Tuesday, 21 May 2024 - Volume 775

TUESDAY, 21 MAY 2024

The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

KARAKIA/PRAYERS

SPEAKER: Almighty God, we give thanks for the blessings which have been bestowed on us. Laying aside all personal interests, we acknowledge the King and pray for guidance in our deliberations, that we may conduct the affairs of this House with wisdom, justice, mercy, and humility for the welfare and peace of New Zealand. Amen.

OBITUARIES

Hon Colin James Moyle

SPEAKER: Members, I regret to inform the House of the death on 11 May 2024 of the Hon Colin James Moyle CBE, who represented the electorates of Manukau and Māngere from 1963 to 1977, and Hunua and Ōtara from 1981 to 1990. During his time in the House, he held several ministerial portfolios, including agriculture, fisheries, forests, and science. I desire, on behalf of this House, to express our sense of loss and sympathy with the relatives of the late former member. I now ask members to stand with me to observe a period of silence as a mark of respect to his memory.

Members stood as a mark of respect.

PETITIONS, PAPERS, SELECT COMMITTEE REPORTS, AND INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

SPEAKER: There are no petitions, but—[Interruption] Sorry? What was that? Well, this is very helpful: I've picked up the wrong piece of paper. Petitions have been delivered to the Clerk for presentation.

CLERK:

• Petition of Newton Santos requesting that the House ask the Minister of Immigration to let Newton and Nubia Santos stay in the country
• petition of Mark Baldwin requesting that the House urge Medsafe to remove the prescribing restrictions on Clozapine, Dexamphetamine, and Methylphenidate for nurse practitioners
• petition of Fabio Reis requesting that the House urge the Associate Minister of Immigration to grant residency to Fabio Reis and his dependent son
• petition of Greg Rzesniowiecki requesting that the House urge the Government to reject any International Health Regulations amendments and pandemic treaty until the findings and recommendations of the rescoped COVID-19 royal commission are received
• petition of Kristin Davis requesting that the House urge the Government to review the decision made by Health New Zealand not to treat in a public setting Meila Davis' osteosarcoma with the EVD product; and note that 1,437 people have signed a similar online petition.

SPEAKER: Those petitions stand referred to the Petitions Committee. Ministers have delivered papers.

CLERK:

• Reserve Bank of New Zealand Financial Stability Report May 2024
• Government response to the Environment Committee briefing into the golden clam incursion in the Waikato.

SPEAKER: I present the Register of Pecuniary and Other Specified Interests of Members of Parliament: Summary of annual returns as at 31 January 2024. I also present the Report of the Controller and Auditor-General entitled Regional councils' relationships with iwi and hapū for freshwater management - a follow-up report. Those papers are published under the authority of the House. Select committee reports have been presented.

CLERK:

• Report of the Education and Workforce Committee on the review briefing on the 2022-23 annual review of the Education Review Office
• report of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee on the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee Scrutiny Plan for the 54th Parliament
• report of the Governance and Administration Committee on the review briefing on the 2022-23 annual review of Statistics New Zealand
• reports of the Māori Affairs Committee on the:
  • Ministry of Māori Development Te Puni Kōkiri, Long-term Insights Briefing 2023
  • Whakatōhea Claims Settlement Bill
• reports of the Petitions Committee on the petition of Social Justice Aotearoa: Change Section 52 of the Corrections Act
• report of the Transport and Infrastructure Committee on the briefing on the pedestrian crossing in Williamson Avenue in Grey Lynn, Auckland.

SPEAKER: The bill is set down for second reading. The briefings, the select committee scrutiny plan, and the Long-term Insights Briefing are set down for consideration. The Clerk has been informed of the introduction of bills.

CLERK:

• Oranga Tamariki (Repeal of Section 7AA) Amendment Bill, introduction

• Customer and Product Data Bill, introduction
• Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill, introduction
• Local Government (Electoral Legislation and Māori Wards and Māori Constituencies) Amendment Bill, introduction.

SPEAKER: Those bills are set down for first reading.

URGENT DEBATES

Kāinga Ora—Government Response to Review

SPEAKER: Members, I've received a letter from the Hon Kieran McAnulty seeking to debate, under Standing Order 399, the Government's response to the review of Kāinga Ora. This is a particular case of recent occurrence for which there is ministerial responsibility. The matter does warrant the attention of the House and the Government today. Therefore, after oral questions, I will call on the Hon Kieran McAnulty to move that the House take note of a matter of urgent public importance.

ORAL QUESTIONS

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS

Question No. 6 to Minister, 9 May—Amended Answer

Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister for Energy): Point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek leave to make a personal explanation to correct a statement I made regarding low residual notices in question No. 6 on 9 May 2024.

SPEAKER: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There appears to be none.

Hon SIMEON BROWN: In response to Ms Woods' second supplementary to oral question No. 6 on 9 May 2024, I showed and explained a graph that displayed the number of low residual customer advice notices issued by Transpower since 2012. The graph displayed data provided to me at the time by Transpower. I have since been made aware that the data did not reflect the full picture. Prior to 2019, low residual customer advice notices weren't listed as a separate category. Prior to 2019, only warning and grid emergency notices were issued. Transpower has since reviewed the historical data to separate out the notices that relate to low residual situations. The trend remains clear. In recent years, there has been an increase in the number of low residual situations across the network. However, I apologise to the House for any confusion caused by the graph I presented in the House, and I am taking this first possible opportunity to correct the record.

SPEAKER: Thank you.

Question No. 1—Prime Minister

1. CHLÖE SWARBRICK (Co-Leader—Green) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all of his Government's statements and actions?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON (Prime Minister): Yes, and especially our action to fix the legacy of misery and financial mismanagement left by the previous Government at Kāinga Ora (KO). Having loaded KO up with billions of dollars in debt and wasted time on broken policies like KiwiBuild, rents soared, social housing wait-lists exploded, and we have more children in motels on their watch. We're taking action to fix Kāinga Ora, we're holding unruly tenants to account, and we're cutting red tape so that we can deliver much more housing.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Is he aware Auckland Council have identified five lead indicators that his Government has direct control over, including the return of no-cause evictions, which are likely to increase homelessness in our largest city?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: What we are determined to do is increase the supply of rental properties, and there is a range of actions that we've undertaken: restoring interest deductibility, removing the brightline test back to two years, and—importantly—getting the balance right in tenancy laws between landlords and tenants.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Can he guarantee no one will be made homeless by his Government's decision to reinstate no-cause evictions?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, what I can guarantee is that we are working incredibly hard to make sure that we avoid homelessness in this country. Part of that process is making sure we increase the supply of rental properties so that people can actually access and rent a house. That is why we're very committed to making sure we increase the supply of rental properties in New Zealand.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Can he guarantee that no one will be made homeless by his Government's directive on tenant behaviour that Auckland Council says means that they are "expecting Kāinga Ora evictions"?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, what is important is we are getting the balance right in our tenancy laws so that we encourage landlords to put more houses up and make them available to more tenants so we avoid homelessness.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Is the Prime Minister unwilling or unable to say that his Government's policies will increase homelessness in this country?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: What I am willing to say is that we have a housing crisis in New Zealand, and—unlike the Labour and the Green Government that did nothing about it, and outcomes got a lot worse—we are working each and every aspect to increase the supply of houses available, houses available to rent, and social housing supply, as well.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Is the Prime Minister proud of his decision to hand $2.9 billion in tax cuts to landlords on the one hand, but on the other hand, making decisions that will by all accounts increase homelessness in this country?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I am very proud that our Government is actually going to tackle the housing crisis we have in this country and homelessness. I would love that member to come in and support our efforts, because what we're doing, actually, by unwinding interest deductibility is we're making a lot more houses available for renters. We're putting downward pressure on rents, and I'd encourage the member to join us and pass that legislation.

Question No. 2—Finance

2. MILES ANDERSON (National—Waitaki) to the Minister of Finance: What announcements has she made about the operating allowance for Budget 2024?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance): I said in the Budget Policy Statement that the operating allowance for Budget 2024 will be less than $3.5 billion—$3.5 billion, members may recall, was the operating allowance for Budget 2024 set by the previous Government. I will announce the actual number on Budget day, but I can confirm today to the House that it will be under $3.5 billion.

Miles Anderson: What does the operating allowance cover?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: The operating allowance is the amount available in the Budget for discretionary spending and revenue initiatives. Importantly, allowances are a net concept. They include savings as well as spending. The operating allowance in Budget 2024 will cover spending increases and revenue reductions, as well as offsetting savings initiatives and some revenue-raising. The total of all of these adds up to less than $3.5 billion.

Miles Anderson: Will tax relief be funded through savings?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Yes. Tax relief in the Budget will be fully funded through savings and revenue initiatives. These savings and revenue initiatives are the same as those in the National Party's tax plan, with some adjustments to reflect coalition agreements. There will also be other savings in the Budget. These savings will be directed towards Government priorities, including front-line public services.

Miles Anderson: How does a less than $3.5 billion operating allowance compare to those in recent years?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: The allowance for Budget 2022, which members will recall was the year when inflation hit 7.3 percent—

Hon Shane Jones: How much?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: —7.3 percent. The allowance in that Budget was $5.9 billion, plus more than $6 billion over the forecast period for the cost of living payment and other spending outside allowances. The allowance for Budget 2023 was relatively modest by comparison, at only $4.8 billion. So the allowance in Budget 2024 of less than $3.5 billion, no matter how less than, is a lot more fiscally responsible than those delivered in the last few irresponsible Budgets.

Question No. 3—Prime Minister

3. Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all of his Government's statements and actions?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON (Prime Minister): Yes, and especially our action to shift money out of the back office and the bureaucracy, and into the front line. For the size of the public service surge in recent years, we're getting money into the areas where it can make a big difference—things like structured literacy, permanent funding for Pharmac drugs, and big investments in law and order to keep our streets and our people safe. After years of financial mismanagement, we know a good Government can invest in the front line, support families with the costs of living, and get spending back under control.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Will he guarantee that there will be at least as many State houses at the end of this parliamentary term as there were at the start of it?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: What I can guarantee is that there will be an increase in the number of social houses in New Zealand.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Does he accept that there was a net loss of State houses under the last National Government?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I can tell you what we're not going to do is we're not planning to sell off 10,000 State houses, because your Government—that member's Government—borrowed $10 billion more, and loaded that up on Kāinga Ora (KO), and they quadrupled the social house wait-list, and they had more children growing up in motels. So we're going to solve the problem, we're going to fix KO—it's a badly run organisation. We're going to fix it.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. It was a very straightforward question, and the Prime Minister hasn't addressed it. I asked him whether he accepted that there was a net loss of State houses under the last National Government.

Hon Chris Bishop: He's not responsible for the last National Government.

SPEAKER: No, he's got absolutely no responsibility for the last National Government. [Interruption] Hang on, just calm down. Point of order, the Rt Hon Chris Hipkins.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Just so we're clear, so you're ruling—

SPEAKER: Now, hang on a minute. Just—calm.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: So, you're ruling that the Prime Minister is not responsible for the actions of the previous Governments—just to be very clear?

SPEAKER: That would be a very serious ruling, so it's not one that I want to make off the cuff. So I'll take a bit of time to consider that. I hope that doesn't inhibit your questioning.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Perhaps, while you're considering it, Mr Speaker, you could ask the Prime Minister to address the question, then.

SPEAKER: Well, why don't you ask the question again, and then we'll see how well it is addressed.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Thank you. Does he accept that there was a net loss of State houses under the last National Government?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I hope that member would understand—I've been here for three and a bit years, so I wasn't part of that last National Government. But what I can tell you is that the Government that I am leading—this coalition Government—is incredibly focused on making sure we expand social housing in New Zealand. We have a supply problem created by that member and his former Government, and we're not loading up $10 billion on KO in six years, we're not quadrupling the wait-list, and we're not putting kids into motels. We're going to solve the problem that he created.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Well, if the Prime Minister is prepared to accept that allegation, can he also accept that replacement of a promise of 100,000 homes was met by 14,000 homes—

SPEAKER: Hang on a minute. Wait on—wait on.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: —and was adequately inadequate?

SPEAKER: There was no allegation. There's no allegation made.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Point of order. First of all, Mr Speaker, you should've never taken the question in the first place, because there's no way any Prime Minister is responsible for a previous Government in which he wasn't a Prime Minister or a Minister in the first place. That's number one. I can't understand why this rule is being argued about here, and if Mr Hipkins doesn't know that, he should catch up, read the Standing Orders, and take some senior advice.

SPEAKER: Well, I'm sure he'll appreciate the advice that you've given him via the Speaker. I don't think that was a reasonable point of order, though—it disrupts the flow of the speaker's—[Interruption] Well, you took a supplementary question that wasn't a reasonable question. There was no allegation.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Does he agree with the then National Party housing spokesperson, Nicola Willis, who said, in 2020, "The Government needs to build state houses, and what I would like to see is the Government continuing to build state houses. That's absolutely a policy that either Labour or National needs to continue in the years ahead"; if so, how many additional State houses will he commit to building?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: We are going to continue to build State houses, and—and, not or—we're going to continue to power up community housing providers to build more social houses as well. The aggregate, one plus one, is going to equal a lot more social houses available. But I can tell you, under that member, and the way that he left Kāinga Ora, they are faced with a sell-off of 10,200 houses in order to make the finances work because of the mess that you loaded them up with.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Will he honour the pledge signed by Nicola Willis committing to build 1,000 additional State houses in Auckland each year—

Hon Member: Social houses.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: —if not, why not? State houses—the pledge says, "State houses".

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: We are very happy to honour that commitment with the change that it's social housing.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Will he rule out extracting a dividend from Kāinga Ora as the last National Government did?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Yes. But what I'm also going to say to you: what we are ruling out is actually a board that has mismanaged Kāinga Ora, a Minister that mismanaged Kāinga Ora. We are going to fix it. How on earth do you have a board that doesn't even have a financial statement? How do you actually have a board that just accepts the Government's going to tip $10 billion and load $10 billion of debt up on KO, making it not financially sustainable and leading to a sell-off—as that previous Government planned—of 10,200 State houses?

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. The comment the Prime Minister made at the end of his question is blatantly incorrect. He is deliberately misleading the House. There is absolutely no evidence the previous Government was even contemplating that decision. The previous Government received no advice that suggested that.

SPEAKER: I'll just tell the House: while we're hearing points of order—I didn't want to interrupt the member making that point of order, but they are heard in silence.

Hon Nicola Willis: Well, the member has made a very serious accusation and one only has to look at the information and facts that are in the public domain to understand that it is correct. And, actually, what the member opposite should reflect on is if there were statements created that required 10,000 homes to be sold, either one of two things is correct: either that was the policy of the last Government, or they were so utterly incoherent and incapable—

SPEAKER: No, that's enough.

Hon Nicola Willis: —that they weren't aware—

SPEAKER: That is enough. I just want to make this point; it might help. There is a provision, if people believe that the House has been misled, to, in the first instance, write to the Speaker so that it can be established one way or the other. And I'm open to that, obviously. The Hon Kieran McAnulty, a point of order.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Thank you very much. The point that the Rt Hon Chris Hipkins was making is that there was an accusation made that the previous Government had advice available to them. The Minister of Finance has confirmed to me in written questions that she commissioned that advice.

SPEAKER: Well, look, I'm unable, sitting here, to determine the right or wrong of this. There is a mechanism—

Hon Chris Bishop: What? That's not right. You need to get across your brief, jeez.

SPEAKER: —and I think that should be the default position for those who are concerned. [Interruption] I beg your pardon? No, I'm happy to hear if you want to add to the debate somehow.

Hon Chris Bishop: No, I'm just talking to Kieran.

SPEAKER: Yeah, well, members don't have those conversations across the House.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Will he commit to keeping the same criteria for someone to be placed on the social housing wait-list, or will he reduce the wait-list by changing the criteria, as the previous National Government did?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Yes. What I'd say to that member, though, is we are in a conversation here about social housing. We want to see more social houses available in New Zealand. We want to see more State houses built and we want to see more community housing providers build more houses as well. But the first thing to do is, rather than putting good money after bad, we're going to take stock of the KO organisation, make sure that it actually has a board refresh, make sure it has a turnaround plan in place by November, and make sure it gets on a financially sustainable footing. That is the first job that we have to do to clean up the mess that that member and his Government left us.

Question No. 4—Housing

4. KATIE NIMON (National—Napier) to the Minister of Housing: What announcements has he made regarding the independent review into Kāinga Ora?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister of Housing): Yesterday, the Government announced a series of immediate actions in response to the independent review of Kāinga Ora. We had significant concerns about the financial performance and governance of the agency. These concerns have been borne out by the independent review. The review finds that Kāinga Ora is underperforming and not financially viable without significant savings, as well as funding and financing changes. The agency's had easy access to debt but insufficient focus on fiscal discipline and low levels of accountability. And, secondly, the wider social housing system is not delivering the results New Zealand needs and is lacking in transparency and accountability. They've made seven major recommendations which propose significant changes to Kāinga Ora and the system, and we've agreed to immediately adopt four of those recommendations.

Katie Nimon: What were those initial steps the Government took in response to these findings?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Cabinet has appointed Mr Simon Moutter as the new chair of Kāinga Ora. He will be no stranger to many in this House, with extensive change leadership experience at Powerco, Auckland Airport, and Spark New Zealand. He steps into the role on 4 June, where he'll be tasked with leading a refreshed board which we expect to be in place in July. Ministers are then going to issue a new letter of expectation, which makes clear our expectations regarding a focus on fiscal sustainability, value for money, and a back to basics approach, and we're going to ask from the refreshed board a turnaround plan to Ministers by the end of the year to focus on returning Kāinga Ora to financial sustainability and eliminating losses.

