newshub, from a lady talking about—she has a family of five children; she's saying that it's costing her between $4,000 to $5,000 as a result of an increase in food, rent, and fuel. And it is crippling, because the people that the Labour members talk about, the ones who are on fixed incomes are the ones that have little discretionary income—certainly, the vulnerable and the lowly paid. That is why the poor Government policies that have been put in place that are driving up prices are hitting the very people that they claim to represent and, literally, people who have less money in their pocket.
Of course, that Consumers Price Index has been driven by these Government policies. You know, if you have this—and we had it in question time today, the Hon Paul Goldsmith asking the Minister of employment about the issue about raising cost of living, cost of wages, increasing holiday pay, and increasing number of holidays, all that has an impact. If you go and talk to my growers in Pukekohe, the cost of labour is a major factor and that is as a direct result of Government policies. Of course, what that's led to is the Reserve Bank now being forced to deal with the issue of inflation, partly driven by Government policy. Of course, now we're going to see the official cash rate go up, and as ANZ said the other day, they think it will be about 3.2 percent within the next year or so. And so that is why—it's going to feed into mortgage rates and, of course, we now know that for someone who has a million-dollar house, and let's say they've got a $600,000 mortgage on it, their interest costs this year will be up by another $7,000-odd. So you put that on top of the $4,000 to $5,000 on fuel and those other ones. It is a massive hit to the back pocket of hard-working New Zealanders.
So what's the Government's approach been? Well, it's just been to spend money, and gee doesn't Grant Robertson love doing that. It is unbelievable. What people don't realise is that over the last 22 months, Mr Robertson has doubled the debt in New Zealand. It has gone from $60 billion to $120 billion. He's doubled it. That is a record. I can't find evidence of any other finance Minister who's had the title of doubling the Government's, the country's debt in less than two years. And he thinks it's great. He's going to do the massive additional $6 billion of allowances this year, $4 billion the following year, and $3 billion the following. That is on top of the existing allowances. So this is even more money than had been previously planned for and allocated to deal with the increasing costs of health, education. What he's done is taken an extra bite of money and put it on top of all of those other allowances that have previously been assumed and budgeted for.
So we've got Mr Robertson wanting to spend money—he's good at it, there's no doubt about it—but we've also got the ability of this Government to keep increasing the tax revenue. And what people don't realise is that the Government's tax revenue will increase by an extra $20 billion in four years' time. So it slowly goes up—in four years' time, the Government will be raking in $20 billion of extra spending in that one year. Of course, in the next year, under the current arrangements, that will rake in probably $20 billion to $24 billion, compared to today, of additional tax revenue. That's why he thinks he can keep spending the money. What National is about is saying—not about tax cuts, and the Labour members love to characterise this as a tax cut: it's not a tax cut. What we want to stop and reverse is all the additional taxes that the Government has imposed on ordinary New Zealanders over the last four years. And gee, there's been a raft of them. There's been—I just put in here the regional fuel tax in Auckland, yes, we do want to reverse it. A lot of it hasn't been spent. We want to reverse the brightline test extension. We're going to be talking about that tonight. Capital gains tax by stealth. We're going to remove the interest deductibility on rental properties—yes, we are. Another thing imposed by this Government. We're going to reverse the 39 percent on the top tax rate and, best of all, we will reverse the workers' insurance, or the latest job tax proposal, because they are all additional taxes that ordinary New Zealanders will be paying.
We think that New Zealanders should not have to bear all these additional taxes that the Government has imposed on them over the last four years. We're going to reverse them and give that money back. That's not a tax cut; that's just saying keep your hands off people's money. Because at the end of the day, New Zealanders know how to spend their money. We would rather them that they're spending it, investing in their children, being able to buy food, groceries, all those things, rather than the Government getting all this money going through a big mincing machine and putting it into wasteful spending projects—and a lot of them just will deliver no value at all.





INGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri): It's a real privilege to take the last call in support of the Budget Policy Statement, as a member of the Finance and Expenditure Committee, but, actually, I'd like to speak to this as the MP for Taieri and what this Budget Policy Statement means for the people in my electorate. That's people like Balclutha man Bruce Keith, who last year suffered a seizure and he waited for an ambulance that never came. He'd basically frozen and he became stuck in the doorway of his shed. There was no ambulance available, a lot of desperate calls, and, finally, a local nurse was able to bring a wheelchair and wheel him down to the Balclutha Hospital. Now, Bruce was lucky; he lived to tell the story, but others haven't. There was a woman in my electorate in Balclutha who, sadly, died in her garden, waiting for an ambulance. To their families, I am so sorry for that, but that is what postcode health looks like.
Last Budget, the Minister of Finance gave $83 million to St John Ambulance and that has helped fill the cracks. It has definitely helped save lives but the system is broken: first responses all mixed up with primary healthcare; rural people wait for ambulances or they catch InterCity buses to get to a hospital. Some people in Balclutha are waiting to catch a bus to Dunedin, and then their appointment is cancelled on the way. They have to travel all the way through, then get another InterCity bus to go back, and then wait for another appointment. Rural communities are finding it hard to get doctors, nurses, and midwives, and rural communities are struggling to attract talent, because, for some people, not having healthcare close by is a deal-breaker. In South Dunedin and Milton, different scenario but the same outcome: people waiting for weeks, sometimes months, for cancers to be even diagnosed—and those are cancers that could or should have been treated; lives that could have been saved or prolonged; and lives lost due to a system which has been fragmented and underfunded for decades. 
Now, this Labour Government has put people's health first in our response to COVID. It has led to one of the lowest mortality rates in the world, one of the most resilient economies, including the record low unemployment of 3.2 percent. We have consistently strong Treasury reports: Budget Economic and Fiscal Update, the Half Year Economic and Fiscal Update—stronger than forecast. They are testament to the careful and balanced approach of this Government, and I would actually say "adaptive approach" because COVID has not been easy and I salute the Ministers who have been able to adapt to the constantly changing, challenging situation. And Nicola Willis, if there was ever a more compelling case for continuing to put health first and transform the health system, it is now during a pandemic, because health matters and lives matter and healthy lives make for healthy economies. So I applaud this year's lifting of the operating allowance to $6 billion. And may I remind this House it is a one-off increase to enable investment into major reform programmes like health, and that can't come soon enough for me. It's one-off: it drops to $4 billion and $3 billion per year over the next three years.
Now, National would rather cut that funding, $1.7 billion of it—or $3 billion, depending on who you listen to. So no health reforms and no new spend by 2023, and that is, basically, a death sentence for some people. They would rather dole out tax cuts, especially to their rich mates, and that is to their rich mates because, as we've heard in question time today, it is the difference between less than a cup of coffee for, say, a cleaner in the Parliament versus several thousand dollars upwards of $5,000 for, say, the Leader of the Opposition or a Cabinet Minister. So National are running a script. It's a tired old National script. It's a bit like the script born out of the 1980s. We've heard a similar one not so long ago from a previous leader Judith Collins who wanted to spend $31 billion to build roads in the North Island. 
Now we jump forward several leaders to Christopher Luxon and it's suddenly a script about tax cuts. And rather than being out in the community, the Opposition are working to a script, and it's a bit like a public relations script. It's what you'd expect to hear at an airline with key performance indicators (KPIs). In fact, Chris Penk let that slip yesterday. Now, I like Chris Penk. He's usually a smart and sensible guy, but he showed us the type of ship or plane his boss is running. He said in this House that for him the cost of living is a KPI. I couldn't believe my ears. So the cost of living—of getting food on the table, clothes for children, real life struggles for real life New Zealanders—to Chris Penk, that cost of living is, in his words, a KPI. And apparently every time he says it, he said, and I quote, he gets "a tick in the box". No doubt, others on that side of the House do too and that is how National ticks.
The Budget Policy Statement reflects an ideology—and we've heard that word levelled at us as a criticism. I don't apologise for that. Our ideology is around fairness, real-life experiences of the struggles of ordinary New Zealanders, and it's based on evidence. We have heard the Minister this afternoon acknowledge that there are struggles currently. It is a difficult time; difficult because of a lack of investment over many decades and difficult because of a pandemic that we are all struggling with. And some people are feeling it worse, particularly in particular regions and in sectors like retail and hospitality. But the National Party script, I'll call it a "luxicon", actually. So a lexicon is a special language, but a "luxicon" is a language that comes primarily from the Leader of the Opposition. So in a "luxicon", a feminist is somebody who says they'll scrap the Ministry for Women, a ministry that has been fought for for decades, one that is trying to close the 8.6 percent gender pay gap for Pākehā women and the 27.4 percent pay gap for Pasifika women. 
Another "luxicon" is "high-calibre Māori". Now, I'm wondering if that is, (a) a Māori who is rich and therefore needs a tax cut, (b) a Māori who doesn't have health issues, (c) somebody who isn't a low-calibre Māori—well, that says a lot about the National Party—or (d) none of the above, because in his so-called state of the nation speech, Mr Luxon didn't once mention Māori. So no clue there. 
Another "luxicon"—commitment to equity of opportunity. Now, what does that actually mean when applied to the health system? Well, it's a blame game. It's blaming those who don't get the same outcomes, like Māori and Pacific people who are twice as likely to die young from health conditions that could be treated. So, according to the National "luxicon", that's OK because somehow they're both young, they're both New Zealanders—never mind the outcome. 
What I know is that the $6 billion that National wants to scrap, or some of it—$1.7 billion, or up to $3 billion—will go to establishing the new Māori Health Authority, and that is long overdue. It will put Māori health back into the hands of those who can influence it, and that's Māori, and it will benefit all New Zealanders because, surely, it's in everybody's interests that all people in our society live the best lives in their best state of wellbeing. 
So I applaud the Budget Policy Statement. I applaud the balanced approach: the record low unemployment that has put us in a position to be able to focus on priorities and do it in a way where we can make meaningful change with a multi-agency approach, with a multi-year approach; not a pet project for climate change, as Nicola Willis has said. If there is a crisis, it is a climate crisis, and I think Nicola Willis needs to wake up to that. 
What this means is that we can go forward and change the postcode lottery system of what is healthcare. I can say to Bruce Keith of Balclutha, and others in my electorate, "Don't worry, we know life's tough, but we haven't forgotten you. In the middle of a pandemic, we can still work to create equity so that you won't have to be left standing at that garden fence waiting for an ambulance that won't come. It means that you will get the same healthcare, whether you are in Auckland or South Dunedin or Balclutha or Middlemarch." We will continue to put lives and livelihoods, first because that's what we promised in our manifesto and that is what has got us through so far. It's that and the efforts of ordinary New Zealanders. 
I reject the statement that New Zealand is divided. We've heard a lot of noise from a very small group of people who have managed to get a lot of attention. But we know by talking to ordinary New Zealanders that they are united. They do want to see this through together in the way that we have been doing with a steady hand with COVID in the background but continuing to make the changes that we need to change to make New Zealand a fairer, more equitable, safer place for all New Zealanders. I am absolutely delighted to support this Budget Policy Statement and I commend the Minister for his work on it.





A party vote was called for on the question, That the House take note of the report of the Finance and Expenditure Committee on the Budget Policy Statement 2021-22 and Half Year Economic and Fiscal Update, December 2021.
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.





URGENCY
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): I move, That urgency be accorded to the passing through all stages of the Russia Sanctions Bill. 
The reasons for the passing of the Russia Sanctions Bill under urgency are self-evident to everybody watching the news. New Zealanders have been horrified at the news coming out of Ukraine following Russia's invasion of that country. The rapid enactment of the bill will enable New Zealand to significantly expand its sanctions on Russia and on individuals and companies connected to the Russian Government, through a targeted sanctions regime. And these actions will help to keep us in step with international reaction.
Motion agreed to.





RUSSIA SANCTIONS BILL
First Reading
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Minister of Foreign Affairs): I present a legislative statement on the Russia Sanctions Bill.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ian McKelvie): The legislative statement is published under the authority of the House and can be found on the parliamentary website.
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: I move, That the Russia Sanctions Bill be now read a first time.
Ko te manawa rere kia ū, kua ū, tēnā tātou e te Whare.
[Be resolute the impulsive heart, it is indeed! Greetings to all in the House.]
Today is the 14th day of war in Ukraine. Russia has not ceased its unprovoked, unjustified, and inhumane aggression on innocent people in Ukraine. There have been harrowing reports of significant damage to civilian properties, schools, hospitals, and public buildings. Russia has continued to violate the ceasefires promised and has killed indiscriminately men, women, and children. Families are fleeing for their lives. Russia is causing a massive humanitarian crisis. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees has reported that over 2 million people have been displaced and have escaped to the neighbouring countries of Poland, Hungary, Moldova, Romania, and Slovakia.
The international community has condemned Russia's actions, and Aotearoa has been clear that we stand with Ukraine. We've been unequivocal in our call for de-escalation and military retreat. We acted quickly to impose the measures at our disposal and were one of the first to offer humanitarian assistance, contributing an initial grant of $2 million to Ukraine for humanitarian organisations with a local presence to offer much-needed help during this winter period. We're looking to increase this as work with the neighbouring countries who have so generously opened their borders to those fleeing Putin's barbaric treatment. As we understand how best we assist those who have stayed in the Ukraine and those who have fled, we want to ensure we are doing our bit. We were swift to signal to international allies that we would apply travel bans, export controls, and have called in the Russian ambassador to make clear our position.
Putin has continued on this indiscriminate course of action. As a small country, New Zealand believes strongly in the international rules-based order and the multilateral system, but this time the United Nations Security Council failed us, with Russia vetoing any UN sanctions but the United Nations General Assembly making it very clear, with a vote of 141 to 5, who condemned Russia's actions. New Zealand feels it is appropriate to pass this bill, strong in the knowledge that we are acting in line with the international community. Today's legislation allows us to step up our response to Russia's grave, unprovoked war on the Ukrainian people. It is evident that a united global approach to Russia's actions will require sustained endurance and what I have called a wall of resistance to what is a serious contravention of international law and the UN Charter that we can now see. By taking this action in this particular circumstance, New Zealand remains aligned and in-step with international partners. We'll not be used as a backdoor to circumvent others' sanctions regimes.
That is why the Government is introducing this targeted sanctions bill under urgency, and I do want to acknowledge the Hon Gerry Brownlee. While this is a targeted sanctions bill, some of the characteristics of those sanctions mechanisms will be evident to him, based on the bill that he previously had in the House. The legislation is purposefully broad. It is a framework which enables me, as foreign Minister, to recommend specific regulations as the situation warrants, in correspondence with international law and with the agreement from a group of Ministers with powers to act. The framework is an enabler. It enables an escalation in our response as aggression in Ukraine escalates and alongside subsequent decisions of international partners. The bill includes better information-sharing provisions and enables in-depth analysis of the financial and corporate structures surrounding individuals and entities. While this is a framework, the specific regulations that the bill will enable are being worked through at pace.
A public register will be published outlining the specific individuals, entities, and assets targeted. This will ensure transparency regarding those impacted by the targeted sanctions regime. The legislation enables regulations to be targeted against those who are linked to Russia's war in Ukraine or who are of economic or strategic importance to Putin's regime. It doesn't mean that someone who is Russian and wealthy will automatically be a target. We know that many ordinary Russians do not support this war. We're not looking to target every individual or company simply for being Russian. The legislation also enables us to respond to those States or individuals who might help Russia in their aggression against Ukraine, like Belarus. We will be able to stop or restrict people or companies from travelling to or from New Zealand, or staying here if they're already here; moving assets to New Zealand or using assets already here; providing or using services like banks, loans, legal services. This means that we can, for example, stop the purchase or sale of property, the movement of marine vessels, ships, yachts, and planes in New Zealand's waters or airspace, stop imports and exports, lending of money, or the movement of money.
We're already working with urgency on the initial tranche of regulations. The first tranche will align New Zealand with partners to prevent assets from being moved here. This will include more extensive travel bans, sanctions on Russian banks, and potential asset freezes based on decisions with international partners. There will be further phases as we build a bigger picture of assets in New Zealand. The framework for sanctions allows us to evolve dependent on the situations on the ground in Ukraine. It provides us with the ability to carefully examine the relationships and identify individuals and companies that meet the legal threshold outlined in the bill so that we can have the greatest impact on Russia's ability to wage war.
There's been a lot of media commentary about the scale of New Zealand's response to Russian aggression and the war taking place in the Ukraine. The actions we have and are taking signal our solidarity with the international community to highlight that the protection of territorial integrity and sovereignty is an important feature of upholding the international rule of law. This is a prime case and reason why it is appropriate to ensure that we have a targeted sanctions bill regarding Russia's active terror on the Ukraine, and I'm pleased to introduce it to the House.
Āio ki te rangi, āio ki te whenua, āio ki te ao katoa, pai mārire.
[Peace in the heavens, peace on earth, peace to all peoples, goodness and peace.]
Слава Україні.





Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (National): The National Party will be showing its agreement with the motion when the vote is called later in the afternoon. 
The one thing that can't be lost in the politics of passing a bill like this is the recognition of the extreme suffering that so many people in the Ukraine are currently enduring, the huge movement of people out of that country, terrified for their futures, and the largest movement of refugees seen in a single event in the world. By the end of this week, it's expected that some 2 million people will have chosen to leave the Ukraine, but that still leaves over 50 million people who are potentially suffering the tyranny of Vladimir Putin's Russian boots upon them, and there will be, over a long number of years I suspect, the need for humanitarian assistance in that country. We certainly hope they prevail. 
But the situation that presents itself at the moment is a difficult one for the entire world. As soon as Mr Putin brought out the nuclear card and made a suggestion that he may not hesitate to use that sort of weaponry—that put the whole world on notice. So we have a situation here where, while military intervention might be something people call for, might be something that people wish was happening, we should recognise that New Zealand is not in a position to participate in that sort of action unless it is partnering alongside someone else, and that's just not on the cards at the moment. So that leaves us in a position of having to try and cripple the Russian economy to make the cost of waging this war so hard on the Russian regime and, frankly, on Russian people who support that regime, and we can only do that through a range of sanctions. 
I wish that we had had standing legislation that would allow us to be in a position of having gone to that position two weeks ago when, with respect to the Government, they were saying that we didn't need that, that there were other methods that could be used. The Prime Minister, as little as a week and a half ago, was insisting on that. But I do respect the fact that Nanaia Mahuta has engaged with other countries' Foreign Ministers and has come home to New Zealand and said, "Right, we need to do this." That is a mark, I think, of leadership and I acknowledge her for that. 
I would say that while she was generous enough to mention that some of this bill is similar to the bill that I brought into the House last year and was rejected by the Government, there is at least one insightful journalist, a very capable journalist, Sam Sachdeva, in fact—I think one of the foremost journalists operating in the press gallery at the moment—who has done a little bit of an analysis and decided that some 83 percent of this bill is identical to the bill that I introduced last year. Now, all that really points to is that there is a massive desire on the part of this Parliament, and through the efforts of the Government, to send a strong message to the international community that we stand alongside them in wanting to exercise some of the sanctions that are going to put significant pressure on Vladimir Putin. In the end, it's sad that you've got all that upset of life, that disruption, the death, the pain, the horrible human circumstances that he is inflicting on the people in the Ukraine that will, to a lesser extent, be felt by some of his own people as a result of some of these sanctions. That is a natural consequence, unfortunately, of the unprovoked aggressor action that Mr Putin has decided to lead.
In the last couple of days, there have been various diplomatic efforts to try and sort this out, discussions between Ukraine officials and Russian officials, but repeatedly when there have been some agreements made, particularly about safe passage and temporary ceasefires, the Russian side seem not to have got the message through to the people on the end of the guns, and that is a problem. When it comes to diplomacy, there is a need for basic respect, there is a need for an understanding and trust that whatever agreement is reached will be exercised by either of the parties. It's useful, I think, that the Israeli Prime Minister, Naftali Bennett, has had a face-to-face talk with Mr Putin. The world cannot be in a position of saying he was shut off and no one talked to him, and therefore we accept the consequence of this. There is a need to constantly state directly to that man that his regime undertaking this sort of action is unacceptable to the whole world.
There are many views that are put at a time like this. Remember that this bill is specific to Russia and the Ukraine conflict. It will mean that sanctions can be brought against countries who support Russia in their actions against the Ukraine. But there are those who say, "Well, there should have been a longer process in this.", that this bill should have gone to a select committee, it should have had a wider consideration. I think we're too late getting here already.
I received a very interesting commentary today from Matt Robson, a former deputy foreign Minister from some time back, who suggested exactly that, that we take more time over it, suggested that we learn some of the history, that we have greater consideration of the arguments from either side. But doing that is a sort of finger-twiddling exercise while so many people are dying, and while the Russian economy is at a point where it could be seriously so impacted that the war effort could be at least dampened down a bit seems to me a somewhat uncaring position to mention. 
There are those who say, "Well, we should continue to support the multilateral approach.", that we should continue with the efforts of diplomacy through the United Nations and other bodies. Well, as the Minister herself has said, the United Nations Security Council arrangement with its veto available to the five permanent members leaves us in a very awkward position, and therefore it is necessary for us to have our own law that allows us to work outside that. Who would have thought that at a time when one of the five permanent members of the Security Council chooses to invade another nation without provocation, when the debate came at the United Nations about some kind of censure or sanction against that aggressor nation, the member who has perpetrated this particular act, Russia, sits in the chair at the moment of the United Nations Security Council? That is almost a comical sort of situation to be in. 
So, yes, the 141 countries to the 5 voted in favour of condemning Russia's actions, but that's where it stops. So today, with this bill, we join with other like-minded countries in being able to exercise some of the sanctions, and I hope all of the sanctions, that others think necessary to slow down that Russian war effort. It will mean that we can sanction banking activities. We can, effectively, ensure that New Zealand does not become a safe haven for ill-gotten gains from those who might have profited out of the regime of Vladimir Putin. And I hope that our investigations in that regard are extensive. The bill allows for regulations to be brought down that give effect to sanctions. So the bill is just like a vehicle, if you like, for being able to achieve these sanctions. It would be my hope that there is some cross-party discussion about the extent of those sanctions and that there are not too many limitations put on them. 
But I just say I spoke before about the fact that everyone loses here. The Ukrainian people at the moment, suffering as they are, it's inexplicable to reach a simple definition or a simple explanation for how they might be feeling; simply to say that they have our huge sympathy and, hopefully, empathy. But it will affect Russians as well. And in that regard, I'd make the point that we have seven fishing boats operating in New Zealand with Russian crews. Most of those crews are Ukrainians, and they only hold a dual passport because of the conquest of the Crimea. And so we've got to be somewhat discerning when it comes to those situations. Innocent people should not suffer unnecessarily, but innocent people are suffering unnecessarily because of Mr Putin's actions. And that's one of the reasons why this bill is going to get such wide support across the House. Thank you.





Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Deputy Prime Minister): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I want to start, essentially, where the member who's just resumed his seat, the Hon Gerry Brownlee, ended, and that is with having my first opportunity, really, in this House to express my deep sorrow for the people of the Ukraine for what they are going through at the moment. 
We are a very long way from the Ukraine, but two things stand out in my mind. The first is the images that we see on television of innocent people, especially children, being caught up in these kinds of conflicts. It is heart-breaking, and it is the result—as both the speakers in this debate have already said—of an unprovoked invasion by Vladimir Putin that is a flagrant breach of international law. 
The second group of people I want to note are the Ukrainian community in New Zealand. We have a number of people of both Ukrainian extraction and more recent migrants in New Zealand, not as many as some other countries like Canada and so on, but enough for us to be really aware of the impact that this is having on the Ukrainian diaspora around the world. I want to take the time in this House now to acknowledge particularly those whose loved ones either have had to move and have had to shift and who have been directly affected by bombing, but also just the stress that goes with knowing that your family members are under attack in the way they are. I want the Ukrainian people and the Ukrainian people in New Zealand to know that the Government—and indeed, I am sure, this House—is standing with them at this very, very difficult time. 
This piece of legislation has come to the House under urgency, and whenever that happens, we all need to take a breath and recognise why we would do that. I don't think there are many situations that justify urgency more than the invasion of a sovereign country in the way that this has happened by Russia. We need to take all the steps we can to stand alongside them. 
It is also one of the reasons why this is a very targeted piece of legislation. It's a piece of legislation that focuses on the Russian invasion. It does allow us to be able to be specific in our sanctions whilst taking the time to consider what further regime we might have, and I will return to that question before I finish my speech today. So having the ability to move swiftly and in a targeted way, I believe, justifies the use of urgency here, and I'm pleased that the House is focused on it today. 
The use of sanctions in this way in the design of the bill is flexible, and I want to congratulate my colleague the Hon Nanaia Mahuta for bringing the bill to the House. Because we are using a regulatory approach to do this, we can not only move quickly and targetedly but we also have the flexibility to move in lock step with other like-minded nations. I hate to say this in this House, but I'm not sure this will be a short conflict. Unfortunately, I believe this is likely to be quite an extended one, with an enormous impact on the people of the Ukraine, and it will mean that there may well be a need to continually look at what the international community can do to put pressure on Vladimir Putin and the Russian regime. Therefore, having a sanctions regime that, as has been built within this piece of legislation, is flexible enough to continually respond is important. So I think the design of the legislation is clever, and I think it's the right response for us to be able to deal with where the situation may evolve to. 
I do want to note for the record that of course the Government did move within the confines of the law and the confines of our current sanctions approach quickly. So we did move to put people on a travel ban list, we did move to make sure that there was no way we could be exporting to support the Russian military, and we have continued to take steps in that regard. We were one of the first countries to front up with humanitarian aid support, and the Minister of Immigration has given an outline of the kinds of steps we're taking to support those who need to leave Ukraine, particularly those who already have people here in New Zealand. 
There are a number of different ways we can do this. Just as a small aside, in my role as the Minister for Sport and Recreation, overnight I signed up with dozens of other like-minded countries to a statement committing us to supporting a ban on Russia hosting major sporting events and supporting a ban on Russian athletes being involved in major sporting events. That's an example of each and every one of us having the ability to come together with like-minded nations to send the clearest of messages to Vladimir Putin and the Russian regime that he needs to stop what he is doing and move towards diplomacy and negotiation. He, however, is not listening to that for now, and that's why measures such as those contained in the bill that we're debating tonight are so important. 
Others have outlined what the bill, essentially, does, but giving us a framework where sanctions can stop or restrict people or companies from travelling to or from New Zealand, moving assets to New Zealand—and this is an issue that could have arisen with the way in which other countries were putting in place sanctions regimes. Had we not done this, we did run the risk that we could see a movement of assets to a place like New Zealand. This will stop that from happening, but will also make sure that there are limitations in place on using assets that are already here. This is the "freeze, not seize" approach to the management of how we do these sanctions, but the idea that we can freeze assets is an important one. 
Then, as Mr Brownlee has pointed out, services like banks, loans, legal services—this is where we can really have an impact on the economic power that sits behind Vladimir Putin, on whom he relies to have his power. So having that combination of areas in which we can make regulation and undertake this work—it is incredibly important to be able to do that. There are practical things. We can stop superyachts and planes and other ships from entering New Zealand's water or air spaces, and we can make sure that New Zealand is not a place where assets can be safeguarded from other countries' sanctions, as I've already mentioned. 
There are a number of offences created here, as well as a civil enforcement mechanism. We want to use laws like the Immigration Act and like the Anti-Money Laundering and Countering Financing of Terrorism Act to make sure that we control any attempts for the banking system in New Zealand to be used in such a way that it goes against the whole international community's condemnation. 
I do want to acknowledge Mr Brownlee for the work that he's done in this space and for the way in which he has championed these issues. In the interests of accuracy, 83 percent is the total of the bill that—from Mr Sachdeva, who we all agree is a great journalist. Twenty-eight percent of the material is identical, 41 percent has minor changes, and 12.3 percent is paraphrased, adding to 83 percent. 
Hon Gerry Brownlee: The balance was just a font change. 
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: That's right—that's right. So just in the interests of accuracy, it's very important for the Minister of Finance to be able to add those things all together to make them reach 83 percent. 
But, in all seriousness, I do want to thank Mr Brownlee for his work here. He has raised the issue here and, obviously, in previous debate about the question of a wider autonomous sanctions regime, and I do want to say that this opportunity we have now to have this targeted regime is important, but the conversation does need to go on about the way in which New Zealand is able to play its part in sanctions. 
We have proudly—and this is Governments of all stripes—looked towards multilateral sanctions to be in lock step with the international community, but that runs headlong into another longstanding multiparty piece of foreign policy, and that is our opposition to the veto at the Security Council. I can't quite remember the exact quote, but it was from Peter Fraser when he was at the San Francisco conference in 1948. He talked about: imagine having a fire brigade who had all of the fire engines and all of the water, but one member of the brigade could prevent the engine from going to the fire, and that is the situation we have with the UN Security Council and the veto. It is a ridiculous situation, heightened all the more, as Mr Brownlee pointed out just now, by the fact that this is one of the members of the Security Council who has undertaken this invasion that is a flagrant breach of international law. 
So in the absence of always being able to rely on multilateral sanctions, that does beg the question of autonomous sanctions. But it is important that New Zealand makes its own decisions about that and that we create, if we choose to, a law in that way that is very much cognisant of our circumstances and our place in the world, and the role that we play in upholding our independent foreign policy. So I think it's an issue worthy of debate, but I don't think it would be the right decision today to try to put in place a wide-scale autonomous sanctions regime without having done the rest of that work. 
Therefore, I think the bill that we have in front of us today is exactly the right piece of legislation for this situation. I want to thank all members of the House for their work in getting us to this point, and I commend the bill to the House. 





SIMON O'CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I want to begin acknowledging the Ukrainian people. It's probably quite difficult, certainly for myself and many here, to conceptualise the horror of what they are going through: a sovereign, nascent democratic country being invaded and shelled—and, from what reports we have seen, too, the use of weapons, such as cluster munitions, that should not be used. So, as I say, to acknowledge the Ukrainian people and all that they're going through; to acknowledge, as well, the Ukrainian community here in New Zealand, who are hurting terribly, not only to see what is occurring to their country but to their loved ones. I'm sure most of us, if not all of us, in this House have been talking to those Ukrainian New Zealanders and hearing their experiences. 
I want to also, though, acknowledge the Russian people. One thing I've learnt in my little life is that the first victims of any despotic, autocratic rule are the people. So this is, ultimately, the invasion of President Putin and his cronies, and, as I say, I think it's important to acknowledge the Russian people, thousands of whom are being arrested at the moment for simply standing up and saying, rightly, that they do not want war. And, too, I want to acknowledge the Russian New Zealanders here, many who will be feeling the pressure and perhaps even getting a bit of opprobrium. For those who stand on the side of right, the side of democracy, and with Ukraine, they should have nothing to fear.
When I think of this bill and where it's needing to go—actually, I should stop for a moment and acknowledge the Ukrainian President, President Zelenskyy. I think it's striking that he's a comedian who became a President, and yet in another country we have a President who's become a joke. I think it's probably, then, useful to add here the condemnation, which I'm sure all the House has, of President Putin and what he's doing.
As Gerry Brownlee has noted, National will be supporting this bill. It's the right and proper thing to do. It's a good bill, and I want to acknowledge the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the many people in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, I'm sure, who have been working hard to pull this together. It's a good bill, and I'll touch on that, but partly in this first reading speech I want to say it in my opinion has come a little late, and it should go further. 
Those of you who know my views will know I've been a great proponent of what's known as Magnitsky legislation. A chance, arguably, was had here tonight to put through Magnitsky legislation, a piece of legislation which is much, much broader, enabling this country to actually independently stand up and impose sanctions on a much wider range of human rights abusers in the world. However, in the interests of time, this Parliament does need to move swiftly, so, in acknowledging what the Government's doing and us rightly voting for it in the interests of speed, it's certainly my hope and intention, through the following debate and over the coming days and weeks, to continue championing Magnitsky legislation. What's sometimes called "autonomous sanctions" are very, very similar. They enable countries like New Zealand to impose independent sanctions on human rights abusers. These sanctions have, effectively, become the Achilles heel where sanctions through the UN and other bodies have failed. 
It's really, really simple what Magnitsky laws do, what autonomous sanctions laws do. They hit the despotic, the autocratic, the human rights abusers where it hurts the most: in their pockets. The irony of people—and you see it with Putin, Lavrov, and others—from Russia: they don't like to stay in Russia. Autocrats don't like that. They tend to try to move their families around the world. They like to be on their luxury yachts and their private jets, and they like to come to the West. They like to come to countries like New Zealand. They like to travel around. They like to flaunt their money. And the great thing about full, widespread, autonomous sanctions, or Magnitsky laws, is that they stop that happening. 
Most countries in the world, most of our allies, have actually introduced these laws, and that's my first contention around this piece of legislation, good as it is: in my opinion, we should have had one of these laws in place already. It's no secret to the House that I've been working for a while now with Bill Browder, the father, if you will, of Magnitsky sanctions. We had a talk the other day with Geoffrey Robertson, one of the leading human rights barristers in the world: a conversation with the likes of Senator Kitching from Australia and others from Canada, the UK, America—actually, a lot of people I work with through something called the Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China. We've been advocating for a while now for New Zealand to have a comprehensive autonomous sanctions, or Magnitsky, law so that New Zealand can, to pick up the words of our Deputy Prime Minister, act with an independent foreign policy. But we don't have that mechanism. It's something that I would argue has been missed for some time. But, as the saying goes, you can't cry over spilt milk. 
So tonight, arguably, we had a chance to do more. We could have crossed out the word "Russia" and allowed, actually, a number of other countries to fall within the scope of this bill. As I say, it's important that we don't get bogged down in that. I think we must pass this bill. There is an urgency with what's happening in the Ukraine. But fundamentally, and importantly, a Magnitsky piece of legislation is exactly the same: it's just not one country specific. 
I think it's important to say here tonight that the human rights abuses in the world don't stop just because Russia's invading the Ukraine. It's still continuing. And I might remind the Parliament, too: it's only been in recent years that another democracy, that of Hong Kong, was crushed by the Chinese Communist Party, and we did not have the ability to do more. We should have, and we should still be able to when we look at countries like China and what they're doing—amongst other jurisdictions in the world where human rights abuses are far, far too prevalent. So it is an encouragement to the Parliament: yes, let's pass this bill tonight, but let's have the courage, as well, to expand the legislation. 
In many ways we have the template. It's always important to acknowledge Gerry Brownlee; that is right and proper. What is being presented tonight is very simple. I had, somewhat tongue-in-cheek—and now I feel bad, on a serious topic—said it pretty much was Gerry's bill, just with "Russia" pencilled in. But that's relatively accurate. I just encourage that we take out the eraser in a few days' or weeks' time, remove the word "Russia", and allow all countries, all States that perpetrate human rights abuses to come within the scope of a bill like this. It's what allows New Zealand to act. 
A lot of people say, "Well, that doesn't fit a multilateral framework." Well, actually, it does; New Zealand's the outlier on a lot of this legislation, as I've said before. I did it on a podcast. Here we go: there's a shameless, shameless shout-out for my podcast, On Point. I had Tom Tugendhat on, the chair of the UK Foreign Affairs Committee. He knows, I know, the Minister knows: we're outliers. It doesn't matter if it's modern slavery, it doesn't matter if it's Magnitsky laws: we're outliers. We're not being multilateral, ultimately. And let's put it on record, too: the UN is failing. That doesn't mean we want to get rid of it—nothing like that—but it's not working, and I think a couple of people have noted that tonight around the use of the veto and so forth. 
So there's much more that could be done. I think New Zealand has, for me, been slow out of the blocks, but it's good that we're here tonight to discuss this. I would certainly encourage, as we think of sanctions in the wider sense, too: there is much more that we can do. It was good to hear the Minister for Sport and Recreation address how we're engaging in that space. You know, politics and sports are not meant to mix, but sometimes there are exceptions. 
We certainly want to see Government engage more around how we can bring Ukrainians who have New Zealand family here. How do we set up a lifeboat scheme for refugees, something I called for with Hong Kong residents? I'd like to see it here, with Ukrainians. Has any thought been given to closing our immigration office, our visa processing office, in Moscow? What thought has been given to bringing our ambassador back, or to kicking the Russian one out? What encouragement can we give to more New Zealand companies, to pull, like Fonterra have, out? I would acknowledge, too, the New Zealand Superannuation Fund, whom often I have had a few challenging words to around their investments in China. It's good to see that they're pulling their funds from Russia. There's much, much more that can, and should, be done. 
And fundamentally, too—it was part of a discussion I had recently—a lot of this is coming out of a perception that the West is weak. That's one of the reasons Putin's acting: the West appeared weak. He's learning the hard way that, actually, we're not, and I think today, and through you, Minister, it's really good to see New Zealand is stepping up to join the West.
I wanted to end with a semi-theological quote, but it actually comes from the UN Ambassador of Ukraine, Ambassador Kyslytsya. I just liked it; I shared it on my Facebook the other day, and I think it sums up my views, not in the theological area, per se, but more the political, when he said to the Russians: "There is no purgatory for war criminals; they go straight to hell". And that's a message for you, President Putin.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ian McKelvie): Our next call is a remote call, and just before I call the Hon David Parker, I'll just remind members calling in remotely that they should apply for the call via the chat function. 





Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment) (remote): Thank you for that reminder, Mr Speaker. It was remiss of me not to do that. What a chilling time it is in the world, with the challenges that we face from the war in the Ukraine, from COVID, from the pernicious effect of foreign interference through social media channels and cyberattacks. This coalescing of challenges that the liberal democracies of the world face is something that I never envisaged even at the start of this electoral cycle, and it's certainly, I think, the most unsettling period for me as a Minister in a democratically elected Government. I don't think any Western democracy has really faced this combination of challenges for a long, long time. And I find it an incredibly disturbing responsibility to be in power at a time like this and take very seriously the responsibilities and opportunities for betterment that come from Government action at a time like this.
There can be no greater challenge to the rules-based order than a member of the United Nations Security Council flouting the most basic of international laws and, without provocation or attack, invade a neighbour using dishonest pretexts like an assertion that they're Nazis, when it's most obvious to countries like us that the Ukrainian Government was not a Nazi Government; using the pretext that they, Russia, had to do this for their own security, when there was no real threat from either the Ukraine or NATO to the territorial borders of Russia; and an attack on the rules-based order which, as other members have said, cannot be properly responded to through UN channels because the right of veto of UN Security Council members is relied upon by Russia to stymie the effort. The need for action is so clear, not just from what happened in Ukraine but we know that the Russian Government was at the side of the Syrian Government in the atrocities that were perpetrated against those who were involved in a civil war in Syria. And so we can have little trust as countries in support of Ukraine that those similar tactics won't be brought to bear against the Ukrainian people.
So I think that the role of New Zealand—limited though it is from afar, and limited as it is by our lack of military capability and our lack of proximity to this conflict, we have to do our bit to join the world to create consequences for those who are in power in Russia. So we do that by not wishing to bring misery to the Russian people. We don't want them to suffer the economic consequences that are going to befall Russia as a consequence of these actions, but we have very few remedies—other than entering into the war in Ukraine—other than to exact economic consequences both on the Russian Government but also those people of influence within the Russian administration, senior military leaders, and senior functionaries within the Government of Russia.
The issue as to how far you reach with those sanctions is yet to be fully explored either in New Zealand or around the world. It's clear that there will be ascending levels of sanction, it seems, from our people who we traditionally partner with in these sorts of events worldwide. I for one have been paying attention to some of the operative provisions in this legislation, and I thank the other political parties for their consideration of these issues at short notice as well. And I know we did have the benefit of the bill that had been drafted through the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade under the prior National Government, and so we've been able to move very quickly in response to bring this legislation forward.
But hurried though that has been in response to the human tragedy unfolding in the Ukraine, we have had a period to carefully consider some of the provisions. And in particular, clause 8 of the bill as it came forward has been subject to some remedial work involving the Government. My own officials were concerned to make sure that that clause 8 empowering provision as to when sanctions can apply or what is the purpose of those sanctions was made clearer than it was in the original draft. In the short time available, we've also reached out to the Privacy Commissioner and to the New Zealand Law Society, both of whom have had input into the legislation, and I think it is improved as a consequence. And it may be that that is an issue that members want to discuss with the Minister of Foreign Affairs when she is in the chair for the committee stage of this bill, because it does go to the core of how far down the administration these sanctions can reach.
There's been some interesting media coming out to say that, yes, we can address the issue of the highest-ranking Russian officials and the billionaire class who have so profited from the Russian administration and their closeness to it, but there are views that the sanctions need to reach further into senior governmental officials beyond that absolutely upper coterie, none the less to people who are powerful within the Russian administration and have probably become multimillionaires through it, and who have properties overseas, assets overseas, and as Simon O'Connor has said, like to have the benefits of their associations with liberal democracies where they enjoy holidaying and sometimes relying upon those overseas jurisdictions for the education of their children. And those sorts of issues may yet be necessary to consider. We haven't considered those issues as an international community, I don't think, in any great detail yet, but we may need to. Therefore, the second part of clause 8(2) is designed to be reasonably broad in the ability of sanctions to reach further than just the absolute upper coterie of the Russian administration.
In respect of other issues that were raised by Simon O'Connor in respect of Magnitsky sanctions: as the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Deputy Prime Minister have both said, we're open to that discussion. I would note that the bill that has been tabled by the Hon Gerry Brownlee didn't, from our point of view, adequately cover those, so it couldn't just be quickly passed into law if that was the will of the National Party.
And I would also note that since that bill was drafted, I think the problems of foreign interference via social media destabilising Western liberal democracies have become worse, the seriousness of cyberattacks trying to create mayhem in liberal democracies around the world, and trying to undermine the very settings that we rely upon to have peaceful, free settings in our own home countries. And we've seen some of the effect of that misinformation. Some of it comes from liberal democracies, but even that which comes from liberal democracies is sometimes pushed along by ill-meaning promotion from jurisdictions like North Korea and Russia trying to foment discontent in our own nations. And I think we've got to take a serious look at that as well. The Prime Minister's already on the record in respect of some of those issues arising not just from Ukraine but from recent events at home.
So it's an incredibly serious attack to the rule of law. The whole of Europe is destabilised by this. I was talking to the Minister of Foreign Affairs about the chill that is in Europe at the moment at a Government level. She has just returned from there, and we can well imagine the effect that this is having on those capitals that are closer to the Ukraine than we are. We look to Europe as being bastions of upholding liberal democracy. I think we model ourselves on some of the forms of democracy that they have in Scandinavia. And it's interesting to see the brave actions of the likes of Finland and other countries like Poland, who we don't always agree with on everything, standing up to try and push against the atrocities that the Russian regime is perpetrating. I accordingly support this first reading of the bill to the House.





Hon JAMES SHAW (Minister of Climate Change): Point of order, Mr Speaker. Given that we're only a few minutes away from the dinner break, I wondered if you would prefer to take up the dinner break now and resume afterwards.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ian McKelvie): Well, I think the rules would say that you've got 10 minutes, irrespective, so you can complete your speech. 
Hon JAMES SHAW: Mr Speaker—
Kieran McAnulty: Seek leave, James. 
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ian McKelvie): You don't need to seek leave. That's how the Parliament operates, so if you start prior to five you go through to your full time. 
KIERAN McANULTY (Chief Whip—Labour): Point of order, Mr Speaker. In the hope that this is helpful, if the member sought leave of the House, we could approve that leave for us to return now, early. 
Hon JAMES SHAW (Minister of Climate Change): Point of order. I seek leave of the House to start the dinner break and resume afterwards. 
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ian McKelvie): Ha, ha! Members, the House is adjourned for the dinner break, and will resume at 7 p.m.
Sitting suspended from 5.55 p.m. to 7.00 p.m.





Hon JAMES SHAW (Minister of Climate Change): Thank you, Madam Speaker. There's a saying that history doesn't repeat but it does rhyme. And the parallels between Putin's Russia and Putin's regime and those of Adolf Hitler are quite remarkable. Both were authoritarians who had, or have, an ideology of chauvinistic nationalism. Both of them use extensive propaganda and coercion to keep their own populations compliant. If you look at the history pre the full outbreak of World War II there are parallels between, say, the annexation of the Sudetenland on the Czech borderlands with Donbas and Luhansk in eastern Ukraine. There are parallels between the Anschluss of Österreich and the annexation of Crimea, and, of course, also, after all of that, it was ultimately the invasion of Poland that led the world to act more comprehensively to stop Hitler and his regime. So it is that the invasion of the Ukraine has finally spurred the world to act to stop Vladimir Putin and his regime.
The big difference, of course—I mean, there are many differences—is that in this case, the world is attempting to use as little violence as possible, de-escalation and the use of sanctions, rather than to allow the world to erupt into a more general conflagration, which, given the presence of nuclear arms, would be utterly—utterly—catastrophic. Which, of course, brings us to the nature of this bill on sanctions.
The Green Party will be supporting this bill. We're very grateful to the Hon Nanaia Mahuta for the work that she's done and for her engagement with us in bringing it to the House, and, in particular, bringing through references to the General Assembly into the explanatory note; more on that in a minute. As members of this House know, and has been referenced obliquely in a couple of prior speeches, the Greens do have concerns about where a more general autonomous sanctions regime could go. Primarily, that boils down into the risk that autonomous sanctions regimes could well undermine the multilateral system and the United Nations system. But in this case—first of all, this is a very narrow bill that does focus on Russia and its war in the Ukraine. But, actually, this bill reinforces the UN system in the multilateral system specifically by bringing in that reference to the General Assembly.
I would just flag at this point, we will be tabling a Supplementary Order Paper later on, in the name of Golriz Ghahraman, to bring that reference forward into the operative part of the bill. Because I think we have an opportunity here to shape a piece of legislation that explicitly enhances the role that the UN system has, given that it's the failure of one part of the UN system, i.e., the Security Council, that this legislation is even necessary in the first place. Again, I just wanted to thank the Minister for her engagement on that particular point. I think if we do get into more general autonomous sanctions legislation later on, we hope that we'll be able to carry forward that kind of reference in that piece of legislation when we get to it.
We know that the United Nations Security Council itself is dysfunctional, and I think the Hon Grant Robertson referred to Peter Fraser, who, of course, at the time that the UN was being formed, argued very strongly against the veto. But the United Nations Security Council does not equal the entirety of the UN system. The General Assembly is, of course, a much wider body. It's a much more inclusive body. It's much more consensus based, and in this case, it has very strongly condemned the Russian war in the Ukraine. The concern that the dysfunction in the Security Council could be used as an excuse by countries to, kind of, essentially, do what they want, to just bypass the UN system in its entirety—and, you know, we have seen that happen before, particularly with the war on terror. So I think it is really important to us to be able to say, "No, this action is itself endorsed strongly by the UN system through the General Assembly."
Second of all, Russia, of course, has clearly breached international law. It's committing the crime of aggression. It may well be committing war crimes and possibly crimes against humanity and genocide as well. So it is absolutely incumbent upon us all in the international community to sanction Russia for those crimes and to, essentially, enhance the role of the multilateral system in doing so. Russia, of course, is a permanent member of the UN Security Council, and it is the one that is committing these crimes of aggression, and like I said, possibly war crimes and crimes against humanity as well.
The other, I think, useful precedent in this is that this is coming before Parliament. I think being debated in the House—if we were to have a more general autonomous sanctions regime come up, then I think preserving that principle as well in each case would be an important part of the oversight and transparency with which any future piece of legislation should take place.
I just wanted to turn to one particular aspect—which is a bit oblique in terms of New Zealand's role in this, but—it is that around the world, the sanctions regime is a bit slow when it comes to oil and gas. I noticed that today the UK and the US have said that they will be phasing out the imports from Russia of oil and gas. I do want to say that those countries that are importing oil and gas and other fossil fuels from Russia are essentially helping to bankroll Putin's war effort, even whilst they may be applying financial and other forms of sanction on Vladimir Putin and his regime. That is, of course, Putin's plan: to get countries hooked on the energy exports that are available from Russia. This really should be the very best excuse for countries to finally wean themselves off what is an incredibly volatile, risky form of energy and to move very quickly to domestic energy systems, enhance their own energy independence and security, and—by the way—clean up their emissions output.
The second thing that I wanted to say in conclusion is to the Russian people, and this has been brought up a number of times tonight. As we pass this legislation, there is a risk that people will read it as a signal to go after regular, ordinary Russian people either living here in Aotearoa or around the world. What we want to send them is a very clear message that we know that this war is Putin's war. It is not the war of the Russian people. I would ask New Zealanders not to engage in prejudice against ordinary Russians because of the act of the regime in Russia. It is Putin's war, not that of the Russian people.
Finally, I do want to finish by reflecting where some other speakers started, which is on the suffering of the Ukrainian people. It is an appalling time for those people. I don't think that we should lose sight of the fact that we really need to be doing everything that we can when it comes to humanitarian aid, and, in particular, support for the now 2 million refugees that are in the borderlands and Poland and other countries around the outside of the Ukraine. I want to thank the Government for its work in examining family reunification as one way that we can make a difference, and hope that we can also see it fit to extend many thousands of places to Ukrainian refugees here in Aotearoa as well. Thank you, Madam Speaker.





BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Deputy Leader—ACT): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise tonight in support of the Russia Sanctions Bill. And it's important that we're passing this law tonight. It's important because the situation in Ukraine is devastating. Ukraine has suffered an unprovoked invasion, a violation of its sovereignty, and aggression by Russia. I want to acknowledge the Ukrainians who will be wondering when this will end, whether they will survive another night, whether their family members will survive with them. We must stand with them and support them. And we have to stand with them as a nation, because of the shared values that we hold, the values of democracy: being able to have elections, being able to have freedoms—the freedom of thought, freedom of expression, and freedom of assembly that we know is lost under authoritarian regimes.
Two weeks ago, Russia began to invade Ukraine, and I'm sure that we have all seen the pictures of devastation and destruction. We've seen missiles bombing civilian residences. We've seen families being torn apart, fathers hugging their children as they go off to fight in a war that they never asked for; kilometres of tanks rolling into cities to cause destruction; and women giving birth in bunkers. But we have also seen a huge amount of resilience from the Ukrainian people. Civilians have taken up arms. People who have never fought or fired a weapon before are doing so so that they can protect their family and their country. We've seen farmers towing away tanks. We've seen grandmothers making makeshift bombs, but not only making weapons but using the weapons of words. And I wanted to share a quote that is going around the world, which was from a very brave grandmother, saying, "Take these seeds and put them in your pockets, so at least sunflowers will grow when you die here."
This is an unprovoked invasion of Ukraine by Russian military, and these actions are condemnable. As a party, and as a country, we believe in the international rules-based system, and, as a small country, we rely on it for our safety and our security. But while we support collective action under the United Nations Security Council, we have to admit that in this case, it has failed, and that is a very sad situation for anybody who believes in liberal democracy and relies on international rules-based systems for their peace and security. But although the United Nations Security Council has failed because Russia has been able to veto sanctions to itself in that system, that has not stopped other countries from condemning these actions and taking their own actions to stand up against the aggression. And we shouldn't need to be here today. We should already be on a list of countries that I will read for this House: Australia, Canada, Japan, South Korea, Switzerland, Taiwan, the United States, the United Kingdom, and 27 States of the European Union have all passed sanctions. We have been the weakest link in the West. We should have been standing with those other countries for liberal democracy, for values of freedom, weeks ago.
I have met with Ukrainians this week and I've looked them in the eye, and I've seen the pain and suffering that they're currently going through—people who have anxiety because their family is overseas in Ukraine and they don't know whether they will survive through the night, whether they'll be able to have another phone call, or whether they'll ever see their parents again. It is so sad, and we have to respond to Russia's breach of international law.
This bill would establish a framework for implementing sanctions by New Zealand in response to the aggressive acts and the breaches of international law by Russia. And it would do a few things—and I don't want to go into a huge amount of detail, but it would establish this framework to impose and enforce the sanctions on persons, assets, and services; it would provide the ability to prohibit or restrict imports or exports to and from sanctioned entities; and it would extend sanctions to persons and entities of another country where that country is providing a legal aid or assistance to Russia's military actions against the Ukraine. These are heavy measures. That is unfortunate, but they must be made for the value of democracy. We don't know how this will end. We don't know whether this war will go on for months, years, decades. But we do know that we cannot stand aside. We have to take part and stand with other countries imposing economic sanctions against Russia.
The Government has been extremely slow to pass this law. It uses urgency at the drop of a hat to pass all sorts of crazy laws in this Parliament, and yet we have been waiting days to see this law enter this Chamber. There has been no preparation. It seems ridiculous to me that we have a Government over here that preaches kindness and believes it can solve every problem in the world by just saying that we should be kind and we should smile. It's a fantasy-land delusion. The world is messy. The world is not always kind, and you can't always just solve something with a bit of spin and a smile. The world is not a nice place all the time. We should have known that something like this would be needed and had a framework ready to go for when it was needed. Australia, our closest friend, passed its sanctions a very long time ago, and, potentially, that's why they get taken more seriously in defence than we do.
But we need to allow more than just these sanctions to happen. We need to allow Ukrainian Kiwis to have their families come back, to have them here in New Zealand. And I want to read two messages that I have from two Ukrainian New Zealanders, which I received today. Natalia: she says, "The Ukrainian community can guarantee the accommodation and food for six months for the people that can return here." And Alex: he says, "We totally support any simple solution to reunite Ukrainian families here in New Zealand. Many will have lost their homes and communities. It is a sensible, long-term solution for what is a relatively small number of people. However, why did Kris Faafoi not start on day one with just letting those who have family here and would qualify normally for some sort of visa under normal circumstances, get on and apply? My elderly mother-in-law has abandoned her home to be bombed and looted, with just a small backpack with her worldly possessions, because the Minister won't let her apply. She's sleeping in a train station in Slovakia, where she doesn't even speak the language."
We must support the Ukrainian Kiwis that we have here, and support our community and make sure that those family members who are currently homeless in Ukraine can be supported by their family here. We also need to pass autonomous sanctions not just for Russia, but for any other future country, because we must be clear that Russia may be the first of these authoritarian states to declare war and violate sovereignty. It could be Ukraine today and Taiwan tomorrow. We need to send a signal that we will fight back. As a liberal democracy, it is our duty to stand up for other liberal democracies when their values and livelihoods are under threat, and we need to be there for those so that they will be there for us. We must contain authoritarian powers that will be at war with liberal democracy. I will support this bill on behalf of the ACT Party tonight, and condemn the actions of Russia.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): Order! The member's time is up.





