THURSDAY, 5 MARCH 2020
The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.
Karakia.
BUSINESS STATEMENT
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): Legislation to be considered by the House next week will include the committee stages of the Abortion Legislation Bill and the Taxation (KiwiSaver, Student Loans, and Remedial Matters) Bill, and the first readings of the Ahuriri Hapū Claims Settlement Bill, the Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products (Vaping) Amendment Bill, the Electoral (Registration of Sentenced Prisoners) Amendment Bill, and the Local Government (Rating of Whenua Māori) Amendment Bill. Following the conclusion of the debate on the Prime Minister's statement today, the first members' day of the year will take place next Wednesday, 11 March. A two-hour debate on the report of the Finance and Expenditure Committee on the Budget Policy Statement will also take place on that day. There'll be an extended sitting on the morning of Thursday, 12 March.
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam): Noting that we've now got to a point where if there are new bills introduced to the House for first reading, there's not sufficient time for a select committee to go through its normal phases or normal processes and return it to the House for consideration prior to the election, are we to anticipate that there'll be no new legislation introduced by the Government between now and the election, or are we in for significant bouts of urgency or extended sittings over the next couple of months?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): I think the member is labouring under a misapprehension that, in fact, the only way to send a bill to a select committee is for six months, and if you don't do that, you have to pass it through all stages under urgency, which, of course, was the pattern when he was the Leader of the House. On this side of the House, we have gone to great lengths to ensure that bills are sent to select committee for scrutiny, even if that sometimes means that the time frame that they are at select committee is a little shorter.





ORAL QUESTIONS
QUESTIONS TO MINISTERSQuestion No. 1—Prime Minister
1. Hon PAULA BENNETT (Deputy Leader—National) to the Prime Minister: Does she stand by all her Government's statements and actions?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Deputy Prime Minister) on behalf of the Prime Minister: On behalf of the Prime Minister, of course. 
Hon Paula Bennett: How long does she think there should be between a positive test of COVID-19 and the public being informed of the details?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: The answers to those questions we are leaving to medical experts and not making jaundiced political decisions about it.
Hon Paula Bennett: Well, why, then, did it take almost six hours after the Minister of Health confirmed a third case of COVID-19 on live television this morning for the Director-General of Health to provide any further details to the public?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Because the Government is acting in a responsible, timely manner and at the behest of the medical experts who are on the front line in this case, and we regret the attempt to sensationalise what is a problem that we in this country must all face together.
Hon Paula Bennett: Does she think, then, that it is at the behest of those medical experts that a Minister of Health makes an announcement on live television, and yet more details are not provided to the public for many hours afterwards?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Again, we do not intend to prosecute the correctness of the information to the public via only the media. Public statements will be made when the medical experts are certain of what they are saying. But I want to remind that member of what Siouxsie Wiles, a microbiologist, said, and she said this about Mr Bridges: "[It's] downright irresponsible during an outbreak such as this to undermine public confidence in the official response." And I agree with her.
Hon Grant Robertson: In light of that answer by the Deputy Prime Minister, what is his reaction—
SPEAKER: Order! The member will get it right: "by the Prime Minister".
Hon Grant Robertson: In light of that answer by the Prime Minister, what is his reaction to a member of the Opposition, Mr David Bennett—
SPEAKER: Order! Now I'm going to give the Minister of Finance one last chance to get it right.
Hon Grant Robertson: Has she seen reports of members of the Opposition—in particular, Mr David Bennett—encouraging people to panic buy, and does she think that is a responsible action?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Could I just reply on behalf of the Prime Minister and say that, yes, Mr Bennett, a National MP, has even told his constituents over radio to start "panic buying". Now, this is in circumstances where Michael Baker of the Department of Public Health at the University of Otago said that the handling of this issue has been exemplary. And here's the point: it would be laughable what Mr Bennett said, but the reality is that nobody in this country thinks such clowns should be in the next Government.
Hon Paula Bennett: Does he think it instils confidence in the public when the Minister of Health makes a statement on live TV in the morning, and yet it is then hours later that the actual facts are given to the public?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: On behalf of the Prime Minister, everybody over here, everybody watching this programme, is doing their darnedest to fathom out why that member is asking that question, as though it is of some significance.
Hon Member: That's not an answer.
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: It is an answer.
SPEAKER: I think the last bit of it might have been.
Hon Paula Bennett: Was the Deputy Prime Minister wrong when he said that the car "feebate" tax was "dead"?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: On behalf of the Prime Minister, I'm very pleased to confirm that the Deputy Prime Minister said no such thing. What he did say was that the claim being made by the National Party in their social media was an unadulterated porky. That's what you did say that the Deputy Prime Minister said, and in that sense he is totally correct.
Hon Paula Bennett: Will taxpayers' money be used to buy land at Ihumātao?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: On behalf of the Prime Minister, I am glad that the Deputy Prime Minister is answering for me today, because what I said yesterday is what he is going to say today: the same thing.
Hon Paula Bennett: When will there be an announcement on what is happening at Ihumātao?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: On behalf of the Prime Minister, in the fullness of time when we've all kept our word.
Hon Paula Bennett: What was the Deputy Prime Minister's response to her view that Minister Shane Jones' comments were "loose and wrong", with respect to his comments about Indian students?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: On behalf of the Prime Minister, my views were made very clear to the public with respect to what Mr Jones had said. But then, of course, I've later had the opportunity to be appraised of the full context, which would have been invaluable at the time, and that context is to be seen in 19 different articles in all sorts of Indian media—including by a man who is of Indian extraction, in the National Party, who said that in February of 2017 at the height of the National Party's debacle with tertiary students from India.
Hon Paula Bennett: Does she now think she was incorrect to have made a statement about Shane Jones' comments on Indian students and to call them loose and wrong?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: On behalf of the Prime Minister, I am the leader of this Government and I'm not wrong in what I said.




Question No. 2—Finance
2. Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National) to the Minister of Finance: Does he stand by all of his statements and policies?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): Yes, in their context. In particular, I continue to stand by my statement that the New Zealand economy is in good shape to respond to the economic impacts of coronavirus. 
Hon Paul Goldsmith: Why has the Government moved to ease access to benefits without also outlining plans to help businesses directly affected by the coronavirus outbreak to keep employees in work? 
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: We've been particularly focused on making sure that people in regions such as Tai Rāwhiti are able to pay their bills. That's what people would expect of the Government to do. We're working closely with industries and businesses right around New Zealand on responses. But when it comes to it, New Zealanders know that the Government is here to support them in times of need. 
Hon Paul Goldsmith: What does he say to the Restaurant Association spokesperson who said efforts to raise issues with Ministers about the impact of coronavirus on the economy have "fallen on deaf ears"?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I appreciate the position that restaurant owners around New Zealand find themselves in. I understand that there has been a response from the Government, and, obviously, we've previously met with the hospitality industry, and later today, I'll meet again with the tourism industry representatives as well. 
Hon Paul Goldsmith: Does he think the economic priority now should be on keeping people in work by taking pressure directly off affected businesses? 
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: There are a range of measures that we can undertake to keep people in work. That is most definitely our focus at this time. 
Hon Paul Goldsmith: Why has his Government not yet detailed a business support package, like National did after the Canterbury and Kaikōura earthquakes, that offers businesses directly affected by the coronavirus outbreak $500 a week for every full-time worker—
SPEAKER: Order!
Hon Paul Goldsmith: Well, I'm just outlining the details.
SPEAKER: Well, we don't need unnecessary information. 
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I appreciate what the member is trying to do here, but it's really important to understand the distinction between this incident and the Canterbury and Kaikōura earthquakes. This is not an earthquake; this is an evolving situation. We are responding, as that situation evolves, appropriately, and we are supporting New Zealand businesses and we will continue to do so.




Question No. 3—Finance
3. GREG O'CONNOR (Labour—Ōhāriu) to the Minister of Finance: What recent reports has he seen on the New Zealand economy?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): This morning, ASB released its latest Economic Note titled "Be prepared—It doesn't hurt", providing useful advice for businesses on how to prepare for the impact of coronavirus. The ASB suggests business consider the three broad ways in which they may be impacted: export earnings, supply chain disruption, and social distancing. These will all impact individual businesses to varying degrees and in different ways. It's important that all businesses understand their level of risk and keep a close eye on trends in areas like revenue, cash flow, and supply chain. ASB advises businesses to ensure that they have established a clear idea of how to respond, including by making contingency plans for business continuity, and asking for help. Both the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) have guidance about this on their websites. 
Greg O'Connor: What recent discussions has he had with the business community about the impacts of coronavirus?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: This morning, I attended a meeting of the Prime Minister's Business Advisory Council. The message from the business representatives there highlighted the very different impacts of COVID-19 on different sectors. For example, the dairy industry, as highlighted by numbers released earlier this week, has seen a relatively small impact on volume and prices but is reporting that supply chains are starting to return to normal, whereas within the tourism and forestry sectors we have heard of, and have seen, more direct impacts, to which the Government is responding. Later today, I will meet again with representatives of the tourism industry, with Xero to discuss the data they have on small business impacts, and with the Secretary of the Treasury and the Reserve Bank Governor to discuss the macroeconomic situation. We continue to have daily discussions with businesses and economists, including from our banks, and I will meet with the executive of the New Zealand Bankers' Association on Monday. The message I have given all of those businesses and the worker representatives that we have met is that the Government is committed to supporting them through the situation, and we will continue to do so. 
Greg O'Connor: How is the Government helping the economy weather the impact of the coronavirus? 
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: While the economy has underlying strength, there are clearly specific industries and regions that are taking a hit. That's why we are working closely with the business community on measures, including support to the tourism sector, regional business advice services, and the ongoing work of Government agencies, including the Ministry of Social Development, the Inland Revenue Department, and MBIE. Ministers have agreed in principle to remove the stand-down period for benefits while looking at other ways to create jobs and support businesses who are affected by coronavirus. The best response to an evolving situation such as this is to provide the immediate support that is required, which we are doing, while planning for the scenarios of the future.




Question No. 4—Foreign Affairs
4. JAMI-LEE ROSS (Botany) to the Minister of Foreign Affairs: Has he received any reports of foreign interference activities in New Zealand from foreign State actors of the type described by Canterbury University Professor Anne-Marie Brady in her paper "Magic Weapons" as united front work carried out by the Chinese Communist Party; if so, what efforts is the Government making to protect New Zealand's interests?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Minister of Foreign Affairs): Foreign interference is not a new threat and New Zealand isn't immune to such attempts. Yes, I have seen reports to that effect, but I can't discuss specific countries, operational details, targets or methods, or systems of surveillance. But I can assure the member that this Government takes the threat very seriously and has robust measures in place to protect our democratic values, institutions, and our economy.
Jami-Lee Ross: Does he share the concerns of Professor Brady that foreign State actors make efforts to control diaspora communities, to utilise them as agents of foreign policy, suppress any hints of dissidents as well, and, if so, what resilience strategy will New Zealand implement to protect against this foreign interference?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Can I tell that member we do share a series of concerns. If that member or, indeed, any member of the public has information that relates to foreign interference from any country, they should report it to the relevant authorities. This is a serious issue that this Government is dedicated to addressing, and appropriate processes should be followed. But let me say this: this is the first time in New Zealand's history that a political party has announced its candidate list in China, and you have to ask yourself why.
Jami-Lee Ross: Does he share the view of SIS director, Rebecca Kitteridge, that one vector of foreign interference in elections is "Building covert influence and leverage, including through electoral financing;", and, if so, what advice does he have for New Zealanders concerned about this foreign interference?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: The member will, I'm sure, appreciate the fact that we cannot single out any one specific country. The important thing is that we have flexible and adequate mechanisms, we believe, in place to protect our democratic values, institutions, and the economy. The witness and evidence that he has recited in his question is some testimony to that, but the reality is we have open channels to raise issues with countries if and when we ever need to do so. But it behoves political parties not to be undermining this Government's serious purpose to protect our democratic institutions.




Question No. 5—Health
5. Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National) to the Minister of Health: How is the Government adapting its public health response to manage the evolving nature of the coronavirus outbreak, and what support, if any, can the Opposition provide to help New Zealanders?
Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Health): New Zealand has acted swiftly to prepare for and address cases of COVID-19, in advance of most other countries. Yesterday, the newly formed Cabinet committee met to ensure we can continue to be nimble and responsive. Public health staff working actively to contain the virus are working hard to limit its spread. Many of them are working long hours, and I commend their commitment to keeping New Zealand safe. I do see a constructive role for the Opposition to play to ensure New Zealanders receive messages that are based on the best scientific and medical advice that is coming out of the Ministry of Health.
Hon Member: But not David Bennett.
SPEAKER: Order!
Hon Michael Woodhouse: Does the revelation of New Zealand's first human-to-human transmission of the coronavirus in New Zealand change his assessment that the risk of a sustained community outbreak remains low; if not, why not?
Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: The advice I have had is that it remains low. The emerging evidence is that transmission within families is the most common route, and, indeed, in this case, the person believed to have been the vector is in self-isolation and is being treated as though they are a case, even though they are now currently asymptomatic.
Hon Michael Woodhouse: Is it correct that the passenger who arrived from Iran had only mild symptoms of the virus, and does this change his assessment of the transmissibility of the virus by asymptomatic or low-symptom carriers?
Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: I think it's important that we are careful here to distinguish between low-symptomatic and asymptomatic. The evidence seems to be that transmission by asymptomatic people is not happening—in contrast to the flu, where we know this does happen—but low symptomatic is, of course, a different thing.
Hon Michael Woodhouse: Has he received advice on whether the low-symptomatic carrier would have met the threshold for a coronavirus test that is currently being carried out in New Zealand laboratories?
Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: I have sought urgent advice to clarify precisely that situation. I believe that the advice is coming through now much faster—the technical advisory group is now meeting on a daily basis, and they are assessing the emerging evidence. It is important for the public to know that 80 percent of people in the rather large study that's been done in China already, recovered without any hospital assistance and so for the vast majority of people who have contracted this virus the consequences have not been great. None the less, we continue to be glad to see the consequences of our early action, because it has bought us more time in New Zealand, through acting early and decisively, to run the scenarios, to get the evidence of what's happening overseas, to make sure that we are responding in the best way possible, on the latest scientific and medical advice.
Hon Michael Woodhouse: What flexibility do medical practitioners have in deciding whether or not a COVID-19 test is appropriate for a patient who presents themselves with low symptoms?
Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: Clinicians are the best placed people to make the judgment, not politicians. So we are expecting that clinicians will use their best clinical judgment based on the latest scientific and medical advice.
Hon Michael Woodhouse: Is he saying that Wellington Hospital senior doctors are wrong when they say that they were prevented from applying that discretion in getting COVID-19 tests on patients they thought warranted it?
Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: I fear that the member might not be completely accurately presenting that story. However, what I would say is that there is no restriction on the number of tests to be carried out—clinicians are using their best clinical judgment. So far, we've had around 200 tests run over the first month of having the testing up and running in New Zealand, and we've had a very low number of confirmed cases thus far. The ability to conduct far more tests is there should we need it.




Question No. 6—Economic Development
6. KIRITAPU ALLAN (Labour) to the Minister for Economic Development: What recent announcements has he made about supporting businesses affected by the COVID-19 coronavirus?
Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Minister for Economic Development): Our Government's economic response to COVID-19 is focused on supporting workers to stay in work and businesses to stay in business. That's why, on Tuesday, Cabinet agreed to provide an extra $4 million to bolster the Regional Business Partners programme, to help businesses around the country affected by COVID-19 with practical advice on issues such as payroll and dealing with Inland Revenue on tax payments. Cabinet also agreed to establish up to 16 rapid-response Ministry of Social Development teams to assist with immediate needs such as helping move workers into other jobs and referring those in need of further support to other Government agencies.
Kiritapu Allan: In what other ways is the Government providing support?
Hon PHIL TWYFORD: We announced last month that we are providing $11 million to help Tourism New Zealand boost visitor numbers; $10 million will go towards diversifying its marketing in other countries to offset the fall in Chinese tourist numbers, and a million will go towards funding marketing to New Zealanders. Fisheries Minister, Stuart Nash, has agreed to allow some of this year's uncaught rock lobster harvest to be carried forward to the next fishing year, giving those businesses some certainty. I'm also advised that affected businesses may be able to make an estimate, or a re-estimate, of provisional tax if their circumstances have changed due to COVID-19. Cabinet has also agreed in principle to waive the stand-down period for those who are seeking income support, and more detail on that will be forthcoming after Cabinet on Monday.
Kiritapu Allan: And what other actions is the Government considering?
Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Well, we know that there is more to do to support New Zealand workers and businesses at this time. As the Prime Minister said yesterday, Cabinet has requested further work on a number of initiatives. These include whether funding could be made available to enable workers who have had their hours reduced to undertake training. We're looking to work in partnership with forestry owners to bring forward work on new forestry access roads so that they can keep their workforce working while they wait for logging and harvesting to resume. We're also considering whether there are projects we can use our forestry workforce on with a bit of extra training and support.
Kiritapu Allan: What other actions will he be taking?
Hon PHIL TWYFORD: I'll be visiting regions to look at the economic impact of COVID-19 and will be reporting back to the COVID Cabinet committee, like I did earlier this week. I visited Tai Rāwhiti with Kiri Allan and Meka Whaitiri on Tuesday, and spoke to people in the forestry industry who are doing it tough. Forestry contractor Robert Stubbs had four logging crews working a few weeks ago and has had to make workers on two crews redundant because of the downturn in exports to China. His remaining crews have only 70 percent of their former workload. He said that local roadworks could provide temporary work for his workers, and that is the kind of practical idea that our Government is exploring.
Hon Todd McClay: What advice has he received about the significance of COVID-19 on an already slowing economy?
Hon PHIL TWYFORD: We've received plenty of advice on the economic implications of COVID-19, much of which notes—as, I think, many commentators do—that the strength of the fundamentals in the New Zealand economy mean that, actually, New Zealand and the New Zealand Government is well placed to withstand the shock.
Hon Todd McClay: Why is it a Government priority to make it easier for people to go on a benefit rather than actually plan to support businesses to keep New Zealanders in jobs?
Hon PHIL TWYFORD: We're doing both.