Katie Nimon: What did the review have to say about the governance of Kāinga Ora?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: The review laid out a number of concerns about the governance and the performance of the board. As the Minister, alongside the Minister of Finance, I am responsible for ensuring the board is well-functioning and performing its governance role appropriately. I encourage members to read the review done by Sir Bill and his team around some of the governance failures at Kāinga Ora over the last few years. We are going to refresh the board and take action, and we expect a turnaround plan to fix the problems at Kāinga Ora.

Katie Nimon: What about the other recommendations of the review?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: The other recommendations in the review relate to the wider social housing system. One of the divides between the House has become apparent within that review: on this side of the House, we do not believe that the State is the answer to all of New Zealand's housing problems; actually, the wider housing system needs to be addressed. We believe, on this side of the House, that the community housing sector, groups like the Salvation Army, the Community of Refuge Trust, Emerge, Dwell Housing Trust, and the community housing sector—

Hon Nicola Willis: Habitat for Humanity.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: —Habitat for Humanity, my friend points out—have many of the answers to our housing problems. On this side of the House, we'll invest in more social housing, but the answer is not always necessarily State housing.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Why has he refused to confirm funding for the income-related rent subsidy post-2025, given community housing providers like the Salvation Army are cancelling housing developments due to funding uncertainty?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, I could equally ask that member why the previous Government did not confirm funding beyond 2025 in the last Budget, when the last Government had the opportunity to confirm the funding track for the next four years. Instead, they only confirmed it for two years so that Mr Robertson could run a fake surplus in 2026-2027. The last Government allocated 6,000 social housing places in Budget 2023. Those are in the process of being delivered. There is plenty of work to get on with, and the member knows that.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Why do community housing providers have to wait for the Budget before knowing if they can build new houses, given the Government was happy to announce a $2.9 billion tax cut for landlords weeks ago?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, the member conflates two distinct and separate issues. But the community housing sector has, over the last year and since November, been contracting with the Ministry of Housing and Urban Development for the social housing places allocated in Budget 2023. I just say again: if that member is so interested in additional public housing or social housing places, around nine months ago in Budget 2023 that member's Government had the opportunity to confirm that. They chose not to so they could pretend that by 2026, they were running a surplus. We now know that that was yet another fiscal cliff bequeathed to this Government that we are now having to sort out.

Question No. 5—Finance

5. Hon BARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana) to the Minister of Finance: Fãiåk se'ea, Mr Speaker. What reports, if any, has she seen to confirm that the economic conditions are right for delivering tax cuts, and will she commit to them applying from 1 July 2024?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance): To the second part of the question, I will say what all Ministers of Finance say at this time, which is that the member will have to wait for nine more sleeps. To the first part, I saw an ANZ report on the Budget this morning, which said, "We expect the net impact of discretionary fiscal policy changes (tax and spending cuts) to be broadly neutral from a fiscal outlook perspective.", and, "we think the net impact of tax and spending cuts are likely to be marginally contractionary on balance, insofar as households save a portion of their tax relief or spend a greater proportion on imports than the Government would have." To make it simpler for the House, our tax relief won't require additional borrowing, and our tax cuts will reduce inflationary pressures. Those seem like pretty good conditions for tax relief.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Why is she choosing tax cuts rather than policies that will minimise job losses, which many are predicting to go well over 5 percent?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I would like to remind the member of the economic and fiscal conditions which New Zealanders face. We are in a situation where there have been no adjustments to personal income tax rates or thresholds for 14 years, other than a new rate being added at the top. Now, we are a country which is one of the few outliers in the OECD that hasn't adjusted thresholds for fiscal drag. We're a country where the average tax rate for a median full-time salary and wage earner—by definition, someone right in the middle of the income distribution—has gone up more than five percentage points. And we are a country where someone working full time on the minimum wage is now facing a marginal tax rate of 30 percent. These conditions justify tax relief. It is a shame the Labour Party can't see it.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Why is she choosing tax cuts rather than policies that would increase productivity when business confidence is currently plummeting?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I happen to believe that one of the greatest things we can do for productivity is send New Zealanders the message that there will be reward for their hard work. And that is what tax relief will do. Under Labour, it may be that workers are always the last to get served, but under this Government, we're making sure they get what they deserve.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Why is she choosing tax cuts rather than the major infrastructure works like State housing, schools, and hospitals when the construction industry is facing significant uncertainty?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: How facile it is to suggest that it's one or the other. It will be both.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Does she agree with members of the Association of Economists that when the overall Budget is in structural deficit, reductions in current income taxes shift the burden of current Government expenditures to future taxpayers; if not, why not?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I agree with the economist who wrote for the ANZ, today, saying that "pro-cyclical fiscal policy in recent years means fiscal consolidation is now desperately overdue." And I can confirm for that member that, yes, our Government is getting on with cleaning up the fiscal mess her party left us.

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Point of order, Mr Speaker. The Minister was asked a straight question, there, relating to the movement of a liability to future taxpayers and simply quoted from an unrelated economic report.

SPEAKER: Well, actually, it was a question about an economic report, if the member likes to look at the Hansard. So replying to that is not an unreasonable thing.

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: It was an entirely different economic report—

SPEAKER: Sorry, we'll hear a point of order in silence.

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: The Minister quoted from an entirely different economic report that bore no relationship to the question that was asked.

SPEAKER: Well, with all due respect, it was contradictory, and I think that's the way things work in here.

Hon David Parker: Point of order—a different point of order. It goes to the earlier point of order that Mr McAnulty raised. I actually think that the Minister of Finance's retort referring to the earlier Government was actually in order, but it also means that the question of the Prime Minister asking him to answer a question about an earlier Government's behaviour is also in order. It doesn't matter whether they were in Government or not; they still have to answer questions that contrast earlier records.

SPEAKER: Well, thank you very much for that advice. We'll move now to—

Hon David Parker: Point of order. It was a point of order, and it didn't deserve that retort. I asked you to take that into account when you reflect on the issue that you referred to earlier.

SPEAKER: Well, once again, thank you for pointing out your position. Mine was that I would consider this and come back to the House at a later point—

Hon David Parker: And mine was that I was trying to assist.

SPEAKER: —I've made that very clear earlier. I beg your pardon?

Hon David Parker: And mine was that I was trying to assist you in your role as the Chair of this House.

SPEAKER: And I simply thank you for your advice.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Why is she choosing tax cuts over the livelihoods of the 4,500 Kiwis that have lost their jobs because of her Budget?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, I would first warn the member that she's once again doing what she has done several times in this House, which is making a statement of fact where she doesn't actually have evidence to support it. I'd note that the number that she is referring to is one that includes job vacancies that have been closed, which is not the same as someone losing their job. The livelihoods of New Zealanders are paramount in the minds of every Cabinet Minister who has signed off our Budget, and we think it is wrong for a Government to put those livelihoods at risk with irresponsible financial management that grows debt and fuels inflation without driving value for public money, and we intend to take a very different approach.

Question No. 6—Children

KAHURANGI CARTER (Green): Does the Minister agree with official advice that the repeal of section 7AA of the Oranga Tamariki Act could cripple trust built with Māori communities—

SPEAKER: Sorry, just a minute—just hold on a minute. You need to start by telling the House who the question is addressed to, particularly for the broadcast purpose.

KAHURANGI CARTER: To the Minister for Children: does she agree with the official advice that the repeal of section 7AA of the Oranga Tamariki Act could cripple trust built up with Māori communities and put vulnerable children at greater risk?

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON (Senior Whip—National): Point of order, Mr Speaker. That's not the question on the paper.

SPEAKER: Yeah, I was just trying to catch up with that, because I was taking advice on that as we went. I'm going to ask the member to start the question again as it's written on the Order Paper.

6. KAHURANGI CARTER (Green) to the Minister for Children: Does she agree with reports that the repeal of section 7AA of the Oranga Tamariki Act 1989 could cripple trust built up with Māori communities and put vulnerable children at greater risk?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR (Minister for Children): No, I do not agree with reports that have stated this. I assume the member is referring to an article with that headline. What that was referring to was a regulatory impact statement that actually said, "a repeal of section 7AA may undo some of the progress that Oranga Tamariki has made in building trust, relationships, and accountability in the communities we work with." However, the regulatory impact statement also says that the repeal "may increase levels of confidence in the Department's decision-making for some members of the public".

Hon David Seymour: Point of order, Mr Speaker. Mr Speaker, I seek your guidance. This is a question that was on notice and authenticated, but it appears that the word "cripple" in the characterisation doesn't actually appear in the official advice, and I just wonder how a question can be authenticated when it makes an assertion that is actually not supported by the advice; it's a very colourful interpretation by the member.

SPEAKER: That's a very good point. I'll just take some advice. Right, the clarification is that it was not from an official document; it was from a media report, which is satisfactory for authenticating a question, and the word was used in that circumstance. So I appreciate the member's point of view, but the question stands.

Kahurangi Carter: What specifically about the 7AA provisions, which give practical effect to Te Tiriti o Waitangi, is not in the best interests of tamariki?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: I have stood here and made it very clear time and time again that the best interests and the safety of our children should be first and foremost in all decision making of our young people, not based on their race.

Kahurangi Carter: Does she agree with official advice that stripping Treaty provisions "may worsen the safety, stability, and well-being of our children with the greatest needs.", and, if not, what counter evidence does she have?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: I will have to go back and check that advice and then come back to the member with an answer

Kahurangi Carter: Does she agree with Tama Potaka and the National Party, who voted down her member's bill making the same repeal of 7AA, that "It would be contradictory of us to dismiss this provision entirely, which is intended to be a genuine option to address and meet the best interests of the child in State care."?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: I have said time and time again that my intentions here are to make sure that our young people in this country are safe, cared for, and loved, and they deserve to be treated with the greatest of respect. And no matter what we do here today, this is part of the coalition agreement to make sure our young people have the best start in life.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Could I ask the Minister as to whether she knows of any Treaty principle that puts the interests of the child last and the interests of others first?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: No.

Kahurangi Carter: Can she guarantee—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Someone is on their feet. We'll just let them ask the question in silence.

Kahurangi Carter: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Can she guarantee that no resources, programmes, or initiatives delivered by strategic partnerships for the benefit of tamariki in care will cease because of this repeal?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: As far as that relates to the primary question, I can't make guarantees like that. All I can guarantee is whatever is working in the best interests of our kids will continue and whatever is not, won't.

Kahurangi Carter: What assurances, if any, can she give that the repeal will not worsen the welfare of tamariki Māori or a breakdown in trust between iwi and hapū Māori and the Crown?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: As far as that relates to the primary question, I am working hard, around the country, speaking to iwi, hapū, and community organisations about how we move forward to make sure that our young people are safe and every decision we're making around their care is based on their safety.

Question No. 7—Transport

7. TIM COSTLEY (National—Ōtaki) to the Minister of Transport: What recent announcements has he made on roads of regional significance?

Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Transport): The Government has announced roads of regional significance to sit alongside roads of national significance as part of our plan to get transport back on track. Two roads of national significance and 10 roads of regional significance will replace roading projects in the New Zealand Upgrade Programme. The New Zealand Upgrade Programme's roading projects were subject to significant cost blowouts that resulted in project cancellations and delays across the country. These changes get these roading projects back on track.

Tim Costley: Why has the Government made changes to road projects in the New Zealand Upgrade Programme?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, when we came to Government, we were advised that there would be a significant funding gap of up to $1.5 billion to deliver the roading projects in the New Zealand Upgrade Programme. The Government has made tough choices to get this programme of roading projects back on track. Two of these projects will now be delivered as roads of national significance. Ten will be delivered as roads of regional significance. Two will be progressed to be delivery-ready with funding decisions made once procurement for major projects within the package are confirmed, and two will be prioritised for funding within the Government policy statement on transport.

Tim Costley: Why has the Government delegated decision making on project scope and delivery to the New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA)?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, our Government has delegated decision making on project scope and delivery to NZTA to provide much-needed certainty of delivery to communities across the country and to ensure the programme stays within budget. This ensures decisions can be made by the NZTA board on budget cost and scope, they can appropriately manage the risk, and ensure value for money for taxpayers. We expect the New Zealand Transport Agency board to deliver these projects within the $6.5 billion funding envelope for this programme.

Tim Costley: Can the Minister tell us how roads of regional significance fit into the Government's transport plan?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Our Government is focused on delivering a transport system that boosts productivity and economic growth. Prioritising the delivery of roads of national significance and roads of regional significance across New Zealand provides much-needed certainty of delivery to communities across the country. It is a part of our plan to rebuild the economy.

Question No. 8—RMA Reform

8. Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram) to the Minister responsible for RMA Reform: Does he agree with the Prime Minister's statement on 8 May referring to West Wind: "Well, what I am very well aware of is it took eight years to consent a simple wind farm not very far from this place here in Wellington"?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform): Yes. Preparatory work started on this consent in 1999. A range of assessments had to be undertaken so they could submit a consent application; have a reasonable chance if granted a workable consent. The work was not optional. The final decision to grant the consent was made by the Environment Court in July 2007—eight years after the work began on the consent from the applicant. West Wind took two years to construct, so the total time, end to end, in developing it into a wind farm was 10 years. As the Prime Minister has outlined, it takes too long and costs too much to get resource consents in New Zealand to build the infrastructure New Zealand needs, including renewable energy. It's one of the reasons why we're committed to a fast-track, one-stop-shop piece of legislation.

Hon Dr Megan Woods: Is it not correct that although the land was purchased in the 1990s, as the Minister said, no consent was lodged for building a wind farm on that land till it was transferred to Meridian—in fact, it was lodged on 1 July 2005; a final decision was made on 20 July 2007—and, if this is what this party is hanging its Resource Management Act reform on, it's pretty thin?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: We're nine days out from the Budget and apparently we're litigating on exactly what time frame an energy company submitted a resource consent application. But, regardless, the information that I have is that preparatory work on the resource consent for West Wind started in 1999. It is true that Meridian applied for it in 2005, but, of course—

Hon Dr Megan Woods: Two years.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: —that member neglects—yes, but the member neglects all of the preparatory work that goes into actually preparing a resource consent because of the strictures of the Resource Management Act. I just point the member, further—without litigating something that happened in the early 2000s, I would just point the member to the comments from almost every major electricity generator in the last couple of years when it comes to the Resource Management Act. I quote Contact Energy, for example: the single biggest barrier to the decarbonisation of the New Zealand economy is our planning system—which is the Resource Management Act. It costs too much and takes too long to get consent to build renewables.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Does the Minister recall the supermarket look-in that took 28 years to get consent, and is his fast-track aligned—to use the Prime Minister's words—with the 17 precedent set by the Labour Party when last in Government?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, yes, indeed, I do remember that. I also—

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Point of order, Mr Speaker. The question had a swipe of the Labour Party at the end. It's clearly out of order.

SPEAKER: Well, it did. But it also asked if the Minister recalled, and you've just had members from your party indicating that members should have very long memories about past ministerial understandings. So it can't go both ways.

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Speaking to the point of order. If your ruling is that it is now OK in a question to make a swipe at the Opposition, that's a significant change from the position you've taken today.

SPEAKER: No, it is not. But I've also said to the House that it's not unreasonable for a Government to reflect on actions of a previous Government. It's not necessarily a flick, and Speakers' rulings—if I go through them, there are a number in there that will confirm that.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Yes, I do remember that, and I could also point the member to other examples. The Lake Hayes wind farm sought consent for six years to build a wind farm. The classic that I like—which I've got to admit I was unaware about until about half an hour ago—is the reconsenting of the 100-year-old 0.5 megawatt Raetihi hydro power station, which took 19 years. This is the kind of red tape that we need to reduce in this country.

Hon Dr Megan Woods: Has the Minister received advice that under the COVID fast-track consenting process, where Ministers referred projects and independent experts made the decisions, the renewable energy projects referred had a combined generating capacity of 1,630 megawatts—that's the equivalent of nearly four Clyde Dams' worth of electricity—and that one of those was Te Rere Hau Wind Farm, which obtained approval in way under 18 months?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Oh yes, yes. I'm a big fan of the COVID-19 fast-track legislation, which is why we have lifted and shifted the vast architecture of the legislation into a new fast-track regime designed to make it easier to build things in this country.

Hon Dr Megan Woods: Under his Government's bill that is before select committee, has he lifted and shifted the fact that it is independent experts who make decisions and not three wise men of Ministers?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Oh, well, the member is surprisingly complimentary about the troika of Ministers alongside Matua Shane and Mr Brown. As the member knows, the bill is before select committee. We are committed to a one-stop-shop, fast-track regime, which, as the record of the previous Government acknowledges—with the exception of the Luddites and the Green Party—every mainstream political party recognises this as a problem holding New Zealand back. We are also open to sensible changes to the bill.

Hon Dr Megan Woods: Will the Minister commit to changing the bill, given the majority of the major electricity generators—under the Electricity Sector Environment Group—in their submission to the select committee have recommended that decisions on whether to approve or decline approvals for eligible projects are made by independent expert panels rather than by the joint Ministers as proposed under the bill as is currently drafted—i.e., they are proposing a very similar scheme to the regime that Labour had?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, the bill is before the select committee, so I don't want to get ahead of the deliberations of the select committee. All I can say is that we are carefully reading the submissions to the committee and the officials are analysing that. There are very few bills that go to Parliament that go to a select committee that don't come back with sensible refinements to improve the legislation. I'm sure that will be true of the fast-track bill.