Hon MEKA WHAITIRI (Minister of Customs): Madam Speaker, tēnā koe. E te Māngai o te Whare, otirā ngā mema katoa o te Whare nei, tēnā tātou katoa. Te mihi tuatahi. Ki te iwi o Ukraine, he mihi aroha ki a koutou i runga i te wā nei.
[Madam Speaker, greetings. To the Speaker of the House, and to all members of the House, greetings one and all. Firstly, I wish to express my sympathy to the people of Ukraine in the current circumstances.]
It's at this time that I want to acknowledge the people of Ukraine. Every evening, I believe, what beams into many of our homes through Aotearoa New Zealand, is the significant sight of millions of Ukraine people having to leave the country, and it is a really sad sight to see people, of no making of their own, having to leave their homelands through the unlawful, illegal, unprovoked invasion by Russia. This Government on this side, led by the Hon Minister of Foreign Affairs, Minister Mahuta, has introduced this Russia Sanctions Bill, which we are debating in urgency tonight. Can I acknowledge all parties that have recognised the importance of this bill in passaging it through the House under urgency. Can I also acknowledge all the officials that have pooled a four-part bill in such a quick space of time for us to debate tonight. 
But that former speaker who just retained their seat, Brooke van Velden, I want to challenge the fact that this side of the House was slow. When we had our initial response when Putin invaded unlawfully the Ukraine, we immediately put in targeted travel bans. We prohibited exports to our military. We suspended bilateral foreign ministry consultations and we put $2 million towards our humanitarian aid. I believe that we have—and in debating tonight's bill, I want to touch on not just the broad framework but the further sanctions that this bill enables. It also empowers the Minister to take further actions in reviewing the extra steps that this bill enables. 
As previous speakers has said, it's not all Russians. It's a very bespoke piece of legislation aimed at those that are causing the most harm in the Ukraine. It is talking about the freezing of assets in New Zealand for those people either very closely associated with the invasion or the supporting nations that are enabling it. It talks about moving to prevent the moving of money and assets and using our country as a safe haven when those individuals that we have identified will be held accountable. It will also stop the superyachts and ships and aircraft from entering New Zealand waters or airspace. 
As the Minister of Customs, it is important we operate in a rules-based international environment to ensure both people and goods move across the globe in a legal way. This invasion—this invasion—puts all that at risk and the absolute blatant ignoring of the calls by international countries to the actions of Putin I think will go down in history as—will galvanise, I believe, all those nations that stand in solidarity against the actions of Russia.
This bill is a broad framework, as I mentioned earlier, that enables the Minister of Foreign Affairs further powers to ensure that the sanctions that we have currently in this bill that we will be debating over the course of this evening are fit for purpose but enables us to respond very quickly if those sanctions are no longer applicable or we have to explore further sanctions—this is the bill before the House tonight that we are debating. The bill does send very clear messages that New Zealand—the people of New Zealand, the Government of New Zealand—is standing in solidarity with the international community in further sanctions of the Russians' illegal invasion in the Ukraine.
But back to the human pictures that we are seeing in our homes over these last 14 days of the occupation. I want to acknowledge surrounding countries, particularly like Poland, who have opened up their border to take the overflow of refugees who have leaving the Ukraine. I want to acknowledge the other countries that are not only making themselves a safe haven for the Ukraine people to shelter in but also providing the initial aid for those families. It's a sad sight when you see mainly mothers with young babies and young children having to make the enormous trek from their homelands into foreign lands purely for safety.
Nobody wants war but President Putin has declared his hand—that's exactly what he is seeking—and the bill that we are debating tonight sends that very clear signal where New Zealand's position is in response to the international community. I look forward to further debating on this bill that members will have. I'm pleased to say that the majority of members in this House, if not all, unanimously support the bill. It is timely, it is tailored to the crisis that's at hand, it positions New Zealand in a very strong position. It allies us with the response from the international community and I commend it to the House.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): The next call is a split call. I call on the Hon Mark Mitchell for the first five minutes. He's connecting with us remotely, thank you.





Hon MARK MITCHELL (National—Whangaparāoa) (remote): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Firstly, can I acknowledge the Hon Nanaia Mahuta in the Russia Sanctions Bill, and also the Hon Gerry Brownlee, who introduced the original Autonomous Sanctions Bill.
Can I just say, I don't want to dwell on this too long, but, actually, in terms of timing, it does matter, when you see the type of aggression that's being unleashed on the Ukrainian people by President Putin and Russia. Internationally, it is important that we respond as a country quickly. We've got a proud tradition as Kiwis in always taking a strong stand against any type of international human rights abuses or acts of aggression. So timing does matter, and we were too slow on this. Actually, the international community does watch. So it is with regret that, unfortunately, this bill wasn't in the House sooner. However, it's here now, and I want to acknowledge the Minister on bringing the bill to the House.
The Green Party leader James Shaw highlighted what I think is a very valid point: this is probably the worst situation in terms of global instability that we have ever experienced since World War II, and a Nazi Germany under Adolf Hitler. The worst thing and the most sinister thing about the situation that we face currently is that there are nuclear warheads involved, or possibly involved, in this conflict.
So although President Putin has decided to bring force and use force against the people of Ukraine, and that force has to be met and we have to stand in solidarity with the brave people of Ukraine to hope that they can repel the invasion by Russia, it's also very important that diplomatic channels remain open as well. Because if there's one thing that we have to avoid at all cost, then that is a nuclear confrontation. The stakes are very high in this conflict. Although we are thousands of kilometres away, we shouldn't kid ourselves that this isn't going to have a serious impact on all of us.
Can I just speak very briefly to the UN. I'm not a big fan of the UN. I think that they do some good work in some pockets around the world, but I think this is a time for them now to stop and take stock and reflect on just how effective they are. I remember back at the Shangri-La Dialogue in Singapore in 2017 when I met with the Ukrainian Foreign Minister at the time, Pavlo Klimkin, and became good friends with him. He signalled at that time already—and we all saw it internationally—that Russia was bullying Ukraine and had serious, aggressive intent towards them. So then how does Russia become the chair of the UN Security Council? How does Russia veto any action by the UN against an overtly aggressive Russia who is invading a sovereign, peaceful country? So, I'm sorry, you can debate the effectiveness of the UN, but right at the moment, I think they've lost a lot of credibility, and there's a lot of hand-wringing going on, and that's got to stop.
I'll put up another example of when we saw the terrible genocide in Rwanda, when General Roméo Dallaire, who was the head of the UN mission there, called for help and assistance from the UN. He could see a genocide unfolding, and the UN again sat there wringing their hands. We can be proud of our role there, because our New Zealand envoy and ambassador stood up and said that we should be sending more support. So I think there's some serious reflection to be done in terms of the UN and the signal that they can send to an aggressive warmongering Russia.
Finally, can I just say that always the victims of these conflicts are the civilian population, and the civilian population in Ukraine are suffering. They're living in tunnels. They are being bombed. There are casualties. Their supply chains are starting to break down. They can't get the basics and the necessities. They can't get milk powder to feed their babies. You've seen a mass evacuation. The one part of the UN that I will acknowledge is the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and the work that they do.
But also, let's remember the Russian civilian population as well, because not a lot of them support what their President is doing. I've got friends here in New Zealand who are Russian. They're absolutely devastated at what they're watching. So let's remember and consider them as well and hope that maybe they can bring some pressure to bear on their President, get him to step back from a precipice which he's dragging all of us as an international community into. Let's hope that the sanctions that have been put in place, the position that the international community is taking very strongly against Russia actually is sufficient to get President Putin—
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): Order! Order! The member's time is up. 





RAWIRI WAITITI (Co-Leader—Te Paati Māori) (remote): Tēnā koe e te Pīka, otirā tēnā tātou. Ka tīmata i tētahi waiata i titoa e Tuini Ngāwai mō Te Pakanga Tuarua, ā, i heipū tēnei tūāhuatanga ki runga i a Rūhia.
[Greetings, Mr Speaker, and greetings to us all. I will begin with a song written by Tuini Ngāwai about the Second World War and perfectly appropriate for this situation in Russia.]
'Putini waha huka, upoko mārō
He tangata tohetohe ki te riri, e!
Hinga atu, hinga mai i runga o Rūhia!
Ka whēru ōna mahi! Hei! Auē, auē!
Tūhikitia rā, tūhāpainga rā
Te rau o tō patu ki runga i te upoko
Hoatu, e tama, karia te kauae o
Te pūrari paka nei a Putini e!'
 [Putin foaming at the mouth, pig-headed
He keeps fighting on and on
With many deaths on both sides because of Russia!
We'll wipe the floor with him, Hei! Auē, auē!
Lift right up, lift high up
The blade of your weapon above his head!
Come on son, break the jaw
Of this bloody bugger Putin!]
I take this opportunity on behalf of Te Paati Māori to speak on the first reading of the Russia Sanctions Bill. As I said when I spoke to the motion last week, Te Paati Māori wholeheartedly condemns the unprovoked and unjustified actions of Vladimir Putin, his Government, and their invasion of the Ukraine. Our hearts go out to the people of the Ukraine and the Ukrainian community here in Aotearoa, and we stand in solidarity with you.
I want to mihi to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, the Hon Nanaia Mahuta, for taking the time to meet with me, to brief Te Paati Māori on the bill and the sanctions regime it puts forward. We commend her work in advancing this legislation in support of Ukrainian sovereignty. Therefore, we will be supporting the bill. The bill recognises the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Ukraine, which has been undermined by Russia and their allies. Upholding the international rule of law around territorial integrity is important for all sovereign peoples, including indigenous peoples and tangata whenua. In an increasingly unstable, insecure, and connected world, violent imperialism threatens us all. We must not allow imperial superpowers to invade and annex sovereign nations, or this threat will only grow.
It is our position that sanctions should be primarily targeted at oligarchs and the ruling class of Russian society. Those who hold the power should be those who face the repercussions. We recognise that the sanctions that slow down the Russian economy, which is necessary in the immediate term to halt their military progress, will have some impact on the working people of Russia. That is why sanctions must be time bound and reviewed on a continuous basis to determine their effectiveness and their adverse impact on working people. The exemption of humanitarian reasons must also be used wherever necessary.
Te Paati Māori is also supporting the urgency motion for the legislation. We believe the use of urgency must meet a high bar but that, in this case, the bar is met. The need to support Ukraine is a rapidly evolving situation that is urgent and real. However, it is our view, despite our support of the motion, that we should always have a public submissions process on every piece of legislation, even if the process is only a week long. We have communicated this position to the Minister and appreciate her response that engagement with civil society is being considered. We also acknowledge that the legislation includes a post-implementation review, which will be completed after the passage of this bill.
Finally, it is the view of Te Paati Māori that, in future, Aotearoa must be more consistent in applying sanctions. Any imperial power illegally invading a sovereign nation should be sanctioned. All imperial proxy wars must be condemned and opposed. Why did our successive New Zealand Governments not condemn the illegal US invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq, or Israel's illegal occupation of Palestine? Rather than condemn the United States for their illegal, imperial invasion, we've supported them with troops, with training, with intelligence. This must end. Aotearoa should not be in servitude to any imperial power. This bill will establish a framework of sanctions sanctioning Russia, but we need a consistent sanctions regime that reflects our position as an independent Tiriti-centric nation in the South Pacific. Kia ora tātou.





RINO TIRIKATENE (Labour—Te Tai Tonga) (remote): Tēnā koe and thank you, Madam Speaker. It's a pleasure to speak in support of the Russia Sanctions Bill at its first reading, and can I just offer my congratulations to Minister Mahuta for her work in leading this at quite some space into the House, as we are under urgency, and can I thank all the parties of the House who have provided input into this bill.
In the last two weeks, we have watched shocked as the Russian invasion advances across Ukrainian towns and cities. We have stood in solidarity with the Ukrainian people, defending their borders, their homes, and their right to self-determination. Now we stand in the House together with our allies across the world to condemn the invasion in the strongest possible turns and usher in this targeted sanctions bill.
This bill is the first of its kind; never been brought before in this Parliament. In most cases, as we've heard, New Zealand would only pass sanctions after a resolution of the United Nations Security Council—but, as we know, Russia is exercising its veto in the Security Council so that forum is deadlocked. This means New Zealand must, as we have, act quickly to draft a set of sanctions absent of the Security Council and we are introducing this bill in lock step with our allies, targeting individuals, their assets, companies, and services.
Under this bill, New Zealand authorities will have the power to freeze assets held in New Zealand to prevent people and companies from moving their money and assets to New Zealand to escape sanctions and to stop superyachts, ships, and aircraft from entering our waters and our airspace, among other measures. These are serious sanctions and they reflect New Zealand's strong stand against breaches of international law. That is what the Russian invasion of Ukraine represents: a breach of international law and a breach of the principles of sovereignty. So we implement these sanctions in lock step with our allies, all of whom are similarly alarmed that an invasion is occurring. The people of Ukraine not only have a right to govern their own country as they see fit, to live free from the aggression of a larger neighbour, but the people of Ukraine also have the right to enjoy peace—and so too do the people of Russia; they have a right to enjoy peace and they are not personally responsible for the actions of their leaders. That is why these sanctions and the sanctions imposed by our allies are targeted against, in the words of our Prime Minister, those who are responsible for or are associated with the Ukraine invasion or who are of economic or strategic relevance to Russia, include oligarchs. We must not allow New Zealand to become a safe haven, so to speak, for their assets or those persons. We must pass this bill that signals our outrage.
As our colleagues in this House know, New Zealand supports the multilateral system and we've heard that in these debates thus far; we support the rules-based international order. We do not support an international system where the militarily strong do simply as they wish; that's a world New Zealand doesn't want to see. The multilateral system, a rules-based system, is so important, whether in diplomacy, climate change, migration, or military matters. We make international progress by working together. But where one State acts alone, acts aggressively, invades; well that damages the international system. But one way to help preserve the international system is through sanctions. This isolates Russia and its leaders and it signals the world's outrage and the world's solidarity with the people of Ukraine.
I heard in the contributions thus far some claim that we've acted too slow. Well, just this week, the Russian Government has issued a list of the most unfriendly countries and I'm proud that New Zealand has made that list, because it's a direct recognition of the actions that we have taken and that we are taking with this bill.
So, lastly, I want to just cover the other suite of arrangements, of measures, that we are taking, because, in addition to this bill and the initial actions that we took, our Government is also providing humanitarian aid, prioritised visa applications, and releasing some emergency oil stocks to help stabilise shaky oil markets. We are doing our bit in a range of ways in a whole bunch of areas. In conclusion, let this House stand against aggression and in favour of peace. Let this House stand in solidarity with the people of Ukraine. I commend this bill to the House. Kia ora.





Hon TODD McCLAY (National—Rotorua) (remote): Madam Speaker, thank you. I, too, stand with others in support of this legislation and in the strongest possible terms to condemn the actions of the Russian Government, Vladimir Putin, and the atrocities that are being caused by the illegal invasion of the Ukraine. Here we are in New Zealand, a long, long way away from Europe and from what's happening, but it is touching people within the borders of our country. I particularly want to offer thoughts to Ukrainians who live in New Zealand who have loved ones that they find it hard to get in touch with, that they're worried about, and New Zealanders who are married to Ukrainians or have friends or family there that they think of. 
All MPs, I'm sure, have had local people get in touch with them. I just today had a local man get in touch with me who was worried about his wife's family—his brother-in-law, their children, and others—and a plea from him to me, as the local MP, as I'm sure all MPs are receiving, to ask the Government, to persuade the Government, to quickly make a decision over the ability to reach out to Ukrainian loved ones and offer them safe harbour in New Zealand. Countries of Europe are doing that. We're hearing that as many as 5 million Ukrainians will leave their country because of this illegal act on the part of Vladimir Putin. Some of them will be taken up in the countries surrounding them and other parts of Europe, but for those that have family members in New Zealand, it's important that we do our bit. The Government has the ability to make a decision quickly on this, and I implore them to do so. Every day they take to consider it is an eternity for those who are there in the Ukraine, and just as long for those in New Zealand fearing for their loved ones.
This invasion is of slim provocation. It is a war crime. It is an illegal, unlawful, and unprecedented attack on this country, and it must be resisted. I'm very pleased that we're in this House passing legislation collectively in urgency, but I would say that it is a shame that we have to come here in urgency, because there was an opportunity for the House to join together and do this earlier. This isn't being political; this isn't having a go at the Government; but it is saying that actually there were opportunities before now—and as late as last week—to pass this legislation, or legislation like this, to send a message to Russia and the Russia administration about the views of New Zealand, its Parliament, and its people. 
I get that when you're in Government you like to do things your own way, but, actually, when challenged with this last week in question time, David Parker, on behalf of the Minister of Foreign Affairs—well, he was Acting Minister of Foreign Affairs at the time—said that the Autonomous Sanctions Bill that had been before Parliament, that could have been adopted last week and would achieve exactly the same as this legislation in so far as Russia is concerned—David Parker, speaking as Acting Minister of Foreign Affairs, said that the legislation that Gerry Brownlee had before the House, that he tried to move so that we could adopt it last week, was lacking in the areas of cyber-security and humanitarian issues. Well, this legislation does not deal with cyber-security or humanitarian issues at all, and so I think all this was was the Government last week not wanting to move forward in the way of cooperation in the House that we are now seeing by all parties in supporting this legislation. It was about actually wanting to take the weekend to bring something forward and show that they are doing it.
We support this because what's happening by Russia in the Ukraine is wrong. New Zealand stands on its own two feet internationally. We speak with our own voice. We don't do what others tell us just because they do so. But there are times when action needs to be fast and it needs to be swift. The Government did put in place restrictions fairly quickly in some areas, but they were limited in what they could do, and here we are today passing legislation to give them the ability to pass regulation so that they can put in place sanctions against Russia, when almost every other country we would stand with—in this case, a position of principle against the atrocities caused by the Russian administration against the people of the Ukraine and the democratic country of Ukraine, we are tardy. Because Australia has already done it. The US has already done it. The UK has already done it. Most of Europe has already done it. Many, many countries have already done that. So I look forward to when we join them and the world sends another message to Russia that what is happening is not acceptable, that it is illegal, and that we will stand against it and are opposed to it in the strongest possible terms. But the Government could have done this earlier rather than taking their time in the way that they have. 
Yesterday on TVNZ 1, there was a report about trade and the effect it will have upon New Zealand. Whilst our trade with Russia is modest, because of trade elsewhere and oil that others import there will be some challenge to New Zealand. But I called at the time for the Government to put in place trade sanctions against Russia. You see, one of our larger companies, Fonterra, has done so already, weeks ago. They've made the choice to not export to Russia at this time. They chose to do that themselves. They considered it. They wanted to make a stand. And some would say, "Well, it was not a lot of trade that goes on behalf of Fonterra into Russia. It was symbolism." But it's important symbolism, and it's symbolism the Government could have shown already. If the New Zealand dairy farmer can work out that you should put trade sanctions against Russia at this time, surely the New Zealand Government could. 
There are some opportunities in this legislation for trade sanctions, but they're not strong. In fact, the Government does not need this legislation to put trade sanctions in place against Russia. They could have done so yesterday. They could have done so last week. They could have done so at the same time that Fonterra and New Zealand dairy farmers did: two weeks ago. They could do so tonight, before this legislation goes through. I would ask them to send one more signal, along with the Parliament, to Russia: of trade sanctions, and in the strongest possible terms, as we are seeing other countries now do. The US has just announced it will no longer import oil from Russia. That will have an impact upon them. They will be shorter of oil. The prices will go up and hit consumers and families in the pocket there. The New Zealand Government has the opportunity to make a stand, and to do so quickly, not two weeks from now, following others, as we're now seeing with this legislation. 
Countries of the world—the US and the UK—have said they are looking to the World Trade Organization about removing the most favoured nation status in trade from Russia. This is something the Government should be considering and looking at. In the case that, as other speakers have said, this atrocity, this fighting, this invasion will not be short-lived and will go on for a long period of time, we should be considering all tools that we have available to us to bring pressure on Russia and continue to send the message that what the Russian President is doing is not acceptable to the people, the Parliament, and the Government of New Zealand.
The final thing I would like to say is there will be many, many stories of brutality, both directed towards the Ukrainian people and, I see on my TV tonight, against Russian people in Russia who are protesting against this illegal invasion. We must stand with them, and our thoughts must be with them. My final plea is to all New Zealanders in as far as Russian citizens who are also permanent residents and citizens of New Zealand. They have chosen New Zealand as their home. They are one with us. They support us. We must be understanding of them, of the concern that they have for what's happening in their mother country and the dictatorship that we see from Russia. As far as decision making is concerned, there is no democracy in Russia. New Zealand is a democratic country. We welcome our Russian friends who live in New Zealand. They are good New Zealanders and we stand with them, as they stand with all of us tonight. Thank you, Madam Speaker.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): I call on Vanushi Walters for the last call on this first reading of the Russia Sanctions Bill. Vanushi is connecting with us remotely.