Question No. 7—Transport
7. CHRIS BISHOP (National—Hutt South) to the Minister of Transport: Why did he say on 22 January 2020 that "What the Super Fund proposed is that they would design, build and operate the light rail line for the next 50 years", and was he basing those comments on the unsolicited bid for Auckland light rail made in May 2018 by NZ Infra?
Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Minister of Transport): I said it as an illustrative example because not everyone understands what a public-public investment could look like. And, to the second part of the question, no.
Chris Bishop: Has he been briefed by officials on the duration of the contract proposed by NZ Infra for Auckland light rail?
Hon PHIL TWYFORD: I have been briefed by officials on the results of the twin track process that Cabinet mandated.
Chris Bishop: Has he been briefed by officials on the duration of the contract proposed by NZ Infra?
Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Yes, that's part of the bid that was put to the twin track process.
Chris Bishop: When did that briefing take place?
Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Look, if the member wants a detailed question of that nature answered, he should put it in writing.
Chris Bishop: Why did he say yesterday, "When I made those comments in January, I was—it was an illustrative example—I hadn't been briefed at that point on the detail of the bids", when he's just told the House that he was briefed on the duration of the contract proposed by NZ Infra?
Hon PHIL TWYFORD: I made the comment in the House yesterday about the briefing that I received in January this year at the conclusion of the twin track process. That's a long time after those original comments were made.
Chris Bishop: Can he assure the House that the NZ Infra proposal—which the chief executive said, yesterday, was 1,500 pages long—will be released publicly?
Hon PHIL TWYFORD: It's currently subject to a commercial probity—strict commercial probity requirements. When Cabinet has made its decision, it will release all the appropriate information.




Question No. 8—Education
8. Hon NIKKI KAYE (National—Auckland Central) to the Minister of Education: Is he confident that the Government is doing enough to help the education sector deal with the effects of coronavirus?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): Yes. The Government's first priority is to protect the public health of those in early childhood education services, schools, universities, polytechs, and other educational institutions. We're working closely alongside them to ensure that they're given supporting information and can provide supporting information about pandemic planning, good student wellbeing practices, that they can recognise the signs and symptoms, they are encouraging good hygiene practices, and, of course, they're providing support to international students. As the events highlighted yesterday, the Ministry of Education is working on the ground with Auckland Regional Public Health Service to ensure that schools and parent communities have got the correct health information that is right for their situation. We also know that there will be a significant impact on the international student sector as a result, particularly, of the travel restrictions that are currently in place. We are working with them to stabilise and manage the current situation and prepare for as speedy a recovery as possible once the travel restrictions have been lifted.
Hon Nikki Kaye: How many schools are on alert by Government officials regarding concerns over potential contact with people or family members with coronavirus?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I think it's important we are very careful about the type of language that we use. I have not used the word "alert", for example, when it comes to providing information to schools. Where there is any risk that a student at a school may have come into contact with coronavirus, of course the school is informed of that and, as the member saw, there was an example of that yesterday, but I would not use the word "alert" because I think that suggests that there is a higher risk of other students getting, or being exposed to, coronavirus than actually exists.
Hon Nikki Kaye: Does he believe it is appropriate for Government officials to delay an Auckland school from informing their parents about a coronavirus situation so that health officials could do a press conference first?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: As I'm sure the member will be aware, one of the things that are very important in a situation like this is to ensure that the information that is supplied is accurate and that undue alarm is not created by people putting information out that is not as accurate as it needs to be. So, yes, officials are working very closely with any affected schools, early childhood services, or tertiary providers—noting that there are no current cases in the latter categories—but they are working very closely with any organisation in the education sector that may be affected to ensure that information that is disseminated publicly is accurate.
Hon Nikki Kaye: Was it acceptable for Auckland Grammar School to be delayed from being able to inform their parents prior to officials going public with the information about the coronavirus situation?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: As I've said, it's very important that the officials are working together across Government to ensure that the information that is provided publicly is accurate, that it is provided in as timely a manner as possible, and that undue alarm is not caused by people making premature comments.
Hon Nikki Kaye: Does he accept the criticism by the vice-chancellor of Victoria University, who says that the Minister has been missing in action while universities have struggled with the loss of international students?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: It won't surprise the member to learn that, no, I don't accept that. We have been working very closely with Universities New Zealand on behalf of all of the vice-chancellors. In fact, after the vice-chancellor of Victoria University made that comment, many other vice-chancellors contacted me to make it clear that that was not their view, and I have subsequently received an apology from the vice-chancellor of Victoria University.
Hon Nikki Kaye: Will he announce a financial package to help support schools and education providers who are dealing with millions in costs and losses as a result of coronavirus?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Those types of decisions are premature. Of course we are monitoring the situation very closely. The overall financial impact on all education providers is difficult to assess until we know when the travel restrictions are likely to be lifted, for example. With regard to the universities—who are the sector at the moment who, frankly, have been the most affected, because they have the greatest proportion of their Chinese students not in-country—they are actually in a very good financial position in order to be able to weather this for a period of time while we do have this period of uncertainty.




Question No. 9—Defence
9. DARROCH BALL (NZ First) to the Minister of Defence: What recent announcements has he made on defence capability projects?
Hon RON MARK (Minister of Defence): On Tuesday, I announced that Defence has signed a contract to replace the Defence Force 1980s - era fixed high frequency radio capability with modern equipment. High frequency radio provides reliable communications coverage, including into some of the most remote regions on the planet where New Zealand is operating, from deep in the Southern Ocean to the vastness of the Pacific. High frequency communications acts as a backup to satellite communications and would also boost national resilience by helping emergency services maintain communications during a crisis, increase resilience against malicious cyber-attacks, and that project will be delivered by Babcock New Zealand. It has a capital budget of $26.6 million and is expected to be fully operational in August 2023.
Darroch Ball: What progress has been made in modernising the Defence Force's domestic response vehicle fleet?
Hon RON MARK: The Ministry of Defence has released a request for tender and is currently seeking proposals on a range of domestic response vehicles with delivery expected before the end of 2022. These capabilities help support our communities, enable military operations at home and in our region, and keep our women and men in uniform safe. They include domestic and rural fire engines to support Fire and Emergency New Zealand, air force response appliances, aircraft refuelling tankers, and the long overdue and much waited for New Zealand - based military ambulances, which are desperately and urgently in need of replacement.
Darroch Ball: What progress has been made in upgrading the communications capabilities of navy vessels?
Hon RON MARK: More good news. A further planned investment has gone to market seeking proposals to upgrade the external communications systems on HMNZS Canterbury, the offshore patrol vessels HMNZS Otago and Wellington, and delivery is also expected before the end of 2022. These ships conduct fisheries patrols, protect our borders, and support disaster relief operations such as HMNZS Wellington did at Whakaari / White Island. Communications at sea are critical for the safety of the crews and to ensure New Zealand vessels are able to operate effectively together and with our partners. Investment in all three of these capabilities is critical to national resilience and has been deferred for far too long, and that's why this coalition Government is taking care of business.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: Is that the reason why, for the first time for an awfully long time, international allies of ours have a new-found respect for our country?
SPEAKER: Order! Order! That's not something that Minister has responsibility for. The fact the Minister asked the question probably does.
Hon RON MARK: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Could I suggest that my office in the last three weeks has been full of delegations from the EU, NATO, United States, and just this morning—
SPEAKER: All right. OK, well the member's probably answered the question.




Question No. 10—Housing
10. Hon JUDITH COLLINS (National—Papakura) to the Minister of Housing: Does she stand by her statement on 4 September 2019 with regard to a $400 million progressive home ownership scheme, "I will be making those final decisions and taking that piece of work back to Cabinet before the end of the year and we'll have the scheme up and running next year"; if so, which month this year will it be up and running?
SPEAKER: Order! Order! The member's going to answer the question, but I am going to warn the Hon Judith Collins that I know her reading skills are better than that. Not all members are, but I don't think she should do that.
Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister of Housing): Yes, I refer the member to my answer to oral question No. 6 on Tuesday and oral question No. 4 yesterday, where I made it abundantly clear, twice, that I took the decision paper to Cabinet in December, as planned, and an announcement will be made in the next couple of months. I don't propose to pre-empt that announcement in the House today, but I can assure the member she doesn't have long to wait.
Hon Judith Collins: When she said she would have a progressive homeownership scheme up and running this year, how does she define "up and running"? 
Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: Again, I think we went through this yesterday in oral question time. What I mean by having a progressive homeownership scheme up and running is there will be New Zealanders who are receiving assistance into homeownership—something this Government is proud of. 
Hon Judith Collins: When she said she would have a progressive homeownership scheme up and running this year, did she mean that it would be actually operating this year? 
Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: Yes. 
Hon Judith Collins: When she said yesterday that she would be making an announcement in the next couple of months, did she actually mean a re-announcement of the announcement that she already made in September, or a different announcement? 
Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: What I meant is I will be making an announcement of a progressive homeownership scheme, of which this Government is proud. 
Hon Judith Collins: So does that mean it's a re-announcement of what was announced in September last year? 
Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: Is the member asking if we'll be talking about the $400 million progressive homeownership scheme that we announced in September? I guess we will talk about that a bit more, because this is the like of which this country has never seen, and of which we are rightly proud. 
Hon Judith Collins: Has she corrected the Green Party co-leader who announced in September last year that the Government would "now"—as in September last year—"be rolling out" a progressive homeownership scheme? 
Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: Why would there be reason to? In September last year, we made an announcement that we would be making our final designed decisions about a scheme that would be taken to Cabinet in December last year. That was done, and we will have an announcement in due course. 
Hon Grant Robertson: Has the Minister sought any guidance on the meaning of "up and running" from the Hon Judith Collins, given her experience with that in terms of the National Party leadership? 
SPEAKER: Order! No. Grant Robertson, you—[Interruption] Order! Order! The member knew that was out of order. He will withdraw and apologise. 
Hon Grant Robertson: I withdraw and apologise. 




Question No. 11—Energy and Resources
11. JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth) to the Minister of Energy and Resources: Does she have confidence there will be no electricity security of supply issues in light of Transpower's advice to her that there is a risk of "inadequate capacity" to meet demand over the period when the Pohukura Gas field is closed for maintenance and there are restrictions on the HVDC inter-island electricity transmission system?
Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister of Energy and Resources): Yes. Transpower, as the system operator, monitors security of supply closely. These planned outages have been coordinated on the basis of this monitoring and Transpower's planning. The risks of inadequate capacity occurring have been highlighted in the worst-case scenarios modelling by Transpower. I am updated weekly on the current security of supply situation, and note Transpower's latest advice is that there remains a low likelihood of any physical security of supply issues. In the event that this is an issue, there are systems and processes in place to manage that. The current high-voltage direct current (HVDC) work has proceeded well and as expected. It expects that the HVDC will return to full capacity when the outages are completed ahead of Easter 2020. In the middle of 2019, I became aware there was a range of simultaneously planned outages for the first quarter of 2020. At that time, I sought reassurance from Transpower that their planned outage coordination process would minimise the risks for consumers and for security of supply, and Transpower later informed me that at least one planned outage had been rescheduled through this process and that the risks of security of supply were manageable. Subsequent to this, I asked for assurance from the Electricity Authority (EA) that the planned outage coordination process was performing optimally, and the EA and Gas Industry Co. subsequently began a review of the process, which is currently under way. I can assure the member that this is something I have taken a great deal of interest in. 
SPEAKER: Before I ask the member to ask a supplementary question, I will apologise for not informing the House that I had been warned that this was going to be a longer than normal answer, and it certainly was. 
Jonathan Young: Thank you, Mr Speaker. So despite that fulsome answer, does she accept Transpower's advice that "inadequate capacity" is still a risk over this period? 
Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: The member is quoting from a briefing that was in December. What I indicated in my primary answer is the latest information that I have from Transpower is that there remains a low likelihood of any physical security of supply issues, and everything is proceeding according to plan. As I also indicated to the member, this is something that I am briefed on weekly.
Jonathan Young: Thank you. So is the Cabinet paper that was released last month, that proposes she be granted emergency powers to reallocate electricity or gas in situations of acute shortage, signalling that electricity shortages are something consumers should be concerned about?
Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: The Cabinet paper to which the member is referring is in no way connected to this event. What he is referring to is a suggestion of what possibly could be included in a future draft terms of reference, not something that would be used in an occurrence such as this. What this Government has signalled, however, is that we will in the very near future be tabling amendments to the Gas Act so we can have full information disclosure during unforeseen and unplanned outages such as we saw in 2018 with the Pohokura pipeline. But the two events the member is referring to are unconnected. 
Kieran McAnulty: What are the systems and processes in place to manage physical security of supply events?
Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: If there were to be a security of supply event, there are well-established systems to manage these. For managing gas security of supply, the critical contingency management regulations provide for the management of situations such as unplanned gas production outages. An independent body is in place that has power to declare critical contingency events. Once those are declared, a curtailment system will kick in. For electricity, Transpower is responsible for ensuring that demand is met. Finally, Transpower works closely with the upstream producers and thermal generator in performing its system operator role.
Jonathan Young: Well, if there are well-planned mechanisms in place to manage security of supply issues and outages, why is she looking to have emergency powers to reallocate gas or electricity in situations of acute shortage given to the Minister of Energy and Resources?
Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: As I indicated in a previous supplementary to the member, he is talking about two unconnected events. What he is referring to is a Cabinet paper which was on the recommendations of the electricity pricing review, which was around institutional arrangements and how we may, in some time in the future, move towards an energy regulator rather than separate regulators for electricity and gas, as is currently the model, and what some of the rules within that might be. So I think the member's a little bit confused.




Question No. 12—Health
12. ANGIE WARREN-CLARK (Labour) to the Minister of Health: How is New Zealand's public health service responding to the COVID-19 coronavirus?
Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Health): We always knew that COVID-19 would arrive in New Zealand and have been preparing since January in line with the comprehensive pandemic plan. The actions we have taken, such as travel restrictions and supporting people to self-isolate, bought us valuable time to ramp up those preparations. As of now, New Zealand has three confirmed cases of COVID-19. Our public health staff are working hard to contain the situation using contact tracing and self-isolation to limit the chance of spread. But, while excellent progress is being made, I do anticipate further sporadic cases will be identified.
Angie Warren-Clark: What is being done to support primary care to respond to COVID-19?
Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: The Ministry of Health has been providing regular updates and advice to the primary care sector since early January. There has been a strong focus on the provision of information, including around the use in primary care of personal protective equipment. The ministry is working with DHBs and primary health organisations (PHOs) across the country to ensure personal protective equipment—or PPE—is available to those who need it. I'm advised that all general practices now have appropriate PPE. The Ministry of Health are in regular contact with DHBs, PHOs, primary care, and pharmacies and have weekly teleconferences to ensure anyone with concerns can raise them directly.
Angie Warren-Clark: What can the public do to help support our response to COVID-19?
Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: The most important thing the public can do is listen to the very sensible public health advice that is coming from our health professionals. Avoid close contact with people with cold- or flu-like illnesses. Health professionals advise also to cover coughs and sneezes with disposable tissues or clothing. Health professionals advise also to wash your hands for at least 20 seconds with water and soap and dry them thoroughly before eating or handling food; after using the toilet; after coughing, sneezing, blowing your nose, or wiping children's noses; and after caring for sick people.





DEBATE ON PRIME MINISTER'S STATEMENT
Debate resumed from 4 March.
Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development): Mr Speaker, can I say that it's an honour to be able to speak on the Prime Minister's statement. And can I start by acknowledging our Prime Minister and the leadership that she has demonstrated over the last two and a bit years. She started out her statement laying out what the context was when we came into Government—what we inherited from the previous Government. Then she launched into what we have done since we've been in Government, what we are doing now, and she talked about the fact—very openly—that there is much more that we want to do and that we're committed to doing that. So I want to acknowledge the great leadership that we have in our Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern. 
Also, I want to acknowledge our wonderful coalition partner, New Zealand First, and our wonderful confidence and supply partner, the Green Party, because together we have been able to make a difference over the last two years, and together we will be able to do a lot more over the course of this year. When we came into Government, we inherited a mess; let's be honest. We had had nine years of a National Government who had ignored the fact that we had a housing crisis. We'd had nine years of a National Government who had ignored multiple social issues, which had led us to quite a dark place—as our Prime Minister said. We'd had nine years of a National Government who had not invested in infrastructure. And what we were seeing when we got in were rundown hospitals, rundown schools, and roads that hadn't been built.
We were left to pick up the pieces. I'm very proud of the job that we have done to date. We've made investments in mental health so people can get the help that they need at their local GP. We invested $1.9 billion into mental health; and can I say that I was at the University of Auckland the other day at their orientation talking to students about what they think matters to them, and the vast majority of them were pointing to mental health. They appreciate the investment that we on this side of the House have put into mental health. And they recognise, just like many New Zealanders across the country, that for far too long mental health is an area that's been neglected and it has put us in a very dangerous place as a country. 
We've provided more addiction treatment, beds, and services. We've funded new cancer treatment equipment like radiation machines and new cancer drugs. We've started to clean up our rivers by supporting farmers to fence their waterways and plant trees. We've increased school funding so that many parents don't have to pay school donations or NCEA fees. And can I say that's made a difference to low-decile schools—low-decile schools who weren't able to collect donations from parents anyway, because those parents were not able to afford to pay those fees. So those low-decile schools now have money that they wouldn't otherwise have had access to, and the feedback I get from mine is incredibly positive. 
We've supported businesses to invest in innovation and diversification. We've invested in trade training—another area that was neglected by the previous Government. We've banned offshore speculators and stopped the sell-off of State homes, which was one of our biggest issues. We had a housing crisis when we came into Government. They, irresponsibly, rather than building more public housing were selling off our State houses. We put a stop to that. We set a target for an additional 1,600 public houses a year. We've exceeded that to date; in fact, we've built over 4,000 already.
We passed the Climate Change Response (Zero Carbon) Amendment Act 2019. And can I say again, we cannot underestimate how important climate change is to young people in New Zealand. Mental health and climate change—the two areas when I was at the University of Auckland the other day that all of them were indicating were of most importance to them, and it should be. 
We've also deployed over 2,000 new cops across the country—
Hon Member: How many?
Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: —over 2,000 new cops—to keep communities safer. 
We can see also that our economy is in good shape. Our unemployment is now down to 4 percent. It's lower now than it ever was under the previous Government. We've had the highest annual wage growth in a decade. The minimum wage on 1 April will go up again. This time it goes up to $18.90, with a view to make sure that we get to $20 by next year, and I think that this side of the House can be proud of that. The economy is growing faster than most similar countries. Over the next two years, we're projected to grow faster than Australia—[Interruption]—Canada, the US, the UK, the EU, Norway, Japan, and Singapore, and I think David Bennett's yelling out some more countries in support of what we're doing. Interest rates, debt, and unemployment are all low, and on top of that—and we give some kudos to our finance Minister, Grant Robertson, for this—our books are balanced—they are balanced. We even started, in amidst all of that, contributions to the super fund—restarted contributions to the super fund—and we're reducing the debt. That all is in stark contrast to what the previous National Government had to offer this country. 
One of my primary areas of focus is, of course, the welfare overhaul, and I acknowledge the Green Party, our confidence and supply partners, for putting it into our agreement when we came into Government, and we are all committed to that welfare overhaul. We know it won't happen overnight, because there's so much to fix up within our social security system. However, we're committed to doing it, and I wanted to talk a little bit about the things that have already been done. There were 42 recommendations in that Welfare Expert Advisory Group (WEAG) report, and I'm going to rattle through, really quickly in the next three minutes, what work has already been done or how we've responded to those recommendations. I'm going to talk really quickly.
In response to WEAG recommendation 2, which is to implement principles to guide the design and operation of the welfare system, we've developed a working policy framework to guide the welfare overhaul, which includes kaupapa Māori values, the purpose of the welfare system as a whole, and the outcomes we want to see. In response to recommendation 3, to establish a cross-Government approach to this welfare overhaul, our Social Wellbeing Cabinet Committee is already overseeing this work. In response to recommendation 5, to implement better reporting, we are regularly monitoring the longer-term employment outcomes of people leaving the benefit system. In fact, we've already started to record sustainability of employment exits, which is what the previous Government completely ignored. In response to recommendation 6 and recommendation 9, to work toward greater equity for Māori, the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) has launched its Te Ao Māori strategy and action plan, Te Pae Tata, which is about embedding a Māori world view into MSD to help staff think differently about the way they work with Māori—because, let's be honest, the welfare system has not worked for Māori in this country for a very long time.
In response to recommendation 8, to build MSD's cultural responsiveness and improve outcomes for Pacific people, MSD has launched their Pacific strategy and action plan, Pacific Prosperity, to guide future policy development in delivering better coordinated action together. In response to recommendation 11, to remove some sanctions and obligations, we have already removed the section 192 sanction, which will come into effect on 1 April, which unnecessarily penalised sole parents. As of 1 April 2020, 24,000 children will be significantly better off as a result of this, with many sole parents' incomes increasing by an average of $34 per week. In response to recommendation 12, to improve front-line services at MSD, we've introduced a client commitment charter, made changes to Work and Income offices to make them warmer and friendlier, implemented an online eligibility guide, and launched Heartbeat to better understand client experiences. 
In response to recommendations 14, 15, and 16, to address issues of debt, we have started an inter-agency work programme to look at Government debt, developed the Safer Credit and Financial Inclusion Strategy, and my colleague Minister Faafoi has announced new rules around high-cost short-term lending to protect consumers from punishing debt at the hands of loan sharks. In response to recommendation 18, to improve support for people exiting prisons, we announced Māori Pathways, a group of targeted interventions from the Department of Corrections, Te Puni Kōkiri, and the Ministry of Social Development, aimed at reducing reoffending rates of high security prisoners. And in response to recommendation 20, to increase abatement rates, we have increased how much people can earn before their benefit is reduced, in line with the minimum wage, and that comes into effect on 1 April. 
I only got up to recommendation 20. There are 42 in here. This Government is about action and we're delivering for New Zealanders.