Question No. 9—Police

9. JOSEPH MOONEY (National—Southland) to the Minister of Police: What recent announcements has Police made about the policing of gangs?

Hon MARK MITCHELL (Minister of Police): The Police Commissioner has announced the formation of a national gang unit and district level gang disruption units made up of both new and reprioritised resources. These teams will have a laser focus on the disruption and enforcement of gangs. The new gang units will create and enhance new operational capability in combating gangs. They'll add significant capability to suppress gangs, their networks, supply chains, and violent, intimidating, and antisocial behaviour.

Joseph Mooney: Does he agree with commentators that gangs will ignore police?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: No, I totally reject that. Our police officers are an extension of our communities, and threats made against them are made against all of us. We have one of the most professional and capable police forces in the world. I have no doubt that they have the ability to be able to enforce the law and keep the public safe.

Joseph Mooney: What additional powers is the Government giving police to use?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: The Government has announced several new powers for police, including the banning of patches and insignia in public, dispersal notices, consorting prohibition notices, and strengthened firearms prohibition orders with warrantless search powers.

Joseph Mooney: How does this announcement from Police support the Government's priorities?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: This is a strong step in the right direction and sends a clear message to gangs and organised crime groups that they are no longer operating in a permissive environment or above the law. Restoring law and order is a key priority for this coalition Government.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Does he agree with the Dairy and Business Owners Group spokesperson, Sunny Kaushal, who said, "While the new Government was elected with high hopes, it is yet to meet our expectations"?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Well, I agree a lot with Sunny Kaushal, and I was very pleased to be with him on the weekend at a public meeting in Hamilton, where he said that he is very happy with the work that this Government is doing and he is looking forward to working even more closely with us.

Question No. 10—Children

10. Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour) to the Minister for Children: Does she stand by the decision to repeal section 7AA of the Oranga Tamariki Act 1989?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR (Minister for Children): Yes.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: What does she say to Tupua Urlich, a former ward of the State, who was the first survivor to speak at the Māori public hearing for the abuse in care royal commission of inquiry, who says, about repealing section 7AA, that "It's going to take generations to undo that harm. So when the Government turns around and fails to acknowledge our rights, it's just another stab in the back."?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: I'm sorry that Tupua Urlich had to go through what he went through, and I'm sorry that Tupua Urlich had to stand up and tell his story before the royal commission. But, at the end of the day, this is about making sure that our young people are put first, before any other consideration in the Act. And any member on the other side of the House that can argue that putting the safety and the best interests of our kids first—[Interruption] needs to take a good, long, hard look in the mirror.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Does she remain "unapologetic for putting the children first" when her ministry's regulatory impact statement indicates that there is a lack of robust evidence that section 7AA does anything at all to harm children, and that repealing section 7AA may worsen the safety, stability, and wellbeing of our children with the greatest needs, on page 24, at paragraph 44?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: Whilst I respect the work the officials do and the information that they provide, it is also important to note that it is the job of Ministers to consider official advice, not to agree with it.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: What does she say to the National Iwi Chairs Forum and the Pou Tangata Iwi Leaders Group, who are united against the proposed repeal of section 7AA, and can she name an iwi or Māori organisation, including any strategic partnerships with Oranga Tamariki, that supports the repeal of section 7AA?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: People are entitled to have their opinions. At the end of the day, this is a coalition agreement, something that I campaigned on, an issue that I promised to fix while I went around the country and heard the horrific stories of how our young people were put at risk because it was based on their race, not their safety.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: How will Oranga Tamariki meet her expectation to establish more partnerships with Māori and continue current strategic partnerships, despite repealing section 7AA, when she is slashing 21 Māori roles at Oranga Tamariki, including the very roles that support engagement—such as the regional Māori practice coaches and senior iwi and Māori engagement advisers—as well as the Treaty response unit and the Māori practice advisers?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: Those roles that the member is speaking of are still a proposal, still under consideration, and still out for consultation. What we are doing right now is making sure that Oranga Tamariki and all the people that work with our young people have a very clear direction that the care and protection and safety of our young people come first.

Hon David Seymour: Is the Minister more focused on the adults who write regulatory impact statements, the adults in the National Iwi Chairs Forum, certain adults working for Oranga Tamariki, or is she more focused on the vulnerable children and their welfare?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: I have heard about Māori rights, I have heard about iwi rights, I have heard about parents' rights, I have heard about officials' rights, but when have we heard about the children's rights?

Question No. 11—Education (Partnership Schools)

11. LAURA TRASK (ACT) to the Associate Minister of Education (Partnership Schools): What recent announcements has he made about lifting educational outcomes?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR (Associate Minister of Education (Partnership Schools)): Charter schools are back. [Interruption] That's right. Once again, New Zealand communities—be they business, be they iwi, be they community groups that have insight into how to engage children currently disengaged from education, those educators and those innovators will have a vehicle where they can create schools where those disengaged students want to go. I'll tell you a story that I used in my maiden statement in this House 10 years ago of one student, a child who was literally called Hope. She was at Vanguard Military School and she said, "I never knew I was smart till I came here."—I never knew I was smart till I came here.

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Point of order. The question was "What recent announcements has he made about lifting educational outcomes?" He said charter schools were back; that was the end of the answer. He's now giving a speech.

SPEAKER: Well, that would be similar to me saying that the simple word "yes" ends a question about "confidence in" statements and everything else. You wouldn't want that, so we won't do that either. You can start your answer again.

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: Charter schools are back. Once again, in this society, there will be a policy where people in the community—community groups, people from business, people from iwi, people from groups that may not have any ethnic base at all—will be able to create schools that engage those students who are not engaged. Now, I want the Opposition to listen to this bit. For the people at home, the thing about the Opposition—there's an old saying "They don't like it up 'em". But the facts are that a child called Hope, this child said to me, "I never knew I was smart until I came here." What she meant is that at a State school that she wasn't attending—that she wasn't attending—what she found is that she thought she was dumb. She thought she had no potential. She thought she couldn't learn. At a charter school, she started learning and those skills turned into qualifications. Those qualifications eventually turned into a job and a future and feeling good about herself. That's what recent announcement I've made about education and raising achievement.

SPEAKER: And I hope that subsequent answers will be considerably briefer than the—

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: We all have hope, Mr Speaker. It's what it's about.

SPEAKER: And I've got very high hopes for the member. After ten years I'd have thought he'd have been pretty sharp.

Laura Trask: What success have charter schools had?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: You know, it's interesting to look at what the data and evidence from around the world said. For example, the gold standards of studying charter school success comes out of Stanford University, the Center for Research on Educational Outcomes—

Rawiri Waititi: Oh, following the Americans.

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: —where they create—I heard Rawiri Waititi in the cowboy hat say, "Oh, you're following the Americans."

Rawiri Waititi: I'm listening to David Seymour in the pink tie.

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: Yes, you know all about it. In the United States of America, there's a university called Stanford and it has a Center for Research on Educational Outcomes. They've done the most comprehensive study of charter school success where they create statistically identical virtual twins for kids in charter schools and kids in State schools. What they find is that a kid in a charter school in America, at the end of each year, has learnt 16 days more reading—imagine if Rawiri Waititi had been there—than in a State school. That's what the data and evidence says about charters, and the people that say otherwise are flat-earthers.

SPEAKER: That answer's sort of completely obliterating any hope I might have had of concise answers.

Laura Trask: Why is there a need for charter schools in New Zealand?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: The sad reality is that nothing determines our future more than how much knowledge we transfer from one generation to the next for every kid, and we're failing. We're failing to get kids to school and we're failing to have them learn valuable knowledge for their future when they're there—that is the truth. After years of denial, where the Labour Minister of Education, for example, was absolved from responsibility for misleading the House because she didn't know where the educational data on attendance was, we are now fronting up, we're publishing the data, and we're creating new options so that kids can be engaged by people with insights in their community about what will get them to school and get them engaged. That's why we need them.

SPEAKER: Sorry, was there another supplementary to come?

Laura Trask: There is. What reports has he seen in support for charter schools?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: One commentator said, "When you look at the success this alternative-style educational model has had for Māori, then it gets an A every day.", and "Our staff tell us they have seen the change in our tamariki, especially those who have been failed by mainstream schooling." Another commentator has said, "I support that particular charter school, and the reason I do so is that I've seen kaupapa grow from the fetal stages all the way that they have today and I've seen the outcomes they've achieved, and that's why I support that particular kaupapa." I would like to thank Willie Jackson and Peeni Henare for those quotes.

Question No. 12—Prime Minister

12. RAWIRI WAITITI (Co-Leader—Te Pāti Māori ) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his Government's statements and actions?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON (Prime Minister): Yes, in the context they were given.

Rawiri Waititi: Can he explain why he has allowed one coalition agreement with a minor political party to cause his Government to disregard his obligation under the Tiriti in regards to the repeal of section 7AA?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: We are united, in the coalition Government, that we are prioritising the wellbeing of a child ahead of their cultural needs.

Rawiri Waititi: If section 7AA—

SPEAKER: Hang on. Look, you are entitled to a bit of quiet in the House.

Rawiri Waititi: Thank you. If section 7AA has been successful in reducing the number of Māori entering State care by almost 50 percent since its implementation in 2019, why would you repeal it?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, look, I'm sorry; I haven't seen the data that the member is referring to, but what I would say—

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Read the reports. They're in the reports provided for your use.

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Would you like an answer, or would you like to continue? What I'd just say to you is that we are very clear: these are our most vulnerable children in New Zealand. We care deeply about them. We take our responsibility very seriously in State—to make sure that they are well looked after, they're in caring and loving homes. That is what we are prioritising first. That doesn't preclude them from being with whānau, but, actually, the first priority, the first lens by which you look through that question on, is making sure that you have that child in a safe, loving, great home.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: There is no empirical evidence it wasn't happening.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: It's not true. Stop talking bunkum. Yeah, you'd believe that because you're so naïve.

SPEAKER: Look, hang on. Excuse me—both sides of the House. It's very exciting—we're coming up to the Budget. Everything gets a bit fractious. Just calm down and we'll hear questions in silence.

Rawiri Waititi: Can he rule out the harmful impacts that this policy will have on tamariki Māori and, if so, will he take responsibility for any further harm of mokopuna Māori that occurs in State care as a result of his coalition agreement?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, look, I can tell you this Government and our Minister take our responsibilities incredibly seriously. These are our most vulnerable children in New Zealand. We have a huge responsibility to make sure that they end up in safe, caring, and loving homes. That is job number one, above and beyond everything else.

Rawiri Waititi: Does he agree with his own Government that no-cause evictions and the return of interest deductibility are pro-renter policies, and, if so, can he explain why not a single renters advocacy group agrees that these policies are pro-renter?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I don't know how to explain this to the member, but we have a housing crisis in New Zealand, and this Government's going to do something about it. And we are very clear about it—we have a supply problem. We have a supply problem in the number of—we're not building enough houses. We have a supply problem because we're not renting enough houses, and not enough in the rental market, and we have a supply problem in the social housing market. Removing interest deductibility, bringing back the brightline test, and balancing the tenancy laws between landlords and tenants are things that will make it easier for people to get rental properties.

Rawiri Waititi: Who is in a better position to speak for renters: (a) renters advocacy groups or (b) a person who owns seven homes?

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Supplementary question.

SPEAKER: Hold on.

Rawiri Waititi: Is that a point of order, or is he answering the question?

SPEAKER: Are you taking a point of order? Because there's a question on that.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Well, it doesn't deserve to be answered, so let's go.

SPEAKER: Well, that's—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Go straight to my one. No offence.

SPEAKER: Thanks very much for assisting. As you know, I'm intensely interested in your interest in the job I'm doing. Now, sorry, ask the question again and try and bring it inside the Standing Orders.

Rawiri Waititi: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Who is in a better position to speak for renters: (a) renters advocacy groups or (b) a person who owns seven homes?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I reject the premise of that question, but I actually think taking the housing crisis seriously is something that I would expect that member to do. I would expect that member, if he cared, actually, about people who are in homeless situations, if he cared about people who can't get access to rental properties, and if he cared about people who are in emergency housing and the 3,000 kids that woke up in motels today—he'd actually want to do something about increasing the supply of houses available, houses available to rent, and houses available in social housing.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can I ask the Prime Minister: when he experiences those sort of nasty allegations in the House, does he not sort of think of Michael Cullen and his famous quote, "We won. You lost. Eat that!"?

SPEAKER: Well, that question certainly won't be answered.

Rawiri Waititi: Point of order. Just clarity, Mr Speaker. If you can tell me what the allegation is that I've made, that would make it clearer for that question. And just to say before I sit down—

SPEAKER: No, no. I'll help the member. I don't need to, because I just said it's not a question that can be answered.

Rawiri Waititi: Thank you. Well, every great thinker is someone's moron. Kia ora tātou.

SPEAKER: That concludes oral questions.

URGENT DEBATES

Kāinga Ora—Government Response to Review

SPEAKER: I call on the Hon Kieran McAnulty to move that the House take note of a matter of urgent public importance.

Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Labour): I move, That the House take note of a matter of urgent public importance. Mr Speaker—

SPEAKER: Wait a minute—wait on. Members, there's a time on this. Do not have conversations as you're leaving the House. Leave quietly and respectfully.

Hon KIERAN McANULTY: Thank you, Mr Speaker. When it comes to social housing, the National Party are all talk. They've always been all talk and they always will be all talk, and there's no better example than the response to the review into Kāinga Ora that occurred yesterday, as the Prime Minister and the housing Minister stood there in front of the media and looked for every possible excuse they could to undermine Kāinga Ora and the provision of State houses in this country. There is a reason why I didn't refer to its full name—this so-called independent report—because I do not accept that placing Sir Bill English, the man who oversaw the wholesale of our State houses while he was finance Minister, is anywhere near independent. The record of the previous National Government speaks for itself. In the nine years that they governed, the number of State houses went backwards by 1,500, and the bloke that oversaw that was the bloke that oversaw the review that the Prime Minister and the housing Minister used to justify their agenda.

Let's have a look at what they said in their response. On numerous occasions, the Prime Minister mentioned that debt had gone up from $3 billion to $12 billion. At no point did the Prime Minister mention the asset value that had been accumulated in that time, that had gone from roughly $20 billion to roughly $45 billion in six years. Why? Because they are trying to paint a picture. They are trying desperately to undermine an organisation that had to start from scratch.

Actually, that's inaccurate: they had to start beyond and behind the starting line, because when we came in in 2017, and when Kāinga Ora was established in 2018, Housing New Zealand was a shell of an organisation. It existed for one reason and one reason only, and that was to sell State houses. It was a shame, it was a disgrace, and we had to build that up from nothing, change the outlook. That is what, supposedly, was in review yesterday. It was what, supposedly, is under financial strain. What amazed me was it seemed like the Prime Minister and the housing Minister only realised that it costs money to build houses, and a lot of houses—14,000 is the number that public houses increased by in the last six years. That is an astronomical number in the context of what Housing New Zealand was and what Kāinga Ora has become. By all means, we should always look for efficiencies, but the attitude—it was astounding. They've given up—they have given up. They have not even committed to continuing at the same level.

I find the actions of those two Ministers yesterday to be disingenuous—disingenuous because throughout the campaign, both of them made a promise to New Zealanders. They promised that their Government would build more houses than the Labour Government. So to achieve that, that's 14,001-plus, and what have we seen in the last seven months? Absolutely nothing. We've seen blaming and we've seen dodging around the issues, and we've seen claims that I believe to be disingenuous.

In the Prime Minister's state of the nation speech, he claimed, as we have heard in the House today and was referred to again yesterday, that when they came into Government there was advice sitting on their desk that Kāinga Ora was about to sell 10,200 houses, and they claimed that we knew. We heard it today—it's not true. That advice was commissioned by the Minister of Finance as a result of a conversation she had with the Secretary to the Treasury. That's confirmed in another written question.

I'll tell you what also was confirmed: in the annual review hearing at the Social Services and Community Committee, both the Ministry of Housing and Urban Development and Kāinga Ora confirmed very clearly that that advice was on the preface that this Government will not fund social houses, public houses, or State houses beyond 2025. They were working on their advice. This is the outcome of this Government's policies, and they have the gall to turn around and blame us. If they want to blame us, they can blame us for housing people, because that's what we did—we housed people. We housed families; we housed disabled people, who, incidentally, make up 70 percent of Kāinga Ora's tenants.

What have they done—apart from looking for excuses and looking for distractions? They have reintroduced interest deductibility for landlords, a $2.9 billion tax cut. Why was that brought in? It was brought in to incentivise new builds, because for years speculators and investors were competing amongst themselves on existing stock, driving up house prices. And what did we see once that was changed? Investment went to new builds. New homeowners came into existing stock. That is the result of that policy.

So the reverse is true: by them bringing it back, there won't be new builds; there will be competition on existing stock, house prices will go up, new homebuyers will be locked out, and rents will go up. And guess what! That doesn't help build houses. We saw them put restrictions and make it harder to get into emergency housing—that doesn't build houses. We saw them announce that it's easier to evict Kāinga Ora tenants without the promise that they would then go back on to the list—that doesn't build houses. And later today, we are going to debate a bill at its first reading that makes it easier for landlords to kick tenants out—that doesn't build houses.

What does build houses is funding, and the glaring omission from yesterday's announcement was another missed opportunity, another refusal to confirm funding. Right around the country, community housing providers are pausing and cancelling housing developments for one reason: because they won't confirm the funding. And we'll hear it—Chris Bishop's writing down notes now. We'll hear the nonsense that he's been saying for a while; fiscal cliffs and all that sort of stuff. Anything short of this Government announcing funding perpetuity for the rest of time, they're going to go into their same trap that they've created; they're going to do what is a total fiscal cliff.