VANUSHI WALTERS (Labour—Upper Harbour) (remote): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Last week, I met with some of our Ukrainian community in Auckland. For me, I spoke about how profoundly jarring on a macro scale Russia's actions are, for them they spoke of the unfathomable personal impact. T.S. Eliot wrote about the still point in the turning world where past and future gather, a time when we weigh up histories and tensions alongside the realities of today, and we make an explicit decision about our role in what comes next. Today's realities are war and acute crisis in Ukraine. We don't have the still point. We have a serious human crisis playing out that requires a bespoke, immediate approach, as well as, in due course, a more enduring regime that applies more broadly—developed from a deep and rigorous assessment of the future of multilateralism, international law, human rights, and the monitoring architecture we need to put into place to make such an enduring system effective.
The events of two weeks ago were jarring. In truth, there are issues here that are deep and old. There is the annexing of Crimea and strategic intervention into other territories. There's the end of the Warsaw Pact and what followed, the Minsk agreements. But what's undeniable is that this is an act of aggression, an undeniable breach of international law causing the most catastrophic of rights abuses on the ground. Many people have asked me in the last week, has the UN failed us? Well, within the buildings in Geneva is the Human Rights Alliance of Civilizations Room, where the Human Rights Council often meet. The artist Barceló created a rather extraordinary work on the ceiling that he describes as "a sea upside down". As you sit underneath it, you look up to the floor of the sea, our common baseline. And in many ways, this was the poetic spirit behind the drafting of the charter to prevent a subsequent world war, to protect that baseline through, in part, the veto.
It's useful to recall that the UN was built to replace a failed League of Nations, who was seen to have failed at preventing World War II. For those who lament the death of UN multilateralism, who might even call it a post - World War II artefact, I don't believe that's the case. Global multilateral forums are still important, and the charter itself holds a lot of tools like the Chapter VI powers, which are really valuable when exercised in efforts to de-escalate conflict. But there's a clear need for a matured charter in today's world, and a number of speakers tonight have spoken to that. It's becoming clearer that we also need a framework for autonomous sanctions.
I want to make a few brief comments on the content of the bill and how it differs from the member's bill drawn from the ballot last year, though also it draws from it. And first, I thank Mr Brownlee for his work and others across the House for their advocacy in relation to these issues. The first issue to look at is the threshold that triggers a Minister's power to make sanctions regulations. So one unusual thing about Mr Brownlee's member's bill was that it's set in place a different threshold for regulation making for issues that arise in the Asia-Pacific region than those that arise elsewhere, which would essentially mean that a Minister would not need to have regard to UN decision-making in terms of Asia-Pacific. This is, of course, problematic in terms of maintaining an heir to global multilateralism as a forum of first response. This bill is different and it draws that tie to UN decision-making regardless of where the crisis is occurring.
The second issue in Mr Brownlee's member's bill is that it referred only to Article 41 of the UN Charter. It ignored other aspects of Chapter VII, like the de-escalation measures and Article 40. This bill draws a broader circle around Chapter VII as a threshold, including permitting regulation where it's unlikely the Security Council will act. And I think we've heard from Green Party members that there may be an introduction about a reference to the General Assembly decision-making as well. In short, there are a broader range of actions or inactions that can trigger these statutory powers.
The third issue is that the member's bill didn't explicitly address the issue of cyber incursions, so the language of the bill we have in front of us uses terms such as "sovereignty" and "territorial integrity", which, in my view, perhaps may lend themselves to capture the scope of more modern incursions that can still have really, really devastating effects.
Finally, there was the question about whether Mr Brownlee's bill would have brought in Magnitsky sanctions, and Minister Parker addressed this. My view is the answer is no. We do need to consider this work, but an enduring system requires careful attention and a nuanced and uniquely New Zealand approach to the balance we take. I want to thank the Minister for urgently bringing this bill to the House. We now have bespoke legislation enabling regulations to be drafted in light of this complex environment. As a member of the Regulations Review Committee, I look forward to considering the regulation-making powers in this bill at one of our future meetings. I commend this bill to the House.
Motion agreed to.
Bill read a first time.





Second Reading
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Minister of Foreign Affairs): I move, That the Russia Sanctions Bill be now read a second time. 
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is that the motion be agreed to.
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: There's clear urgency for the passing of this bill, and I'd like to thank all the members who've contributed to the debate this evening. What we have all established is that not only is there a necessity to continue with the progress of this particular bill, both the humanitarian implications of war being undertaken at this moment, the devastation to property, the loss of life, and the displacement of populations urges us to act in unison with others. And as I've said, an estimated 2 million people have now fled the Ukraine, and this number continues to grow every day. Those who are staying in the Ukraine need assistance, so the humanitarian efforts that are currently being undertaken around the world, which New Zealand is contributing to, will help those who need food and power and warmth.
Can I briefly comment on some of the points that were raised in the speeches—firstly, that this should have been done earlier. I think the situation warrants a targeted, bespoke approach to sanctions in light of the actions of Putin and the continued aggression. I left New Zealand on 19 February, and at that time, while it was potentially imminent that an invasion or an attack could occur, actually what we were seeing at that moment was militarisation along the Ukraine border. I was over in Europe on the 24th when the invasion occurred, and things escalated very quickly. But once we saw as a country that things were escalating, as has already been said by many speakers in this House, we applied all the sanctions that we had available to us: travel bans, export controls, and we undertook diplomatic representations at a range of levels to ensure that we were reflecting our concern as a country to what we were seeing. And certainly, once an invasion occurred, we called in the ambassador here in New Zealand and we preserved our ability as a country to keep diplomatic channels open. Why I point to that is that I don't think we acted too slowly on the way in which New Zealand expressed its position on this significant issue.
The other point that was raised was in relation to multilateralism. And I think many speakers made fine points around the fact that the United Nations Security Council did fail us in the way that it was not able to enforce a vote in relation to sanctions. However, the United Nations Security Council does not act alone, and it acts alongside other institutions—other parts of the UN system. So when the United Nations General Assembly placed its vote around condemnation and 141 nation States voted in favour of condemnation, we were in good company. Again, that informs our ability to be able to use that indication as a means for taking a targeted approach to sanctions against Russia.
Can I say that when we tabled the bill, we left a day for a limited level of consultation to occur. And I take on board quite seriously the points that were raised by members in this House that in an ideal world, we would have a really long period of time to consider autonomous sanctions and go to full public consultation. That has not been the case in this instance, but in the day that we were able to seek advice from groups, we deliberately ensured that we were contacting the New Zealand Law Society, the Privacy Commission, and the New Zealand Bankers' Association on aspects of the bill, because we understood how important it was to get their soundings. Again, these were issues that were raised by parties in this House, all of them, just to ensure that we had some level of exposure of the intent of the bill with those who were either going to be responsible for undertaking the implementation of the sanctions or could improve the legislative drafting of the bill.
I'm grateful for their input, and several minor changes were made to the bill as a result. They include insertion of a new clause 8(2) to provide greater clarity on the threshold for recommending sanctions. The new clause 8(2) clarifies that it is for the Minister to judge whether a sanction is appropriate as an act of condemnation by New Zealand. It ensures that it is appropriate for the Minister to consider sanctions for the purpose of exerting pressure on, or punishing, Russia, including through targeting oligarchs. This still retains the broad power for the Minister to make sanctions.
The other amendment was amending clauses 15 and 31 to clarify that the purpose of sharing information is for the purpose of this bill and any regulations under this bill only. Also the period that an individual or business has to wait to seek the review of their inclusion on to the sanctions list was reduced from 12 months to six months. And this acknowledges that the sanctions could impose significant economic consequences on them, and that the intention of the sanctions is to push individuals to exert their influence to cease the war.
Finally, I'd like to acknowledge the hard work of officials who did exhaust themselves—both the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade and the Parliamentary Counsel Office, and other departments over these last few days—to ensure that the bill got urgent attention for this introduction. I know that their hard work will not stop, because once the bill comes into effect, they will work at pace to get the first tranche of regulations into place.
Lastly, can I just acknowledge again the member Gerry Brownlee. We're not making too much politics of this. Whether it's 83 percent or what makes up 83 percent, the point is there is a portion of the bill that has helped to enable at speed the presentation of the bill that members are considering here today. Can I also acknowledge the Green Party. They made very helpful decisions around the need for greater transparency in the regulation-making process, also to consider a threshold and the way in which to give effect to a sanctions regime. And also, alongside the Māori Party, the Green Party were very clear that the bill needed to be reviewed before the three-year period at which regulations normally apply. So clause 29 is a direct indication of that feedback. 
I'm not sure the extent to which members will go to other aspects of the bill, but I would just like to cover off in my final remarks of the second reading that I think having a public register going forward into a fuller and broader autonomous sanctions regime will be one of the aspects of a New Zealand approach to a sanctions regime that will give the public greater confidence in the way that we are seeking to not only form sanctions but actually be transparent about who the sanctions apply to. I'm glad that we have that opportunity to include a public register in this legislation, and it will be a small but useful step going forward when we consider the more broad aspect of autonomous sanctions.
Lastly, on the approach to autonomous sanctions, it's my strong view that we do need to take New Zealanders with us, because applying sanctions, imposing sanctions, has a two-way impact, and we do need to consider that. We do need to consult with the public around the implications to what they may export anywhere in the world if we were to invoke a sanctions regime. We do need to be cognisant of some of the things that they're concerned about, but also civil society, because the humanitarian aspect of an autonomous sanctions regime is certainly a key aspect of what New Zealand would want to see in a successful piece of legislation that is more enduring than this targeted approach right now. So I'm pleased to be able to offer a brief reflection on second reading.





Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (National): Can I just start by saying that, notwithstanding the somewhat ill-informed speech prepared by, I suspect, Labour Party researchers and delivered by the last speaker on the first reading, Vanushi Walters—albeit tinged with a degree of unnecessary nastiness, the National Party will continue to support this bill because, foremost in our minds is the suffering of the Ukraine people. The fact, too, that this was an unprovoked attack. About the various comments that were made by the speaker I just referred to, about the long history that has existed on that Ukraine-Russia border, there can be no justification at all for the whole-scale devastation that Vladimir Putin has decided to unleash on the Ukrainian people. It is despicable. And in that regard, can I say, the Minister's comment that it's important to take the people of New Zealand along if there is to be a more general sanctions bill before the House at some point very soon—I would agree with that, but we shouldn't be under any illusion about the effect that this conflict in the Ukraine is going to have on the New Zealand economy, regardless of any sanction that we may or may not participate in. 
It seems to me that the simple point here is the principle of saying that we stand up for countries that are free and democratic. We stand up for countries that embrace the sort of values that have made New Zealand one of the longest democracies of all countries in the world, despite our relatively brief post-1840 history. So, I think that New Zealanders will, when they see—through whatever their source of information is these days—that devastation, that human waste, that horrible sort of circumstance arising, and will be quite happy to say, "Yep, we're doing our bit." Some may even want to say, "Let's do more." 
As for the claim by the Government that everything is worked at speed, well, I accept that when there's been an intransigent position for not just the last short while but for quite a long period of time, it takes a significant amount of time to re-change a position. But I don't think anyone should listen too much to the idea that New Zealand was fast out of the blocks with, for example, its travel ban on Russians associated with the Putin regime coming to New Zealand. The reality is that most of New Zealand has been on a complete travel ban for most of the last two years, so there's nothing particularly flash about that. 
As for the export ban, well, we all know that it was Fonterra who actually got out ahead of the Government and decided that they would no longer export to Russia. If anyone has a look at the two-way trade between our countries, Fonterra is very much the dominant player and I congratulate them for that courageous decision. It might only be a relatively small part of their income as a cooperative, but none the less, it's income they have to make up somewhere else. Then there was the talk about, "Well, we stopped diplomatic discussions, stopped the connections between our people in Russia and the Russian authorities, and our authorities in New Zealand and the Russian Embassy." That simply begs the question, "Why are those diplomats still here? Why are the Russian diplomats still in Wellington?" Because the argument that says, "Well, you can't punish the people of Russia, because they're just victims of the Putin regime." may hold some water, but in the end, the Russian regime speak, acts, and does on behalf of the people of the country, and if you look at the diplomats that are here, those people are direct servants of Vladimir Putin and his regime. For them to make any statement outside of total commitment to the actions that are currently being taken in the Ukraine is unthinkable. And so they should not be here. They should have been asked to remove themselves. We removed, for goodness sake, the Fijian representation in New Zealand when Frank Bainimarama took over the elected Government there. That didn't seem to be a problem, and I think of the retaliation, again, when the Israelis removed their ambassador some time ago. These things happen, but they are statements, and it is odd that the Russian ambassador continues to sit here in Wellington, clearly very, very supportive of what Vladimir Putin's regime is doing in the Ukraine, and yet doesn't himself appear on any of the sanctions lists that we've seen so far. 
When it comes to those lists, there is a question that we will tease out a bit further in the committee stage. One of the questions that's coming—and I'll signal it for the Minister now—is why does our travel ban list not mirror that of the UK, the United States, and Australia? It doesn't. There is a glaring omission there, and there needs to be some explanation for that. There was another comment that the Minister made that concerned me a little bit. She said that part of the consideration that's led to this bill coming into the House today was the vote by 141 countries, including New Zealand, to condemn Russia through the General Assembly vote at the United Nations. Well, what does that say? It actually says that, well, having recognised that the multilateral system is creaking because of the situation with the Security Council, with the irony of Russia being in the chair of that Security Council and then exercising a veto to make sure that no sanctions are approved in that body against Mother Russia, it is now the body—that's the United Nations—that we still turn to to get some sort of validity for the bringing of this bill to the House. That concerns me. I think the idea should be that we have truly an independent foreign policy—and we can agree with those international forums. We; we don't have to withdraw from them, we don't have to rail against them, but we should have that provision available to us so that, on behalf of the people of New Zealand, a statement can be made about this sort of aggressive action. 
I understand that clause 8, in that regard, is going to be another area that will be discussed in the select committee. But I will suggest that those who are promoting it have a good read of clause 8 as it's written in the bill. It would seem to me that there is adequate provision there to guide the Minister in making recommendations ultimately to the Government. 
So we come to this bill having promoted the concept of autonomous sanctions for a long time, through a time when there was not a will in the House to get it passed and where there was a desire on the part of our party to have it. Clearly, that was not shared by enough to make up a Government majority—a simple fact. 
Hon Andrew Little: Could have done it. 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: The Minister over there, the Hon Andrew Little, might be shaking his head and grumbling, but the Labour Party have never supported the concept of autonomous sanctions until this point. Until this point—
Hon Andrew Little: That member's party was in Government; it didn't do it. 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Well, look, the member over there speaks through his mask. Unfortunately, he's very muffled, so Hansard won't pick up the particular irrelevance that he's trying to burble away with. But it is a fact that this bill could have been passed some time earlier. It's not something we are particularly going to dwell on, because we have in front of us tonight the opportunity to pass a bill that will be very, very useful in stating New Zealand's commitment to the international rule of law, to the sort of style of Government and the freedom of peoples that we like to see further expanded around the world. 
With those comments, can I say that the National Party look forward to the next stage of the bill where the Minister will perhaps be able to answer one or two more specific questions about some of the drafting of the bill. It certainly won't be a time to question the intent of the bill, which we very strongly support. 
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is that the motion be agreed to.





Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister responsible for the GCSB): Madam Speaker, thank you. I rise to take a short call on the Russia Sanctions Bill. I want to begin, as many members of the House today have done, by just acknowledging the horror of Russia's invasion of Ukraine and the absolute tragedy that is being played out in many towns and cities in many parts of Ukraine, and the cynicism too with which the Russian regime has waged this war, purporting to offer safe passage to those who are in exile, knowing that the passage they were offering would lead to Belarus and then to Russia, and then opening fire on those purported safe passages. Vladimir Putin has proven himself to be an evil leader, waging an evil war, and we send our support to the people of Ukraine and our admiration for Volodymr Zelenskyy and the incredible leadership that he is providing in those incredible circumstances.
This bill provides New Zealand with an opportunity to respond, to join the rest of the global community in doing what we can to put meaningful pressure on Russia and those who run its Government, those who run its economy, to bring home to that country, to its political leadership and to the elites in its society that the conduct of Russia in global affairs, and particularly in relation to its war on Ukraine, is simply unacceptable. This gives us the means to do that. But we should also acknowledge that, in doing this, this is a significant departure from our foreign policy—our consensus foreign policy—that we have operated under for many years. We can have an independent foreign policy, and we do, and subscribe to the international institutions that are part of a stable world order. That is what we have subscribed to. As a small country, and therefore a vulnerable country, the international institutions that provide for peace and stability and the good conduct of international relations are absolutely vital.
So I don't get what I hear from the other side of the House—that we sort of attack the international institutions even when they're found to be wanting, as they are in this instance; that somehow we abandon all that and we kind of throw caution to the wind, and an independent foreign policy means that we have no meaningful relationships with other countries. I just say too that previous Governments have had the opportunity to introduce autonomous sanctions legislation. The previous Government did consider it at the time of Russia's last invasion into Ukraine, when it annexed the Crimean Peninsula, but it decided not to. It had a majority. It could have done, but it did not do so, because it was as conscious as this Government is of the consensus that has governed foreign relations and the way this country governs its foreign relations.
But we stand with the rest of the world, and I rise to express my incredible admiration and support for our Minister of Foreign Affairs, the Hon Nanaia Mahuta, and the way she has conducted herself in that office, in all respects. But in relation to this conflict, it has been as you would expect from a New Zealand foreign affairs Minister: measured, appropriate, gauged against what our likeminded countries and partners do around the rest of the world, and to take proper action. And having seen that the United Nations General Assembly is capable of expressing its opposition to the conduct of Russia, it is right that we follow that and that we take appropriate actions, and that's what this bill does. So, on that note, I commend this bill to the House.





SIMON O'CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): Thanks, Madam Speaker. It's good to be moving relatively swiftly with this bill, and, a bit like the Hon Gerry Brownlee, we're looking forward to the committee stage to raise a few questions. I think I want to signal, from my side, there'll only be a couple of key questions that I want to draw out. It's going to be an interesting balance tonight between, obviously, scrutiny under urgency but making sure that the bill is passed. Because I will echo what I said in the first reading: I think there have been missed opportunities in the past for New Zealand to implement a piece of legislation like this. Again, not specific to any one country, but to adopt that autonomous sanction, or a Magnitsky-type legislation.
I just wanted to pick up on a couple of points that have been raised by members. I think at one level this is a significant departure if we buy the idea of an independent foreign policy. I sort of don't, actually. I think New Zealand—we'll often give lectures at the university on this. I think it's a hard argument to make any more. New Zealand is very much drawn along by the geostrategic winds, be it our traditional allies or the likes of our trading partners. So we will try to act independently, but we are under heavy, heavy influence. And so we can make an independent judgment on those, but I don't think we just stand alone. To further echo this, what we're doing tonight is not new. This is not New Zealand going out on a limb. This has not even been unilateral or bilateral. New Zealand is simply following suit of so many other countries, liberal democracies in particular. So many other countries already have Magnitsky-type laws in play, which they've been able to swiftly deploy, and it will be interesting to see, once this one's passed, just how New Zealand's sanctions align with other countries, such as our friends in the UK or Canada, for example; Australia, for sure. So that's important.
There's also been, and rightly, a lot of discussion about describing this war as illegal, and it absolutely and abundantly is. But I think it's important, certainly for me, to say it wouldn't matter even if it were not illegal; this is an unjust and wrong war. It's immoral. So even the legality is not the key point here. First and foremost, it's just plain wrong.
And I've been disappointed—I mean, people are allowed to express their views, but as they have over recent days, picking across social media trying to make excuses, saying, well, this side did this and this agreement's been broken here or there. I mean, these are all good, interesting points. But at the end of the day, one country, Russia, is lobbing shells, custom munitions, and other ordnance into cities. They said not since 1945—in fact, I think Kharkov was last shelled in 1944, as they pushed the Nazis out. And now the Russians are back again. They're just shelling, in a sense, their own people. It's just madness.
And then there's one other thing I just think needs to be put on the record. There's a number of people rightly very happy with where things are at the moment, militarily, but a word of caution—from a layman; granted. Russian war doctrine is to use more and more force. When things don't go their way, they drop more ordnance. It gets worse. And that's why, despite the delay, it's time that we're putting that through here tonight, because I think, you know, these sanctions will have to ramp up. Again, to be a pop psychologist—and I'll probably get into trouble for this—someone like Putin is a lunatic, and when he gets pushed into a corner, when he gets desperate—because all of this is about his image—he's going to lash out even further. He's going to lash out even further. And so we need to have good, strong sanctions.
I really just want to stress to those who, rightly, want to ensure that the multilateral order continues: we absolutely want to engage and respect the UN where we can. Well, actually, it's not even that. We want to just respect the UN, period. But I don't think us passing a bill like this makes us act unilaterally. We are doing it with so many others. And I want to point out too that it's, in my mind, not just the Security Council which is failing. I think the whole UN can fail as well. I turn my mind back to the vote that was made, I think, about two years ago, around Hong Kong, or the national security laws. Fifty-three countries voted in favour with China to say that these national security laws, crushing Hong Kong's democracy, destroying the freedom of the press, leading to people that I know—and I'm not going to mention them by name, because that'll get them in even more trouble with the CCP, but they were arrested. They've been arrested for simply turning up, or protesting, or having a yellow umbrella, or whatever. But the key point is 53 nations in the UN General Assembly voted for the national security law, voted against democracy. I think that's shameful. It doesn't therefore say the UN is of no use. It certainly says the UN needs reform. But I think it, for me, illustrates very clearly the need, the absolute need, for us to have this sanctions bill.
The last couple of points—and, look, we'll probably get into the committee stage. It will be the place of how we respond to the question of cyber-security, or cyber-incursions. Again, probably always risky putting things on the Hansard record, but I think we're going to see an increase in cyber-issues, shall we say, and tit for tat. And, you know, we already have issues of non-State and State actors deploying these sort of tactics, and I think, unfortunately, Russia's a very strong purveyor of them. We need to be able to ensure that this law can respond.
The final part, drawing back to the whole question around Magnitsky Acts: there's been some talking about the bill tonight being bespoke, and that's true. In some ways, we don't have to again be bespoke. New Zealand can learn and look overseas and see where some best practice is. I'm sure the Minister and her officials have drawn on that, as they too have from Gerry Brownlee's legislation. But New Zealand doesn't always have to do things in a unique way; sometimes off-the-shelf works. And so I will begin to conclude by once again waving the flag, if I will, for, you know, New Zealand to adopt Magnitsky legislation. I suppose I speak not only on behalf of Louisa Wall and myself as co-chairs of IPAC, the Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China, but my MP friends and senators across the globe, who would want me to say this, and I'm happy to. It's something their countries have taken up, and they would love us to do the same. But I welcome committee stage when we reach it.





Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Minister for Disarmament and Arms Control) (remote): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It's a pleasure to speak in support of this bill this evening. As always is the case with war, the impact is felt most severely by ordinary people and I know colleagues in the House tonight will have been watching online and watching on television and seeing the images of families and children uprooted in the face of explosive weapons going off in their urban neighbourhoods. The latest reports—I think two million people are fleeing across Ukraine's borders; half of that number are children. It's tragic, it's completely unnecessary, and it's absolutely essential at this point in time that the international community rallies to impose the maximum cost possible on President Putin for what is an egregious breach of the UN Charter and a betrayal of humanity.
I won't rehearse many of the arguments that colleagues have already been running through this evening, but I do want to observe that there's a long tradition of bipartisan cooperation in the whole area of foreign policy in New Zealand, and that's as it should be. But there are differences amongst us and there are differences between the parties in matters of emphasis. It was very clear to me, listening to the speech of the Hon Gerry Brownlee this evening, that he represents a tradition on the centre-right of politics that is less committed and less devoted, you might say, than we are on the left of politics to the institutions of the multilateral system of international law. 
There's a reason—there's a very good reason—that this Government is taking a thoughtful approach to the question of autonomous sanctions. That is because we have always—and in fact, successive Governments for a long, long time have—taken the view that the UN system is the appropriate place to have those discussions and to build coalitions and to use the might of sanctions to impose a cost on countries that transgress. 
Now it's obvious to everybody that for a member of the P5 like Russia to launch a completely unprovoked and unjustifiable invasion of its neighbour, to threaten the use of nuclear weapons and countless other breaches of international law over the last couple of weeks, makes a mockery of the UN system. It does, but it is within our capability to grasp some progress and hope for the future of the international system from the jaws of this tragedy. And we can see that in the way that the international community has rallied around: countries, businesses, international organisations. There's been a remarkable mobilisation across the planet of people determined to make Vladimir Putin pay. 
We can be part of that—and we must—and that is why we are bringing this bill to the House this evening. It should be a point of great satisfaction to us all that this House is unanimous in seeing it through. But—and there is a but—we must take an equally muscular approach to strengthening, buttressing, and reinvigorating the multilateral institutions and international law. That has to be the way forward because, if we don't, the world will be a much more dangerous place and there will be other Putins, there will be other invasions. 
So I stand in support of this bill. It is an excellent bill. It is allowing us to stand shoulder to shoulder with the international community in solidarity with the people of Ukraine, sending a very sharp message to President Putin that this invasion of Ukraine cannot be allowed to stand and the international community will make him pay a very, very significant price for it. Thank you, Mr Speaker.





Hon JAMES SHAW (Minister of Climate Change): Thank you, Mr Speaker. In this second reading debate, I just wanted to pick up on a few of the points that previous speakers have made in their comments and to just reflect on them both for the implications of this bill and potentially for a wider regime.
First of all, I wanted to endorse some of the words of the Hon Gerry Brownlee in his comments in the beginning of this reading, where he made a reference to the decision to impose sanctions even when it comes at some cost to one's self. The reason I wanted to endorse that was because that's when you actually get to know whether or not you're doing the right thing. If you're not prepared to impose sanctions because it could come at some cost to your own economy, then you can be pretty sure that you are not doing the right thing. You have to be prepared to stand up in times of challenge and controversy, not just times of comfort and convenience. 
One of the things that the Hon Gerry Brownlee also mentioned was in reference to bringing the General Assembly into the operative part of the bill. I know we will have an opportunity in the committee of the whole House to get into this a bit further but he did raise it in his comments in this reading where he said that the existing clause 8 already has adequate provision for the Minister to be able to consider thresholds. I understand his point. The challenge that we've got is, essentially, what it refers to—or what it does actually refer to—is the absence of sufficient United Nations Security Council action, which draws attention to the part the UN system that is dysfunctional rather than drawing attention to the part of that is functional, which is the General Assembly. As I said in my first reading speech, it's the General Assembly that is the much more inclusive consensus-based body and it has condemned, in the strongest possible way, the war that Russia is committing on its neighbour Ukraine.
The reason I wanted to raise this is because if we want a piece of legislation that reinforces the UN system, reinforces the multilateral system, we think that we should be trying to operationalise that in the text of the bill itself, not just drawing attention to the component where it is dysfunctional and where it isn't working. After all, as I said in my first reading speech, it's the Security Council dysfunction that has been used as an excuse by any number of countries, some of which we would regard as close friends and allies and deep trading partners to, essentially, opt out of the UN system and the multilateral system at all and do their own thing where they have wanted to. That's exactly the kind of the thing that we don't want to see more of. What we do want to see more of is New Zealand acting in concert with the international community and that should be our threshold; not a negative threshold of that system failing. So there was that point. I just wanted to endorse the words that the Hon Phil Twyford just made in his contribution just now, as well, where he also made explicit reference to the General Assembly.
A couple of members have raised points around urgency and absolutely we support urgency in this case, because it is clearly urgent. There's probably no better example of urgency that I've seen in this House. One of the ways that we have dealt with that recently, in relation to COVID, of course, is to have a post-enactment review, and that may be a way for this House to, at select committee, be able to draw on the views of experts, having put this bill into place but to be able to say for the sake of improvements in the future and any amendments that we might want to make to it that we have that opportunity.
The Victoria University law professor Geoff McLay today suggested that the regulations themselves could come back through the House in exactly the same way that we do with the COVID orders. So we've got a recent precedent where we have to act under urgency because COVID-19 is such a fluid situation and events change so quickly and the Government has needed to be able to move very quickly on those but there still needs to be parliamentary scrutiny at the same time. That would also be quite a good way of ensuring that there is parliamentary involvement and oversight as well.
The final thing that I just wanted to say in this part of the bill is: this is a humanitarian crisis. There are international laws and norms that are being violated. There are potential crimes against humanity, potential war crimes, and potential acts of genocide that are being perpetrated. It is not the time for partisan sniping about what could have or should have or would have happened at some point in the past. It really isn't. I would just encourage members to focus on the plight of the Ukrainian people as they are being bombed and shelled and driven out of their homes rather than to score petty partisan points when, frankly, this bill is one that we are all completely united on and want to get passed and want to be robust. Thank you, Mr Speaker.





BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Deputy Leader—ACT): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I stand this evening in support of the second reading of the Russia Sanctions Bill on behalf of the ACT party, and it is very important that we are passing this law tonight. The situation in the Ukraine is not only devastating for the people currently in Ukraine and those millions who have been driven from their homes to seek refuge in bordering countries but it is devastating for everybody who believes in liberal democracy around the world, that we could see the bullying actions of Vladimir Putin, not just stand at being bullying but turning into forms of unprovoked invasion in a liberal democracy. 
I want to take the time to acknowledge the bordering countries of Ukraine who have taken in up to 2 million refugees, currently, and I know it will rise, and they're doing a wonderful job in what is a humanitarian crisis. Our Government has been slow to act. I know James Shaw just previously said we shouldn't talk about the things that have passed, we should only talk about this point on, and towards the future, but it is true that those other countries are playing their part by taking in people who don't have homes, people who are running, scared of potentially losing their lives, let alone their freedoms. And yet we are still waiting for the Minister to know whether we can even have Ukrainian Kiwis' family members come here so that they can be supported, not just to go across the border but to be able to be with their family members, reunited here. 
I also want to acknowledge the president of the Ukraine, Zelenskyy. He has done a fantastic job in uniting the people of Ukraine behind a single message to stand and fight for democracy, and stand and fight for their freedoms. And I think it's in times like these that I'm reminded, actually, of something that I said in my maiden statement, which I never expected would come back around so fast. I reflected at that time on my grandfather having lived through Nazi-occupied Holland, and I had heard many stories about the atrocities that happened at that time, and I said that we should never repeat them again. 
The walls of this Chamber here remind us of the sacrifices that people make in times of war, for the freedom and lives not only of themselves but for their fellow men and women in their countries and the countries of others. And these plaques here are a reminder that while we need Government to preserve our freedoms, concentrated power can threaten our freedoms. That is not felt any more strongly than right now, especially for the people of Ukraine who are taking up arms when they never thought they would. Can you just imagine overnight being told you need to obey all the laws and be a good, upstanding citizen and you've never even held a firearm before, let alone started creating your own makeshift bombs, and then, overnight, your president is asking you to do that for your country? I cannot even imagine that happening here. 
The issue is that Vladimir Putin has been able to get away with bullying for far too long. We have been in a world where a lot of the recently elected leaders preach a lot about kindness, and they pretend that we can solve every problem with just a smile, and talking about being kind to one another. Well, I'm afraid that that does not work when you are met with a dictator. We actually need the ability to hit them where it hurts. That's the only way they will respond, because we need to be very, very clear: this is not a war against Ukraine; this is a war against democracy. And if Vladimir Putin wins in Ukraine, it will not be the end. Liberal democracy is under threat, not just in Ukraine but around the world, and we need to stand together for collective action. 
The United Nations Security Council has failed to allow us to do that in a multilateral situation that we have relied on for years and I hope that we can also rely on in the future. I hope this is not the end of multilateralism and the systems that we rely on to keep peace and security in the Asia-Pacific, for us here. But we also need to have the ability to create economic sanctions and to hurt bullies when they threaten liberal democracy. That's why we need to pass this law tonight, so that all of the other countries that have passed sanctions unilaterally know that we will stand with them. That we will stand, not as a weak link in the West but as their fellow friend and somebody who will pull our own weight. 
We need to pass this law not just for the Ukrainians, although that is extremely important. It is for all of the others that may come in the future, and that's why this law doesn't actually go far enough. It is specific to Russia. We need to make sure that if another country does this in the future, like China to Taiwan, they know that we will have their back too, that this will not just be the end, it won't just be Russia. 
In conclusion, we have been slow to pass this framework. We should have had it ready to go. We should have known that something like this was going to happen, especially with the veto powers of the Security Council. It's not just Russia who has that veto. We need to live in a reality where we acknowledge that the world is messy. You can't just, you know, smile at a dictator and everything will be fine. We need to use muscle. We need to stand strongly, and we need to condemn the actions of Russia, not with words but with real actions. Thank you, Mr Speaker. 