JAMI-LEE ROSS (Botany): Facebook memories reminded me this morning that today marks nine years since I was first elected to Parliament. I certainly never expected nine years ago that I would be the centre of a debate over foreign political donations, and I'm using that term deliberately. Foreign political donations and foreign interference is what I want to focus my time on here. 
In the Prime Minister's statement, that we are debating, the Prime Minister lists as one of her Government's achievements the banning of foreign political donations. It's true that the new $50 threshold for overseas donations is an improvement. But, as I've said previously in the House, I doubt it will do very much to deter those determined to find other ways around the ban, including—
SPEAKER: Order! Mr Jackson, leave the House.
JAMI-LEE ROSS: —using the wide open gap we still have where foreign State actors can funnel funds through New Zealand registered companies. 
The foreign donation ban is one of the few recommendations that has spun out of the Justice Committee's inquiry into foreign interference activities in New Zealand elections that has been picked up. Probably the most important submissions that we received through that inquiry were those from Professor Anne-Marie Brady of Canterbury University and what we heard from the Security Intelligence Service (SIS) director, Rebecca Kitteridge. It was all eye-watering and eye-opening stuff and sobering for us to hear and read their evidence. We have not, and I think we still do not, take seriously enough the risk of foreign interference activities that we've been subjected to as a country. Ms Kitteridge rightly pointed out in her evidence that the challenge of foreign interference to our democracy is not just about what occurs around the election itself. Motivated State actors will work assiduously over many years, including in New Zealand, to covertly garner influence, access, and leverage. 
She also specifically pointed out the risks we face from foreign State actors through the exertion of pressure or control of diaspora communities and the building of covert influence and leverage, including through electoral financing. After Pansy Wong resigned from Parliament, I was selected as the National Party candidate for the 5 March by-election nine years ago. It was made very clear to me at the time that I had to put a big emphasis on getting to know the Chinese community. It was also pointed out to me very early on that I must make good connections with the Chinese consul-general. Madam Liao at the time was very influential with Chinese New Zealanders and important to my own success as well. In hindsight, it was naive of me to not think carefully about the pull that a foreign diplomat had on a large section of the population in my electorate. 
The consul-general in Auckland is treated like a God, more so than any New Zealand politician, except probably the Prime Minister of the day. Each successive consul-general seemed to be better and more effective at holding New Zealand residents and citizens of Chinese descent in their grasp. Consul-generals Niu Qingbao and Xu Erwen were also treating us, as MPs—not just myself, others—as long-lost friends. All this effort, if you read Professor Brady's paper called Magic Weapons, is a core plank of the Chinese Communist Party's deliberate and targeted efforts to expand political influence activities worldwide. It's also the very risk that Rebecca Kitteridge warned the Justice Committee about. Professor Brady's paper is a 50-page academic work. I can't do it justice here, but I recommend all MPs read it. 
The activities of the Chinese Communist Party here domestically, where Chinese New Zealanders have been targeted, should be concerning enough for all of us. But the efforts that Chinese Communist Party - connected individuals have been making over the years to target us as politicians, and New Zealand political parties, also needs to be taken seriously. Every time we as MPs are showered with praise or dinners or hospitality by Chinese diplomats, we're being subjected to what Professor Brady calls "united front work". Every time we see our constituents bow and scrape to foreign diplomats, it's a result of their long-running efforts to exert influence and control over our fellow Kiwis. 
Both Professor Brady and Director Kitteridge have warned about the risk of foreign interference activity where funding of political parties is used as a tool. This isn't necessarily unlawful provided the donations meet the requirements of the Electoral Act. In 2018, I very publicly made some allegations relating to donations. I have said publicly already that the donations I called out were offered directly to the leader of the National Party at an event I was not in attendance at. I did not know at the time that those donations were made that they were in any way unlawful. I never had any control over those donations and I have never been a signatory of any National Party bank account in the time that I've been an MP. I never benefited personally from those donations. I was never a part of any conspiracy to defeat the Electoral Act. And the point at which I blew the whistle on these donations—first internally, then very publicly—that point came after I learnt of new information that led me to question the legality of the donations. 
After raising these issues publicly, they were duly investigated first by the police and then the Serious Fraud Office. The result of those allegations is already public and I can't traverse much detail here, but I will say that I refuse to be silenced and I will keep speaking out about what I know, and have seen, goes on inside political parties. I refuse to be quiet about the corroding influence of money in New Zealand politics.
Last year, I learnt, off the back of concerns I myself took to the proper authorities, that the National Party had been the beneficiary of large amounts of foreign donations. These donations are linked back to China and linked to the Chinese Communist Party, and with ease entered New Zealand. I didn't go searching for this information. I was asked if I knew anything of the origins of the donations. I didn't know. It was all new information to me, and I was surprised by what I learnt. 
What I learnt was that large sums of money adding up to around $150,000 coming directly out of China in Chinese yuan over successive years ended up as political party donations. Two individuals, Shaoli Xie and Shaona Zhang, were used as conduits for the donations.
These funds eventually made their way to the New Zealand National Party. The New Zealand National Party still holds those funds. The National Party is still holding at least $150,000 of foreign donations received in two successive years. I call on the National Party to return those foreign donations that it holds or transfer the money to the Electoral Commission. I doubt the National Party knew at the time that the money was foreign—I certainly didn't either—but now that they will have that information to hand, they need to show leadership and do the right thing.
To avoid doubt, this $150,000 dollars' worth of foreign donations is not the same as the $150,000 from the Inner Mongolia Rider Horse Industry company that they raised last year.
The warnings sounded from academics and spy agencies are not without reason. These two examples I give are very real examples of foreign money that has entered New Zealand politics. Professor Brady, with reference to the list of overseas members of the overseas Chinese federation, which is part of the Communist Party's infrastructure, listed three top united front representatives in New Zealand: Che Weixing, Gan Kaiwan, and Zhang Yikun. All three are well known to political parties. 
In a recent press statement from a PR agency, representatives of Zhang Yikun highlighted the philanthropic approach that he takes in New Zealand. The press statement on 19 February specifically said that he has been "donating to many political parties and campaigns.", except his name has never appeared in any political party return. When asked by the media if political parties had any record of donations from this individual, all said no. But a quick search online will find dozens and dozens of photos of Zhang Yikun dining with mayors and MPs over the time, inviting them to his home, and his recent 20th convention of Teochew International Federation had a who's who list of politicians turning up, including a former Prime Minister. 
The foreign donations I mentioned earlier all have connections to the Chao Shan General Association. The founder and chairman of Chao Shan General Association is Zhang Yikun. To summarise these two bits of information, the largest party in this Parliament has been the beneficiary of large sums of foreign money. That money is linked to an individual who is listed as one of the top three Chinese Communist Party united front representatives in New Zealand. That individual's PR agents say he has donated to many political parties and campaigns, yet he's never shown up in any donation returns in the past. 
One of Professor Brady's concluding remarks in her submission to the Justice Committee was that foreign interference activities can only thrive if public opinion in the affected nation tolerates or condones it. We must not tolerate or condone any foreign interference activities. We must also not stay silent when we see problems right under our nose. It's time for the political parties in this Parliament to address seriously the political party donation regime that we have. 
I realise that both the two main parties in this Parliament often have to agree, but perhaps it's time to put that out to an independent body. It's too important for us to ignore, and it's not right that we should allow these things to go on under our nose. 
I seek leave to table two charts that show a flow of money from China into New Zealand and to the New Zealand National Party. 
SPEAKER: I seek an assurance from the member that these charts are not integral to any matter currently before the courts. 
JAMI-LEE ROSS: These charts have been prepared by the Serious Fraud Office and I cannot give you that assurance. 
SPEAKER: You cannot give me that assurance. Well, I'm not going to put the question.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The sub judice rule is not as to the fact; it's as to the argument of the merit of the case, and I think a far too rigid rule is being applied here. If a flow chart, without any other comment, is to be ruled out from being tabled because you say it is sub judice—it is not arguing anything but the fact. It is not arguing for the merits, it's not taking sides, it's not trying to be persuasive, and I think it should be allowed in. 
SPEAKER: Well, I thank the Deputy Prime Minister for his comments. This is clearly a matter on which I've thought long and hard. I think in the last Standing Orders review or possibly the one before that, the sub judice rules were significantly tightened. I think it's fair to say that those changes were not unanimous. There was one member who stood out against the tightening of those rules, and it was me. But having said that, as Speaker, I am obliged to apply the rules as they exist, and the member has not been able to give me an assurance that the information contained in the chart is not central to a case currently before the court. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The problem with that is you've got a serious legal concept that's been handed down through the decades, indeed the centuries, now being interpreted by parliamentarians as though they are a court of law in this context. The sub judice rule applies to any court of law—any document associated with a court of law—across our legal jurisdiction. But no parliamentarian should be given—sorry, I'm not making an attack on the parliamentarians, but I think it's improper for parliamentarians to say, "Well, we've got a better interpretation of that, and this is what it is."
Hon Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I think, for me, the question is how Mr Ross came to hold the documents: whether in fact he is holding the documents because of his involvement in a case that may be before a judicial body, or whether he came to hold them through some other means.
SPEAKER: Well, I think I'm able to deal with that question on the matter of the briefings that I have received. Jami-Lee Ross has made it clear to me that the chart to which he refers or the information to which he refers is something which has come into his possession as a matter leading up to this and containing information relevant to this case. 
Hon Aupito William Sio: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Noting the seriousness and the magnitude of the issues that have been raised with Mr Jami-Lee Ross, and noting also that his time is up, is it appropriate for me to seek leave that he be given extended time to complete his statements?
SPEAKER: The answer to that is that it's not appropriate for that member to seek leave for another member in that way.





KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National): Thank you, Mr Speaker, for the opportunity to stand in support of the motion moved by the Hon Simon Bridges, who said that we don't have any confidence in this Government, particularly the Prime Minister. As we have seen, in the year 2019, this Prime Minister mentioned that this will be the year of delivery, but what we saw was that nothing was delivered. This was going to be the most transparent and open Government, which is totally opposite to that. We have asked so many things in this House, but they always duck and dive to avoid reasonable questions.
First of all, the previous speaker, Jami-Lee Ross, mentioned about the foreign interference and the donations. If we look at the whole scenario, before we go out and talk about the foreign donations, why don't we talk about the donations given in this country and the influence they are trying to make? I am talking about the New Zealand First Foundation. The Deputy Prime Minister was talking about and supporting the previous speaker—that he should be able to put up that flow chart. I would like to ask the Deputy Prime Minister to put up a flow chart of how the money got into the New Zealand First Foundation and then was given to New Zealand First for campaigning. That is a reasonable question which needs to be answered, rather than talking about what foreign influence is doing.
I was really pleased to see that the Deputy Prime Minister, in the last two days, had been talking about the Indian Weekender. I think the last time he read the Indian Weekender was February 2017. He keeps on quoting me, what I said in that news item. In that news item, I stood for the people who were vulnerable. I stood for them, and I was able to say that we should name and shame those people who are abusing the system. But what the Deputy Prime Minister is doing is he is hiding his own Cabinet colleague behind him. He should read what the Indian Weekender has said yesterday and today. I have got those cuttings, and I would like to quote from the headline from that news item from the Indian Weekender. It says, "Winston Peters' defence of Shane Jones' racist comments reflects sickening 'victim-blaming' mindset". That is what the headline is saying. So I would recommend the Deputy Prime Minister to go and read the latest version online of the Indian Weekender, a very good newspaper which fights for the rights of the people.
Another item which has come up today on the Indian Weekender is the comments by the community leaders. They are criticising not only the Hon Shane Jones but particularly the Prime Minister—that she is not standing up for the rights of the Indian people, and she is not able to reprimand the Hon Shane Jones, who has been making comments not once but many times, which is hurting the Indian community. I assure you that whenever the Prime Minister is going to front up to the Indian community, they are going to challenge her and ask her.
We saw that the Deputy Prime Minister was in India, advocating for more students, more trade between India and New Zealand. On the contrary, the Minister over here, the Hon Shane Jones, was criticising the Indian community, which is contributing not only to the New Zealand economy but the students are also contributing. The comment he made on the television was that the students coming from India are harming the institutes over here. It is on the other hand: the institutes which are not able to provide good education to those students—they are being hurt. That is the problem, not the students.
We also know that in the year of delivery—we have asked so many questions in the past, particularly starting from KiwiBuild, more taxes, higher rents, the delay in the visas. We were in India about two months ago, where I asked the Mumbai branch of—[Time expired]





JOANNE HAYES (National): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It's a pleasure for me to get up and speak on this bill and to support the motion that was put on the Table by our leader, the Hon Simon Bridges, of having no confidence in the Prime Minister's statement at all.
I just want to cover off, in the short time that I have, a couple of areas within non-delivery of this Government. One of those key areas for me that I have a big concern about is children. This Government has failed children. It promised that it would reduce child poverty and lift children out of poverty by 30,000 children. This Government has not done that. They have failed in their delivery to children. They have failed in the fact that 11,000 more children—
Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi: How many?
JOANNE HAYES: —11,000 more children—are in hardship families; 15,000 additional children are in benefit-dependent households. That is failing children in Aotearoa New Zealand.
If the other side, if the Government benches, think that that is wrong, just look at the comment made by the city missions, who said that children under this Government have been poorly served. They did better, under the reduction of child poverty, under—
Hon Stuart Nash: Rubbish.
JOANNE HAYES: —a National-led Government. Don't say "Rubbish." when it came from the city missions, that actually made that comment. 
The other area I want to talk about is the cost of living, because that is impacting on child poverty—the cost of living around the prices of fuel, the increase of fuel taxes, which is limiting the ability for families to actually get to their jobs because the cost of fuel is just absolutely hammering them and taking every last piece of extra dollars that they have, because this Government's got greedy. This Government's got greedy. Food prices have shot up. How can people that are on low incomes survive under this Government? They cannot.
Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi: Go to the grocery store and see for yourself.
JOANNE HAYES: That's right. Go to a grocery store and look at how much food prices have gained under the leadership of this Government.
To actually offer beneficiaries, as a trial, My Food Bag parcels, I believe is an insult. Why don't you just put the money into the beneficiaries, into low-income families, and into increased benefits? Because under a National-led Government, in 2015 we did that—the first time in 43 years that a Government has raised benefits, and it was this side of the House that did that in 2015. So when it comes to who cares most about those on low incomes, to make sure that we look after them and that we respond to them, it is this side of the House. It is the National side of the House that does that. And many people on the other side, on the Government benches, can sit there and have a little chuckle, but the evidence is out there—it is on the streets. People are struggling to survive.
Now, my last point that I want to cover off is Whānau Ora. It would be terrible of me if I didn't mention Whānau Ora and the shambles that has happened to Whānau Ora commissioning agencies over the last 12 months. The 2019 Budget, everybody celebrated—"Yay, $80 million across four years for Whānau Ora commissioning." Well, guess what? The Minister never told the commissioning agencies exactly how that fund was going to be split up. So you can imagine the shock that the commissioning agencies felt when they found out that they'd be getting less than 50 percent of that $80 million—less than that; the Minister never told them. Money that went to Government agencies—Government agencies are already funded. They should look into their own budgets and actually sort out how they are going to respond to Māori whānau.
Also around individual commissioning, who knew about that? Only the Minister. That is why Dame Tariana Turia, Dame Iritana Tāwhiwhirangi, Dame Naida Glavish, Lady Tureiti Moxon, and Merepeka Raukawa-Tait have been and met with the Minister, have met with the Prime Minister, and are taking a Waitangi Tribunal claim against this Government for the treatment of Whānau Ora, not only the commissioning agencies but whānau that are actually served under those organisations, under Māori providers. It is shameful—this is not a Government that has delivered. They have failed to deliver for those that are in need of support, and the economy is reeling from it.