It's a disgrace. It's like they think New Zealanders are thick, but they're not thick and they know what to expect from this Government, when they see their Prime Minister unable this morning on Breakfast to answer a simple question: "How many State houses will you sell?" He refused to answer. "Define mass State housing sell-offs.", as was referred to by the housing Minister yesterday. He refused to answer. Why, is my question—why is that? They could've cleared that up yesterday; they didn't. Instead, they took us down a road that wasn't true by claiming that they've got advice on sales of houses that wasn't true. Their own advice, their own officials, their own answers to written parliamentary questions say it wasn't true.

It's actually quite clear and quite evident: they are shaping up Kāinga Ora to perform what happened in the last National Government: a mass transfer of State-owned houses to other organisations, be they community housing providers or be they these new associations modelled on what's happening in the UK. Of all the European examples to follow on housing policy, the UK is the last one. The number of social houses has gone down; the number of homeless has gone up. It is the very thing we shouldn't be doing. It is the very thing they will do, because it's the very thing they did last time. If they don't fund public houses, the numbers will go down. The evidence is there for all to see. They can yell, they can holler, but here's a challenge for them: what's larger, 14,000 or minus 1,500? It's a pretty simple question, because if this Government continues on its path and follows to make excuses like they did yesterday in the response to the review and refuses to fund additional funding for State houses and for income-related rent subsidy, that's exactly where we're going to go. If the previous National Government funded houses like we did, we would be nowhere near the mess that we're in.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister of Housing): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. There are a few things that the member Kieran McAnulty—who I realise is new to the housing portfolio—needs to realise about Kāinga Ora and the financial situation that this Government has inherited. The first is that it is true to say that in December last year, when the Government came to office, a report landed on our desk that was pursuant to the funding—

Hon Dr Megan Woods: It was commissioned by the Minister of Finance.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: No, no, no—no, no, no.

Hon Dr Megan Woods: Yes, yes, yes.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: The member who is interjecting, herself, alongside the Minister of Finance at the time, started the Kāinga Ora funding and financing review in the first place. The previous Government was donkey-deep in the situation that this Government has inherited, because even the profligate previous Government realised that what was going on at Kāinga Ora was not acceptable. That's why they started the funding and financing review by Treasury and the Ministry of Housing and Urban Development in the first place.

One of the outcomes of that review was a report that landed on the new Government's desk in December 2023 that said, on the budget approved by the board in December 2023, that Kāinga Ora was forecast to sell, over the next four years, 10,200 houses—that is fact. So that is the situation that the Government has inherited. Now, as I said yesterday in the post-Cabinet press conference, that will not be happening under this Government's watch, and one of the ways it will not be happening is that we have commissioned this review and have started the turn-around job of Kāinga Ora.

Kāinga Ora is an extremely important organisation. It's a $45 billion company. It spends over $2.5 billion per year. Over the last few years, its financial situation has been deteriorating. In 2022-23, it ran at a loss of $520 million, which is forecast, on the current track, to increase to $700 million by 2026-27. It has added 2,000 staff since 2017-18.

One of the consequences of the previous Government's enormous remit that it gave to Kāinga Ora is that it has taken its eye off the ball on doing its job of being fundamentally a public housing landlord. It's an extremely important organisation that houses over 185,000 people, owns over 70,000 houses, alongside many other things that it does. One of the things that the Government will be considering is to reduce the remit of the things that it does so that it can focus on its core responsibilities. So it's very important fiscally for the Government, but it's also very important for the people who actually live in those houses.

The review that we are responding to in this urgent debate finds that the cash cost over the next four years is $21 billion for Kāinga Ora. That is money that comes from taxpayers, that comes from the rest of the Crown. Now, as I say, it is very important that Kāinga Ora is an efficient and effective organisation. That is why we commissioned the review and the review was thorough and it was engaged comprehensively with Kāinga Ora and the communities that are part of the Kāinga Ora family, or at least the sector around the country.

One of the things that's interesting is that Kāinga Ora's social licence has really been put at risk, and this is the issue that the current Government has had to grapple with, in that I think public housing and State housing and social housing has in some communities had a bad name that is undeserved, partly because of Kāinga Ora. I want to restore the social licence for State, public, and social housing in our communities because it is extremely important that we look after people in need, and Kāinga Ora plays a very important role in that.

We will, under this Government, build more social houses. We will build more Kāinga Ora houses. We will also facilitate the building of more social houses, and never is there more of a bigger divide between the parties than when it comes to the role of the State and social housing, because the previous Government's obsession was with building State houses through Kāinga Ora, and that was their sole focus. To give you a sense of it, they funded 6,000 more social houses in Budget 2023 over the next two years. Eighty percent of them were allocated to Kāinga Ora, 80 percent of them—4,800 houses were allocated only to Kāinga Ora. The community housing sector got the crumbs—about 1,200 social houses.

On this side of the House, we are far more interested in growing the community and social housing sector than we are in focusing resolutely on the gross number of new State houses. So, we will fund and build more social houses on this side of the House, but we are far more interested in powering up organisations like the Salvation Army, like Emerge, like the Community of Refuge Trust. We are far more interested in innovative funding and financing formulas that allow those houses to be built. For example, we are interested in developments that let ACC, and other forms of capital, fund—

Hon Dr Megan Woods: They've already done it.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Yeah, I know—yes, that's true. They've already done it, but we want to see what more we can do in that regard. So we will fund and support more social housing places.

The member who led off this debate, the leader of the—well, maybe the leader in the future of the Labour Party, but the leader when it comes to housing talked a lot about the 2025 social housing places and how the Government hasn't confirmed funding beyond that. As I said in question time, that could equally be true of the previous Government, because in 2023, the outgoing Labour Government at the time funded more social housing places to 2025 and stopped it there, and we know why they did that. It's because they pretended that after that time there'd be no more additional social housing funding so that the 2025-26 books could look better, so that they could pretend that around that time, and the year after that, they would deliver a surplus. This is one of these fiscal cliffs, and the fiction, created by the Labour Party, that they were on track to surplus.

When we got into Government we had to open the books and turn over the rocks and we discovered all of these situations throughout. Pharmac is another one, which David Seymour, my colleague, had to confront as well. School lunches was another one where they just pretended that the money would not continue to be spent—utterly fictional—so that Mr Robertson could go into the election campaign and say "Oh, don't worry, we're on track to surplus.", even though the truth was the opposite.

So Mr McAnulty sort of cries crocodile tears and says, "Oh well, you've got to continue the social housing track funding." Well, why didn't the last Government do it? We are confronting that situation. He rages against transfers to other organisations. It's utterly hilarious—the idea that the Government might transfer State houses to social housing organisations. The last Government hated the fact that the Government before that—the National Government—transferred social houses from Kāinga Ora, or Housing New Zealand, as it then was, to accessible properties in Tauranga, and—

Shanan Halbert: Sold them off.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: See, this is classic—it's classic. This is what they say all the time. They spent much of their time in Government pretending that the last National Government engaged in a State house sell-off.

Well, here's the facts. Here's the facts: the last National Government transferred, at market rates, houses owned by Housing New Zealand to accessible properties. Guess what? They were transferred on the basis that they were social houses and remain social houses. Guess what? The people who live in those houses are largely the same now as they were when they were owned by the Government. Here's the difference: unlike the socialists opposite, who care about who owns things, on this side of the House, we are agnostic as to ownership; we care about the tenants and the services that they are receiving. The Labour Opposition can cry crocodile tears about State and social housing and pretend that the private sector is the enemy of community housing; we know, on this side of the House, the truth is the opposite.

The final thing I'll say in rebuttal to Mr McAnulty is he says, "We house people."—"We house people.", he says. Well, here are the facts: social housing wait-lists quadrupled to 25,000 families. The New Zealand Government, as of today, spends a million dollars a day housing people in emergency housing motels. There are 3,000 families living there now. The number of people living in cars quadrupled.

So, quite to the contrary of what Mr McAnulty says, the last Government's record on social housing, as it was on housing more generally, is utterly shameful. We are sorting this dreadful situation out, and the Kāinga Ora report is just the start of that process.

TAMATHA PAUL (Green—Wellington Central): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Well, it's Groundhog Day today and history is repeating itself, because before us we have another National-led Government trying to create the social licence to sell off tens of thousands of public houses that are owned by the people—a move straight out of the playbook of John Key and Bill English's National-led Government. In the past in Aotearoa, in the face of housing insecurity, when our people returned from war, when our cities were controlled by urban slumlords who had people living in their own filth in our cities, the Government made a conscious decision to build public housing at scale because they knew that public housing is a way that we can ensure people have secure housing, affordable housing, and relative protections from market forces. We've made that decision before, and we can make that decision again.

In fact, I learnt recently that if we had the same amount of State housing that we had in 1991, we would have enough public housing to clear the public housing wait-list and have an additional 10,000 houses in our country. That is to highlight the fact that these are political decisions that our leaders are making to keep people in a state of housing insecurity. Public housing is as essential as public education, public schooling, public transport, public healthcare. Aotearoa is in the midst of a housing crisis, and what we need is a Government that backs Kāinga Ora to tackle the housing crisis, not a Government attempting to micromanage every single thing that Kāinga Ora does.

Public housing has become a safe haven for young families, seniors, disabled people, and those living with complex needs, because when housing is treated as a public good, it can provide a stable home for those people to live without fear of discrimination, without fear of unfair evictions, without fear of unforeseen rent increases. We should be building thousands of new public homes now and confirming ongoing funding for those community housing providers that the Minister was just talking about so that they can continue to build with certainty around sustainability of funding. How can you expect community housing providers, if anybody, to build more housing when their funding doesn't even extend between 2025? That is why thousands of build projects are being cancelled and delayed across the country. Desperately needed homes in urban centres and in the regions are being cancelled because this Government does not have the courage to actually face the housing crisis.

I want to repeat that public housing is important. We need to stop trying to micromanage Kāinga Ora and get out of their way and actually allow them to build the housing that our people desperately need. We need to see and treat public housing as the public good that it is and actually look beyond financial viability. I hate to break it to the other side of the House, but some things are more important than turning a profit, such as making sure that people have a stable roof over their head, being able to pay the rent, being able to continue to send your kids to school in the same neighbourhood that they've grown up in—not displacing and gentrifying our communities by only building houses that rich people and property investors can afford.

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR (Minister for Regulation): Well, thank you very much, Madam Speaker. I've got to say, I was curious when I saw that this debate had been asked for by the Labour Party. I couldn't work it out. And then I watched Kieran McAnulty's demeanour and his attempt at faux crescendos rising up and down in his body position, and I thought: that guy wants to be leader. That's why he did it. Unfortunately, there are some more important issues at play.

There is, at base, the fundamental fact that we have a country which is one of the most sparsely populated on the planet. We have more room, more places for people to live, a better climate, a better place for people to live than perhaps any other place on Earth. We are so lucky. And yet somehow, through decades of policy neglect, we have made it too hard to build a house—too hard to get the resource consent, too hard to fund and finance the infrastructure, too hard to get the building materials, and too hard to get the building consent. As a result, there's a shortage—there's a shortage of homes. I think that is in large part why the Government changed in 2017 and why Labour were elected. And here's the thing: they made an enormous mistake in that they truly believed that if they could reach back to their heritage—pictures of Peter Fraser, the then Labour Prime Minister, carrying the table through the first State house—if only they could go back to that. And we actually just heard it from the Greens, "If only we could go back to that."

Glen Bennett: Wrong Prime Minister.

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: Then, all of a sudden they believed—and he said it's the wrong Prime Minister. He's right, it was Michael Joseph Savage. But none the less—Labour very focused on their history but not focused on the results today. None the less, the Labour Government believed that if only the Government built the houses then the problem would be solved. The issue was they didn't solve the problem with infrastructure funding and financing. They didn't solve the problem with resource management law and make it faster to get a consent. They didn't solve the problem with building materials or building consents or the shortage of builders. Amazingly, they managed to make it worse.

They put all the money into Kāinga Ora (KO). They gave them billions of dollars. But were they faster? No. It took them 58 months from go to woe to build a house, on average. Now, you put that in perspective. Noah took an estimated 55 years to build the ark. So I'll grant that Kāinga Ora were faster than Noah, but Kāinga Ora, unfortunately, were not saving humanity. Far from it. Not only were they terrible as a builder, so inefficient that they are losing half a billion dollars a year—you know, every day, today, Kāinga Ora will lose $1.5 million dollars. And, you know, I heard the Labour Party accusing this Government of running the country like a business. My thought was: how would they know? You know, they ran Kāinga Ora into the ground. They say they care about community housing, but they can't make the numbers add up. Not only that, Kāinga Ora were horrific as a neighbour to all those people who were too scared to call the police because the Kāinga Ora neighbours next door might do something to them and they weren't going to get kicked out by KO, whose policy was sustaining tenancies. They weren't that good as a landlord either.

Altogether, we had a Labour Government that put everything into Kāinga Ora—terrible as a landlord, terrible as a neighbour, terrible as a builder, so inefficient that they lost half a billion a year. And even when they tried to build affordable housing, they were so inefficient they actually pushed the price of housing up. The great shame of it is not that we've lost all that money, not all the mismanagement; the great shame of it is that after six years of that Labour Government, New Zealanders are more short of housing than at any given time.

So what are we going to do about it? We're going to stop obsessing about State houses. People just need houses; people need a warm, dry roof over their head. We're going to make it easier to build them, whether you're the State or not. We're going to fix the resource management law. We're going to do city and regional deals to coordinate infrastructure funding with city planning. We're going to do infrastructure funding and financing so the pipes and the roads and the bus stops show up when you build new homes. And we're going to make it easier to bring in the building materials that the rest of the world uses at lower costs, so we can build homes more efficiently.

Then, and only then, will New Zealanders finally be able to realise the dream of New Zealand. This beautiful, open space with a mild climate really will have a place for everybody. That's the dream, not Labour's ideological obsession over failed State delivery.

ANDY FOSTER (NZ First): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Like the previous speaker, I was staggered to see this request for this debate, and also staggered by what I thought was the presentation of an alternative reality there, because, actually, you don't have to look too hard to undermine Kāinga Ora (KO), which is what we on this side of the House were being accused of doing. Actually, you don't have to look very hard. You look at the financial track record, and that doesn't look particularly spectacular. You look at the cost of building houses that they were doing, and that doesn't look particularly spectacular. If you look at their record as a neighbour, that doesn't look very good either. So, it's not particularly hard to undermine KO, which we were being accused of, because they simply are not performing.

This really is what that report by Sir Bill English and others was all about. I thought that Kieran McAnulty, in starting this debate, also started on the approach that they're saying, "Let's shoot the messenger"—let's shoot the messenger. You look through the report, and I think, actually, it's a pretty good report. Actually, it's pretty generous in some places, in saying, "Look, the last Government did try very hard to try and build more houses", and it acknowledges that. It also says that it was well intentioned in doing that as well. So, I think, actually, it's a pretty balanced approach. So shooting the messenger, to me, was quite the wrong thing and an unfair thing to do.

Look, well, there are a number of messages which I see in this report. The first of them is the lack of financial discipline. You have to ask the question—I mean, KO, basically, were operating on the basis of saying, "If it costs more for us to deliver houses, we can just go to the Government, we can go to the Government for more money, and they'll help to bail us out". Well, I wonder how many other places within the previous Government administration that was being done, not just KO but right across the board. Of course, that has come home to roost.

What that does is that has increased our cost of debt, so our cost of debt now is, what, close to—servicing debt is close to $9 billion. Gosh, we could spend $9 billion and do something else much more useful than paying for debt that's been run up, and has been grown at such a great rate. Secondly, it's pushed interest rates up much higher than they were, so everybody that is paying a mortgage, everybody that is paying a debt on a business, they are paying for that profligacy as well. Then, of course, there is the impact that that has on employment and the economy. So these choices, this lack of discipline, is not cost-free, and we are bearing that cost as a nation at the moment.

The report talks about saying that the average KO house costs $35 million—sorry, $35,000. It's not $35 million—that would be getting a bit excessive. But it costs $35,000 more than the equivalent average that was built by somebody else. So they're costing more, and we've all heard the stories of KO going and outbidding other bidders for land or for buildings. That is profligacy. That is them just saying, "Look, we know we can have more money. All we want to do is we want to build more houses". That's a good thing. That's a good thing to do, but not at any price, not with a blank cheque book, and that's the approach that they were taking. So they did build more houses, but they were deliberately going out and outbidding other people for doing that.

What we see in the report too is that the expectation is that they will be spending $23 billion more over the next four years—$23 billion more. We heard over the last 24 hours or so that that equates—because most people will look at $23 billion and say, "Well, that sounds like a lot of money, but I can't quite envisage that". That is $4,000 for every man, woman, and child in this country. That is the cost of the way that KO was doing business, and that is why something needed to change.

The second thing is that KO became a landlord to be feared, and that was because of their "no consequences" approach to their own tenants. Look, we all heard those stories, and they were appalling. Look, we have in the report here a great quote in the foreword from a social housing tenant: "Having a permanent place to call home changes everything about life."—absolutely—"It gives stability and helps with your health. You can plan for the future. For me it means I can have my grandkids whenever I want to".

But I want to talk to you about security, because how can you have security when you have the neighbours from hell and their landlord won't do something about it, and they didn't do something about it on the instructions—the explicit instructions—of the previous Government?

I spoke to a KO manager when I was out and about, in fact, in your area, Grant, and what he said—

Grant McCallum: Mighty Northland—mighty Northland.