IBRAHIM OMER (Labour) (remote): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It's an absolute pleasure to rise in support of this bill, the Russia Sanctions Bill. I also thank the Minister, the Hon Nanaia Mahuta, for the excellent work on bringing this bill to the House.
This is an unprecedented bill, introduced under urgency to deal with unprecedented circumstances. Russia's attack on Ukraine is unprovoked aggression; therefore it's against the values we rely on for our own peace, security, democracy, human rights, and the international rules-based system. The war on Ukraine is not a Russian war. I do believe it's wrong to characterise it as such. Perhaps that's what Putin and his friends want us to believe: that Russia is in a war against Ukraine. We need to call it what it is. It's a war that's been carefully designed, planned, and is being waged by Putin and his powerful friends around him. In fact, the brave people of Russia are rejecting this war, and we've seen demonstrations on the streets of Moscow and other cities saying no to war, and we have seen how Putin and his security apparatus has responded by crushing them. It's a personal war for Putin, because Putin is seeking glory, and he wants to be a Caesar of the new Russia, or perhaps even bring back the glory days of the USSR era time. And nothing will stop him unless we do.
We've heard a lot of concerns about this bill coming late to this House. I'd like to push back on that, like my friends did as well. I think the Government and the Minister did a fantastic job in bringing this bill in a record time, in fact. I think other parts of the international community—what we are doing his here is right. The timing is right. We just need to keep doing what we're doing.
I just want to spend my last minute talking about the war and its victims. We have seen on TV screens that already thousands of civilians have died by Putin's army's indiscriminate bombardment of cities and civilian targets. Two million have already become refugees and are fleeing to neighbouring countries. Amid all this chaos and the sadness, it's heart-warming to see the international community coming together to push back on Putin. I know that Putin is now regretting his actions. He's being hit hard by sanctions, and this is probably going to let the Russian people stand up to him. Even his oligarch friends might turn against him as well. The international community needs to keep the pace, and we must keep punishing Putin until he backs away from this madness.
At the end, I want to also acknowledge the brave people of Ukraine and the way they are fighting, their fighting spirit against evil, and I know that Putin and his friends underestimated the brave people of Ukraine. I commend their bravery and their fight against evil. At the end, I want to acknowledge our Ukrainian community here in New Zealand. Like many other MPs, I've been getting a lot of emails and messages from them. Tonight, we're telling them that we're standing with you, side by side. We're standing with you in your fight for democracy. We're standing with your people, with your Government, and you are not alone. Tonight, this bill, if we can pass it tonight—this bill is a good bill. As a part of the international community, we are doing our part and more. We just need to keep doing what we're doing. This bill is a good bill. It's a good night. I commend it to the House.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ian McKelvie): Our next call is a five-minute call—the Hon Mark Mitchell





Hon MARK MITCHELL (National—Whangaparāoa) (remote): Thank you, Mr Speaker, and look, I hope that the previous speaker, who I respect a lot, Ibrahim Omer, is right in terms of President Putin being able to see through the red haze of madness and understand just what he's up against in terms of international will and the international community and how they've come behind and are supporting the people of Ukraine. I hope that that does cut through that haze and he understands and he rapidly starts to step backwards. On that point, and I'll be very brief, I hope this bill—and we've had an assurance tonight in the House by the Minister, the Hon Nanaia Mahuta, that this bill will extend to any nation that is providing support—or the sanctions will extend to any nation that is providing support to Russia. 
I think it was the Hon Phil Twyford that mentioned Belarus and that the Russians had very kindly offered fleeing refuges safe passage through Belarus. Let's not forget that Belarus has been used as a place for the Russians to deploy troops. They've taken over bases there, they have aircraft placed out of Belarus, and I would like to see that if the international community decides that sanctions are in order, this bill would be able to cover countries such as Belarus or any countries that are providing assistance and support to President Putin and Russia. Thank you, Mr Speaker.





INGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri): I won't repeat comments made by other members about the harm to Ukrainians, and also to Russians, actually. All our hearts are with them. I really just want to make a couple of points, and one is around multilateralism. I don't accept that this bill actually threatens multilateralism. Autonomous sanctions, by their nature, are a form of collective action, and they only work when a number of countries actually use them. So I do echo the comments around the United Nations Security Council, and I refer to my predecessor in Dunedin, the former Prime Minister Peter Fraser, who was right in voting against a Security Council veto in the 1940s, all those years ago. It would be remiss of me not to acknowledge that. 
I actually think that the previous speaker, Mark Mitchell, was right when he said in the first reading that diplomacy is probably the only way out of this terrible situation: finding a way for Putin to withdraw, taking into account his complex and stubborn personality. I'm sure that's how we all hope and pray this will end. When that is said and done, these sanctions will have played their part, so I do hope that Ukrainians are energised by that, both those who we see in the pictures on the TV—and I acknowledge the role of the media in bringing them to us—and also those who are fighting for their country, fighting for their lives, and fighting for the future of their children.





TANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North): Thank you, Mr Speaker. While the eyes of the world are on Eastern Europe and the actions of Russia upon the sovereign State and their neighbour Ukraine, right now I think of our local Ukrainian community here in Aotearoa New Zealand who, whilst some distance from home, have experienced much pain over recent weeks as their thoughts turn to their family members and their loved ones, as it should. That's why it's important for the Parliament, I believe, tonight to be united in passing this law under urgency because it signals to them that we are with them. So I will take a short call and I commend this bill to the House.
Motion agreed to.
Bill read a second time.





ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ian McKelvie): I declare the House in Committee for consideration of the Russia Sanctions Bill.
In Committee
Parts 1 to 4 and clauses 1 and 2
KIERAN McANULTY (Chief Whip—Labour): I seek leave for all parts to be taken as one debate.
CHAIRPERSON (Ian McKelvie): There's no objection. 
Members, the House is in committee on the Russia Sanctions Bill. I remind members that they are able to participate remotely. If you're on the Zoom and you want to take a call, please type "call" into the chat. You should also use the chat if you want to raise a point of order. If we receive new tabled amendments, I'll advise members so they can refresh the House papers page to see the new amendments. Finally, it would be helpful for members to ask multiple questions, if they have them, of the member in charge during their call. 
The question is that Parts 1 to 4 stand part.





Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (National): Look, my question relates initially to Part 2, which is "Sanctions", which is the most important part. I just wonder if the Minister might be able to expand a little bit more on clause 8(1): "The Minister may recommend that regulations be made under section 9 only if the Minister is satisfied that the regulations are appropriate to respond to threats to the sovereignty or territorial integrity of Ukraine or another country." How broad is that?
The second question I have, since we're asking—are we doing that, Mr Chair? Are we asking them all in sequence so we can get a more expedited process? 
CHAIRPERSON (Ian McKelvie): That would be the best option.
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: My second question relates to the issue of sanctions being brought against countries that assist Russia in their efforts to overthrow the Ukraine. We already know that Belarus is one of those countries. That's clearly in sights and will be subject to sanction, but what would be the bounds of that? 
We're seeing at the moment the Russian economy collapse, we're seeing the rouble fall through the floor, and we're seeing, now, sanctions against the import of oil products—fossil fuels, effectively—out of Russia via the US. That, I'm sure, is going to be quickly followed by others. You've seen the European Union today move to substantially reduce their dependence on Russia with a whole pull-out period of about two years. If that is replaced by someone else, does that trigger the sanctions regime? 
So those are the two questions I've got at this point. There may be another after Mr Shaw speaks. 





Hon JAMES SHAW (Minister of Climate Change): Thank you, Mr Chair. My question to the Minister of Foreign Affairs is around a couple of things. First of all, in relation to something I was mentioning in the second reading speech around the possibility of a post-enactment review, I do want to recognise that the Minister, after consulting with Golriz Ghahraman on behalf of the Green Party, has brought in a full review at two years, and we greatly appreciate that. As with any bill that's passed under urgency, of course, though, there may be things in it that actually trip us up in the very near term, in the immediate period, where we actually want to be really effective with this, and I wonder if she might support a post-enactment review at select committee just to kind of give it a good working over and to just see if there is anything in here which could cause us trouble within the two-year time period, and particularly over the course of the coming days and weeks as the situation in Ukraine unfolds. So there's that.
The other one that I wanted to test whether she was open to is whether regulations might come back through the House in a manner similar to how the COVID regulations have done. 
The third—which I canvassed right at the very beginning, of course—is that I wanted to test her support for Supplementary Order Paper 138 in the name of Golriz Ghahraman, which is to include, after clause 8(3) on page 7, after line 22: "Resolutions of United Nations General Assembly (4) The Minister must also have regard to relevant resolutions of the United Nations General Assembly." The reason, as I mentioned in the second reading, for that is that we want to reinforce the parts of the multilateral system that are working and that specifically in this particular case have condemned the Russian aggression in Ukraine in the strongest possible way, rather than just the bit that isn't working, which is the Security Council in this case. 
So I just wanted to ask the Minister for a response around those.





SIMON O'CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): I'll try to keep these brief as I'm conscious of time. The first is to ask the Minister or, through her, her officials where the place of family members comes in. The bill is quite clear about individual persons, as I've read it. What about their family members, because, obviously, the transfer of assets and so forth can apply to them. So, just to be clear: whether or not family members of those sanctioned—so Vladimir's family or families, for example, or Lavrov's and others—are included. That's the first question.
The second—and I think it's been intimated around the whole place—is Belarus. I; it's maybe just a statement from my side that they're explicitly guilty in this space and, in some ways, require an explicit statement. It's in Part 2, and it's more to give me some certainty. There seems to be an absence around cyber-incursions. It's very clear from the sanctions bill around almost the physical attacks on territory and so forth, which trigger the sanctions. Can the Minister give us some surety that if cyber-warfare was deployed, including against New Zealand, this piece of legislation would enable us to move forward?
The third part is just some confidence around clause 8, around respecting the UN. I think it's important that we do respect the UN—that's clause 8(3). Just some confidence we're not going to get mired in UN processes, and that "Oh well, they're considering things. They're still having a chat about it. We'll wait." I just want to know that we can still act relatively swiftly.
Finally, and it will be no surprise to her, because I've talked about it twice now so far: will she consider Magnitsky legislation in the future? Thank you.





Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Minister of Foreign Affairs): Thank you, Mr Chair. No particular order, but thank you for the questions that have come through. 
Firstly, in relation to the scope of the bill and the way in which other countries may well be considered, I would point the member to both clause 3 and clause 8(2)(a) and (b). Effectively, when we drafted the bill, it was intended to be quite wide in its intent, so Belarus was factored in when we drafted the bill because there was evidence of their support for the activities that were undertaken by the Putin regime. In terms of the broadness of the scope, there was also consideration that were the military incursion or invasion to extend to bordering countries of the Ukraine, perhaps we needed to provide scope for the inclusion of sanctions for those particular instances, as well. 
All the points that Minister Shaw raises in relation to the regulations coming back to the House: I think in the fullness of a broader autonomous sanctions regime, that is the basis upon which I think that type of an approach would be very useful. Because this is very limited and targeted, having the regulations go through the Regulations Review Committee will, I think, be satisfactory, but that is also why I've pointed to the public register, because that is a way of showing transparency around what ultimately gets considered and approved, and then enforced. 
On the issue of family members, I am advised that that is covered off in clause 10(2) of the legislation. There was always the thought that if evidenced, the ability to target Russian oligarchs is well placed, but in the event that perhaps family members and their activities by association needed to be considered, again, that was a matter that was factored into the drafting of the bill. 
I take the point, again, around the post-enactment review after a two-year period. Look, I live with optimism, but to the extent that these sanctions will still need to be around in two years' time, I suspect that the process that I'm undertaking in regards to a broader autonomous sanctions regime may well eclipse this particular legislation. 
So let me come back to the last question that Mr Simon O'Connor raised, which is what is the approach in terms of the Magnitsky type of model. It's my intention to steward through in the coming weeks—and it has always been a process for me—an approach to looking at our human rights tool kit and, within that context, where an autonomous sanctions regime would best fit. We would firmly locate human rights at the core of that approach, alongside the rest of the tool kit that New Zealand has available to it, but we would also modernise the way in which these sanctions can apply. The other key aspect to that approach is it would enable a fuller round of consultation and engagement, both with those who may be impacted but also from civil society, the legal fraternity, and the banking fraternity, in a more fulsome way. That will help develop that legislation. 
I'm trying to recall the other aspects of the questions. They—
Simon O'Connor: Cyber-security.
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: Cyber-security is covered off both in terms of clause 5, and if we go to clause 5—actually, read clause 3 and clause 5 in tandem—you will see that a service has been defined, and to the extent that we have "electronic service" and "communications service" there and, I guess, threaded through the range of other services, there is the aspect of cyber that is taken account of. Now, these are very complex issues, but I am assured that the breadth of the scope of those areas will enable us to deal with the issue of cyber. Now, I'm hopeful I covered off most of those questions.
On the issue of sanctions regarding oil, I'm not sure if I understood the question properly, and I apologise to the member if I have to ask you to repeat it. But, as we have already explained, we don't source our oil from Russia. However, it is inevitable that there will be significant downstream impacts. The conversation—and I'll relay it, I guess, in the spirit that I had heard some of the discussions around these types of sanctions applying and how it might recalibrate what is happening in Europe—is that it may well lead to a swifter recalibration of energy source use and actually moving towards a low-carbon type of opportunity, and that was very much within the European framing of conversations about the impact of sanctions regarding oil. 
I would hope, again, that these are all the things we have to have a serious conversation about. The scale of this war is so significant, and with the impact of the key resources that are exported out of Russia and, now, sanctions being placed on them, I would hope that several countries will use that as a significant motivation to accelerate towards a low-carbon economy so that we can see the shift very quickly. My worry, often, in this particular situation is that a lot of the investment will go towards military strengthening, and then we will see a backsliding on some of the undertakings that we just recently gave at COP26. These are the things that every country is balancing up as they, one, respond to the war but also try and think about how we as a community of countries still remain resilient in these very difficult times.
The last thing that I would like to just add by way of clarification of this approach to developing sanctions is it's not intended to be one go at it. We will evolve our sanctions as events happen, as we're gathering more intelligence, and as we're observing what's happening with our international partners. So while I take the point, for example, that our lists right now aren't comprehensive, Australia has updated their sanctions list over this brief period of time and they will continue to do so, as will we once this legislation passes through. 
The point of all of that is we have a more agile approach to developing sanctions. We have not, within primary legislation, defined the sanction; we've utilised the ability to determine our sanctions by regulation and in a way where with every regulation or every range of regulation, we can have thresholds that apply to that consideration as it gets passed to me for consent and to the Ministers for power to act. What that affords us as a country is for us to be in step, and you will have heard many of the presentations on this side of the House say that the whole approach that we're taking to our sanctions framework is to be in step with events as they occur but also in step with responses of other international partners as they are making their determinations.
I'll offer one insight. While I was up in Europe, the big conversation—and the invasion had not happened yet—was around what was the most swiftest way to send a message to Russia from the European Union, and, without a doubt, it was economic sanctions. Not all of the States across the European Union were of one mind about what they could do bilaterally in terms of Russia, but they were all of one mind that if they took a progressive approach to economic sanctions over a fairly successive and quick period of time, that in itself would start to bite down on Russia. I do think that we need to consider that our approach sits alongside other countries and their effort to send Russia a message.





Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (National): Just reflecting on the comments the Minister has just offered the House, particularly on the nimbleness of the sanctions regime, you have the ability to go through lists etc. very, very quickly. If we look at the published list at the moment, it is very much a mirror of the US, Canada, Australia, and the United Kingdom, but for the name of one oligarch who does have assets here in New Zealand who has been the subject of some media speculation, I'm wondering if the Minister could tell the House: has the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade (MFAT) made an assessment at this stage that says that particular gentleman is not connected to the regime of Vladimir Putin?
Secondly, would it be part of the assessment that's made about Russians, their activities in New Zealand, and their assets in New Zealand, as to whether there was a repatriation of funding that was finding its way back to Russia at a time when the whole world is trying to stifle that economy? If they were repatriating money earned in New Zealand back to Russia in large volumes—I'm not talking about a family member sending some money to another family member; I'm talking about large-scale business activity—or if New Zealand was being used as a funnel for other entities around the world through one of those people, would that see a re-change or is that assessment part of what MFAT will be doing?
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Minister of Foreign Affairs): Yes, thank you for the question. Without going into the detail of particular individuals: once enacted, the law will enable the information-sharing and intelligence-gathering aspects of being able to determine who is covered by the sanction. While there has been a lot of speculation, certainly, in the public and potentially as a result through media channels as to certain individuals, what the bill provides is a legal basis upon which the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade can undertake its role to be able to identify persons, their assets, and any entities that they may have an interest in to be covered by our sanctions.
The other element—and the member well knows this because it is a feature of his own previously drafted bill—is that the bill provides for assets to be frozen. So that will mean that once that determination and that threshold has been passed, that individual has been identified, and the full determination of their interests has been identified, then the sanction will cover those aspects that he speaks to.





CHAIRPERSON (Ian McKelvie): The question is that Golriz Ghahraman's amendment to clause 8 as set out on Supplementary Order Paper 138 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.
Parts 1 to 4 and clauses 1 and 2 agreed to. 
Bill to be reported without amendment.
House resumed.
CHAIRPERSON (Ian McKelvie): Madam Speaker, the committee has considered the Russia Sanctions Bill and reports it without amendment. I move, That the report be adopted.
Motion agreed to.
Report adopted.





Third Reading
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Minister of Foreign Affairs): I rise to make a brief contribution on the third reading of the Russia Sanctions Bill. 
I move, That the Russia Sanctions Bill be now read a third time. 
In my brief contribution, I want to acknowledge all the members who have contributed to this debate, and in a way that has acknowledged the urgency with which we are putting through legislation which, for the moment and given the context, is a necessary objective, because we are at the very sharp end of observing a war that is unjustified and unprovoked and we are seeking to not only express our discontent with that approach but actually show our support and our solidarity with the international community around introducing a targeted sanctions regime.
Can I acknowledge from the outset Andrew Williams from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, who was responsible for drafting this bill and worked very hard on it, supported by Nathan Hollis and others. Sadly, Andrew and his family have COVID and he was unable to join me at this particular point of the debate, but for his work, and the work of the Parliamentary Counsel Office, I'd like that to be acknowledged. He was working through the wee hours to ensure that we had something that was fit for purpose. 
The next point I'd like to make is, really, to the good-thinking Kiwis of New Zealand. Whether or not they understand the fullness of the legislative process, the intent has to be conveyed. The intent is that we target those who support Putin's regime and the military action that's being undertaken. We will use the sanctions process to be able to target those persons and entities, and their assets and services, who may be involved in that type of activity. But this is not intended to attack or target every person of Russian ancestry. I want to really highlight that. That will be really important for all members of this House as we connect not only to members of the Ukraine community but also to members of the Russian community who are just as distressed about what they're observing over in that part of the world. 
The other aspect that I'd like to highlight is that the reason we undertook to ensure that the legislative framework established sanctions by way of regulation was to remain agile. Yes, it's a broad legislative framework to impose regulations, but necessarily so. It will enable the regulatory process to have thresholds met, which is set out in the legislation.
A lot of discussion has been raised about our broader stance—our broader stance in terms of multilateralism. I too believe that there is an important role for multilateralism, and we need to strengthen the institutions of the United Nations. The UN Charter must be fit for purpose for this time, as well as the discussion around the role of the United Nations Security Council and the right of veto. We hold fast to long-held views here—certainly on this side of the House—that the veto that can be exercised can be counterproductive, and in this instance that has been shown to be true. 
So we advocate for the reform of those institutions in a way that strengthens, ultimately, our ability to say as a small nation in the Pacific that we uphold international law, we support multilateralism, we support the institutions that advocate for peace and human rights, and we will do our bit. And do our bit we have.
And if there's any sense in this House that we haven't done enough or we haven't done it fast enough, I invite you to really go into some of the commentary of the approaches of other countries. Singapore, for example, have taken recent steps to take a position on this issue in this instance because they see it as quite significant; whereas, previously, they didn't have the tools available to them. Switzerland has exercised a position when they have formerly held a position of neutrality. So the war that is being undertaken in Ukraine by Russia, because it is unprovoked and unjust, has forced a number of countries to revisit their former positions and respond in a very different way. So I wouldn't beat ourselves up too much. Yes, we can always do better, yes, we can always do more, but in comparison to what's happening around the world, we are doing our bit.
And let me just come to humanitarian aid, because this is my biggest worry. Having met with the International Red Cross and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees to get a very clear-eyed view of their assessment of the situation, one of the comments that they made in relation to the way in which New Zealand provides humanitarian aid is that we always provide humanitarian aid with the view that we rely on those organisations and their footprint to undertake the role that we know that they can undertake for the humanitarian response, unlike other countries. Other countries often tag their humanitarian aid to certain aspects of what those organisations provide. So they use New Zealand in many regards as an exemplar of a country who does its bit in a way that supports these credible institutions to rally an international humanitarian effort in response to a range of things around the world, and I don't think we should take that lightly or, I guess, underestimate how those organisations see our contribution.
Lastly, I am critically mindful that this bill would not pass without the full support of the House, and it is a different kind of a bill. And while we've all had our differing views on aspects of who did what when and all of that and what could have been done better, I do respect the fact that on the big issues we've seen fit to come together and show our solidarity in this regard, and I thank you all.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ian McKelvie): The question is that the motion be agreed to. 





Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (National): Just picking up, really, from where the Minister left off, we are of course supporting this. For the bill to have got through this stage fairly rapidly indicates the will of the House, I think. In his speech earlier, the Hon James Shaw mentioned that we often, when bills are put through quickly, find after a period of time that something is not quite right with them and we need to come back. And, while I think you can put all the belts and braces you like in a bill, that inevitably can happen—I hope it doesn't here; I hope it's as straightforward as it appears to be to all of us.
In recent news bulletins, there's been some talk of people from both Russia and the Ukraine in New Zealand suffering the sorts of taunts and abuse from people because of what's happening in Russia. I hope that stops, because those people have chosen to make their life here in this country. They've chosen to move away from the very regime that is currently causing the problem, and, in the case of Ukrainian citizens, they're victims and most certainly should not come under that degree of pressure. I say this also because I have two great-nephews who are half Russian. Having known the family involved, I know this is certainly not their thinking, or anything like it. So I do hope that New Zealanders see sense and recognise that by this bill, where we are taking, essentially, what will be economic moves, sanctions, against Russia, we are making a contribution to the ending of this hostility.
I hope that the regulations that come are going to be strong enough. I hope that there's, perhaps, some discussion about them before they are promulgated, so that we can all know exactly what the thinking has been behind getting those regulations together. I don't want to prolong the point tonight. It's, I think, important that it is passed before the House rises. Can I just say that we are delighted that this bill is making this progress. We have said that we think there is more that can be done in the future, and I appreciate that the Minister has indicated that she wishes to advance some work programmes around those concepts. We, of course, will be willing to work with her as appropriate for the development of those future bills. I look forward to the conclusion of this debate and the enactment of this Russia Sanctions Bill.





Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment) (remote): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Much has been said about the bill, and I'm not going to take the time of the House by repeating what has already been said except to say that this is the clearest breach that we've seen of the rules-based order in a long, long time by a superpower who, having breached the international rule of law by invading their neighbour, then used their powers at the Security Council to block any sanctions through the United Nations. It's a terrible set of events and justifies the bill that's before us in respect of economic sanctions.
Before I finish, I would just recount my view that I think there is a good chance that sanctions will have a substantial effect on Russia and therefore on the future of Russia and indeed on their ability to afford to embark upon wars such as this. I recall the fall of the Soviet Union was preceded by their sharp economic decline. The Russian economy has been mismanaged for many decades. They have suffered autocracy after autocracy, a tsarist State followed by a inhumane Bolshevik State followed by a kleptocracy which has stripped out money from the people into the pockets of the elites in Russia in a way that I think we in New Zealand find deplorable after all of those years. 
Despite the massive size of the Russian country, which spans from bordering Alaska in the east all the way across to Europe in the west—it is one of the largest countries in the world—its GDP is one and a half trillion US dollars per annum, a mere fraction of the German GDP of four trillion dollars, or just under, only the fifth largest economy in Europe. And in contrast, the US GDP is 21 trillion US dollars—all those are with US dollars figures. The GDP per capita in Russia is 57th in the world, notwithstanding their huge resource base and their enormous land area and the cleverness of their people. So the economy is mismanaged. 
These sanctions will make it even harder for them to make their way in the world. And I hope that they will exact a price for the injustice that Russia is inflicting upon the Ukraine and for the knock-on effects on the undermining of the international rule of law and the world order. I again commend this bill to the House. 





SIMON O'CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): If it's picking up a little bit of what others have said, I mean, as the rubble flies the rouble falls. We are living in very dangerous times and where things go is going to be very hard to see. But New Zealand, I think, through the Minister and her officials, can be proud of the work that's been done tonight and New Zealand aligning itself with an important piece of human rights legislation. So, through the Speaker, to the Minister and her officials, thank you for the work you're doing, but I also acknowledge Gerry Brownlee and the work that he'd done prior as well, and many others who have been involved.
I'm very pleased to hear the Minister in the committee of the whole House speak that she will explore wider autonomous sanctions and Magnitsky laws. She knows me well enough—I won't stop asking, along with others, but I think that's incredibly heartening. In the interests of time, I'll bookend this speech by referencing what I did at the very start of my first speech in the House, which is to acknowledge the Ukrainian people but also the Russian people; both suffer under tyrants and autocrats, and our thoughts remain with them in this terrible and tragic time.





Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Minister for Disarmament and Arms Control) (remote): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I too will keep my contribution short, but I want to just really add a postscript to this debate about the disarmament implications of Vladimir Putin's invasion of the Ukraine, and what it means for the work that New Zealand so wholeheartedly has contributed to internationally, over a number of decades now, arguing for peace and disarmament, and strengthening the place of international law. Russia's got almost 6,000 nuclear warheads and Vladimir Putin, when he made his threat to use nuclear weapons by putting them on high alert, sent a shock wave around the world. Without doubt, his words were designed to create uncertainty and instability. Belarus has, in recent days, renounced its non-nuclear status through a highly questionable referendum. This has added fuel to the fire. 
Not only that, we've seen Russian forces using cluster munitions. These weapons open in mid-air, firing and dispersing dozens or even hundreds of smaller sub-munitions and bombs. They're inherently an indiscriminate weapon, and they're banned by 110 countries, including New Zealand. The Russians are using rockets, and mortar, and other explosive weapons in highly populated urban areas. We know that 90 percent of the casualties in this kind of warfare are civilians. 
So on so many different fronts, the invasion of Ukraine, and the way that the Russians are prosecuting this war, they are driving a bus through international humanitarian law and so many of the things that we in New Zealand have worked for and treasure in the international community. These rules and institutions, they matter. We rely on them not only when conflict occurs but also to reduce tensions and stop war in the first place, and that's why it's so important that the country comes together and this House comes together to pass this sanctions bill that will tell President Putin, alongside the great majority of countries of the international community, that his actions will have real and severe consequences. 





Hon JAMES SHAW (Minister of Climate Change): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I do hope that we can pass this bill into law tonight, and so I will not speak for long. I do want to start by thanking the Hon Nanaia Mahuta for her openness to the points that we've raised tonight, and, in fact, others right across the House in terms of both this bill and any possible future, wider autonomous sanctions regime.
Vladimir Putin's regime is a chauvinistic, nationalistic kleptocracy, unsatisfied with looting its own country and its own people, which now wants to turn back the clock to the days of the former Russian empire. I have spent a bit of time in Moscow, and in my experience the Russians are a wonderful people. They're warm. They're smart. They're philosophical. They've made a huge contribution to human civilisation, and my heart goes out to them that they have been so poorly served by their own political masters for nearly their entire history.
But my heart goes out even more to the Ukrainian people who are suffering so much at the hands of Putin's murderous, paranoid regime. We can only hope that this war ends soon and that the aspirations of the Ukrainian people to live in a safe and secure modern democracy that is a part of the community of European nations—that is all they wanted, and that is what Putin is punishing and murdering them for as we speak.
For all of the diversity and the political difference represented here, tonight this House is speaking with one voice. We stand with the whole world in saying that Putin's war must end.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ian McKelvie): I call the Hon—I've promoted you. I call David Seymour.





DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): All members are honourable, Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of ACT in support of this third reading. As others have said, I think it's important we get this done before Parliament's rules require the House to lift at 10, so I'll be very brief. Brooke van Velden, our foreign affairs spokesperson and deputy in ACT, has, I think, done a very good job in two excellent speeches in laying out ACT's position. If I could pick up on a few of those themes.
First of all, it's crystal clear that there is a case of right and wrong here. There is a liberal democracy, a self-determining country that was harming nobody that chose to consider coming closer to other countries that share those values, as we share them, and has been illegally, barbarically, and thuggishly attacked. There's no question where we stand, and I'm proud as a New Zealander that there's no question in this House of where our values stand in such a conflict.
I reiterate what a few people have said, that I have many Russian-born Kiwi friends. I've known a lot of Russians throughout my life. Some of them have reported to me, even in just the last couple of weeks, that they face discrimination. And another thing that's clear, as James Shaw said very well, is they are wonderful people. It's not their fault that the politicians that they have are even worse than the ones that you find in other countries. It is not their war; it is Vladimir Putin's war. And it's a wonderful thing that the world is putting the walls up and shutting them down and shutting them out. In fact, tonight, Vladimir can't even get a Big Mac. And that is a very important signal that has been sent not just by Governments but by citizens and companies around the world: that there is clearly right and wrong and we don't tolerate their behaviour.
There was a time where I think it was fair to say that New Zealand appeared to be the weakest link in the West. You saw it in The Wall Street Journal and published around the world that perhaps our country could be the place where those trying to assist Vladimir Putin could filter their ill-gotten gains for that purpose. Well, tonight Parliament unites to ensure that we will have the legislative tools to prevent that from happening.
Finally, we now find ourselves, as a country, involved in a clash of civilisations and a clash of ideals, and it shouldn't be lost on us that as the country that most depends on the ideals of a rules-based order of collective security it is critical, as Brooke van Velden said, that we play our part and really re-evaluate what this change in the world order means for us, that we ensure that we are prepared militarily for no longer living in what Helen Clark called a "benign strategic environment", and that we are prepared strategically and logistically for a world where the supply chains—that used to cross borders so long as there was a willing buyer and a willing seller—may be divided by geopolitical considerations in a way we haven't had to think about since the Cold War. And when you think about things like fertiliser, for an agricultural economy like New Zealand, that stuff becomes practical. So I urge our Government to think very hard about New Zealand's overall strategy in the changing world that this wanton, barbaric violence has heralded over in Europe.
And, finally, as others have said, to the Ukrainian people, those who live amongst us in New Zealand and also those who are there defending their country—people who only two weeks ago were working out what to buy at the supermarket have had to pick up a rifle, flee their country and attack incoming tanks, people trying to take away their statehood, their sovereignty, and their lives. Our heart goes out to you. Our support is with you, and I hope that our Government will soon be showing that it is more than just words that we back you with. We should be backing you with weaponry, with sanctions, and with every ounce of willpower and resource that New Zealand can dispose for the purpose. We, finally, once again, support this Russia Sanctions Bill. Thank you, Mr Speaker.





GLEN BENNETT (Labour—New Plymouth): Kia ora, Mr Speaker, and I want to say thank you this evening to this Government. Thank you to this House for supporting this piece of important legislation. This piece of legislation, although it's many words on paper that we see and read every day, it's about lives. It's about human lives; it's about lived experiences.
In July 2002, 20 years ago this July, I had the privilege of being in Ukraine, spending a couple of weeks there, a small amount of time in Kyiv and then down in Donetsk, which, since 2014, has actually been at war with Russia. My time down there was significant, and in many ways my path into this House tonight was paved through my experiences with the Ukrainian people. There was poverty, there was real struggle, in the parts that I was in. It was hard to see, as someone who's spent their whole life living in New Zealand, the type of food, the type of clothing—or should I say the lack of food, the lack of clothing, and lack of access to different amenities. So to now see them at war, it's heartbreaking. To now look on the television and in the newspapers and see the images of places that I've been, that I've seen with my own eyes, it's heartbreaking. 
So, therefore, I support this piece of legislation, not for me or for us but for Eugenie, for Vera, for Boris, for Mikhail, for Alexander, and for all the other people that I met in my time in the Ukraine.





NICOLA GRIGG (National—Selwyn): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It's a pleasure to take a very brief call at this very important juncture in world history. While many are out there updating their Facebook status and changing their profile picture to reflect some kind of solidarity with the people of Ukraine, changing a law will actually change lives. This is the kind of action that will actually have tangible results.
While New Zealand is a very small global player, we are a country with an international reputation of being a fair-minded people. So, while late, we will now be able to lend our voice of condemnation to our international partners by taking action to implement sanctions against President Putin's regime. So with the passage of this bill tonight, Russians who have benefited from that regime will no longer find safe haven in our harbours, in our businesses, or in our financial institutions.
The National Party is pleased to support a bill that is largely reflective of the work of Gerry Brownlee, and we trust that, in its passing, we send a clear message to the world that we stand with Ukraine and we condemn in the strongest terms possible the actions of Vladimir Putin and his Government.





KIERAN McANULTY (Labour—Wairarapa): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I must take a very brief call on this pretty important debate. I follow the words of those who have been involved in the development of this bill, be they Opposition or Government members; members who have experience in this field, be they foreign affairs Ministers or former foreign affairs Ministers or members of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee.
But you don't need to be an expert to know why this bill is important, and you don't need to be an expert to know that what is happening in Ukraine is fundamentally wrong, however you look at it. I think that this House has sent a very clear message tonight that, on the whole, politics has been put to the side, and we're standing together as one to send a very clear message. The debate around a broader discussion on autonomous sanctions will come. We've put our various views on that to one side, and have concentrated on a very clear message that New Zealand will not stand aside without putting a stake in the ground and saying that we believe what Russia is doing in Ukraine is wrong.
And very quickly, I just want to say that I've thought about my grandfather a lot over the last few days—a prisoner of war in World War II for four years. Despite everything that he told me in the horrors of war, and despite everything that we've seen on the television screens, nothing could prepare us for the horror that is being experienced in Ukraine at the moment.
For the likes of Christine and Vladimir and the other constituents in the Wairarapa electorate from Ukraine with family there that are having sleepless nights worrying about those they love, I just want to say that I'm sure I speak on behalf of everyone in this House that we send you our best wishes and sincere hope that your loved ones will be returned safe, and that, where possible, they will be able to join you here in the peace and safety of New Zealand. I commend this bill to the House.





INGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri): A few weeks ago, I didn't know what the Ukraine flag looked like, and I imagine there are many members of this House who probably didn't as well, but we sure do now. I won't repeat the comments about the harm that Vladimir Putin has caused, except just to talk about the intergenerational trauma that this will cause, because it's not just about the civilian casualties and deaths; it's about families being separated, it's about refugees going to foreign-speaking countries, it's about people being torn away from loved ones and just being totally traumatised. So what we are doing tonight is small but important. We are joining our friends—and there are many of them—in condemning what Vladimir Putin has done, because he has changed the world order. And I challenge us to call this Vladimir Putin's war, and to not call it the war from Russia, so that we can look after those Russians here at home who are standing in solidarity with the Ukrainian community.
As we have come together tonight with a common purpose, and as we go forward in the future to consider a broader autonomous sanctions scheme, I think we can all reflect on the real and complex issues that face us around the sanctity of self-determination, our tolerance for human rights abuses both abroad and here, and our approach to supply chains, to modern slavery, to investment, and to values-based trade. How do we deal with foreign interference in our social media space? How do we show leadership once again in the disarmament space?
So I thank the Minister for the urgency and the way that she's conducted the safe passage of this bill through the House. I thank the other parties for their support. And all our thoughts tonight, I'm sure, remain with the people of Ukraine, both here but especially in their homeland.





Hon TODD McCLAY (National—Rotorua) (remote): Mr Speaker, thank you. Today we stand with the people of the Ukraine, who are fighting for their lives, for their freedom, for their country, and for their future. We join other like-minded countries in condemning this illegal Russian invasion through sanction. Today, this Parliament sends a clear message to Vladimir Putin: you are a tyrant. Withdraw your troops from the Ukraine. It is time for you to leave the world stage. 
I commend this bill to the House. 





VANUSHI WALTERS (Labour—Upper Harbour) (remote): Thank you, Mr Speaker. In my brief contribution, I want to reiterate, first, my genuine thanks to Mr Brownlee for his work last year from which this bill leads; to Minister Mahuta, both for bringing the bill to the House and for garnering cross-party support for this bill. And, then, I really want to end where I started, which was thinking about the conversations that I had with Ukrainian Aucklanders last Friday. I'll be speaking to some of them at the end of this week, as well. One of them spoke of his six-year-old in a bunker in Kyiv. Another one had his mother join us on the Zoom call from Crimea. She spoke of planes overhead, of tension, of uncertainty.
This is one step towards addressing the horrors of what is more than a breach of international law, but a breach of our ethics and our social contract. Kia kaha to those suffering as a result of Russia's and Belarus's actions. We stand with you. Just as there is House-wide support for the bill tonight, there has been a collective sentiment of outrage at the acts of Russia and Belarus, a collective sense of solidarity for those suffering at the hands of Putin's Government, a deep sense of care for our Ukrainian community here in Aotearoa, and, I think, a hopeful sense that we have more to discuss in the space of human rights and a broader sanctions regime, as well.
With that, I think there is a lot to be hopeful for in the coming months, as we discuss the next steps forward. I commend this bill to the House.
Motion agreed to.
Bill read a third time.





ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ian McKelvie): Before I adjourn the House, I just want to say what a privilege it was to sit and listen to the House tonight. It was amazing—thank you. 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (National): Point of order, Mr Speaker. Thank you, Mr Speaker. It's a serious thing. A number of people tonight have mentioned Magnitsky legislation. There is a wonderful podcast out there with Bill Browder, who is—
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ian McKelvie): I don't think that's a constructive point of order. 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: —seriously—the man who's pushed this legislation throughout the world. If people do want to know more about Magnitsky legislation, then I suggest they listen to the podcast on The Backroom of Politics. They'll find it very instructive. 
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ian McKelvie): The House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. tomorrow. 
The House adjourned at 9.57 p.m.