Hon STUART NASH (Minister of Police): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. So negative—it's so negative. Now, let me tell you about what delivery looks like. Let me give a little bit of background. So 2017 was an interesting election in terms of law and order, because instead of the parties going on about who could be hardest on crime, it was actually about who could deliver more police in our communities—it was quite proactive, it was pretty good. So it started with the then National Government. They said they would deliver 880 police over four years. Then Labour came along and said, "No, we can up that. We'll deliver a thousand police over three years." But let's give credit where credit's due: thanks to New Zealand First and this coalition Government we got really aspirational around police. We said 1,800 police over three years—1,800 police over three years.
Now, let me give the House a little bit of a background to how we got here. Minister Ron Mark and I used to go on about this a lot in Opposition. So there was a workplace survey—every two years, the police fill in a workplace survey—and it captures the mood and the feeling and what's going on in police. In that 2017 workplace survey, only 40 percent of respondents—40 percent—said they were delivering on the promises they made to our communities. Sixty percent of officers said they weren't delivering. Also, 60 percent of officers said they had an undue level of workplace stress. But on the opposite side, you had over 80 percent of respondents say that they were committed to the communities they serve and committed to the New Zealand police service.
So what you had was a group of really good men and women who knew what needed to be done but just didn't have the resources to do it. So we decided, "We've got to change this around.", because I completely back the men and women who put their lives on the line 24/7 to keep us safe. And I will admit it does disappoint me every time I hear politicians criticise police—because police can't speak back and police will be there straight away if they're in trouble. So what we did is we started putting police into the community. Remember the Nats wanted 880? We did that in two years. They wanted to do it in four years; we did it in two years.
The last graduating wing—the last wing—which was last week, represented 2,000 more police that are now out in our communities, keeping us safe, fighting drug harm, and preventing crime. That is an astounding figure. And I have been to every single one of these graduations except one—so to 29 graduations—and I have seen the profile of the men and women who are entering our police service, and it is outstandingly good. Men and women who have got qualifications, who have represented their province and our country in sport and culture, and the average age—so people tend to think of young grads, "Oh, they're just out of school." Very rarely is there an 18-year-old there. The average age, I would say, would be mid-20s, early 30s. So they bring in a whole lot of life experience as well. And they are keen. They are really making a difference.
But how did we end up here—how did we end up here? According to Jarrod Gilbert, who is a criminologist at University of Canterbury, the Australian gangs arrived in New Zealand about 2008. By 2011, they were well established, and the Rebels were the gangs that arrived first—well established. After that became known—2011—police numbers dropped by 150. In the last five years of the previous Government, police numbers actually dropped, and during that time, the gangs became sophisticated, they became organised, they became violent, and they were transnational, primarily driven by the 501s—these are the returning deportees from Australia. As a consequence of that, our ethnic gangs started patching up. And so what we're seeing at the moment is the Mongrel Mob—predominately the Mongrel Mob—but the Black Power patching up in a way they have never done before, and the Australian gangs going really hard. So we have a dynamic here which is not good at all.
But, again, according to Jarrod Gilbert—so don't believe me, but this is true—the police do a really good job of policing. They do a fantastic job of preventing crime and solving crime. But what we need is an all-of-Government approach, and that is what this Government is taking: an all-of-Government approach. Police are leading it because they see the hard side, they see the hard edge of crime every single day. But we've got education, we've got housing, we've got Oranga Tamariki, we've got Work and Income New Zealand, we've got a whole lot of agencies coming together to say, "How do we solve this? How do we work together to create safer communities?"
But we also understand that we've got to go after the bad guys. We've got to make sure that we take down these gangs. So we're taking a slightly different approach. As well as, you know, dealing with the yobbos on the ground who are antisocial and do terrible things to their women and you see on the news, we're going after the money—we're going after the money. In fact, last year, 2019, police seized over $100 million in assets and cash associated with the proceeds of crime. It's not just the men with the patches on the back—they may be the public face of what we see and they may be what the news media like to focus on—but it's also your lawyers, it's also your accountants; the white-collar crime. These people are just as insidious and just as bad as the guys with the patches on their back.
In fact, not last Monday but the Monday before, the police made an announcement—and we backed them up—that they'd arrested 10 people who they believe are responsible for importing over a tonne of drugs into this country in the last three years. Not one of them was a gang member, but the harm that they created to our communities was immense. So this is police working with Customs to fight drug crime.
What we've seen so far, according to our waste-water testing, is that meth usage has dropped by 17 percent. Our seizures last year were 1.6 tonnes of meth. Now, you can't do that with a police force that is stressed and can't deliver on the promises that they make; you can only do this when you have a well-resourced police service.
Let me give you, again, a local example in my area, Eastern District. So the district commander, a woman called Superintendent Tānia Kura, who I think is absolutely fantastic and gets this, has set up a gang focus unit. She admits that the only way she could set up this gang focus unit is with the extra police she has been given. In the seven months that this gang focus unit has been operational, they've made over a hundred arrests, over a hundred charges have been laid, millions of dollars have been seized, and gangs are being stopped.
Now, this isn't going to happen overnight—it isn't going to happen overnight. We've still got a lot more police to deliver into our districts—a lot more police. But what we have started here—what we have started here—thanks to this coalition Government is a rebuilding of our police service into a body of men and women who have the resources to go incredibly hard against these gangs and against organised crime.
When we turned up here into Government, the police service did not have those resources; they have them now. In fact, the next graduation in March of this year will be the first time in the history of the New Zealand police service where there will be over 10,000 sworn officers—over 10,000 sworn officers.
Now the game is changing. Gangs are becoming more sophisticated. Crime is becoming more complex. But it just didn't work under the previous Government when they said to the Commissioner of Police, "You must do more with less." And he drove efficiency. He drove culture change. In fact, the Debbie Francis report on bullying, that's just come out this week, said that police are about 95 percent there compared to where they were when Dame Margaret Bazley wrote her first report; they've got about 5 percent to go. The commissioner is committed to delivering on every single recommendation that Debbie Francis put in her report on police bullying and the culture.
So there's a little way to go. We know that. There's a long way to go in terms of getting on top of the gang problem, but we've started in a way that, I believe, is really making a difference. It's not just about going after the men and women; it's about going after the money.
The other thing I would say, that is really disappointing, is that there is a piece of legislation—the Arms Legislation Bill—before this House, and what it does is say that no gang member will have a firearms licence. The other thing it says is that we are going to significantly increase the penalties for gun crime, because we know this is increasing, as well. For a reason that I just cannot fathom, the National Opposition is not voting for this bill.
Matt Doocey: We're not the only ones, Mr Mitchell, are we?
Hon STUART NASH: We have a chance to work—oh no, you're right; David Seymour isn't voting for it either—together to significantly increase penalties for gun crime and to take the guns off gangs and to go really hard against the gangs, but the Nats aren't supporting it—and I don't know why, because this is what we all want. In my communities, we want it.
So just to sum up, we have made a fantastic start to rebuilding our New Zealand police service into an organisation that is fighting gangs and gun crime, and keeping our communities safe.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): The next call's a split call. I call Nicola Willis.





NICOLA WILLIS (National): Well, that was an apologist speech from a Minister who knows that he is overseeing an explosion in the number of gang members in our country. He can claim that it doesn't matter if there are more people with patches on the street, that that's just what the media's focusing on, and we need to worry about something else. Well, I'll tell you, if we are walking down the street in Napier and we see a patched gang member—I'll tell you the effect that has on an everyday person, Stuart—it is intimidating, it is frightening, and it tells us that we're living in a community where people who snub their noses to the law can get away with it, and we don't like it.
Here on this side of the House, I accept your argument that, yes, the police have a mandate to arrest them and the police do a good job. I absolutely accept that. The gangs aren't the police's fault; the fault lies with the Government who have not given the police the mandate to lock offenders up. In fact, the mandate is actually catch and release. There is an explicit objective from this Government to reduce the number of people in prison. If you think that that's not having an impact on the way criminals view our society, then you would be wrong. We have to look at this problem and be realistic about the Government's role in it, and Stuart Nash knows it, and that's why he spent so long apologising for it in that speech.
But what I want to speak about today is a number of items in the Prime Minister's statement that made me reflect on the election campaign we had in 2017. In that statement, we had from the Prime Minister a number of commitments for the future. I have to say it's wearing a little thin with me because I've been hearing these commitments for the future for a long time and I am not seeing the delivery here in Wellington.
I want to take you through a really specific example, and that is housing. I stood next to Grant Robertson, the local MP in Wellington Central, in the Aro Valley community debate, and he promised the assembled people—he promised—he said, "We have to bring rents down." He talked about all the houses that would be built under Labour, he talked about KiwiBuild.
But what have we actually seen in Wellington? We've got rents rising the fastest in the country. We now have the most expensive rents in New Zealand, up a hundred dollars a week since this Government was elected. What that means is that there are people in groups of 30 or 40 standing on footpaths, trying to get a flat. It is harder than ever for people to find a home. We have public waiting lists for public housing that have absolutely exploded; hundreds more signing up for a State house, and not getting it. We have emergency housing grants that have blown out. That is a number that represents more families, more individuals, more Wellingtonians forced out of a proper tenancy and forced instead into living in a motel. That's what's happening with housing in Wellington. Some people will accept the argument. They'll say, "Oh well, you know, the Government's giving it a good go; no one expects perfection." But I'll tell you what they do expect: they expect progress, and we have not seen that on housing in Wellington.
National, for our part, is absolutely focused on the future and the policies that will genuinely make a difference in these areas. We know that it's not simple. We're actually planning to repeal and replace the Resource Management Act, which lies at the heart of many of New Zealand's housing difficulties. We are committed to investing in the infrastructure that will enable more housing development.
Those on the other side of the House would do well to do some reading tonight because we have released 10 discussion documents which detail positive, credible plans for the future, and we are talking to New Zealanders about them. When you look at Wellington, whether it's infrastructure, where we've been robbed of key projects like a second Mount Victoria tunnel, and promised—potentially, one day, maybe—light rail, just like Auckland did. They were promised it would be delivered by 2021. It's 2020, Prime Minister, and the clock's ticking, and you still haven't got a contract. Whether it's health, where targets have been removed and performance on everything from access to cancer treatment to emergency waiting times has slipped back, where there are code reds in our maternity wards, where the midwives still haven't had their claims addressed, and there are chronic shortages occurring. Whether it's early childhood, where instead of 100 percent qualified teachers, as we were promised, we have major teacher shortages across the board. This is a Government that promised big, that can't deliver, that is fundamentally out of its depth. It's time to put mum and dad back in charge and elect a National-led Government.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): Before I call the recently engaged—congratulations—Dan Bidois, could I just really encourage members to not bring the Speaker into the debate, despite the poor leadership that's been demonstrated by some senior members of the House over recent days? If members could really turn their attention to that, it would be appreciated.





DAN BIDOIS (National—Northcote): I have no confidence in the Prime Minister's statement. I have no confidence in this Government. They have failed to deliver for New Zealanders. They are first class at announcements, but third rate at delivery. Finally, this Prime Minister confuses inputs with outcomes.
Let me outline for you a few examples today—that were not mentioned in the Prime Minister's statement—about how they have failed to deliver. Firstly, on police—we had the Minister of Police just recently—crime is up 25 percent in my neighbourhood.
Sarah Dowie: How much?
DAN BIDOIS: 25 percent in Northcote in the last two years, since this Government came into office. Gang numbers are up 31 percent, or nearly 1,700, under this Government. Let's go to housing. Well, need I say anything more than "KiwiBuild"? How many houses were promised to be built in KiwiBuild? I don't think we're at nearly the number that they promised. I think in the order of now 20,000, and they've probably built less than 400.
In Northcote, we've got one of my Opposition candidates taking credit for a local housing development that was established under the National Government. The Northcote Development, may I remind this House, was an initiative that was established under National, not under this Government, as the Labour Opposition locally has been calling it. Their answer to solving the housing crisis is to buy private properties and put them into State housing. The Government has bought over 100 houses in the Northcote electorate, and it has taken away from first-time buyers.
What about the environment? Well, this Government talked up a big game about climate change. Well, it may surprise you that emissions have actually gone up in the last two years under this Government. Forty-seven thousand tonnes are projected under this Government in their first term, and under us, in the last term, emissions actually fell by 24,000. May I remind the House that their botched feebate scheme was promised and not delivered.
Let's turn our attention to the economy. Well, again, they've talked up a big game in the economy, but let's see the facts. The facts are clear: 1.6 percent GDP growth in the last year, near 0 percent per person growth in incomes in the last year, falling business and consumer confidence, and not to mention the projected decline from the coronavirus. This Government has piled on costs—piled on extra costs—for families and for local businesses.
Finally, let's talk about infrastructure, because the Government's really big on putting money into infrastructure and announcing things, but what have they delivered? Did the Government talk about light rail to the airport? How's that going—anybody?
Sarah Dowie: Not well.
DAN BIDOIS: Not well at all. What about this project in Auckland that affects my community called SkyPath, or should I call it the Shared Path, or should I call it the Northern Pathway, or should I call it the Te Ara Pae Moana path? I don't know, because this Government's changed the name of that project in the last two years. That's all they've done on this project—make announcements with no delivery.
So finally, I just want to use my contribution to summarise that—look, this Government has failed to deliver. National has a plan. We want to put more money in people's back pockets. We want to actually get things started and built now, not in 10 years' time. We want to cut red tape and regulation to build our economy up, to get it moving again, so that Kiwis can get on and make a better life for themselves. We will deliver what we promise. We will not do what this Government has failed to do, and that is deliver for New Zealanders. I have no confidence in the Prime Minister.





MARAMA DAVIDSON (Co-Leader—Green): The Greens are proudly part of a global and local grassroots movement of people who understand that we have to work together and do everything we possibly can; that it is our responsibility to the generations coming after us to make sure that we are protecting and stabilising our climate for a good future for our mokopuna; to make sure that we are supporting communities to live decent lives; and that caring for our climate, our environment, and people goes hand in hand, that we cannot separate that care and responsibility for all of these things apart from each other.
We know that working with people who are at the front line of these big issues—who are at the forefront of climate instability; who are at the forefront of not having enough to live decent lives; who are at the forefront of trying to look after our natural world, our water, and our soil, and our air, and our animals, that we all rely on to live—is the essential way that we are going to resolve those very issues.
So the problem is that the rules and the way that previous Governments have operated have led to the pollution of our air, soil, and water. The rules that have been set down by previous Governments have meant that more people are struggling even more to get by, while the super-wealthy elite have far more than they will ever, ever need. We've just heard from National Party members. It is the National Party's ruinous nine years in Government previously that is absolutely guilty of upholding the cost-saving measures rather than community-serving measures.
They have taken that trade-off, and we are still seeing the impacts and the legacies from their cost-cutting approach to taking care of our people and our planet. They sold off public housing, and we are still mopping up the mess. They allowed houses to be used as a way for wealthier people to build even more wealth, where in this country you can get away with owning tens and hundreds of houses as one person, while thousands of families still cannot find one home to live in.
The previous Government absolutely uphold that and, in fact, have some pride in allowing that immorality to keep happening. Politicians and definitely the previous Government have caused funding shortfalls for core public services, including the previous National Government—funding services to be able to look after our key living systems like water infrastructure that is today degraded, that this Government, at least, is acknowledging needs to be fixed up, sorted out. They have allowed for slack rules over the decisions we make over keeping our water clean and plentiful.
The previous Government absolutely encouraged the slackness of those rules over our water and land decisions. We have let these slack rules that governments—central and local and authorities—have then made decisions to allow industries to keep polluting water and soil when instead we should be supporting new economic ways of being that are going to ensure that we've still got our rivers and our water sources and healthy, growing soils here for 100 years to come and more, but that is not the long vision that that previous National Government are ever, ever capable of.
So as an impact of that, we still do have far too many children and their families living in poverty and in hardship. We still do have far too many people finding it really hard to find a warm, accessible, secure home that they can put their roots down in. We still do have degrading waterways and a water crisis, and we still do have an economy that relies on industries that increase our carbon and polluting emissions into the very climate that we should be working to protect.
So the Green Party knows that houses are a core public good—are a human, fundamental right that everyone deserves. We know that incomes need to be enough so that people can live with dignity and that everyone deserves to live with dignity. We are clear that water is a taonga for future generations and not just a tradable commodity good for the highest bidder. We can do better, and this Government has made the important start and steps to turn us in a better direction. We welcome these changes that we have taken to correct generations of harmful Government decisions, especially those made by the previous National Government who were selling off public housing—we have stopped that, the Nats didn't do that. We have linked benefit increases to wage increases. The Nats—the National Government—didn't do that. We have stopped penalising children for not having their father's name on a piece of paper. We have stopped doing that. The National Government did not do that.
So yes, I get a little emotional when they stand up and dare try to talk about children in poverty, because they didn't make the decisions that could have made it so much easier for all those very children and families that they are now pretending to care about. We've built more public houses this term than ever in the last 20 years. The National Government didn't do that either.
So I'm really proud of the things that we have been able to start: things like Jan Logie's whole of Government, whole of system approach to ending domestic violence and child abuse; things like finally getting legislation agreed in this House that we want a zero carbon economy in our near future; things like banning new offshore oil and gas permits. This is what you get with the Greens in Government: having water high on the agenda, finally, as something that we all have to protect; having the largest funding boost to the Department of Conversation that we have seen in 16 years; and pulling in a progressive homeownership plan—something that we haven't seen in this country, I think, since the 1980s, as far as I can remember. And yes, we've done all these things. We've got this track record of what we can do with only eight MPs in this Government, and we are well aware that we need to go further and faster to make sure that we are resolving our climate change, our inequality, and our environmental protection issues.
I recently opened the first climate-safe house in New Zealand in Waitati in Dunedin. We can have a whole nation of climate-safe houses that are transportable, that are made affordable, that are energy efficient, that are able to withstand the weather extremes and the instability that we are likely to also face.
We must ensure that we prioritise public housing. We must have strong rules for water use and to upgrade all of the infrastructure around the country, and we have to urgently increase core baseline benefit amounts, which is what the working expert group insisted that we needed to do. We need to remove the harsh sanctions in our social security system, because they do not work. They make it harder for people already struggling. We need to make sure that the ideas for properly funding these solutions pick up, that the super, uber-wealthy need to be paying their fair share of tax so that we can increase the revenue to Government to fix all of these issues that desperately need fixing. As the Green Party, I am proud to be able to stand up and acknowledge that we need to increase our revenue if we're serious, even just on things like saving our harbours from further water infrastructure pollution.
The main thing here that I know we need to do is reject the dehumanising and trade-off approach that we have just heard from the Opposition side of this House, where they stand up—they want to separate us off. They want to say, "This group is bad and this group is good." We're all in this together, and isolating and dividing and separating us is what has caused these issues in the very first place. We're not going to be able to resolve these massive problems unless we bring people together, unless we realise that in every group, in every sector, in every community, they are simply just people. We are all people trying to do our best. Thank you, Madam Speaker.