ANDY FOSTER: What he said in the mighty Northland was simply that the change of approach that this Government has taken to that has changed some of those bad tenant behaviours, and that is a great thing. So not only have we got to deal with bad tenant behaviour but we've also got to make sure we deal with bad commercial practices.

In the last couple of seconds—we've got there—the last thing I want to say is that KO was also a submitter from hell to deal with when it came to district planning, because they brought all their lawyers. It was a horrendous process for the poor communities, and they need to do a much better job than that, too.

HANA-RAWHITI MAIPI-CLARKE (Te Pāti Māori—Hauraki-Waikato): Tēnā rā koe, otirā, tēnā rā tātou e te whare. E tū ana au ki te waha i ngā kōrero mō tēnei take, ā, e tū ana mō Te Pāti Māori i tēnei wā.

[Greetings to you and to everyone present in the House. I stand to speak to this matter, and stand to represent Te Pāti Māori right now.]

In this country, our Māori children—our Māori mokopuna—suffer. They have suffered under every Government, and today the suffering continues. All whānau have a right to warm, leak-free, secure homes, yet 30,000 tamariki are hospitalised every year in this country because of substandard housing. Further, over 100,000 people are homeless in Aotearoa and 60 percent of them are Māori.

Tangata whenua should never be homeless in their own land. Regardless, it seems it is this Government's objective to do exactly that. The detail, the truth, of our people with whom we are displaced and dispossessed, is in the history of this country. We need only reflect on land loss; the Native Schools Act, which displaced tamariki Māori from their whānau and their whenua; and urbanisation which forced Māori into cities, into social housing, and into a cycle that continues today.

I can say that as it is, Māori make up of half of the social housing wait list. It is Māori that make up one-third of those living in damp, overcrowded, and unsafe housing. When we create an environment, a way of life, for people and that continues through legislation, through law, and through Budget to keep them in the same cycles whilst judging and ridiculing them in this House, what message are we sending? Can the people—can our people—really trust this Government?

We know as Te Pāti Māori that we understand our people. We listen to what they ask and we can respond to these calls. Our solution to the historical oppression of our people through housing—or, rather, lack thereof—would be to build papa kāinga [original homes], a cost estimated to be $600 million. I actually live on a papa kāinga housing with my own whenua growing māra [garden] kai and through my whakapapa, which clearly speaks to the privilege that I'm allowed to have.

We would introduce rent controls with higher incomes, end property speculation, and allocate 50 percent of new social housing to Māori—given we make up the majority of those who utilise these services. We want better for our people, for our mokopuna, and this Government threatens our very existence unless we assimilate, conform, and keep ourselves from sharing what they consider our unhelpful comments. No reira, tēnā rā tātou.

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I'm very pleased to have the opportunity to speak in this urgent debate, because I think there are some very serious matters before this House that do require a conversation that goes beyond soundbites and headlines and actually look at some of the facts.

So I would like to start by thanking the people who put their lives into making Kāinga Ora a fantastic organisation that has delivered more State houses in New Zealand's history than any Government since the 1950s. I'd like to thank those people, from the people who governed to the people that work each and every day to deliver those houses, who in the last 24 hours have been demonised—and, in fact, over the last years by the National Party have been demonised, as have the tenants within our State houses.

There are some things in this review of Kāinga Ora - Homes and Communities that I agree with. Indeed, they recommend the continuation of some of the policies of the previous Government, and in many ways pick up on the 2023 spending, funding, and financing review that our Government instituted back in 2023 to look at the financial sustainability. But there is one thing that you cannot get away from in this report, and that is the elephant in the report: this is nothing more than priming the public up for the fact that (a) next week there will be no new income-related rent subsidy for housing in the Budget, and (2) it is a softening up for once again the sell-off of State houses in New Zealand. These are the two things.

Now, to have a State house or a public house, if you will, or social housing, you require two things: you require someone to build it and the necessary capital. But where the Government and where choices that Governments make come in is what funding is put in in the form of income-related rent subsidy funding; that's what turns a building into a public house, a State house, or a social house. And it doesn't matter whether it's Kāinga Ora or a CHP—community housing provider—that is providing that service. But the fact of the matter is this Government is gearing up New Zealand for the fact they are walking away from the kind of commitment that the Labour-led Government made around housing.

Now, we have Chris Bishop saying that he was presented with a fiscal cliff that they didn't know about because the bad Labour Government did not fund what he knew he wouldn't be able to get through a National Party Cabinet. But I absolutely remember putting out a press release during the election saying there is funding for income-related rent subsidy to 2025. The Labour Party, in a costed manifesto commitment that went into the books that we stacked up—our budget that we would have implemented—was committing to an extra 6,000 State houses. This present Government—the National Party—have to own up to the fact that they once again are reverting to type and they are walking away from a commitment to State housing.

This so-called need to sell off 10,000 houses was the result of advice commissioned in December in 2023 by the Minister of Finance after a discussion with her Treasury officials, no doubt about the fact there would be no further funding for income-related rent subsidy, and there are written questions to Kieran McAnulty with the Minister herself telling him this, that she commissioned that advice. And what did we hear from Kāinga Ora when they came to the select committee? That if there was more Government funding to add new State houses, new income-related rent subsidy, they wouldn't have to sell any off. This was advice prepared for a Government that was gearing up to do what it always does and back away from its commitments.

So the real test of the mettle of this Government is next Thursday and how much new funding there will be into income-related rent subsidy. I will compare that to our record in Government, when each and every year we committed to funding new and additional—and additional is the key word—public houses. And this nonsense that we privileged Kāinga Ora over the CHPs and somehow we only went there—CHPs more than doubled under our Government. The fact of the matter is when you put money in to expand your public housing, both CHPs and Kāinga Ora do it. We do not think it is one or the other. And the evidence is that under our Government, CHPs added 7,255 new places; Kāinga Ora built 7,777. So there is a lot of nonsense, a lot of rhetoric—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): The member's time has expired.

Hon TAMA POTAKA (Associate Minister of Housing): I rise to scaffold the articulate and agile kōrero of my learned colleague and sentinel the Minister of Housing, Christopher Bishop, and to respond, respectfully, to the king of hyperbole from Wairarapa and the Nostradamus of housing from Christchurch, who have demonstrated—demonstrated—some of the sheepish guilt that they must feel—sheepish because some of the lowlights of the last six years by a Government that's been misguided, and devoting energy and wasteful spending on housing support for needy New Zealanders.

Roll call coming, people: an increase of emergency housing support from under $90,000 a day to over $1 million a day; the moral and social catastrophe of nearly 3,000 kids in emergency housing; an increase of the social housing register from around 5,000 to, now, 25,000 households; an operating deficit at Kāinga Ora (KO) of over a half a billion per annum, estimated to be $720 million by 2026 and 2027—could have built a medical school in Hamilton for that sort of money—decreasing homeownership, particularly among Māori and Pasifika; an extra $170 per week rent increase for New Zealand households—

Carl Bates: Shameful.

Hon TAMA POTAKA: Shameful. Revenue at Kāinga Ora getting a lot less than expenses. And debt expected to go to $23 billion. And work in progress growing from $472 million in 2018 to nearly $3 billion in 2028. Rental debt in Kāinga Ora going from $1 million in 2017 to $21 million in 2023. And over 450 people living in Kāinga Ora homes who owe more than $10,000 at the end of 2023. Our previous Government's track record and track of spending will have Kāinga Ora spend $21.4 billion over the next four years. Every Kiwi—every single Kiwi—would pay $4,000 for that privilege. And, now, even for a real blow, especially for my whanaunga in the Opposition—hopefully the permanent Opposition, if you listen to Matua Shane Jones—over 10,000 extra Māori households on the social housing register in the last six years, and over 1,000 more Māori households living in hotels and motels and places like Ulster Street, Hamilton; Fenton Street, Rotorua; and up and down the motu. If that is not a roll call worth fighting against, what is?

Kāinga Ora houses thousands—tens of thousands, nei—of people in very hard situations—over 70,000 homes in our country. It's responsible for public assets worth billions, and relevant repairs and maintenance costs. And it's incumbent upon this Government to ensure that that job is done prudently, that job is done effectively, and that job is done a whole lot better than the previous Government's attempt to provide social housing for the masses.

And after yesterday's announcements by the independent review, what have we found out? We have found that KO has a poor understanding of tenant outcomes, with decision making remote from those affected. We have made investments in KO and interventions separate from evidence. Kāinga Ora incentivises higher cost support and creates poverty traps for tenant whānau. KO's performance has deteriorated, and their ability to maintain and renew assets is at risk. KO's financial viability is at risk, compounded by limited attention to value for money and apportionment of costs and revenue, making it difficult to have financial sense. Asset procurement is not done transparently nor delivering value for money.

This is absolutely shameful, and we are here to get housing back on track. We need to change the housing system—yes, we do—to be fit for purpose, and we will continue to both support State houses and support other people to provide social housing. There is not one single money tree that's going to solve all the housing challenges that we face as communities. There's not one. The recommendations of the independent review are even more pressing—for example, consolidating the Government funding for housing outcomes under the Minister of Housing, my learned sentinel Christopher Bishop, supported by the Ministry of Housing and Urban Development; the Ministry of Housing directing Housing and Urban Development to take a social investment approach to social housing; and responsible Ministers to set an expectation that the Kāinga Ora board will have a credible plan to improve financial performance. That's quite a novel idea for some people in this room, but not for us in this party or this Government.

And, finally, can I add this: the Opposition can deride Sir Bill English. They can put him down. But I attest to his honesty, his integrity, and his absolute genuine empathy for those people who are less well off, and I appreciate his commitment to the ongoing success of all New Zealanders and the provision of this independent review. Tēnā tātou katoa.

SHANAN HALBERT (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. First and foremost, I want to say how proud I am of the work that Kāinga Ora has done across Aotearoa New Zealand: the number of houses that they have built, the people and whānau who they have supported.

When I look at my own backyard, Northcote housing development is one of the best examples of infrastructure development that this country has ever, ever seen. That particular development has a long whakapapa. It started under Helen Clark, it continued under Key, the houses were bult under the Ardern-Hipkins Governments, and here we are today.

When I think about next Thursday, when we hear the Budget, what will we see? But, more importantly, what won't we see? We won't see more additional funding for public and State housing.

Last Friday, I went and looked at the 85 new State houses that were opened in the Northcote housing development, part of 1,700 overall. What's important there is not just that I showed up and showed interest in public housing in our area but, actually, those houses, those apartments that are there were designed and developed and opened for our seniors, our over-65s. Now, that's important in that development because it works across communities. People have different needs. There is no one-size-fits-all when it comes to housing.

Let me be clear that in that history of the Northcote housing development, there were no houses built under the last National Government. Zero. In fact, across New Zealand, they ended up with fewer overall State houses than what they started with.

So when this review was conducted and the report put up yesterday, it paves a way for this National Government, once again, to sell off—to sell off—State houses in this country. I'm concerned because we're still building in Northcote, and I heard a Minister across the way talk about "After the Budget, we're building houses, we're building infrastructure, we're building roads.", and so on and so forth. Well, not with the Budget that they're putting up next Thursday. But, most of all, we were already doing that. The Northcote housing development, 1,700 houses, a third of which are public houses; they've got new transport connections.

We built a new primary school for the lowest decile on the North Shore of Auckland. We've got 150 hospital beds waiting to open because this Government hasn't funded it. In addition to that, the infrastructure that we built to address the flooding issues in our area, we invested under the Housing Acceleration Fund, and what we saw in the floods last year in Auckland is that that took in the water that Auckland saw, it then drained away the next day. The next suburb along the way was where the person died in Waihou Valley.

Now, anyone in this House can criticise the previous Government on housing—go for gold. But you tell me: where are your examples of success? Where did you build houses? Or are we going back to the 1990s of leaky homes, substandard houses, and one-size-fits-all for every family in this country?

When I look at this report, you know, the context is important. They've forgotten the facts in the debate that they've put up today, and so it's important that they actually acknowledge the whole report that's there; not just the narrative and rhetoric that this Government wants to roll out. All they have wanted to do, pre-election and post-election, is put the boot in to Kāinga Ora.

I finish this speech in the way that I started. I'm proud of the work that Kāinga Ora has done. I'm proud of the houses that they've built. When I saw the community engagement team bringing new communities together in Northcote, I'm proud of them—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The time for this debate has expired.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.

ANNUAL REVIEW DEBATE

In Committee

Debate resumed from 9 May on the Appropriation (2022/23 Confirmation and Validation) Bill.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The House is in committee for further consideration of the Appropriation (2022/23 Confirmation and Validation) Bill. This is the debate on the financial position of the Government and the annual reviews of departments, Officers of Parliament, Crown entities, public organisations, and State enterprises, as reported on by select committees. There is one hour and 46 minutes remaining in this debate. New Zealand National has 15 minutes remaining. New Zealand Labour has 57 minutes remaining. The Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand has 15 minutes remaining. ACT New Zealand has 27 minutes remaining. New Zealand First has nine minutes. Te Pāti Māori has 16 minutes remaining.

The Government has indicated that the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety and the Minister of Agriculture will be available today to respond to members' questions. Each debate will be led off by the chairperson or another member of the committee that considered annual reviews most closely related to the Minister's portfolios. These speeches should be a non-political report back to the committee from the select committee. The Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety is here for 45 minutes to respond to members' questions.

Workplace Relations and Safety

Dr PARMJEET PARMAR (ACT): Thank you so much, Madam Chair. On behalf of the—

Dr Tracey McLellan: Point of order. Just seeking some clarity. You've just said that the debate should kick off with the chair.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): "Or"—I did say "or". Just let me find it—"led off by the chairperson or another member of the committee that considered annual reviews".

Dr Tracey McLellan: So we can have some clarification that the call is another member of that committee?

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Yes. Education and Workforce Committee—yes, that's correct.

Camilla Belich: Point of order, Madam Chair. The chair of the Education and Workforce Committee which oversaw this particular review with the Minister is currently available, I understand, so I'm just wanting clarity as to why that has been allocated to another member of the committee. It's highly unusual, if the chair is available, for it to be conducted by another member.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): That is correct, but, as I said, "or another member of the committee". If the chair seeks a call, they will certainly get a call, but Dr Parmjeet Parmar sought the first call, so I'll continue. Thank you, member.

Dr PARMJEET PARMAR: Thank you for that clarification. It's a real pleasure to take this call on behalf of the Education and Workforce Committee and lead this debate into the annual review of WorkSafe New Zealand.

During this hearing, we heard from WorkSafe New Zealand and also the Minister. The committee considered this to be an important area for the committee as we have the workforce component along with education, and I must say that the committee is a very busy committee—we have very long meetings—but it has been worthwhile to hear from WorkSafe New Zealand and also from the Minister in charge, the Hon Brooke van Velden. I want to acknowledge the work of all of the members of the select committee. I also want to acknowledge the chair, Katie Nimon, for leading the committee. As I said, it's a real pleasure for me to lead this debate of the annual review of WorkSafe New Zealand.

As we know, WorkSafe is working towards three outcomes—that is, preventing work-related illnesses, protecting mental wellbeing at work, and achieving equitable health and safety outcomes. During the annual review, we looked at the performance of WorkSafe New Zealand for 2022-23 and we focused on the financial situation of the entity. We asked questions around the $17.8 million funding gap which has been identified for the 2023-24 Budget. The response that we received from WorkSafe New Zealand was that this was not because of overspending but it was because of some financial practices that were not well managed.

We were also told that for the current year they have been using surpluses from the previous years. We have also been told that the entity, WorkSafe New Zealand, has taken some measures to close that gap and that is by disestablishing some roles—128 roles were disestablished—and with that, the funding gap has been reduced by about $12 million. When we received the report, at that time, WorkSafe's headcount was 654. So that restructuring happened, and because of this the funding gap has been reduced. We were assured that this restructuring did not affect investigator or inspector roles, and nobody in the front line was affected.

We discussed workplace harm and trends and we heard that there are some industries where injuries happen more often—not just injuries but also deaths at workplaces. These industries are forestry, agriculture, manufacturing, and construction. We heard that it was difficult to compare across these industries because of the size and the scale.

We heard that Māori, Pasifika, and migrant workers are overrepresented in these stats—those who get injured or have fatal injuries at workplaces. We heard was that this was not because these people are Māori, Pasifika, or migrant workers, but it was because these people are also overrepresented in sectors that are considered to be high-risk sectors like I listed before—forestry, agriculture, manufacturing, and construction—and that WorkSafe is doing everything possible by collaborating with other agencies as well to make sure that these kind of injuries and deaths can be reduced. We heard that they have been collaborating with the Employers and Manufacturers Association. They are also working closely with ACC.

We heard that WorkSafe New Zealand has been responding to some emergencies and unexpected events as well. It was important to hear that they have been providing some guidance to employers as well, but what was interesting to hear was that the proportion of people who found its guidance very useful dropped from 94 percent in 2020-2021 to 79 percent in 2022-2023. We asked the reason for this decline, because this is a significant decline. We were told that this is because WorkSafe has been quite thinly spread out.

That takes me to the hearing that we had with the Minister, the Hon Brooke van Velden—

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The member's time has expired.

CAMILLA BELICH (Labour): Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for the opportunity to take part in the annual review debate with the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety. As the previous speaker indicated, we did hear from the Minister during the annual review process in relation to WorkSafe, and I understand the annual review will also cover the Treasury and annual review, which sets out the Government's strategic intentions. So I'll be indicating to the Minister that my questions will be around the annual review which she attended and also the annual review that was heard by the Finance and Expenditure Committee as it relates to her portfolios.

So the questions I had for the Minister initially are in relation to health and safety. The Minister has indicated that one of her priorities as Minister is to review the Health and Safety at Work Act, and I wanted to ask the Minister the progress that she has made in relation to that review. I have considered some of the advice that she's received from officials on the possible ways that the Health and Safety at Work Act could be reviewed, and I understand that that takes into account the year under review and also her strategic intent going forward in relation to changes she wants to make.

So the questions I have for the Minister are really: has she made a decision about the nature of the review and to help the Health and Safety at Work Act? And to what extent will that be looking at changes to the legislation or, as officials have suggested, changes to the regulatory system which underpins the Health and Safety at Work Act and has been suggested by officials to be perhaps an area for review.

I wanted to ask the Minister about a statement that she made during a Simpson Grierson webinar where she said she wanted to ensure a balance between protecting workers and taking into account the costs and benefits. And I wanted to get an indication from her as to what she meant when she said that there needed to be a balance in relation to both those things, and what—the question that flows from that—is too high a cost to pay in respect of workers' health and safety?

The Minister will be well aware that New Zealand has twice the workplace fatality rate of Australia, and, as noted in a recent briefing, six times the rate of the UK. I think the committee would all agree that that is a shameful statistic. With that in mind, I wanted to refer back to some of the questions that were put to the Minister in the annual review in relation to the resourcing of WorkSafe and the number of inspectors that she intends to retain in those positions, and whether she can in fact guarantee to the committee that there won't be reductions in the number of inspectors—given those statistics which I've just read out, which were traversed during the annual review programme.

Additionally—and I'm just wanting to get some of these questions in relation to this particular area to the Minister while I have the call—she would note that there are very, very embarrassing and terrible statistics in relation to the impact of workplace fatalities and also workplace injuries for Māori and Pasifika communities. I wanted to know from the Minister: does she recognise this? And in what way, in her review, will these particular very terrible statistics for these particular communities be taken into account moving forward? So I'll leave it there for the Minister. Thank you.

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): Thank you, Madam Chair. So just following on from the previous comments from the member to my right—Camilla Belich—I was interested in following on the line of questioning on workers' rights and worker safety.

I think worker safety is really important to unpack more, because, ultimately, we're talking about companies that are making profits off the back of these workers—labourers—who often actually put their own lives at risk. This has been alluded to: New Zealand does have quite a high rate of workplace mortality. So I wanted to know whether the Minister thinks that the current resourcing of the labour inspectorate is enough to ensure employers are meeting their legal obligations to workers. If not, does she think therefore that an increase in that funding is necessary to ensure that workers are actually being protected and employers meet their legal obligations?

I was also interested in, I guess, comparing the number of complaints that the labour centre's officer received over the period we reviewed and how many of these complaints were actually investigated to the end and then comparing that with the complaints that were unable to be investigated due to lack of resourcing and the workload that exists, and whether she thinks that balance is right in terms of the number of investigations that are actually completed to the full extent or otherwise, and whether she's received any advice around the capacity of the labour inspectorate regarding its capacity—particularly during the period we're looking at—but how that is actually giving her guidance about any future policy settings that she may be looking at.

I acknowledge, as well, the connection between immigration settings and her portfolio, and one of the areas that I wanted to touch on around migrant exploitation and migrant workers' wellbeing was whether she was satisfied that WorkSafe doesn't seem to collate information around people's visa status—whether it's incidents—and whether that's actually useful for the purposes of actually having a clearer picture as to whether people on temporary visas face disproportionate risks.

I take the point from the select committee member Parmjeet Parmar that there's this acknowledgment that migrant workers are overrepresented in some of those more dangerous industries, but that doesn't actually capture whether having a temporary visa—thinking a migrant worker—in and of itself actually creates a higher risk for those workers to be in situations where their lives may be put at risk. So I'm interested to know whether she thinks that the way in which we collate, collect information around workplace incidents accurately paints a picture around the situation that migrant workers are experiencing.

I'm also keen for her to expand around the changes that WorkSafe has made since the SageBush report on the Strategic Baseline Review, which found that WorkSafe was failing to intervene in key areas. That report is from that period, so I'm interested to know whether she's taking that report and taking more actions as a result of it.

Finally, I'm keen to get a sense of what advice has been provided to WorkSafe or the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment on banning engineered stone to prevent workers from exposure to silica dust. I mean, this has been an ongoing issue—it's not a new issue and it definitely was an issue during the period we're reviewing—but I'm keen to know whether incidents that may or may not have been happening during the period are now informing any of her strategic priorities around the types of materials that workers use that actually put their health at risk.

TAKUTAI TARSH KEMP (Te Pāti Māori—Tāmaki Makaurau): Tēnā koe, Madam Chair. Tēnā tātou e te Whare. There are just a few pātai from us here at Te Pāti Māori. The first one is around 90-day trials.

When this Government announced that it would be reintroducing 90-day trials, the reason they gave was that it would make it easier for businesses to hire people, which would get more people off the benefit and into work. But research commissioned by the Treasury in 2016 found no evidence that the ability to use trial periods significantly increases firms' overall hiring, and no evidence that the policy increased the probability that a new hire by a firm was a disadvantaged job seeker. It also found that the main benefit of the policy was a decrease in dismissal costs for firms, while many employees faced increased uncertainty about their job security for three months after being hired. In other words, the 90-day trial policy is not about making it easier to hire workers; it's about making it easier to fire them. It's not about protecting workers; it's about protecting unfair employers from any consequences.

Other research shows that weak protection against dismissal can also lead to poorer production and less innovation. It is Māori, Pasifika, rangatahi, and whānau haua who bear the brunt of this 90-day trial policy. All evidence suggests that this policy will make life worse for Māori and anyone in Aotearoa who doesn't run a large and exploitative business.

My question is: what evidence does the Minister have that shows that reducing 90-day trials will make it easier for businesses to hire people and lead to more people off the benefit and into work?

Fair pay agreements—our pātai: how will the removal of fair pay agreements support Māori workers when the median hourly wage for Māori is $24.98, compared to $28.01 for Pākehā, and when Māori are overrepresented in jobs where low pay, job security, health and safety, and upskilling are significant issues?

Health and safety are problems in industries like forestry, farming, trucking, and fisheries, which often kill Māori at work. Minimum industry-wide standards would provide a baseline and keep our people safe, regardless of whether they are a member of a union or not.

Minimum wage cuts—I also have a few questions regarding changes to the minimum wage introduced this year. So the pātai is: does the Minister accept that only increasing the minimum wage by 2 percent, when inflation is at 4.7 percent, is a cut to the minimum wage in real terms? Pātai tuarua: what is the Minister's response to the fact that this effective cut to the minimum wage will increase child poverty rates, given that 64 percent of families in poverty are in work? Does she accept that this decision will not just hurt workers but will cost the Government more in the long run, including through higher payments and tax credits and higher support for rental payments? How are workers meant to keep up with rising food and rent costs when the Government is cutting their wages in real terms? Will the Minister commit to delivering annual increases to the minimum wage that keep up with the rising costs to ensure workers have a livable income to support their whānau; if not, why not? And how can the Minister stand by taking money from hundreds of thousands of workers during a cost of living crisis? Kia ora tātou.

CAMILLA BELICH (Labour): Thank you, Madam Chair. It would be good to hear some of the responses to my previous answers in relation to health and safety when the Minister seeks to take a call. But I do have some further questions in relation to that particular part of her portfolio. We traversed, during the annual review debate, with the Minister and also with WorkSafe, the advice that the Minister has received in relation to engineered stone and the related very concerning silicosis disease that can come from engineered stone.

At the time of the hearing, the Minister said she was receiving advice on that and, subsequently, has publicly said that she has received advice on that, and I'm wanting to know from the Minister if there's been an update in relation to the advice on her work in relation to this very concerning area. We know that there are people in New Zealand receiving medical treatment as a result of their exposure to engineered stone, and I'd be very keen to hear from the Minister on what the content of her most recent advice is that she announced on Q+A that she'd received that week, which—I can't find the exact date of that interview—was probably about a month ago.

I would also like to ask the Minister for an update in relation to the priorities for mental health in the workplace. During our annual review, the Minister helpfully said that she was looking at her strategic priorities in relation to workplace mental health, and I wanted to ask the Minister if she had an update in relation to her work in that area.

Another question, related to a question I had asked in an earlier call, was in relation to the front-line inspectors. At the annual review, it was confirmed by the Minister that front-line inspectors for WorkSafe had not been affected by the job cuts to date—the strategic baseline review that had been conducted within WorkSafe. There has been reported to be further job cuts at WorkSafe, and I wanted to ask the Minister, in relation to the strategic ability of that organisation to uphold its duties to protect New Zealanders' workplace health and safety, whether there had been any other decisions that had been made and whether the statement still stands that front-line WorkSafe inspectors will not be impacted by the cuts to WorkSafe's budget.

Just while the Minister is receiving advice, I also had some questions in relation to the regulations that hadn't yet been modernised under the Health and Safety at Work Act, and so they are, namely, the plant and structures project, hazardous substances, and also hazardous work regulations. These have been singled out by officials as key regulatory instruments that need to be looked at by the Minister and a key way of making the Health and Safety at Work Act better meet the needs of New Zealanders. So I'm interested to hear if there has been an update on whether the Minister is progressing those particular modernisation work plans in that line of work. Thank you.

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Thank you all for your lovely contributions. It's very exciting to be here for the first time at the annual review hearing. I just wanted to start by touching on a couple of the topics. The first was from Ricardo Menéndez March asking about the labour inspectorate. In this specific time frame for this review, the labour inspectorate delivered 3,174 interventions, which very much exceeded the 2021-22 full year result by 39 percent, and over their estimated target of 2,200 interventions per year, for the second year running. That built on a 47 percent increase in output between 2020-21 and 2021-22. I have a lot of faith in our labour inspectorate, and I think the people who go out and do those jobs are wonderful New Zealanders and they have my full backing. I expect in this year they will also do a fantastic job and they have my full support, making sure that labour standards are upheld.

I also just wanted to touch on the different type of inspectors, which is the WorkSafe investigators raised by the member Camilla Belich, asking whether or not we can guarantee that the number of inspectors will increase rather than decrease. I just wanted to alert the member to the fact that, under the previous Government, which this review is about, the number of WorkSafe inspectors dropped from 211 to 195. At the same time, the head count for WorkSafe increased exorbitantly. So that is something that the previous Government did: they cut the number of inspectors while the number of people at WorkSafe increased. I have a great lot of faith in our new chair, board, and the CEO of WorkSafe, and I understand that at April 2024, WorkSafe started training another 19 inspectors to join their investigators.

I just wanted to touch a little bit on some comments about the 90-day trials and the minimum wage. Now, for anybody who might be listening or following along on TV, it might not be very obvious from some of the comments made that, under the previous Government, 90-day trials existed. So all of these terrible, terrible comments about 90-day trials; that was the previous Government's policy. All that this Government has done is said, "Hey, it really worked really, really well for small businesses. Let's expand that for large corporates and larger companies too. If it worked well for the small companies, let's make it work for the big ones."

When it comes to the minimum wage and explaining a little bit about how we landed at that 2 percent increase for this year, I think that was the right measure to make because it balanced the interests of both workers in a cost of living crisis as well as business owners who are finding it really, really tough at the moment even to make sure that they can pay their employees. And so we have made that balance, but also taking into account that over the last seven years, Consumers Price Index, or inflation, went up by around 25 percent. At the same time, under the previous Government, the minimum wage went up by 50 percent. That was really, really high in comparison to what the inflation rate was going up at. So we, as a Government, have sought to rebalance that.

Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū): Thank you, Madam Chair. The Minister and colleagues in the committee will be very aware that over the last year or so, there's been a very observable uptick in cases of migrant worker exploitation. I think it's in large part associated with very high levels of inward migration as policy settings were loosened as the country came out of COVID and faced intense skills shortages, and a great deal of pressure was there from industries who were desperate to get workers. There's been quite a lot of debate in and around the House about whether there are sustainable levels of inward migration—talking about temporary workers—and how the settings like the accredited employer work visa can be reformed to reduce the opportunity for migrant worker exploitation.

I'm not wanting to drag immigration into this debate, but the Minister is responsible for the labour inspectorate. The inspectorate plays a very important role in policing migrant worker exploitation, amongst other things. I think that most would agree that migrant worker exploitation is a pretty ubiquitous risk in our economy.

So the first question I have for the Minister is around the statistics that she shared with the committee earlier about the number of cases dealt with by the inspectorate. Has she got numbers for cases involving migrant worker exploitation? I think the committee would be very interested to know whether there are figures on that and whether the Minister has a view about the relative status and importance and priority of dealing with cases of migrant worker exploitation for the inspectorate in relation to all of the other priorities and demands on the inspectorate's time.

We've seen, unfortunately, a number of cases in the media of large groups of workers finding themselves without a job. They're here, they find themselves without a job, they then spend weeks, or even months, living in extremely overcrowded and difficult conditions, often dependent on charity to survive. I don't think anybody wants to see that. I'm interested in what thoughts the Minister has given to how the inspectorate can actually assist in the tightening up of the whole system to reduce or eliminate these kinds of cases.

Two of the sectors that I think have been most associated with this have been the labour hire sector and also the construction sector. Also, I would like to know if the Minister has given any consideration or received any advice about the policy reforms that could address this problem, and, putting to one side questions of visas and the immigration settings, whether or not the Minister has thought, for example, about the implementation of standardised employment contracts in industries, like construction, where it's reported there are very high levels of abuse and exploitation of migrant workers.

I wonder whether or not the idea of guaranteed weekly hours—currently, migrant workers can be doing 30 hours a week. For many of them, it's simply not enough to survive. If they're in an industry that's highly casualised and un-unionised, they find themselves doing very low numbers of hours per week and they find themselves in a very challenging situation in terms of survival.

The third idea that I wanted to ask the Minister about, really, is in relation to Recognised Seasonal Employer (RSE) workers. I'm interested to know what her view is about whether or not an opt-out unionisation clause which would give RSE workers easy and immediate access to union protection to avoid and prevent cases of exploitation—with, of course, a nod to the important principle of freedom of association, and people would have the right to opt out. But I put it to the Minister that if that policy was in place, RSE workers would have a ready source of advocates to deal with many of the exploitation problems that are currently a feature of a number of those employment situations. I'll leave it there for the moment.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Good timing.

CAMILLA BELICH (Labour): Thank you, Madam Chair, and I look forward to again hearing some of the Minister's answers to my previous question. I noted her comments on the previous Government, but I also wanted to know: will she guarantee that the number of WorkSafe inspectors will not decrease under her watch? So that was my question.

I want to move on to a different area, though, and I want to talk about modern slavery. This is a very important piece of work that was undertaken in the year in review by the previous Government and supported by a tripartite group of many different organisations who are very concerned about the lack of modern slavery regulation in New Zealand and the fact that we can't guarantee that a lot of things that arrive in New Zealand have been made without conditions that we would find absolutely intolerable and inhumane in other countries. I wanted to ask her what progress she has made on addressing modern slavery and exploitation in New Zealand's supply chain, and, if she does indeed agree with members of the coalition Government who have said that this was currently not being developed, how, then, will she be ensuring that we meet New Zealand's obligations under the New Zealand - EU free-trade agreement, which requires legislation on modern slavery when it calls on parties in the agreement to prioritise labour rights in the supply chain, and to promote corporate and social responsibility and responsible business conduct, including responsible supply chain management, by providing supportive policy frameworks that encourage the uptake of relevant practices in businesses?

I also wanted to ask her: if the Government is not working on implementing modern slavery legislation, then how will she ensure that the New Zealand - UK free-trade agreement is adhered to? It states that each party should adopt and maintain measures to facilitate private and public sector entities to identify and address modern slavery in the global and domestic supply chains. This is extremely important work. It was under the work plan of the year in review. The statements of Government members who are not of her party have been that it is not going to be progressed. There is a large amount of disappointment not only within organisations that support and advocate for human rights but also businesses that know that New Zealand's reputation internationally will be severely damaged if modern slavery legislation is not introduced.

So I want to know from the Minister, given those international commitments, given the fact that the UK Government, when the justice Minister recently went overseas in order to talk about our human rights record, called on New Zealand to introduce modern slavery legislation that is inclusive of entities of all sizes with international supply chains in both the private and public sectors—when allies like those are saying to us that we need to introduce legislation on modern slavery, I want to know from the Minister what her Government's answer is to those countries.

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): Thank you very much. I thought I'd take two of these questions together because I think in some ways people are conflating the labour inspectorate and also the WorkSafe investigators, but they are kind of similar in some of the roles that they do.

So touching on the labour inspectorate as to how it is involved in migrant exploitation, due to the question from Phil Twyford, I can tell the member that 35 percent of all labour inspectorate investigations completed in the year that we're reviewing of 2022-23 involved migrant exploitation, which shows the seriousness of the breaches that are involved in our country. I would certainly hope that all members of this Parliament take the issue of migrant exploitation very seriously and have the deep belief that all people in our country should expect that their rights are upheld—no matter where they have come from, no matter how long they've been in this country—that everybody should have that same right of dignity and respect in the workplace.

When it comes to Ricardo Menéndez March's question, which was talking about workplace accidents, that has more to do with the WorkSafe investigators and whether or not we have statistics breaking that down into the visa status. At this point, I don't have that data, but that is actually something I'm very interested in—so I'm very happy that he's interested in this too. I would hope that all people, no matter how long they've been in the country, no matter who's employing them, know what their rights are and that the businesses that are employing them know what their obligations are to keep those people safe in the workplace. This is an area that I also look to do a little bit more work in, so I thank him very much for his question.