JENNY MARCROFT (NZ First): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It is a privilege to stand on behalf of New Zealand First to take my call on the Prime Minister's statement. In my previous life I was a broadcaster of almost 30 years—mid- to low-range alto voice. As a newsreader, I feel that I am well qualified to make this statement: we have, under this Government, good news—good news to share with our country of all the ways that we have turned back the tide of desperation and that dark, blue cloud that was shrouding the country under the leadership of the National Party. So good news for all in New Zealand.
Let me start with the health of our nation. Under our Minister, the Hon Dr David Clark, and our Prime Minister we have taken a focus of ensuring that for cancer—which is one of the diseases which many New Zealanders and many families are affected by—there is a boost to funding for Pharmac so that these cancer drugs can be rolled out in a far more speedy and transparent way, and that has happened. We now have a Cancer Control Agency which will deliver a new 10-year cancer action plan.
We have heard some great news from Pharmac and Pfizer—the drug agency with Ibrance, which is now available for free for those women who have received the news that they have breast cancer. And for all of those women whose lives have been touched and their family's lives have been touched—and there are those in this House, myself included, as I lost my mother from breast cancer—this is amazing news: to finally have Ibrance funded, which will be life-extending for all of those. There are around 1,100 New Zealand patients who will benefit from this and the funding starts in less than a month's time on 1 April.
So the focus of this Government is people and the wellness of our society. Wiki Mulholland, who came to the select committee—I'm a member of the Health Committee—she came along with her husband. They had been campaigning to get Pharmac to fund a wider range of drugs, and they have said how rapt they are that Ibrance will now be funded from April. Previously, people had to pay around $6,000 for a month's supply of Ibrance; now it will be free. This is transformational and this is good news for all of those sufferers of breast cancer.
Mental health has been a focus of this Government. We now have the Mental Health Commission back on track. We've had the first reading in the House. It is now in the select committee stage and we will re-establish the commission, which will, in fact, be delivering on a coalition agreement between New Zealand First and Labour. We know that mental health and addiction issues are devastating not just individuals in our society but whole families and whole communities, and so this is going to be crucial to transforming the support services that we need to wrap around these communities. So that is more good news, as we have released $1.9 billion to look at preventing suicide and taking care of people's mental wellbeing as well. 
The Suicide Prevention Office has been opened. It was a pleasure for me to attend the opening, alongside the Prime Minister, Jacinda Ardern, and the Minister of Health, Dr David Clark, and also too a young All Black, Nehe Milner-Skudder, who was there at the opening, who shared his stories of his own mental health journey. For the opening of that office, $40 million was set aside, but also too specifically set aside for our Māori and Pacific suicide prevention community fund was $12 million. So that is more good news as we focus on ensuring the mental wellbeing of all New Zealanders. 
Even into the regions—in the Waikato we had an announcement earlier of a mental health facility in Waikato to improve the outcome for those with mental health and addiction issues in that region, and we're replacing the Henry Rongomau Bennett Centre, which had fallen into a bit of neglect. That became almost no longer fit for purpose, so we focus now on restoring that facility. 
There has been a 72 percent increase in people being seen by mental health and addiction services over the past nine years, and so our focus surely is in the right place. 
Still staying in the health sector—because it's not just those who are ill; it's those who provide support to us—it's those first responders, the paramedics. We are going to acknowledge the status that they should have to be recognised as registered health professionals under the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Act. So money was delivered to them—$38.2 million—last year to secure the future of our ambulance services, as well as recognising their professional status. We care about the health and the wellbeing, and that is great news. 
For those who feel that they have not received justice inside our criminal system, we have set up—and this was another plan from the New Zealand First coalition agreement with Labour—the Criminal Cases Review Commission. It was a pleasure to attend the opening of that, which is also to be set up in the regions—in the Waikato region. Mr Colin Carruthers QC will be leading that. He's the chief commissioner, alongside his establishment advisory group, because it's really important that we know that the courts have complete independence. They require rules to work effectively, they require funding, and, of course, they require the support of the Government, so our coalition Government has committed to having a modern and effective justice system by putting the permanent Criminal Cases Review Commission in place. 
This commission is our commitment to an absolutely just and effective system for review. It will substantially improve our system for responding to all those miscarriages of justice, and it will take away the burden on the applicants who couldn't afford to have their cases relooked at. They will now have the assistance for their voices to be heard. That is good news. 
Speaking of news, the media: currently, we know that we have a crisis in our media. In our broadcasting landscape, there's a crisis of trust. There's also a crisis of the business model. The business model is broken, and so this Government has set about to ensure our public media is futureproofed as the changing ecosystems around the world—this is a global issue, to make sure that our public media is protected and futureproofed. So we are very pleased to be able to support a public media business case. That's a very practical step that we can take to ensure we have a strong media environment, because, of course, having a strong media environment is crucial for a healthy democracy. 
This report will be due back in a few months' time, and it will guide us as to what options are available, what is the design of any kind of merger to form an elaborate or a larger New Zealand broadcasting industry, what those designs are and what the costs are going to be, and any likely time frames that it will take. So that is a practical and very pragmatic step, and we're pleased to be part of ensuring that our media is futureproofed. 
But we also too would like to look to the future, and in doing that, we are able to ensure that we get some cars off the road, because it's really important. With all the congestion from all those trucks, let's get the transport on the rail. So we are reinvigorating KiwiRail through the Provincial Growth Fund. I went to the announcement on the North Auckland Line, between Swanson and Whangārei, actually. There will be significant benefits for the Northland economy as we get those trucks off the road and we are able to move all of that transport through the rail network. It will provide a lot of jobs as well, in training up young people to work on the railway lines. They're very excited about that. That's more than a billion dollars to get New Zealand's rail system back on track, so that rail actually can play its proper role in reducing that road congestion, and the emissions, of course, will be reduced with having less cars on the road. 
Finally, I'd just like to make a quick note on one of the taonga of our ngahere, and that's the kauri tree. We have a significant problem with kauri dieback. It affects all of those forests in the upper North Island, and we have prioritised biosecurity in ensuring we have research to help combat the kauri dieback disease. 
So this is a Government with great news—not just good news; great news. Therefore, I support the Prime Minister's statement. 





Hon PAULA BENNETT (Deputy Leader—National): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise and do not support the Prime Minister's statement. I would like to start on behalf of the National Party by acknowledging those people not just in New Zealand but, actually, around the world, with the uncertainty, the angst, and the fear that many feel over the coronavirus at the moment and what is happening. I want to acknowledge those in business who are seeing a marked drop in their business and who are worried for its survival, and those who are in jobs and are in fear of losing those jobs or seeing their hours reduced, which is really real for them as they try and pay their bills and do what they do. We in the National Party want to take this opportunity to know and acknowledge and say that we understand where it's at and that we share, actually, a lot of their concerns. 
When you look at businesses, they're saying there's a 30 percent drop in hospitality so far. Hotels are talking about having one booking now for the month of July. People are fearful of getting on a plane because of what that might mean in travelling long distances. Exporters, of course, are already saying there's $100 million in reductions that they're seeing so far, and there are projections of $300 million. 
We do stand up here and ask the question why so much emphasis is about helping people go on to the unemployment benefit when, actually, we'd like to see more of an emphasis about how we keep people in their jobs and keep them connected to the workforce. Everyone will agree, of course, and there's every bit of research around it that says that if we actually keep them connected to their employer, even if it's with reduced hours—and instead of seeing that money go on welfare, have it actually go directly to the employer or the employee so that they can stay in the job—economically, it makes sense. It makes much more sense for the worker themselves, because they're staying connected to the workforce, and when that work picks up, they can—and, of course, businesses want to do that because they want to keep valued employees. 
We don't seem to be looking at that as a kind of solution at the moment, and it's one that we would like to see a lot of work being done on very quickly. It happened, of course, in Christchurch after the earthquakes. I myself was actually involved in getting that programme up and running, and I know for a fact that it saved a lot of jobs and it saved a lot of families. It meant that they could continue to pay their bills, which is what most of us want to do. 
I also want to acknowledge, though, the delay in timely, and the right, information getting out. Never was that more stark than this morning, when on TV we saw the Minister of Health confirm that there was a third case of COVID-19, and a little while longer—and I believe it was minutes, not hours—in an interview with RNZ, the Director-General of Health was asked if there'd been a third case, and he said, "I will be making statements about that this afternoon." We then waited six hours, and, of course, there was a lot of uncertainty for New Zealanders. I would just plead to the Government: they have a role to take leadership here and get that timely information out in the correct manner to people so that they aren't left with a vacuum that leads that fear to continue to grow.
I also want to acknowledge doctors. We say that we should be actually being led by the health professionals, and I agree completely. But we have doctors that are saying they want to and should be testing people but they're told they can't because there are not enough tests to be done. The Ministry of Health, from what I've read, are only able to do about 500 tests. That's proving to not be enough, and we need a faster, speedier response there. 
We need to be supporting our businesses so that we can support those workers getting the right health response and giving them everything. The good news, ladies and gentlemen, is that the National Party are going to bring forward their economic plan so that people can see a path to prosperity and to certainty and to make sure that we can deliver our plan so that they know what's kind of going on. We do not see an economic plan from the Government, except to put more people on welfare. New Zealand needs a better response. 
We control our borders. We are one of the few countries in the world that you can't walk into or paddle to, and, as a consequence of that, we could be doing much more in our airports and on our planes to make sure that we are protecting our people and ensuring that we're getting the right response to them. So I say beef up the support at airports more; ensure there is more testing, better management, and information; and, on economic businesses and workers, get a plan that actually keeps people into work.
Well, the chaos that is the Ardern - Peters - Greens Government is absolutely in display in this debate that I have seen for the last few days. I mean, come on: let's give New Zealanders some straight answers. Is the "freebate" for electric vehicles dead or is it alive or is it a maybe that we get from the Prime Minister or it might—"I don't know. I can't say," says the Prime Minister, "because I can't actually manage this Government to give a straight answer to let you all know what's going on." 
In that week of fear and uncertainty that we saw growing last week as the first case came out about coronavirus—New Zealanders obviously worried; tourism slowing down; hotels and our hospitality industry all really concerned—what was the response or the priority that we got from the Government that week? I know: let's give prisoners voting rights. Yeah, that is the response and a priority from a Government that is tinkering at the edges and not actually addressing the issues that New Zealanders want them to be doing. By the way, they'll speed it through Parliament this year and not go through due process, because they want it in before the election. I think that's disgraceful, in a week where we see such uncertain times for New Zealanders, and says a lot, actually, about this Government's priorities.
Let's get some certainty around the question that New Zealanders are going to have for legalising recreational cannabis—yeah? So they've taken the right away from Parliament to decide the question for the first time ever. Cabinet's going to make the choice; it's not going to go through the proper process that it normally does. And then what we're seeing is they are deliberately misleading New Zealanders so that they will mix up medicinal and recreational cannabis. That is a disgrace in itself, and I would love to hear from New Zealand First where they stand on that. 
They can't deliver—oh no; that's not fair. They deliver more gang members—yeah. They can't deliver—oh, that's not fair of me. They delivered seven KiwiBuild houses in January, so that's making a big difference! The wonderful Judith Collins highlighting yet again more virtue signalling from the Government when they tell us about a homeownership package that, by the way, they've put a working group on and they've got a few more announcements to make on it but no actual deliverables, of course, because they don't want to. But, you know, there are things that they have delivered. They've delivered higher rents—yeah. They've delivered the cost of petrol going up. They've delivered more homelessness—yeah. They've delivered more child poverty—so more children are actually living in poverty now than they were when this Government came in. Oh, they've delivered more people on welfare at a time of record low unemployment. In fact, they've delivered 15,000 more children into welfare-dependent households to date—to date.
The argument this Government wants to have is: what level should benefits be at? Let's have an argument about how we can get them into productive work, into better lives, into owning their own businesses, and getting ahead instead.
The very people that were promised so much from this chaotic Government have been the very people that have been most let down—the most let down. They were given false hope that has actually left their lives worse off because of the policies and the lack of delivery of this Government. 
Only National will give real relief to families. Only National will build roads, and only National will make them and their families safer. National understands the economy. National knows that the role of Government is to provide relief and certainty to New Zealanders, particularly in troubled times, and to help them get ahead. We have positive plans that are going to strengthen families, that are going to make their lives better and improved, that are going to reduce the cost of living, and that are going to take away the false hope, the chaotic Government, that's been in front of them and actually show some strong leadership.





Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Minister for Māori Development): That member doth protest too much. The Government is proud to support the Prime Minister's statement because we know in these brief couple of years, and a little bit more to go, while we've achieved much—and many members on this side of the House have said that—there is so much more to do. But there's a saying: if you want to see our work, look around—look around. We have a confidence and supply and coalition partner that is working constructively with the Government to achieve so much for people, because we do believe that New Zealand is a great place to live in and to raise our children, where we should have a fair and decent society that invests back into our community. But, in a nutshell, we're doing so much, and we have so much more to do.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: I'm sorry to interrupt the member, but her time has expired. The question is that the amendment in the name of the Hon Simon Bridges be agreed to. [Interruption] Excuse me, I'm putting the vote.





A party vote was called for on the question, That all the words after "That" be deleted and the following substituted: "this House has no confidence in the Labour-led Government because, in just two short years, it has plunged New Zealand into deficit and failed to deliver on any of its promises." 
Ayes 57
New Zealand National 55; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.
Noes 63
New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That this House express its confidence in the Coalition Government and commend its programme for 2020 as set out in the Prime Minister's statement.
Ayes 63
New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.
Noes 57
New Zealand National 55; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.
Motion agreed to.





SCREEN INDUSTRY WORKERS BILL
First Reading
Debate resumed from 4 March 2020.
JAN LOGIE (Green): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It's with great enthusiasm that I rise to express the Green Party's support for the Screen Industry Workers Bill this afternoon. I think, like most New Zealanders, I love a good story and I love a good film and a good show. Some of the films that have come out of this country, and the TV shows, have changed my outlook on the world; they've deeply affected and moved me, and connected me to other people in ways that I hadn't had access to before. And, at times, they've just made me laugh when, you know, that was not something I thought was possible at that point in time. I really have so much admiration for all of the talented performers and writers and technicians and other artists who have enriched my life in these ways.
Films to me have always seemed—particularly films, but TV as well—quite glamorous. But then when I talk to people working in the industry—or those who have now left because they couldn't find a way to be a decent parent and work the really, really long hours, or be confident that they could contribute to the family budget in a way that was manageable, or, actually, even be able to manage their own safety when they didn't feel there was an avenue to address safety concerns—the glamour was lost. And that's been the reality for a really long time in this country, that our artists and our technicians and these people who enrich our lives have often just been put in really precarious situations. The average income in the film industry, the Minister said in his opening speech, is around $40,000 a year, which doesn't quite match the image I think most of us have in this country of what it might mean to work in the film industry. And it's really clear that a lot of people who have stayed in there have stayed because they are driven as artists to contribute and to tell those stories. I think it's incumbent on us as a country to look after those people and to make sure that they, in turn for what they give to us, are able to have decent lives, to feel safe in their workplaces, and to be paid fairly for the work that they do. 
This piece of legislation is a really important step to enable that to happen. It overturns the "Hobbit law" to restore basic protections and rights to people in the screen industry. And it reflects the outcome of the Government-created Film Industry Working Group, which brought together unions and the film and television sector and Business New Zealand, who sat down together and worked out how to be able to better support decent conditions for people in the screen industry, as well as secure the place of the industry in our country. By sitting down together, they managed to do that. That is a credit to this Government saying that this was important, that the conditions of those workers was an important discussion to happen, and a fundamental belief that by those parties sitting down together, they could work something out. 
This is in stark, stark contrast to the previous Government, who sold out all of those people in this country. Those artists who we admire—who had been attempting for years, from around 2009, to try and get standard contracts in the industry to be able to protect people in the workplace—had been met with absolute resistance from the film industry. In one production where there'd been a request for a discussion about having a standard contract for people, the producer had come back and threatened to recast the entire show, even just in response to the request to have that conversation—those were the people, that was the action, that the National Party came in behind and supported. They supported the tiny, privileged few over the wellbeing of our artists who enrich our lives so much. 
This piece of legislation, what it does is, what that working group worked out together, is—it doesn't go as far as, say, the Green Party's policy would have wanted, which would have been to ensure full employment rights for everybody who is, we would argue, in a position of being employees in reality, or, even, the right to strike or the right to industrial action. But we're very happy to support a solution that has been worked out through the unions and the film industry and Business New Zealand, which is what this does. 
We really think that, like fair pay agreements, this is the way forward for us in this country to be able to ensure everyone benefits from increased productivity and wellbeing in our country. So the details of it are that—while it doesn't make people employees, it keeps them as contractors—it enables them to collectively bargain. There's also the option for there to be improvements to that standard that may be set across an industry at an enterprise level or within individual contracts, which seemed last night, listening to the National speeches, was not something that was understood. And it requires workers to have written contracts containing the notice period for terminating the contract and any associated payment that may be made to the worker and a process for responding to complaints of bullying and discrimination and harassment. I really do think—when we have been hearing the stories and have recently seen the conviction of Harvey Weinstein in the US—it's really important to reflect, and I would ask the National Party to think on the fact that they're voting against legislation to enable a process of responding to complaints of bullying, discrimination, and harassment.
I've sat in meetings with women in our film and screen industries and have heard the stories and the concerns within our own industry here, and they've come together as women across the industry to put some amazing things in place. This is our chance to get behind them and make sure that we have legislation that backs them up to be able to protect them. As we saw with Harvey Weinstein, as in the same stories that happen here, the threat of being blacklisted has a silencing effect and puts people at risk, and that requires strong protections to be able to balance that threat. That is a key part of what this legislation does, and it is critically important for the women in those industries but also for us as a country if we're going to be consistent in all or any of our conversations around wanting to address sexual harassment in particular. 
I also, just again, touch on the fact that this is overturning the "Hobbit law". When I was thinking about this speech and I put something in a search, it came up with the Urban Dictionary and the definition of "Hobbit law", which I thought I might share, which is: "Law that is introduced as a knee jerk reaction, usually to erode the rights … of people at work." That is on record. That is in the international Urban Dictionary as a result of the National Party's approach to industrial relations in this country. 
It is really shameful, but what is more shameful was the impact on our artists, and in my final moments I want to just to give a huge shout-out to Equity New Zealand, in particular, and Helen Kelly from the Council of Trade Unions, who stood up against lies and power and manipulation and stood by the people in their industry and an absolute commitment to their right to dignity and safety at work.