Coming to a couple of questions from Camilla Belich about why we are wanting to reform the Health and Safety at Work Act—this is going to be legislation or regulation. It's been, now, 10 years that we've had the Health and Safety at Work Act, and businesses, sector groups, non-profit organisations, and successive Governments have all put a lot of investment into this regulatory system.

But I think it's time for us to review that and see: is it the legislation that's working? Is it the regulations that are working? That's what part of the review is. So at this stage, I can't say whether or not it will be the legislation that could change or whether it's specific regulations, but that's the whole purpose of our consultation—and that will be quite a fulsome consultation. If it shows that there are concerns with the underlying legislation, then there will be changes to be made. But at this stage it's at consultation.

I've also had that question about the content of the advice that we received on engineered stone. I firstly just want to say that my expectation with the health and safety system is that I want all workers to be able to come home safe; I want all people to come home safely to their families. I have received some advice on addressing the unsafe work practices related to engineered stone, and I plan to consult on a range of options later this year—subject to approval from Cabinet—on what this Government would seek to do on engineered stone.

There's currently a range of education and enforcement activities that is being led by WorkSafe to ensure businesses control the risks from working with engineered stone, but at this stage I am following the evolving approach in Australia. But it's very important that we use an evidence-based approach in a New Zealand context rather than simply replicating what's happening by our neighbours.

CAMILLA BELICH (Labour): Thanks to the Minister for her reflections on some of those questions. In relation to her previous comment, I wanted to ask the Minister: will her consultation on the steps taken on engineered stone include a consultation on a proposed ban in relation to that?

The other questions that I have are on a slightly different matter. I wanted to raise some of her responsibilities in relation to pay equity and also in relation to pay transparency. As Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety, she has a role in the pay equity legislation that is before the House and would be aware that in the year under review, there was a significant programme of pay equity settlements which were being undertaken. And I understand it's still progressing.

The question that I had for the Minister was: when the Government said it was going to recommit to equal pay in a press release, what did the Government mean when it said that it would "recommit to equal pay"? So that's my first question.

My second question is about the pay equity task force, which in that same press release was disestablished. The pay equity task force had been operational in the year in review and had assisted with very complex pay equity settlements. I'm sure those of us who worked in that area know how complex pay equity settlements can be in terms of the expertise that is required to settle a pay equity claim and look at the different evidence and comparators that need to be taken into account before a settlement is made. So I wanted to ask her: how will she ensure that the resources and expertise that were held by the pay equity task force that this Government has disestablished will not be lost like they were when the last National Government discontinued the pay equity unit in 2009 in a very similar way?

I also wanted to ask her about pay transparency and her plans in relation to that. She'll be aware that in the year under review it was announced the then Government was going to introduce a pay transparency regime that would require all businesses of 250 workers or more to conduct an audit of their workforce in relation to the pay that they received on gender. I wanted to ask, in relation to her strategic intent on that particular matter, what she intended to do in relation to pay transparency, and whether that's a work programme that she will be considering. We know that that particular work programme exists in a number of other different countries and was ongoing at the time the year under review took place. So if the Minister could comment on those areas in relation to pay transparency and pay equity.

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): Thank you very much. Look, it's a very exciting portfolio that I'm responsible for. I think we've heard from a range of nearly everything under the sun today, but, unfortunately, there's not enough time to get through all of it.

I just wanted to touch on your question regarding compliance with free-trade agreements. My officials and myself consider free-trade agreements and international obligations as part of advice that comes to me on a range of different issues.

When it comes to the SageBush review and asking about how much progress has been made, I'm very happy with the progress that WorkSafe has been making on implementing the recommendations. The board and the chief executive have made it a priority for the agency. I understand quite a few of the recommendations have already been closed out and the remainder are well on track to be met by the end of this year.

CAMILLA BELICH (Labour): Thank you to the Minister. I look forward to hearing some further responses to some of my other questions with the time that we do have remaining. I also wanted to ask the Minister about her reform of the law relating to contractors but also relating to the definition of "employee" within the Employment Relations Act. I know that this is an area of work that the Minister has been investigating, and I wanted to get an update from the Minister in relation to this work, on how that was progressing and how, if she decides to limit the rights of workers to have their employment status upheld or not by the relevant court or authority, there will be able to be natural justice for those people who are wrongly considered to be contractors and don't receive employment rights but wish to have the authority of the court determine that they are an employee and, thus, receive the employment rights which they are entitled to. And I wanted to know how she has progressed with that line of work and if she has any advice to the committee on what she intends to do in that area.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Just to note that we're down to the last couple of minutes, so if there's contributions to be made—Camilla Belich.

CAMILLA BELICH: Just while the Minister is getting her answers together, just some of the more salient questions that I would quite like an answer to if the Minister is able to. The questions around pay equity: how will the Government protect pay equity when it's disestablished the unit? My question around pay transparency: is the Minister going to go forward with this work? My question around modern slavery: will this Government be taking its international obligations seriously and implementing modern slavery legislation, like social groups, like workers' rights organisations, like what businesses have advocated for? Can we please have an answer to those important areas? New Zealanders are waiting to hear.

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): Thank you, Mr Chair. Look, on the issue of the pay equity taskforce, that's not actually a responsibility under my purview, so that's not really something that we can ask about. But the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment does provide advice to all employers about pay equity. That's very much available on their website. Anybody can find it.

When it comes to the question of pay transparency, I just want to also note that this is a review about 2022-23, and there wasn't progress under that Government.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Members, our time with the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety has ended. The Minister of Agriculture is now available for one hour to respond to members' questions, but we'll just move the tables around.

Agriculture

MILES ANDERSON (Deputy Chairperson of the Primary Production Committee): I'm very, very privileged to be able to give the annual review of the Ministry for Primary Industries on behalf of the select committee. I'd like to thank all the committee members for the hard work that they did. In particular, I'd like to acknowledge Mark Cameron, our chairperson, and also let him know that our committee is thinking of him at this time. I'd also like to thank the Office of the Clerk—they were sterling in the work they did for us—and also the Office of the Auditor-General and the briefing they did for us, and we found them particularly high-class in what they did.

The Ministry for Primary Industries provides policy and regulatory advice; market access; trade services; and manages the major regulatory systems for biosecurity, food safety, forestry, fisheries management, and animal welfare. It has five customer-facing business units: Biosecurity New Zealand, Fisheries New Zealand, New Zealand Food Safety, Te Uru Rākau - New Zealand Forestry Service, and agricultural and investment services.

Now, a summary of the various areas that our committee looked into this year would come under various headings. In the agriculture space, we spent quite a bit of time on cyclone recovery, increasing the value of exports, work to reduce greenhouse emissions, Māori agribusiness, and measuring the success of grant funding. In the horticulture space, we focused on the spray-free orchard programme, building the horticulture workforce, and work to detect biosecurity threats. In forestry, boosting domestic wood processing and reducing forestry slash were the two main areas that we addressed; in biosecurity, we reviewed the Mycoplasma bovis programme; and in pest management, we focused on wallabies and the management of other pests, as well as wilding pines. We also looked at Government - industry agreement for foot and mouth disease. In the fisheries sector, we looked at the amendment of the Fisheries Act, on-board cameras, and temporary closing of fishing area for restricted fishing, and also looked at the honorary fishing officers and bottom trawling.

Then we were fortunate enough to have the various Ministers in for comment and review. In the cyclone recovery space—[Interruption] Is that all? Ha, ha! So when we had the Ministers in for review, we heard from the Minister of Agriculture and Minister of Forestry about his ambitions for our primary industries in New Zealand. The Minister for Rural Communities talked about rural connectivity—

Hon Member: And wool.

MILES ANDERSON: Reviving the wool industry was a big focus, whereas, with the Minister for Biosecurity, Minister for Food Safety, and Associate Minister of Agriculture, live animal exports, biosecurity to prevent threats from the horticulture sector, and response to the foot and mouth disease were the major areas of focus. So I'm very happy to present this report to the House.

Hon JO LUXTON (Labour): Thank you, Mr Chair. It's a pleasure to stand up and ask the Minister some questions with regard to our annual review. But first can I just acknowledge all the Ministers for making themselves available to come to our select committees. I know that you're very, very busy, and so it is really appreciated that you do take the time to come along and answer our questions. I just want to acknowledge my fellow committee members, and in particular Mark Cameron, our chair of the select committee, who does a really good job.

As the member who has just spoken, Miles Anderson, has just mentioned, we looked at various entities within the agricultural sector, but it was really great to be able to do an in-depth review of the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI). We had them for several hours, and at one point when we were deciding on the time we were going to have them in for, we wondered if we'd be able to fill that time. But it was absolutely incredible to have them there for that time and we managed to fill that time easily, and we could well have had them in there for a bit longer.

I think I'll just cut straight to questions, because we are on limited time. The Minister guaranteed that reductions have not been made to MPI's front-line services and statutory staff, such as veterinarians; animal welfare, fisheries, and food compliance officers; and biosecurity at the border. But can the Minister guarantee—absolutely 100 percent guarantee—that as part of MPI's 10 percent reduction in staff, they will not be making cuts to those teams, who plan and prepare for potential biosecurity incursions?

SCOTT WILLIS (Green): Thank you, Mr Chair, and thank you to the Ministers, again, for fronting up and talking to us about the review. I'm very proud to be part of a nation that has always had farming at its roots, from the first human contact. And we have also had biosecurity risks, but what we also have, at this point, are climate risks, and I'm really interested in hearing what support the Government is giving to farmers to diversify farm income and decarbonise, particularly through electrification. And we have had Mike Casey from Rewiring New Zealand talk about the potential and the opportunity there is to decarbonise rural Aotearoa. So will the Government, for example, refresh and expand the Community Energy Fund to enable farmers to host wind and solar farms with Māori and community partners? This seems like a really simple way to both diversify farm income and support rural communities and ensure that we decarbonise at the same time.

And I'm also interested in why this Government seems intent—at this point in time, but you could change track—in hanging farmers out to dry by not supporting farm-emissions reduction, not supporting biodiversity restoration, not supporting energy farming to provide resilience for remote communities, not supporting our farmers to adapt to the 21st century. Perhaps I've got it wrong, perhaps you are going to do all those things, but I'd like to hear some answers, please.

Hon JO LUXTON (Labour): Thank you, Mr Chair. Minister, the Māori agribusiness team at the Ministry for Primary Industries plays a significant role in ensuring that Māori land owners are supported to access funding, expertise, and advice that is available to them. Can the Minister guarantee that these services will not be cut; if not, how is the Minister going to ensure that Māori land owners are aware of and accessing the support available to them?

Can the Minister also guarantee continued funding for Māori-led and Māori-designed projects to help achieve emissions reduction in agriculture through the Climate Emergency Response Fund when his Government has plans to divert those funds in order to help pay for tax cuts?

HANA-RAWHITI MAIPI-CLARKE (Te Pāti Māori—Hauraki-Waikato): Tēnā rā koe e te Māngai, o te ra tēnā koe te Minita. I've got a series of questions. The first question that I have is in relation—I seek an update from the Minister on his work with Māori development Minister Potaka on progressing the issues arising from the Wai 262 claim and if there's any updates from the coalition Government in taking up on that claim.

The second pātai is whether the Minister can confirm that the Māori partnership and investment business unit with the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) has not been disestablished as a result of public sector cuts, and, if so, how the Minister intends to build the capability and support through the delivery of MPI's Treaty settlement commitments and ensure advice to Ministers reflects these commitments.

Te pātai tua toru, the third question, is: I was a part of—alongside my whānau—the first ever project or pilot project with MPI through māra kai. So we're the first ever project on our whenua to develop māra kai programmes with schools, with mātauranga Māori, and I'm wanting to get reassurance from the Minister if those programmes will still be carried out under this new Government.

The fourth pātai is on genetic engineering technologies. I seek an update on the Minister's intentions, if any, on progressing regulations that foster research and innovation regarding genetic technologies. Tēnā rā koe.

CUSHLA TANGAERE-MANUEL (Labour—Ikaroa-Rāwhiti): Tēnā koe e te Heamana, nāku te whiwhi ki te kōrero i runga i tēnei rīpoata, arā, annual review of the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI). He mihi hoki ki te Minita kua tae mai i tēnei wā. Heoi anō, māku he tautoko i ngā mihi aroha ki tō mātou nei Tiamana, ki a Mark Cameron me tōna whānau i tēnei wā pouri rawa atu, e te hoa mahi, e te Tiamana tēnei te tangi aroha ki a koutou ko tō whānau i tēnei wā pouri.

[Thank you, Mr Chair. It is my honour to speak to this report, the annual review of the Ministry for Primary Industries. I would like to also acknowledge the Minister here today. And so, I would also like to share my loving support to our chairman, Mark Cameron, and his family during this very sad time. Dear friend, dear chairman, I share my sincere condolences with you and your family during this sad time.]

As a member of the Primary Production Committee, it's my pleasure to be here to be part of the annual review of the MPI. My first question relates to forestry. The report notes that forestry export revenue is forecast to decrease by 9 percent to $5.8 billion in the year to 30 June 2024. MPI considers boosting domestic processing as one way of reducing reliance on the export market and that there are opportunities for new, innovative engineered wood products. Will the Minister take heed of this, and if so, what specific actions or investments will be made?

Furthermore, obviously land use is a major topic of discussion not only with regard to forestry, but throughout the report it's raised in other industries such as the wool industry. What progress is being made there? Of course, slash and woody debris clean-up continue to be a major concern for Aotearoa Whānui, but in particular Ikaroa-Rāwhiti and flood affected areas. So can we have an update on the commitment to maintained investment in that, and how work will continue.

Hon JO LUXTON (Labour): Thank you, Mr Chair. I just want to move now to live exports. Unfortunately, I was away sick when we had the Minister come to the select committee and I was unable to ask him the questions that I wanted to. Given that animal live exports have accounted for 0.2 percent of our primary sector revenues since 2015 and the industry is now worth over $50 billion, is the Minister concerned that returning to live exports could potentially damage our free-trade agreements or any ability to negotiate our future free-trade agreements?

We hear a lot about this gold standard that will be adhered to, and I would like to know what the Minister sees is the gold standard, because there is no definition. We don't have a definition here of what a gold standard is. So I'm interested to know what his view or vision for a gold standard is.

I would also like to know if the Minister has put his mind to the cost to our exporters of moving to this gold standard. In regard to the ships, is the expectation that we will have ships that will be brand spanking new, purpose-built to meet these gold standards or does the Minister see that boats that are simply, I guess, renovated will do? There's been no real information out there as to what that gold standard would look like.

Given some of the horrific photos and evidence that was shown to the select committee when we were looking at banning the live-export-by-ship legislation, how can the Minister 100 percent guarantee that the images that we saw would not be repeated should he undertake to have whatever this gold standard might look like?

Hon ANDREW HOGGARD (Associate Minister of Agriculture (Animal Welfare, Skills)): Thank you, Mr Chair. I'll just respond to a couple of those questions. Firstly, on livestock exports: in terms of the updated standards, at the moment the advice is still coming. The work is still being done within the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) team on developing what that may be, before going to Cabinet and then consultation. The member asked whether this trade is worth it. It was worth $305 million—so it's $305 million, or nothing. That's an extra $305 million that New Zealand needs right now, so I think that is important.

In terms of reputation, if you can do something better than everyone else in the world, that is lifting the reputation. That is showing the rest of the world how we can do this job much better. Also, there is a reputational risk in terms of "We'll just sell you our milk and nothing else." We have a role in terms of getting these free-trade agreements, often, in terms of helping these other countries develop their dairy industries. So I think there is a win-win there.

In terms of the photos, now, I didn't see what you saw in front of the select committee, but I have seen lots of photos recently, and I'd point out that—man, my eyesight is not the best at the moment, so there's not much chance I can see that photo from here. But do they have a New Zealand National Animal Identification and Tracing (NAIT) tag in their ears? That would be my question, if you know what one looks like, because there's good chance that most of the photos I've seen do not have New Zealand tags in their ear and they are from offshore. They are not from the standards we're used to doing in New Zealand, and we will be updating those standards.

In terms of the ships the member asked about, we will be putting standards in place. Now, whether or not people build a new ship to meet those standards or renovate a ship to meet those standards, they will need to meet the standards. The standards are the standards.

In terms of biosecurity, the focus will be on delivering outcomes. I've seen a lot of what the teams are doing. There is a lot of preparation going on right now for making sure we are ready for disease outbreaks if they ever do come, and, hopefully, they never do. The focus for the team is on being ready and achieving those outcomes, so I have full faith in the MPI team in terms of delivering that.

There was a question around what we're doing in terms of biodiversity. So this is putting my other hat on, as the Associate Minister for the Environment—if I'm allowed to do that—we are looking at biodiversity credits. I'm seeking advice on that, and it will be a way to help farmers improve their biodiversity.

SCOTT WILLIS (Green): Thank you, Mr Chair, and thank you, Minister, for speaking on the live exports. I have a few more questions in that regard, please. Those images that we showed at the select committee to Minister McClay were from a vessel called the Al Kuwait, which has operated under a different name from our shores before we banned live animal exports here. Those are images of animals in Cape Town existing in the miserable conditions of their own filth. Will you rule out that ship, the Al Kuwait, which is a purpose-built live export ship, a relatively new ship, I think, built in 2016, and yet it still has these miserable conditions on it? The South African SPCA investigators who went on to the ship described the unimaginable stench, the gruesome conditions of animals forced to live in their own faeces and exposed to dangerous levels of ammonia, rough seas, extreme heat stress, contaminated drinking water, and exhaustion.