DAN BIDOIS (National—Northcote): Well, that contribution should give you some indication not to believe everything you see on the internet, especially from Urban Dictionary, because today is, in fact, a sad day for our screen industry. It's also a sad day for good policy-making in New Zealand. I recall, actually, living in the US—I was a graduate student just outside of Cambridge in Massachusetts in 2010, when this law was passed, and I remember watching the US media's reaction to this law. They were praising it—they were praising it for good policy reasons. Today is a sad day for this industry, but also for good policy-making in New Zealand.
Why are we here? Why are we actually considering this bill? Well, it's very simple. This is union payback. There's no other way to find it—
DEPUTY SPEAKER: I'll just advise the member you've just got to be careful. 
DAN BIDOIS: Thank you, Madam Speaker. This is nothing but appeasement to the unions, because after years of back-scratching, now it's time for them to deliver.
Our film industry is going to be harmed by this law. This law, in fact, will cost job opportunities, and let me outline for you some of those. The point of the "Hobbit law" was to create the conditions whereby these international companies, who could go anywhere in the world, felt that there was an incentive to come to New Zealand. With this law, what you're going to see is increased costs for these companies. You're going to see increased compliance costs. You're going to see greater costs for actually manufacturing and building these film productions. So what you're going to see is fewer of these overseas companies—the very companies that we want to come here and produce films like The Hobbit and Lord of the Rings and other great success stories that we're all proud about. What we're going to see, in fact, is a diminishing of this industry, with fewer job opportunities, fewer high-income job opportunities for our New Zealanders, and a reduction in incomes as a result.
So that is where we come from in the National Party—is saying this law was a good policy. You don't have to take our word for it. The Government's own advice said the same thing. So here we are about to toss out a policy that was good, and that is why this is a bad day for policy making in this country.
Now, the other thing I want to raise is that the provisions in this bill give explicit conditions where there are collective bargaining rights at the sector level. Now, what does that mean? What it means is what we call fair pay agreements. To the average person out there, fair pay doesn't necessarily mean fair pay. In fact, in many ways it doesn't. Let me describe for you how fair pay works. If there are companies that are operating in Auckland and companies that are operating in Gore, and there is an agreement established whereby a certain screen worker in Gore and in Auckland must be paid the same rate, now, what we're going to see—of course, the cost of living in Gore is different to the cost of living in Auckland, so my colleague, Hamish Walker, the MP for that area, tells me. So what we're, in fact, going to see is the screen workers in Gore paid far more than they actually need to—
Hon Member: "Gorr".
DAN BIDOIS: "Gorr"—well, whatever. I'm a proud Aucklander. OK. What we're going to see is, in fact, higher costs for that company down in Gore, and as a result, this company is probably going to chuck in the towel and actually not come to New Zealand. 
Again, don't take my word for it. Take the word of the independent research conducted by the New Zealand Initiative, which states very, very clearly the negative effects of these fair pay agreements on New Zealand businesses, workers, productivity, jobs, and incomes. So there is no evidence that these fair pay agreements actually lead to positive outcomes. It is, in fact, poor policy-making that we are seeing and witnessing today from this Government, that they are overturning this "Hobbit law" in the namesake of ideology. 
Now, let me come to what National believes. National believes that these kind of employment relationships should, in fact, be at the firm level, between the company and the workers themselves. We want a flexible environment where these people and organisations can come together and establish a relationship that is beneficial for both parties, not for the whole sector. We believe in creating a competitive and vibrant film industry. That is why we put the "Hobbit law" in place back in 2010, and that is why it has consistently thrived since then, right up until 2020. These individual agreements we believe in, not collective agreements. 
You know, there was a speaker there that talked about bullying and harassment. Of course we want to see improvements in that area, but this law is not it. So let us chuck this law out in select committee—we'll do whatever we can—and actually go back to good policy-making in New Zealand, because this is, in fact, a sad moment for the industry, it's a sad moment for good policy-making in New Zealand, and National opposes this bill. Thank you.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: This is a split call.





TAMATI COFFEY (Labour—Waiariki): What a load of rubbish he just talked about just then—absolutely no idea about what the industry are thinking, what they are saying. If he had any clue about what exactly the film industry wanted, then all he would need to do is tune in to some of the narrative, some of the conversations that are going on. And here's one that's gone on: Robyn Malcolm, a proud New Zealand actress, she was the one that actually sent a message through to Radio New Zealand saying that at the time when the news was put out there that we were going to be doing this, she was delighted the law would be repealed; she cried in the airport. Here's a quote from her: "It was a hellish time for all of us and I'm so happy that our new Government has seen to right this wrong straight off the bat." She described the National Government's decision to change the labour laws for a Hollywood production company as "nothing short of embarrassing". She said the only protection that actors have is their ability to collectively bargain. 
This is a very unusual, inconsistent, and potentially very exploitative industry, and the previous speaker knows nothing about it. So I would encourage him to actually go and have a conversation with some of the people that are working in the screen production industry, because what this is is absolutely a protection of their rights, their ability to collectively bargain, to make sure that, actually, we do have fair systems and fair agreements when it comes to our screen industry. So I absolutely commend this to the House, and it will pass. Kia ora.





SIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Thank you for the opportunity to take a short call on the Screen Industry Workers Bill, which the National Party is opposing. This bill is repealing a law which has stood the test of time, which has made a difference to our economy, which has brought to New Zealand industry and jobs which we would not have had in our film industry if the "Hobbit law" had not been put in place in 2010. This bill represents a broken promise by the Labour - "Winston First" - Greens Government. They promised that in the first hundred days—
DEPUTY SPEAKER: Use full names.
SIMEON BROWN: Sorry, the New Zealand First—yeah, that's correct. They're in coalition, but not the other one; they're in confidence and supply. Just thought I'd clarify that as well. They said they would deliver this within the first hundred days, but it took two and a half years of a working group—one of their two-hundred-and-something working groups—to even bring this bill before this Parliament. 
Dan Bidois: What an incompetent Government. 
SIMEON BROWN: Two and a half years—what an incompetent Government; exactly, Mr Bidois—to get a hopeless Government to bring one of their promises here before this this Parliament. And now they're hoping to ram it through before this Parliament rises for the election later this year. 
This bill is going to be a dampener on the film industry in New Zealand. It is going to increase costs and lead to fewer films being produced here in New Zealand—fewer jobs, fewer opportunities for New Zealanders. This bill will empower the unions as they seek to take collective action against the film industry.
Yes, I note in this bill, they won't be able to take collective action during the time that the collective bargaining is happening, but just you wait, mark my words, collective action, more strikes, are coming to New Zealand and are just around the corner. We will not support this bill.





Hon POTO WILLIAMS (Minister for the Community and Voluntary Sector): This bill does three things. It is a requirement for workers to have written contracts which will contain mandatory terms and conditions about termination, protection from bullying, discrimination, and harassment. Second, it sets up a framework in which collective contracts can be negotiated setting minimum terms for contractors. And third, it has a disputes resolution process. It's a good bill. I don't want to hold it up any longer. I commend it to the House.





NICOLA WILLIS (National): I want to take this opportunity to put on the record how much Wellington values our film industry. It is a really important industry that creates hundreds, if not thousands, of jobs and significant economic opportunity in this city, not only for those who are working on these incredible Weta productions and making the props and doing the incredible digital work but for the constellation of businesses around them—everyone from the people doing the drycleaning to providing the catering to doing the houses—and Wellington would be much poorer without our incredible film industry and the creative, talented people who support it.
I also want to put on the record the value of contracting arrangements. It is a tendency in this House, on the other side, from time to time, to make out that anyone who is a contractor is somehow in a poorer position than someone who is an employee. I would suggest to those who hold that view that they go and talk to people who choose to contract because of the flexibility it gives them. The contractors I've spoken to, many in the film industry, are very happy with the employment arrangements they have. They note that their industry is quite particular in the way that it operates and that that flexibility has been useful not only to them but to their colleagues and the way that our New Zealand film industry has been able to adapt and innovate. I believe that valuing that role of contracting is important across our economy. Yes, many jobs are absolute employee-employer relationships, and I stand for protecting the rights within those relationships, but we must acknowledge the spectrum and the fact that many want to be contractors.
So the real question for this bill is—we know that Labour made a big promise. They said they'd remove the "Hobbit bill". Well, actually, the core part in the "Hobbit bill" was a carve-out for film industry employees. They're not going to tell the unions this, but the carve-out is still there. So the real question is: is this bill anything more than a sop to the unions, who they've disappointed on so many fronts? And I'd suggest to you that where a change is simply a Government trying to deliver on an election promise that was flawed to begin with, it's probably a change not worth making. Thank you.





Hon CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South): It's hard to know whether they're deliberately or wilfully or haplessly ignorant over on that side of the House.
Ten years ago, when the National Party introduced legislation and rammed all three stages through the House under urgency in a single day, that was a dark night for our country, with that "Hobbit law". There was no consultation of the affected workers, no select committee—a complete abrogation of the democratic process. Film workers lost their ability to challenge their status to bargain collectively or to challenge unfair dismissals and other rights. And yet Nicola Willis gets up and talks about the importance of contracting. 
Well, here's, quickly, what this bill does, which is value contracting. Contractors doing screen production work must have written contracts with mandatory terms about contract termination and protection from bullying, discrimination, and harassment, a new duty of good faith to require parties to a contract not to mislead or deceive one another—can't argue with that. Contractors doing screen production work will be able to bargain collectively in a tiered dispute resolution system, enabling them to resolve issues that may arise. 
That's what this bill does. It's actually valuing contracting. It's ideological opposition over there, it's bad faith, and it's sour grapes, because 10 years after their dreadful law passed, we're undoing it. I dedicate this to the spirit of Helen Kelly, and absolutely commend it to the House.





A party vote was called for on the question, That the Screen Industry Workers Bill be now read a first time.
Ayes 63
New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.
Noes 57
New Zealand National 55; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.
Bill read a first time. 
Bill referred to the Education and Workforce Committee.





Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): I move, That the Screen Industry Workers Bill be reported to the House by 2 June 2020 and that the committee have the authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting (except during oral questions), during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House, and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House, and outside the Wellington area, despite Standing Orders 191, 193 and 194(1)(b) and (c). 
I just want to make some brief comments about why the Government is seeking a slightly shortened select committee process on this bill. This bill represents certainty for the screen industry, and that is something which has come through very loudly from the industry—that they want this issue settled, they want it settled quickly, and they want to know that they have got certainty to invest into the future. That is why the Government believes that it is important that we progress this legislation as quickly as we can. We know that the New Zealand screen industry is highly dependent on foreign production companies making investments in the creation of film, television, and games here in New Zealand, and that certainty is important for securing that future investment. 
The second point I would make is that the overwhelming majority of the people who are affected by this bill who will wish to make contributions at the select committee have been involved in the development of this legislation. This legislation is the result of a tripartite working group. It involved the Government, the producers, the guilds, and the unions representing everybody involved in this industry, and there is a high degree of consensus. This is a result of a consensus view that was reached by that group.
Now, it is important that we have a select committee process to make sure that the drafting is accurate, that it reflects the view that was reached by that group, but the people who have the greatest interest in this, who are vested in this, who will, I have no doubt, come and make submissions at the select committee, have been involved in this process almost from the day this Government was formed. I remember the first meeting occurring in my office. There were still boxes in the corridor because we hadn't finished moving in. So this is a bill which is the result of two years of work where everybody has been highly engaged.
I make one final point, and that is that I understand from the contributions on the substance of the bill that the Opposition intend to vote against this motion. This motion sends this bill to select committee. That never happened with the legislation that this bill repeals. That legislation was passed in one day under urgency with no consultation of the sector. This bill has been consulted on thoroughly. It is the result of a collaborative process, and we are going to select committee because that is the right thing to do. But it is important that we progress this legislation in a timely fashion and I think we have the balance right. 
DEPUTY SPEAKER: Just before I call the next speaker and put the question on whether the motion is agreed to, I just want to make sure the Minister's aware we have actually already voted on sending it to a select committee; this on the timing—
Hon Iain Lees-Galloway: Yes.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: OK.





Hon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): Look, thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker; I appreciate the opportunity to take a very brief call on this matter that the Minister is raising. The Minister, in his comments regarding the select committee timing and pointing back to the legislation that was enacted by the last National Government in 2010, neglected, of course, to point out that the circumstances of that legislation were significantly and completely different to that that exists today. This was legislation that the Government promised would be in place within its first 100 days of taking on the Treasury benches. And of course, that's a failed promise, another lack of delivery. And now for the Minister to somehow imply that a truncated and shortened select committee process should occur simply because the working group has already done some work on this is a slap in the face to parliamentary democracy. It sounds now like the Minister is saying that just because the Government sets up a working group, they can somehow make shorter the constitutional process that we have developed over decades in this Parliament that involves select committee scrutiny. 
We will be opposing this legislation as it progresses through the House, but we will also be taking advantage of the opportunity that is availed for the Opposition through select committee proceedings to hear from people who are going to be actually disadvantaged by this legislation—people who are not going to have an opportunity to negotiate terms and conditions on an individual basis to suit them and their employer and to make the most of their creative skills in an area that New Zealand has become internationally famous for. 
So we think that this motion to have a truncated select committee process and an earlier than usual report-back date is not a very good use of parliamentary process. We absolutely reject the notion that simply because one of the Government's literally hundreds of working groups has done some work, that somehow Parliament should be bypassed and that due process in this place should be somehow diminished. So we don't support the motion.





A party vote was called for on the question, That the Screen Industry Workers Bill be reported to the House by 2 June 2020 and that the committee have the authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting (except during oral questions), during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House, and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House, and outside the Wellington area, despite Standing Orders 191, 193 and 194(1)(b) and (c).
Ayes 63
New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.
Noes 56
New Zealand National 55; Ross.
Motion agreed to.





GREATER CHRISTCHURCH REGENERATION AMENDMENT BILL
First Reading
Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister for Greater Christchurch Regeneration): I move, That the Greater Christchurch Regeneration Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Governance and Administration Committee to consider the bill. At the appropriate time, I will move that the bill be reported back to the House by 2 June 2020 and that the committee have authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting (except during oral questions), during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House, on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House, and outside the Wellington area, despite Standing Orders 191, 193 and 194(1)(b) and (c).
It is with real pride that I stand here today for the first reading of this bill. I was first elected to be a member of Parliament on 19 September 2010, about two weeks after the first—
Hon Scott Simpson: To be a candidate, surely?
Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: Sorry; that is right—to be a candidate on 19 September 2010. What that meant is that for the whole time I have been a member of this House, there have been extraordinary powers in place in my city of Christchurch. So, it is a momentous occasion to be standing here today, to be bringing forward a bill which actually is about a return to local leadership. 
I am proud of all the work that has been undertaken by so many on the recovery, rebuild, and regeneration of Greater Christchurch in the nine years since the devastating earthquakes of 2010 and 2011, and all the work that has been undertaken by so many people to get us to the point where we are today. We have seen some amazing innovations and new ways of looking at the world, but I also do want to acknowledge that for many people this has been a difficult time. I, myself, have opposed some steps along the way, as an Opposition member of Parliament and as the Opposition spokesperson. For many people, they have lost so much, particularly the places and spaces where they made their memories. I think that is something that we always have to remember. 
The recent commemoration of the ninth anniversary of the 22 February 2011 earthquake was another opportunity to pause and reflect on the devastating and tragic events of that day but also to look at the progress we have made over the last nine years. With the transition to local leadership well under way, the timing is now right to return to ongoing business-as-usual regeneration responsibilities and to return those to local leadership. 
Since taking on the position of Minister for Greater Christchurch Regeneration, I've been working hard to hasten the path back to local leadership and regeneration in Greater Christchurch. I would like to acknowledge the two other members who have served in this role as Minister in charge of getting things right after the earthquakes in Christchurch: the Hon Gerry Brownlee and the Hon Nicky Wagner. I made it clear when I became Minister that I was very open about my expectation that I believed I should be the last Minister fulfilling this role. This bill further illustrates the trajectory towards achieving this. 
Following the quakes, intervention by the Crown was the only way to enable the required recovery, but we're past the need for the Crown to have such wide-ranging and extraordinary powers, and the structures and the people of Greater Christchurch are more than ready to take on more leadership of the regeneration of the communities. It's time to give them responsibility. Local decisions should be made at the local level, and this bill goes some way to returning those decisions to those local institutions. 
The passing of the Greater Christchurch Regeneration Act 2016 signalled the formal transition from recovery to regeneration. When I spoke at the first reading of that piece of legislation in October 2015, I made points about my belief in locals being up to the task of making decisions that was for the betterment of their province and their region. Over four years later, I have seen the evidence to know this to be true. In contrast to the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Act that preceded it, the Greater Christchurch Regeneration Act introduced processes and structures to support the regeneration of Christchurch. It represented a change in the approach to Christchurch and a movement back towards more local leadership. I would like to acknowledge the then Minister, the Hon Gerry Brownlee, who did actually work collaboratively with members of the Opposition and local leaders in Christchurch to pull together a bill that could garner broad-based support. 
My view is that Christchurch local leaders are the ones best placed to make the decisions about their communities and for their communities without the need for intervention from the Crown. This means the need for bespoke, extraordinary powers which require Ministers to make decisions on discrete local matters is almost at an end. We are past that stage. Crown officials, notably at the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, Land Information New Zealand, and Treasury have been working closely with the key stakeholders to progress the transition—in particular, at the local level, alongside Christchurch City Council and other leaders on the ground, including Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu, and Waimakariri and Selwyn District Councils. 
As noted, work undertaken over the last few years has seen significant strides made on regeneration, and, in particular, we've seen over the last 12 months significant effort to complete a piece of work. These pieces of work have set the scene for further progress on the transition to local leadership and have included the Ōtākaro Avon River Corridor Regeneration Plan, which provides the greenprint for future use and redevelopment of the red zone land; the agreement of a global settlement, which followed significant negotiations between the Crown and Christchurch City Council on ownership of key regeneration assets and matters, as well as on institutional arrangements; and, importantly, in relation to this bill, setting out a framework for how we transition Christchurch back to local leadership. There has, of course, been the revocation of the Canterbury Earthquake (Christchurch Replacement District Plan) Order early, to return control of Christchurch's district planning processes to the council. In amongst all of this, there has, of course, been significant progress made on the reinstatement of the cathedral and anchor projects, including the convention centre Te Pae, the Metro Sports Facility, and the Canterbury Multi-Use Arena—or "the stadium", as some people outside of Christchurch like to call it.
The Act has also provided us with annual snapshots on its performance through the requirement for an annual review to be conducted. Much of what is proposed in the bill was identified in the last annual review of the Act, completed in September 2019. This noted that a tipping point had been reached and that the Greater Christchurch Regeneration Act is no longer required in its current form. It concluded that given the considerable progress on key regeneration milestones, there is no longer a need for the legislation in its current form to support the progressive move towards local leadership in Greater Christchurch. 
The bill proposes amendments to the Greater Christchurch Regeneration Act to revoke the section 71 power, which provides for an expedited way to make changes to planning documents. It provides for the early disestablishment of Regenerate Christchurch, which will reduce the number of institutions working on regeneration in Christchurch. It will extend certain land powers required for the reconfiguration of land titles in the Ōtākaro Avon River Corridor, to ensure the Crown can undertake agreed work prior to transfer of that land back to council. It will also make other required changes to implement the three major changes I have just noted, such as amendment to the regeneration plan process to account for the early disestablishment of Regenerate Christchurch, and to remove the requirement for an annual review of the Act.
Essentially, this is about simplifying things to make the transition to local leadership seamless and efficient. It will simplify the organisations working on regeneration in Christchurch and remove the Crown's extraordinary powers under section 71 to make changes to planning documents. It is important here to acknowledge the institutions that have gotten us to this point. In particular, I want to recognise the work of Regenerate Christchurch over the last four years. Its task has not been easy, but the work it has done has enabled this next step, and I thank them for this. Existing local organisations are now able to continue the momentum established for regeneration in Christchurch.
I would like to conclude by saying it is with great pride that I stand here, coming from a city that I think has made significant strides, and we are now at a point where we can return to local leadership. Thank you, Mr Speaker.





Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam): All of the Acts of Parliament passed since 2009 in support of Christchurch through the earthquake sequence that saw, from 2011, some 13,500 sizable quakes shake the city have been unanimously supported by this House, and I'm sure that's going to be the case today. There's no doubt that things have moved on, and it was always the intention of the group that put together the current legislation that has enabled a bit of speed around Christchurch—or should have enabled a bit of speed around Christchurch, in the planning aspects of it—that this would have a terminal point. There is a sunset clause in the bill. The fact that we are getting there a little time ahead of that is no bad thing—or is it, is the question that I might just pose.
Firstly, I still don't think anybody outside of Christchurch fully appreciates exactly what has had to be done down there. People who have lived there, people who have lived through it, people who have put up with all the trials and tribulations of their own circumstances and the, I suppose, disappointments of the unavailability of various civic facilities know full well what's gone on. The people who've constantly lived with road cones, who had compromised services for extended periods of time, all know what this has been all about. I don't think, though, that in a wider context around New Zealand, there is an appreciation of that, to the extent that perhaps it is only ever real if you experience it yourself.
This bill today does allow the continuation of aspects that will be of value to the Christchurch community, but it does, in my opinion, too, end possibilities of more speedy planning, particularly in the area of the Resource Management Act, that have not been as well used by the city council and others who had the opportunity to use those processes as perhaps they could have been. So a thing like a recovery plan, that we all thought, sitting around the table from across the Parliament, would be a useful tool for all sorts of people has only been used on two occasions. On one of those occasions, the planning for it had already begun. So on the one hand, you might say that this means that the council and the councils and all the bodies involved didn't need the tool. I'm not convinced that they saw the potential of it to the extent that they could have. None the less, there is progress there.
I don't want to say anything today that in any way mars what people have been able to achieve over the last couple of years, but I do want to say, for example, that when it comes to the city council, they could have dealt with the collection of buildings they refer to as the "Dirty 30". These are buildings that, you know, 10 years on nearly, are still in a derelict condition post the earthquakes; buildings that have—what are they called?—shipping containers providing shelter for anybody that might walk past them, for fear that they might fall into the roadway or somewhere else; buildings that are barricaded up so that the public can't enter, or no one can enter, except for those who want to tag them, who clearly take their life in their own hands by putting some pretty impressive tags on those buildings. While some may see those as artistic, I see them as ugly, and I think they are a mar on the face of the city. I'm disappointed that the council did not use the capacity that was there, under the law that we are, effectively, repealing today, to deal with those situations.
It is appropriate that some of their land amalgamation facilities that were in that other bill carry through after today. People seem to forget that the land that people had to exit because it was no longer strong enough to economically provide housing on it is in excess of the size of Hagley Park. Hagley Park—anyone looking at a map of Christchurch will see what a dominant land structure that is right in the middle of our city. So those red zones are slightly bigger in accumulation than that area.
It does provide an opportunity for the city, and I think the Ōtākaro Avon River Corridor is going to be a splendid thing. Some of us might like to see more things go in there, and I think over time that will happen, but you've got to remember that they were people's residences, they were individual titles, they were roads, they were easements for all sorts of services, and sorting that out in the context of good land management does take time, and it's appropriate that there is that facility provided in this particular bill.
When it comes to the Christchurch City Council, one of the things that bothers me slightly is that they have become a very closed-shop organisation. They're not easily accessible, and they seem to have a view—they have a view—that the city has an indeterminate amount of capacity to pay higher rates. When you have rating increases on an annual basis running at a percentage-plus higher than some of the highest floating mortgage rates available in this country, then I think there is a question that needs to be asked about their capacity to deliver good services for the people of Christchurch. I am a critic of that openly; so I hope that when they reassume all responsibilities they want, they do bear in mind that there is not an endless capacity for people to continually pay higher rates on properties that have escalating values on them. That is a thing that I think they need to be very cautious of.
Just as an aside, they're not the worst. The Canterbury Regional Council—ECan—want to put a 9.45 percent rate increase on people. I think the excuse that keeps coming back, that we've got infrastructure deficit as a result of the earthquake, is extremely thin when anybody can see how much was spent in the city on the infrastructure during the relatively short time. And we didn't argue—no one argued—about betterment. So if the 3-metre pipe was taken out and it was replaced by a much bigger diameter and a longer length of pipe and generally in materials that have a much longer life than some of the asbestos piping that got taken out, then that's all to the good. But it's the advantage of the city that unfortunately is not being seen enough by the current rating base.
I do hope also that they don't continue to have a proliferation of other organisations. If there was any mistake, it was that in moving from the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority—which I think was absolutely necessary at the time, but was a big proponent of getting into the new structure, the regeneration structure—there are now too many bodies in Christchurch. You have the Christchurch City Council, along with their sister councils in Selwyn and Waimakariri, who I think do perform very, very well—that excludes Christchurch City—and then they have Christchurch, New Zealand. No one really knows what that does, but any ratepayer having a look at the salary structure there would have good reason to be concerned about what it does. And then there is the Christchurch Foundation. No one quite knows what that does but, once again, it has a bureaucratic structure with a lot of costs that, ultimately, will come back on ratepayers. 
So I hope that if they are taking the leadership opportunity that this passing of this legislation today affords them, they do so with a mind that says, "We are doing this in the best interests of the ratepayers.", and that they're not just getting themselves into all sorts of talkfest organisations that can't really put their finger on anything that they've actually achieved. I hope also that they become more open—just the chief executive actually having a phone number that would be answered by the chief executive might be a reasonable start.
Can I also just say that I do hope that the goodwill that's been expressed here—and I certainly express that goodwill to the Minister who has brought this bill here. I do think it's timely. I agree that it was always a stopgap thing and, although I've been critical of their not being used, you can't have legislation like this that is so exclusive going on for ever. So I do respect the fact that you've brought that forward. But I do hope that we're not sort of seeing some kind of a rewriting of history here, because, as I say, no one can really ever know or capture the feeling that was in the city—which we do know about, no question about that—in those very early days and the fervour there was to have mechanisms and facilities to get things done.
With those comments, can I say that the National Party is going to be part of what I hope will be the unanimous passing of this bill today, which is really just an extension of the goodwill, the care that this Parliament has shown toward Christchurch from the outset.





Hon POTO WILLIAMS (Associate Minister for Greater Christchurch Regeneration): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I want to just start by saying I acknowledge former leadership in this space, I acknowledge current leadership in this space, I want to acknowledge members of the Canterbury Mayoral Forum who have joined us here today, Their Worships Dan Gordon and Sam Broughton, and I want to acknowledge my ministerial colleague and lead Minister on Greater Christchurch Regeneration, the Hon Dr Megan Woods, and the fact that it's an absolute privilege and pleasure to be her associate, and the specificity that I have in my delegation, which is around Regenerate Christchurch.
I'm really grateful to have had that role; it's been a short time, but it's been a really interesting time to support the Minister in this piece of work. I want to pay particular acknowledgment to Ivan Iafeta and his team, and Dr Thérèse Arseneau and the board, and just thank them for the work that they've done. A few weeks ago, we were with them to share with them our thanks for the work that they had completed—to acknowledge the fact that this legislation will bring forward the end of that particular organisation. But I wanted to let them know how proud I was of the work that they have done in various guises over the years, and that they can be very, very proud that, when they look around the city, they have had a part in what is actually becoming a very extraordinary place.
So while I'm very mindful of the fact that this legislation does bring forward the end of that particular organisation, what I'm very confident about is that the expertise that has been developed there will actually remain and will continue to be leading in the future work of that city, and I think that's something that we need to underscore: that we are not losing that expertise, but it is actually now in a position to take a much more local, much more focused look at what needs to happen going forward. So I'm very proud of that work, and I want to thank the teams for everything that they have done.
The other thing that I want to talk about too with this is that the second part of this legislation is the revocation of the special powers that exist under section 71. I've had to exercise my power under that particular section a couple of times and, while I think some of this is useful—I do tend to agree with the sentiments of the Hon Gerry Brownlee that it is a useful part of the legislation—I'm not entirely sure that deciding whether a carpark is actually a regeneration activity is what was actually intended. So I think it is actually time that we can hand back to the city the decision making around that and that the Resource Management Act can actually be used to its full extent on that.
The other aspect of the legislation is how we support going forward the reconfiguration of the titles in the Ōtākaro Avon River Corridor and how we can facilitate that. So there is some extension within the legislation that will allow that work to continue from Land Information New Zealand. It's a complex and long piece of work that we need to support, and they're working their way through that, and I think that allowing them enough space to continue to do that is really vital—really important. And as we move from recovery through to regeneration to, now, what will be the state of our new going forward, our new normal, the Government really does need to reduce its presence in the city and actually hand back the power to decide and to implement to the locals.
The amendments that we provide for in this legislation also give certainty for Christchurch for its future institutional arrangements and removes the extraordinary arrangements, which are no longer required. What we also do is, with this, we acknowledge that post-quake we're in a different space in time, and anyone who has visited our city in recent times who hasn't perhaps visited for a while can see that we are actually quite a different place. There is a buzz, there is a mood, there is a shift in the city, and there is definitely an ability that has built up over time for us to have confidence that we have the right people in place to take our city forward into the future. I think it's entirely appropriate that we as a Government step back from that and create the space for that to occur.
There is one thing that I do want to say, though, and I just want to reflect a comment of the Hon Gerry Brownlee, and that is that one thing that really has disappointed me as the local member of Parliament for Christchurch East, when the original legislation first came to the House, was the redrafting which saw the removal of the specificity around New Brighton. I have to say that that did disappoint me. What I am really heartened by, though, is that this Government has, in its wisdom, decided to have the Christchurch Regeneration Acceleration Fund funding of which there is a portion which has been allocated to the work that will go into the residential red zone. 
Now, what I'm heartened about with that is that there is an allocation which will create activity which will then drive people—and hopefully people from all around the city—through the red zone out to New Brighton, because what that beautiful part of our city requires is, actually, greater economic activity. So while it was taken out of the original legislation—and I do want to put that on record because I do believe that if we had been able to act sooner, then our fantastic, iconic community in New Brighton perhaps would have been regenerating at this point. But I'm hopeful that the work that we will engage throughout the red zone will actually help drive that activity, and hopefully soon.
I just want to thank the leadership that has occurred. It has been—did you say 10 years? I think it is timely, it's appropriate, and I want to commend this bill to the House.





Hon NICKY WAGNER (National): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. As you heard, National will be supporting this bill. It's been really interesting listening to the conversation that's been going on today, because it does remind us of a very traumatic time in Christchurch and it does remind us of numerous—13,000 or 15,000—earthquakes that happened in our city. I think that it also reminds us that during that time, politicians, whether they were local government politicians—and I recognise the people sitting in the gallery today—or whether they were central government politicians, got together and worked together to deliver the best way that we possibly could for our communities.
It's good to see this bill coming through now. It's good to be having this discussion. Although, I do note that there is a sunset clause in this bill. The original bill was going to disappear only 12 months later. So I'm wondering whether this discussion is a particularly useful use of parliamentary time.
Just going back to that thought of April 2016, when the original Greater Christchurch Regeneration Bill was created. It was created with the very best of intentions, it was a cross-party group, it was a multi-stakeholder process, and it was really good to see it pass unanimously in this Parliament. It was created in the face of a need to build the rebuild of Greater Christchurch on, to move it on from the immediate disaster response to regeneration, and to support that regeneration as quickly and as efficiently as possible. 
Now, what this original bill did was it allowed for regional stakeholders, the local governments, the Canterbury Regional Council, the Christchurch City Council, the Selwyn District Council, the Waimakariri District Council, Ngāi Tahu, and then Regenerate Christchurch—which was the agency established through the legislation to deliver development plans—to have a role in decision making, to have a role to put regeneration plans forward. And once those plans were put forward, there was a streamlined process to complete that planning in land management—really, to help speed up the whole recovery process as we worked through the earthquakes.
I think it's interesting what the Hon Poto Williams spoke about in terms of New Brighton, because, of course, originally it was in the legislation and then, I think, it was an accepted idea that a regeneration plan would be developed by the Christchurch City Council to do exactly that. I do remember the discussions at the time, and that's what the mayor was particularly interested in because, of course, it was an area that she was particularly connected to.
So, again, it's with a bit of regret and disappointment that we look back to how this bill has actually been used, because it was designed as empowering legislation. It was designed to have the power to cut through planning red tape, and to speed out well-thought-through planning developments, and that would lead to that faster regeneration and lead to those areas that have been severely damaged—and, of course, the east of Christchurch was particularly one of those. Obviously, by supporting the legislation unanimously in Parliament, Parliament hoped that those provisions would be fully utilised. We believed that we wanted to streamline the rebuild process and we wanted to support the quicker and more efficient regeneration of Greater Christchurch. But, in reality, it wasn't.
Although other cities and areas of the country were particularly envious of the empowering nature of this legislation and the opportunities it allowed, it was never fully appreciated in Greater Christchurch. Stakeholders never seized the opportunity they had to create regeneration plans, to take those opportunities and the advantages that they were provided. In reality, they were only rarely used.
Plans were used to fast track housing in the Cranford Basin and, of course, they have been used to coordinate planning in the Avon-Ōtākaro residential red zone. They were also used with more minor details around the district plan, such as the correcting of the coastal overlay, which was an issue that was very concerning to people who lived in those areas. It was used to expand the Yaldhurst sports centre, and, more recently, as we've heard from the Hon Poto Williams, to upgrade the Hagley Oval so that Christchurch could host the Women's Cricket World Cup in 2021.
But the legislation could have done so much more. It's hard not to feel disappointed that the opportunities provided by this legislation were not as fully utilised as we as politicians in Parliament envisaged, and that the agency that was created under the bill—and that's Regenerate Christchurch—has really not had the opportunity to work with regeneration plans and has not performed as we hoped and as we expected.
However, the Act still has some relevance. We note that the Minister is seeking to retain certain provisions for use by LINZ—that's Land Information New Zealand—in relation to titles in the Avon-Ōtākaro corridor, and possibly extending those provisions to 2023.
So National will support this bill. But it is with disappointment that we reflect that the original legislation was created by a cross-party parliamentary group, it was designed to give local councils and stakeholders in Greater Christchurch a real hand up in terms of regeneration, but, I believe, the full potential was never realised. Thank you, Mr Speaker.





Hon RON MARK (Minister of Defence): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Well, there's nothing worse than a speaker getting up and rotary hoeing the same paddock over and over again, thinking that they're adding quality to the debate. Less is often more, and I mean to take my call with such a reminder firmly implanted in my head.
I do want to make a couple of acknowledgments as we progress this first reading. I do want to acknowledge Gerry Brownlee. Gerry, being the Minister at the time, holding the seat at a very difficult time in Canterbury's history, came under a lot of flak and lot of pressure from a lot of people. I know because my whanaunga were all from down there. I want to acknowledge Dan Gordon, the Mayor of Waimakariri, who is sitting up there in my old patch, and an old friend of mine, being a local who lived in Rangiora for some time and lived in Christchurch on and off for about 30 years. My children and the bulk of my grandchildren are still living there. I acknowledge my local MP, Matt Doocey, for the time that we were down there.
Christchurch went through some very difficult times, as we all know, and there were some difficult decisions to be made by the Government of the day. It needs to be acknowledged that the cross-party team that was utilised by Mr Brownlee at the time to put together the legislation to aid and assist Christchurch did a good job. In our part, from New Zealand First, Denis O'Rourke played a role in that, and I want to acknowledge Denis.
Putting together a multi-entity agency as a mechanism to assist and expedite the regeneration and redevelopment of Christchurch was clearly a smart move. We all know how frustratingly slow developments, construction can be when subjected to the rigours of the Resource Management Act in its current form. We all know how devastated Christchurch was at the time, and that quite simply, the legislation in place was not going to cut it, given the urgency that was required. So I just want to say that.
This is the first reading. I congratulate the Minister Megan Woods for bringing this legislation forward. I look forward—despite everything that's happened, it's always been known that the Christchurch leadership, the duly elected people of Christchurch, would eventually take over responsibility for completing the job. There is still yet much to do. When I go down to Christchurch and I drive around, I sometimes struggle to recognise exactly where I am because landmarks are gone, and there's a lot of vacant land—
Hon Gerry Brownlee: It's just age.
Hon RON MARK: Sorry? It's age—ha, ha! How unkind of you, Gerry. I do despair when I see—as Gerry Brownlee has stated in his speech—the number of buildings that are still boarded up, the amount of graffiti.
I do chuckle, and I've actually started photographing it for all the rural-based members of Parliament here. I've started photographing city pollution so I can show it to the rural folk who are getting hammered and slammed so much by townies who want to chastise our farmers for contributing to dirty streams and all the rest of this stuff. Sometimes folk in the city need to have a good, quiet look at what they're doing to their environment. Nothing stands out more than the graffiti and the pollution inside of cities.
These are big challenges that the duly elected representatives of Christchurch and the wider territorial authorities are going to have to deal with. But it is their responsibility, and this legislation is a step back towards full democracy and putting the responsibility where it lays, and so it should be.
So with that, I would just say that on behalf New Zealand First, we support the legislation, and congratulate all parties involved thus far for the progress that has been made in Christchurch and Canterbury. Kia ora koutou.





MATT DOOCEY (National—Waimakariri): Look, can I start by saying, as a very proud Cantabrian, there is a saying that when Canterbury rugby is doing well, the All Blacks will do very well. It's great to see Canterbury at the top of the Super Rugby table. Long may that last for the All Blacks' success.
Look, I want to join in in this bipartisan approach across the House today and acknowledge the current leadership with the Hon Megan Woods as the regeneration Minister, ably supported by the Hon Poto Williams, and also that Minister's local advocacy in Christchurch East; to another Canterbury member of Parliament for the Green Party, Eugenie Sage; of course, for the Hon Ron Mark; and MPs who are no longer here: Denis O'Rourke from New Zealand First. I must say, we miss Denis. Bring back Denis, is what I say.
What we do have to remember is that here we are talking about the Canterbury earthquakes, not just the Christchurch earthquakes. Of course, the town of Kaiapoi in my electorate was hard hit in the first earthquake in 2010. I want to acknowledge former Waimakariri MPs the Hon Kate Wilkinson and the Hon Clayton Cosgrove, as well. Of course, on my team, how good is Gerry Brownlee—how good is Gerry Brownlee?
Hon Gerry Brownlee: What about the mayors, and Jim Palmer?
MATT DOOCEY: I'll get to that, Gerry. The speech you wrote for me, I'll say that in the next paragraph. But how good is the Hon Gerry Brownlee? His leadership post-earthquakes—the history book on the earthquakes will show that the success of the earthquake recovery and regeneration was largely due to the huge role that the Hon Gerry Brownlee played. Yes, there'll be some who say that they actually, you know, didn't agree with everything he said, but he made a decision. You know, I won't get too political, but I tell you what: we're lucky we had a Government that was confident in making decisions, because if it had been a different Government—wow. What a difference that would have made.
Could I also acknowledge the Hon Nicky Wagner for her role as the regeneration Minister as well, and, of course, her huge advocacy for Christchurch Central and, of course, the CBD that was hugely affected in the Christchurch earthquake in 2011.
My colleague Jo Hayes, based in Christchurch East, for her advocacy of a region that is hard hit and still needing a lot of support. So that's where I'll start my contribution. Even though we are saying this bill will be a transition back to local leadership of regeneration, I must say we should be very clear that we do not want to see the Government or Parliament walking away from Canterbury, from Greater Christchurch, from Christchurch, because Cantabrians still need central government, and we need to play a big role in that.
Also, I think we need to be clear in this bill—what are we talking about when we say local leadership? Because times have changed down there. When I grew up in Bryndwr and I went to Belfast to play rugby as a young fella, and I would have been taken over the Styx Mill Bridge, that was a day trip. You'd pack your lunch. Belfast was out in the country, out of town. Now, Belfast is actually in Nicky Wagner's electorate of Christchurch Central. So, spatially, how we view Greater Christchurch has changed. Now towns like Kaiapoi, Rangiora, Lincoln, and Rolleston are all part of the bigger picture for Greater Christchurch. So I will acknowledge at this time the Mayor of Selwyn, Sam Broughton, the Mayor of Waimakariri, Dan Gordon, deputy mayor Neville Atkinson, and Waimakariri councillor Joan Ward. Joan and her husband led Continental Catering—a huge North Canterbury company that was hugely affected by the earthquakes and will know firsthand the stresses that those earthquakes put on local businesses that, ultimately, employ local people in our community and support them and pay wages.
So I know they will be thinking, as well, as leaders of local government, what does local leadership look like? Because when we say local leadership, we can't default just to Christchurch City Council. Those days have gone. And you look at the issue playing out at the moment—to my alarm, Environment Canterbury (ECan) wrote to the local government Minister Nanaia Mahuta, and, in a law change, made it possible for ECan to pass on public transport. Lianne Dalziel, when she was elected in the last election, on her first day, in front of the Christchurch press, said she wanted to take control of public transport—that won't be good for Greater Christchurch. We need an overarching—
Hon Phil Twyford: Why not?
MATT DOOCEY: The Hon Phil Twyford says, "Why not?" And he's allowed to. He's the transport Minister, but I know transport Minister Phil Twyford is going to be looking forward to meeting the Waimakariri mayor for his advocacy of the Woodend bypass. And I'm sure the Hon Phil Twyford in his role as transport Minister will respond accordingly in the upcoming Budget to give the town the Woodend bypass that they need. We're looking forward to that, Minister, as well.
What we are also talking about here is ensuring that things keep moving, because I'm pretty sure, in the next few days or the next few weeks, we're going to hear how the Christ Church Cathedral has not got back on track, and, in fact, behind the scenes, has stalled. I think in the next few weeks we're going to hear about the Christchurch Convention Centre that is not going to open on time and there's going to be significant delays. I think we're going to hear how we're not going to get a stadium on time and how we're not getting the Metro Sports Facility on time. So there's a huge role. You can't just dangle $300 million. We need action. That's why it's important that the Government stays involved—whoever that Government may be—with the people of Christchurch. Christchurch is the second-biggest city. We punch well above our weight, not only in rugby but in GDP as well, and they need to make sure that central government keeps it a priority, because, of course, in the last National Government the rebuild was one of our top four priorities. So when we hear of infrastructure announcements when Auckland gets billions and Canterbury only gets $159 million, we want to make sure that people are listening to us and we feel heard.
My final point I want to raise today is this bill will also disestablish the Regenerate Christchurch entity, and I want to join some of my other colleagues who have voiced the opinion that, potentially, there has been too many entities. We have some council-controlled entities that people are unsure what their roles are, but they are taking significant ratepayer money. We need to ensure that when we transition back to local government, there are the right structures in place; that they are going to deliver for the people of Christchurch, but also the people of Greater Christchurch, because I can't stress enough that this view of Christchurch has changed significantly since the earthquakes. No longer are we talking about Christchurch City Council, but everything we talk about is how it impacts on Christchurch City Council, but also Waimakariri District Council and Selwyn District Council, as well. I proudly support this bill to the House.





Hon EUGENIE SAGE (Minister of Conservation): E Te Māngai o Te Whare, tēnā koe. I'm very pleased, as the Green Party spokesperson for Ōtautahi/Christchurch to speak on the Greater Christchurch Regeneration Amendment Bill. There has been a lot of legislation that this House has debated about Greater Christchurch, about the Canterbury earthquakes, and about the Hurunui/Kaikōura earthquakes as well.
This bill is significant because it is bringing to an end the extraordinary powers that central government assumed after the quakes in Christchurch. I note, as other speakers have, that a lot of that legislation went through with the unanimous support from the Parliament, but there was a feeling in Christchurch, with the powers that Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority (CERA) had, of being alienated from decision making—decisions about the investment of millions of dollars being made without a public hearing process, without the ability for people to see who was making the decisions: those being made by CERA behind closed doors.
So this legislation is really significant because it is bringing those powers—particularly the section 71 powers in terms of the override of the Resource Management Act—to an end. As others have done, I would like to acknowledge some people. I'm really pleased that the Mayor Gordon and Mayor Broughton from Waimakariri and Selwyn, respectively, and their councillors are here today. Picking up on the point that Matt Doocey made, a lot of the response to the earthquake has been about Greater Christchurch, not just the city, because, of course, it did affect Waimakariri, Kaiapoi in particular, and because the first of the September quakes was Selwyn, and that big Greendale fault, and the impacts that that had.
But, I think, where Regenerate and Ōtākaro—in terms of their planning for urban development, and one of the reasons that they have been successful with the Greenprint, goes back to actually all of the local authorities cooperating with the urban development strategy and the vision there for Greater Christchurch, not just Christchurch City. So, like Matt Doocey, we'd like to see that strength of the wider city—Waimakariri and Selwyn as well—being a big part of how Christchurch City Council works, and how Waimakariri District Council and Selwyn District Council continue to work. This legislation is significant because, as Minister Woods noted, there was provision in the Greater Christchurch Regeneration Act in 2016 to make that transition from recovery to regeneration. We do acknowledge the Hon Gerry Brownlee because the original proposal in that bill was something that the Green Party had some concerns about, and Minister Brownlee, at the time, was prepared to engage with Opposition parties and to have discussions about how that legislation was changed so that in the end, at the third reading, it did have the unanimous support of the Parliament. 
We'd also like to acknowledge the Hon Megan Woods and her work on the cathedral. Matt Doocey is saying that there are issues happening behind the scenes. In big projects like the Christ Church Cathedral, there will be issues behind the scenes, but Nicky Wagner achieved what was thought impossible at the time in getting agreement with the Church for the restoration of the cathedral at that heart of Cathedral Square. I'm really proud to speak in support of this bill and to support the work of the Hon Megan Woods and her leadership now, under this Government, on the recovery process. It is a very different city now, and I'm really proud, as a Christchurch citizen, to see the developments around the urban centre and further out. Yes, Mr Doocey, some things like the convention centre will take longer than expected, but the trajectory is going forward. 
I acknowledge—as the Hon Poto Williams did—the work of Regenerate Christchurch, the leadership of Ivan Iafeta and Thérèse Arseneau, because the planning process that Regenerate Christchurch implemented was very solidly based on the community. They did things differently in terms of running hui in school halls, with a lot of visual material—a lot of maps—so that Christchurch residents could really see the potential of the Ōtākaro Avon River Corridor, what sort of land uses could happen there, and where the flood hazard zones were to really give a spatial picture of the potential of that corridor. So that was a very different and a visionary way of doing things. 
One of the other things that's been special about the earthquake recovery and regeneration has been the leadership and the co-governance, effectively, with Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu, and the way in which we have much more of a Te Ao Māori perspective in our city of Ōtautahi than we had prior to the quakes. So even though this bill is seeing Regenerate Christchurch come to an end—those Draconian powers come to an end—I hope that the Christchurch City Council, Waimakariri, Environment Canterbury, and Selwyn make sure that Ngāi Tahu is very closely involved in carrying on what was established post-earthquakes. 
The work that I'm also really proud of is the work that Land Information New Zealand (LINZ) has done, under the leadership of the Hon Megan Woods, in working to consolidate titles in the city to provide the basis for planning for what happens on the land. In the Ōtākaro Avon River Corridor, there are 5,500 titles which still need work in terms of amalgamating legal road with what was private land—those smaller house sites—so that there is secure title for future land use decisions. The bill provides for those powers that LINZ has had around title amalgamation to continue, but there is the ability for an Order in Council to have those end more quickly. 
So there has been major progress with the global settlement with the extra $300 million to accelerate regeneration that the Government announced recently, but this bill is quite significant because it is signalling that major transition back to local councils, local democracies, and having decisions made locally in Greater Christchurch. The Green Party is very pleased to support it and hopes it goes quickly through the Parliament to provide the people of Ōtautahi and the democratic institutions of Ōtautahi with the certainty that we need for the institutional arrangements that will make the decisions for the future working with central government. Kia ora.





Dr JIAN YANG (National): First of all, I would like to acknowledge the great work and outstanding contribution of the Hon Gerry Brownlee for the regeneration of Greater Christchurch. I've been back to Christchurch many times since the earthquakes of 2010-2011, and it was sad to see the damages to the beautiful garden city. Nevertheless, I have seen the redevelopment of a city. I've witnessed events in the beautiful modern city library, and I stayed in new hotels, and I could see fewer and fewer pieces of land in the city and also I could see more and more people in the city. So it's like Christchurch has been reborn.
Now, following the earthquakes, Parliament passed the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Act. The intent of the Act was, of course, to put in place alternative and extraordinary legislative and institutional arrangements to support the regeneration of Greater Christchurch. Though the intent was good—however the Act was fully used—it became clear that local authorities were not particularly interested in the particular Act, and so much of the power in the Act was kind of redundant.
In 2016, Parliament passed another bill—that's the Greater Christchurch Regeneration Act. This Act would enable local—
Hon Member: Sit down.
Dr JIAN YANG: Down?





Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Tēnā koe. Look, I just really wanted to make a very brief comment, having heard Mr Doocey speak, and, really, it's about cooperation. I want to recognise now in Canterbury and Greater Christchurch how important cooperation will be. There are plenty of vehicles for that cooperation: the Greater Christchurch Partnership and the Canterbury Mayoral Forum, who's going to shout me lunch in a couple of weeks' time, I understand. I'm really looking forward to doing that. I would invite Mr Doocey to come, really, across the floor and to really join in with that partnership, because we've still got a lot of work to do.
This is a great piece of legislation. It's one which really puts it back into the hands of the community, including the MPs and the local body government. I look forward to working with Mr Doocey and every other Christchurch member on this. I commend the bill to the House.





JOANNE HAYES (National): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I'm very pleased to stand and take a short call on this amazing bill. I want to acknowledge the Hon Gerry Brownlee. When I went to Christchurch, he was described to me as the godfather of Christchurch, and I totally believe it. Without any further ado, he has done an amazing job in Christchurch, along with the Hon Nicky Wagner, and I commend the bill to the House. Thank you. 





GREG O'CONNOR (Labour—Ōhāriu): As someone who spent a month in the red zone immediately following the earthquake, seeing Christchurch at its worst, I feel privileged to be able to stand and speak on this bill. It is a significant stepping stone in Christchurch moving back to the beautiful city that I once lived in, and I'm sure it will be again. I commend this bill to the House.





KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National): Thank you, Mr Speaker, for the opportunity to support this bill. I also won't take much time but would like to acknowledge the leadership of the Hon Gerry Brownlee for what he did during that period. I remember my son moved after the February earthquake to Christchurch, and the resilience shown by the Cantabrians also should be commended in this House. I hope that the plans which are in place, which were left by Gerry Brownlee, will be carried on with this bill. I support this bill.





KIRITAPU ALLAN (Labour): The words have been said in this House about the significance of this bill and what it means to the Christchurch region. Can I commend both sides of this House for the collegial debate and acknowledge that this will be a significant transition for the city to enable it to move forward. So with no further ado, we commend this bill to the House.
Bill read a first time. 
Bill referred to the Governance and Administration Committee.





Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Minister for Economic Development) on behalf of the Minister for Greater Christchurch Regeneration: I move, That the Greater Christchurch Regeneration Amendment Bill be reported to the House by 2 June 2020, and that the committee have authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting (except during oral questions), during any evening on a day in which there has been a sitting of the House, on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House, and outside the Wellington area, despite Standing Orders 191, 193 and 194(1)(b) and (c).
I want to set out the reasons why we believe that there needs to be a shorter time than is normal for consideration of this bill at select committee. It's necessary to truncate the normal time in order to obtain the most benefit from the proposed amendments to this bill, and for this to occur the amendments need to be enacted in the middle of the year.
The amendments in this bill will provide certainty for Christchurch on its future institutional arrangements and remove extraordinary arrangements that are no longer required. This will provide the people and the communities of Greater Christchurch with clarity on what and how regeneration will be handled into the future. In order to achieve this, I'm requesting consideration by the select committee and report back in three months, as well as allowing the committee to meet at times that would otherwise be prohibited by the Standing Orders. 
Given that this bill is removing provisions and only extending some of the land-related powers in a geographically limited area, I think this is reasonable. In addition, no new powers are proposed for introduction. The revocation of the section 71 powers and the disestablishment of Regenerate Christchurch were always intended. This bill just sees them happen earlier. As noted, the extended land powers are geographically limited in their application and only relate to a limited set of powers.
Finally, I want to reiterate that the proposed amendments in this bill are about showing progress in Greater Christchurch while continuing to support ongoing regeneration as intended.





Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam): It's not our usual habit to support the truncation of a select committee time, but it would be strange if there wasn't a speedy select committee process when there is unanimity across the House about the purpose and effect of the bill. For that reason, we do support the shortened select committee time on this particular occasion.
Motion agreed to.





SMOKEFREE ENVIRONMENTS AND REGULATED PRODUCTS (VAPING) AMENDMENT BILL
First Reading
Hon JENNY SALESA (Associate Minister of Health): I move, That the Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products (Vaping) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Health Committee to consider the bill. At the appropriate time I intend to move that the bill be reported to the House by 2 June 2020 and that the committee have authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting (except during oral questions), during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House, on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House, and outside the Wellington area, despite Standing Orders 191, 193 and 194(1)(b) and (c).
Public health in New Zealand has battled against smoking and tobacco for decades. Governments of all descriptions have pursued and progressed policies that sought to reduce the harm and the deaths that come from smoking-related diseases inflicted on our communities. Today, we write the next chapter of that story, because although we've greatly reduced smoking rates in Aotearoa New Zealand, we still have around 5,000 people who die each year from smoking-related diseases. We know that Māori and Pacific people are disproportionately represented in this fatal cohort. 
Aotearoa New Zealand has the aspirational goal of reaching smoke-free 2025. As Associate Minister of Health, I know that given where we are in smoking rates for Kiwis and the rates for Māori and Pacific people it will be a huge challenge to get to smoke-free 2025.
Public health experts for many decades have grappled—
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): I'm sorry to interrupt the member, but this debate is interrupted and is set down for resumption on the next sitting day.
Debate interrupted.
The House adjourned at 6 p.m.