Further, in light of recent decisions in both Australia, to phase out live sheep exports, and the United Kingdom, which has just passed legislation to prohibit live animal exports, have you taken into account the opinions of those other nations who have also recognised the inherent cruelty of live animal exports? I want to draw your attention to a couple of quotes from the British Parliament, from conservative members there: "The long journeys caused intolerable stress, injury and exhaustion, and the case studies we heard were harrowing. Once animals leave [these] shores, there is no control over how they are kept or slaughtered. Thus, it is important that we stop this practice once and for all." Another Minister said, "The figures I have seen on live exports are absolutely horrendous. I cannot believe that people actually thought it was okay to treat animals like this—subjected to journeys of"—wait for it—"over 2,000 miles, lasting 70 hours." The British parliamentarians were distressed at journeys of 60 hours from the UK to Spain, or journeys of 18 hours from the UK to Europe, and here we are talking about journeys of weeks at sea, the inhumane, crowded, exhaustion, dehydration, long, stressful journeys.

Is it not correct, Minister, that we have reached a time in our history where it's no longer acceptable for us to treat animals so poorly? It is fundamentally miserable for those animals. Reputation aside, income aside, it's about the cruelty to those animals, and the world is moving away from live animal exports. Will you consider changing this Government's position and committing to keeping the ban on live animal exports in place?

Hon TODD McCLAY (Minister of Agriculture): Mr Chair, thank you so much. Colleagues, there's been a range of questions and I'll try and address them as quickly as I can. Of course, many will know this is a time-limited debate and therefore the time available to Ministers is much less than we want. I'm going to try and answer them very, very quickly and my apologies if I don't get to them, we can always come back.

Of course, we've got my two colleagues, Minister Hoggard and Minister Patterson here, who have specific responsibilities—Minister Patterson, in this case, for wool, and he'll be able to address that. We've heard from Minister Hoggard on biosecurity and of course on animal welfare.

I can give an assurance that there will be no cuts to the front line of service for the equivalent of the vets or the animal welfare experts who are there in the field, or biosecurity experts. But that doesn't mean there are not going to be changes across the board. The reason for that is over the last six years we saw the workforce grow by 50 percent in the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI), but the output didn't increase by 50 percent. And ultimately what we're saying is we want to focus on the front line and do what most farmers in New Zealand are doing—and in fact every New Zealander that I can think of is doing—is having to do more with the same amount or with less.

But I can give the assurance, again, as I did in the House, as I will today, that those front-line services, not back office, but those front-line services—in as far as the vets who do a very important job, our biosecurity officers, and also animal welfare officers—remain the same.

Of course, colleagues, you will have seen the announcement there just at the end of last week from MPI, now that they've gone through their full consultation process. And, indeed, they have moved resource from what they had proposed into biosecurity and to another area of engagement with the rural community and catchment groups because they had feedback that more was needed to ensure that we could deliver in those areas. And they've taken that feedback on board.

In as far as Māori business and agriculture is concerned, ultimately where the changes to the amount of resource that's being spent, decisions made will come forward in the Budget. But again, I can give an assurance that in all areas we have not closed down units. What we've done is we've had to accommodate changes done so in such a way as the main delivery can continue and the work that's important will continue. And then as the Government gets to rebuild the economy, we can make bids in the future after engaging with members of the House and with the sector about where additional resource would be needed to be able to do more.

In some of the questions here around GMOs and so on, as Minister, I'm not responsible for that; that's Minister of science and research, however. But what I can say when it comes to biotechnology and so on, is that actually there will be opportunities for us to meet environmental and climate change obligations through adopting and using new technologies. But in so doing, we must make sure that they don't harm New Zealand, that they're good for New Zealand, and that they are accepted and being used in other parts of the world. So the Minister, I know, is doing a body of work there to meet the commitment we made before the election. But we're doing so mindfully in as far as we want to give the rural committee the tools that they need that are available to them through new technologies to meet those demands—environment, climate change. Take wilding pines as an example; there will be an opportunity for us to make the changes so that wilding pines no longer are a threat to native bush in New Zealand. We should be open to that, but we need to get those rules right.

Forestry was raised by one of our colleagues. You're right that the forecast of revenue, exports in forestry is down. That's the result of a commodity price being down and the logs are worth less at the moment than they were previously. But, ultimately you are right: there are opportunities for us to look into, lean into wood processing. What you won't see this Government doing is what was tried in the past. They've taken large amounts of taxpayer money, and saying to the wood-processing sector, "We give this to you to just do what you're doing." Actually, what we want to do is work with them to be innovative, to find where the obstacles to them finding and using new products are, and how we can use more wood in New Zealand and add value to it. It's good for climate change, it's good for the economy, it creates jobs, it'll be very, very good for exports. But we're starting to work with the sector about how we would do that. In all cases, it's actually not often always about just the money that you spend; it's about the restrictions that are placed upon them and how we can get more for that. But we're taking that very seriously.

In as far as slash is concerned, we're breaking the work up into a couple of areas. One, the slash is there at the moment; how we get that cleaned up as quickly as we can in partnership with people in the region as opposed to us in Wellington deciding how it should be done. Secondly, the woodland biomass that's on the hills, what we can do to make sure it doesn't come down, to mitigate that.

The third part of this must be the rules in the future so that the likelihood of this happening again lessens. But the member asked about resource. The Government has committed $85 million. We're going to make sure as much of that is used as well as it can to get as much wood up as we can. We owe that to the taxpayer and certainly the ratepayer in those areas. I'll stop here to reserve some time for my other colleagues and other questions.

CUSHLA TANGAERE-MANUEL (Labour—Ikaroa-Rāwhiti): Tēnā koe, Mr Chair, and I appreciate the answers to date. I'd like to ask some questions now about cyclone recovery. It was really good in the report to see the acknowledgment of the value that marae and community halls had during the cyclone. That said, a lot of marae are now still affected by the cyclone and do not fit any current Government funding criteria, so it's good to see and hear the acknowledgment that they need to be brought into scope. Will the Minister commit to meeting with all the marae still affected, and their hapū directly, to discuss their needs and their recovery requirements, given the value that they have not only in cyclone recovery but as a community hub and as just serving across their whole communities?

The second thing is about infrastructure. Obviously it's great news; everyone wants to hear about their road getting fixed, but in smaller communities such as the East Coast, the supporting infrastructure that is required to help people get into those communities and fix those roads is very fragile, if non-existent. So what commitment will the Minister make to investing in infrastructure that can support these roads of significance being built?

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Labour): Look, thank you very much, Mr Chair, and I'll just take a couple of short questions. Regarding the live exports, the Ministers have spoken about gold standards and spoken about ensuring that high standards of animal welfare in market will be met. So the question is: how will they be met and how will New Zealand oversee those high standards in market when the animals arrive?

And the second is: if the current area allowance for a 300 kilogram animal over three weeks on a boat is 1.2 square metres, and for a 500 kilogram animal it is 2 square metres for three weeks, does the Minister consider that adequate and will the gold standard be an increase in the area on a boat, if he's indeed to reinstate live exports?

Hon JO LUXTON (Labour): Thank you, Mr Chair. I want to move now to the issue of wallabies. Wallabies in South Canterbury are a massive issue, and it's something I keep harping on about in our select committee. The eradication of wallabies and the destruction that we're seeing from wallabies with our crops and the devastating impact that that would have if they were to cross into mid-Canterbury. We've heard from the Ministry for Primary Industries that they are just sort of focusing their work on pest control for wallabies around those outer areas, but it is really concerning that that's pretty much all that they are focusing on at the moment because, as we know, hunters can't quite keep up with the rate of wallabies that we are seeing being born and continuing to procreate. So I would like to know what the Minister's plans are for ensuring that the wallaby population doesn't get out of control and what mitigations they are taking to ensure that they do not cross into that mid-Canterbury area, because, as I've said, that would be completely devastating for the arable farmers in that area.

Hon ANDREW HOGGARD (Associate Minister of Agriculture (Animal Welfare, Skills)): OK, so just firstly on wallabies—yes, I had a briefing not so long ago. The programme, at this stage, is focused on the boundaries. The wallabies have expanded past the boundaries where we'd want them. We aim to get them back over those boundaries, and once that's achieved, then it's a case of squeezing them down and eradicating them.

I was intending to be down in the South Island and helping out with some wallaby eradication. Unfortunately, I had to have eye surgery instead, and I probably wouldn't hit a wallaby in the future.

Hon Mark Patterson: You might have a better chance.

Hon ANDREW HOGGARD: Well, I might have a better chance now, yeah. Going back to the livestock exports and the mention of the Al Kuwait boat, what I would say is that when it was in Cape Town, it was carrying 19,000 head of stock; when it last left New Zealand, it was carrying 11,000. So that is part of the problem—you know, our standards were for much fewer animals on the boat. Those were our old standards, and we will, obviously, be updating those standards.

In terms of specifics, the member asked around what those might be. That is all still being worked on. When it is out, then we'll be able to discuss those updated standards and whether or not everyone believes they are good enough, and make suggestions around whether further improvement is needed. But at the moment, I can't go into the details because they're still being developed.

STEVE ABEL (Green): Thank you, Mr Chair. My question is to the Associate Minister of Agriculture. Really, I'm interested in Jobs for Nature. The Minister has said that the tools that farmers need are things that the Government can provide. My enduring experience living on a farm and working in the community was that farmers want to do the right thing. Jobs for Nature has provided rural jobs, has helped build that community, has helped families grow in our rural communities, and it's such a successful programme. Will the Minister commit to continuing and expanding the Jobs for Nature programme? Thank you.

HANA-RAWHITI MAIPI-CLARKE (Te Pāti Māori—Hauraki-Waikato): I'm still seeking an answer from both Ministers, or any Minister, on the Wai 262 claim and whether or not they have been working alongside Minister for Māori Development, Tama Potaka, in making sure that this claim gets picked up with this Government. Are there any time lines? At any point are they going to meet with the claimants of the Wai 262 claim?

Hon MARK PATTERSON (Associate Minister of Agriculture): Thank you, Mr Chair. I would just like to take the chance to take a call on my wool industry delegation. It was a question that came up earlier from the member for Tairāwhiti. So good news: the North Island auction price lifted 17 percent last week for second-shear wool, so the surge is on. The second New Zealand wool boom is under way.

So, in all fairness, we are in the 2022/23 Estimates, so I will acknowledge the investment that went in by the previous Government to look at various options. I would describe it a little bit like throwing a dish of wheat at the side of a bus, but some did hit, and it's acknowledged that some of the initiatives are starting to show some progress. So, essentially, what I have done within my delegation, to answer the member's question—the first thing is to get out and about and see what the industry is up to, what's happening, where the opportunities are, and how we can help.

So it turns out that there is a lot of innovation going on out there. There are a lot of manufacturing businesses that have got some new products, new end uses for wool that potentially could sustain a higher farm-gate wool price, which is the absolute key. It's not so much that we need to grow demand and that is the only way to lift the price of wool, but it has to be in products for a higher farm-gate wool price, because this is not so much about wool, as you might think; this is about the profitability of hill country sheep and beef farming. We've got the land use challenge from forestry, and they're doing it really tough out there at the moment, as I'm sure the member knows, so it is imperative that we get wool from being now a cost on a business into being a major profit centre. With a swing back to natural fibres, we absolutely have that opportunity in front of us.

So, beyond that, I've attended and led a delegation to the International Wool Textile Organisation conference in Adelaide, where there were some 25 New Zealand delegates. We had a specific New Zealand afternoon for strong wool. It's an organisation dominated by fine wool, but this was specifically for New Zealand strong wool, and we absolutely knocked that out of the park. The Autexes, the Bremworths, the Wool Impacts—we showed a level of positivity with the fact that we had a plan, the fact that we had the motivation, and some collective will to turn what was a pretty sombre conference around.

We did meet with the Chinese delegation, who take 30 percent of our wool through the Nanjing wool market. We had respectful and constructive conversations with them, looking to address some of their concerns around some of the wool quality. Also, we were expressing our concerns about the lack of a sustainable price for the fibre.

I have also brought together an industry leadership group alongside Wool Impact, which was a group that was formed under the previous Minister. The group that hadn't really had much consultation within this was farmers and the farming leadership, and we have to start looking at how we can transition Wool Impact and the good work that they have done, in fairness, into something that can be sustained by the wider industry itself—by farmers, by the wool manufacturing companies, and wool-interested companies. What does that look like? So I've tasked this group with coming up with that outcome.

I've also tasked them with looking at different pathways to market, because the auction system has clearly failed us. I've tasked them with coming up with an industry goal—a credible industry goal that we can put towards doubling exports, which is a Government goal. But wool can do much more than that, so how can we contribute to that overall Government goal? So that's a summary of some of the actions we're taking. Thank you.

RACHEL BOYACK (Labour—Nelson): Thank you, Mr Chair. I appreciate the opportunity to take a call in the annual review debate. Just at the beginning of my contribution, I do want to note for the committee the changes in the Standing Orders that occurred last year that have led to a change at annual review so that as well as looking back over that previous financial year, we can also look to strategic intent, and it's that strategic intent that I wish to put my comments on the record on this evening.

I want to specifically ask some questions around live exports, and I understand my colleagues have already asked some questions tonight. But this is a critical issue for New Zealand, from both a "New Zealand Inc." point of view but also an animal welfare point of view.

The concerns that the Labour Party have about the reintroduction of live exports are numerous. First of all, there are the animal welfare issues, and we've all seen images of ships where we have cattle up to their knees in their own muck, in cramped conditions, reports and photographs from vets who have been on these boats showing absolutely appalling conditions for cattle. Particularly for us in New Zealand, when we are exporting animals across to the other side of the world, they have to pass across the equator, and it is in incredibly hot conditions. No matter what occurs with the ships, we are sending cattle through conditions that are detrimental to their health and wellbeing. We've seen recently Australia having ships returned because of the ongoing conflict in Gaza and Israel, and ships not being able to get through to port. They're having to return to Australia, and having cattle then observed with a significant number of health issues.

The other point I want to make around that is the risk that that presents to New Zealand's international reputation. We are seeing global trends change in terms of the type of products people wish to purchase and consume. People are making choices around environmental decisions. People are also making choices around animal welfare positions. I note in my own electorate of Nelson a company called SnapIT doing amazing work, first of all on cameras on boats but also other technology that can help track an animal from the beginning of its life through to the moment it arrives on the plate. Consumers actually want to have access to that information, and there is a genuine concern that people will stop purchasing New Zealand products if we're not upholding the highest environmental and animal welfare standards.

Furthermore, there's the issue of intellectual property (IP). Why would we give away our IP in terms of our best breeding stock to countries on the other side of the world? Why would we do that when we have such a proud industry here in New Zealand that we should be supporting?

But what I did just want to come to is that I have asked the Minister of Agriculture, through written parliamentary questions, about custom-built boats. The previous National Party spokesperson Nicola Grigg went on television last year and said that if live exports were reinstated, there would be custom-built boats. Now, she never said who would pay for them—they're billion-dollar boats—or who would build them. The concern I have is that the questions I've put to the Minister through written parliamentary questions state that he is still seeking advice on that specific issue.

Now, the National Party actually made a commitment to having custom-built boats. Having said that, we've also seen that with some of these custom-built boats, we've had examples of where the stench from the boat can be experienced throughout the whole area, and, actually—

Hon Member: Oh, I'd go on a billion-dollar boat.

Hon Member: I'd go on a billion-dollar boat.

RACHEL BOYACK: Yeah, maybe we should put the National Party on some custom-built boats—that sounds like a great idea. So my question, first of all, is: is the Minister going to backtrack from that position of the National Party around custom-built boats, and if he does proceed with custom-built boats—as I've asked him, but have not had a response—who is going to build them and who is going to pay for them?

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Thank you. Just before we continue, I'll just give folks an update on our times, because the clock is literally ticking. We've got five minutes and five seconds with the National Party; 25 minutes and 30 seconds for the Labour Party; four minutes and 54 seconds for the Green Party—this is at 5.31 p.m.—eight minutes and 53 seconds for the ACT Party; three minutes and 39 seconds for the New Zealand First Party; and 10 minutes and nine seconds for Te Pāti Māori. So just a bit of an update there.

Hon ANDREW HOGGARD (Associate Minister of Agriculture (Animal Welfare, Skills)): Just on the two points that were raised there in terms of the custom-built boats issue. As you may have realised, this is a coalition Government. We signed a coalition agreement. I am not responsible for commitments made by parties before the coalition agreement was made. As I said previously, it'll be a standard. Now, maybe it'll take a custom-built boat to achieve the standard or maybe it won't; the standards are what matter. That's how you drive changes on farm or anywhere in the agricultural industry—you set a standard and people have to meet it. In terms of your question around intellectual property (IP)—

Hon Damien O'Connor: That's called a regulation.

Hon ANDREW HOGGARD: Yeah, whatever. In terms of IP, you asked the question: "Well, are you also then saying that we should stop sending frozen semen offshore, because is that not also giving away our IP?" Now, it's important to realise that most of these countries we would be trading animals with will not be operating the same farm system we operate here in New Zealand. We operate a pasture-grazing system here in New Zealand—

Rachel Boyack: Exactly—terrible animal welfare standards.

Hon ANDREW HOGGARD: —if you wanted to listen, you might learn a bit about farming—and so these animals are bred for that purpose. We're not giving away any IP, because what we're sending to them are animals from a very low-disease country, OK? So that's the benefit they are seeing. They are seeing good traceability and good welfare from a trading partner they can trust, so I don't believe there's any IP given away.

You know, at the end of the day, farming is pretty simple: you feed the cows; they produce milk.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): OK, thank you for that, and just to highlight as well that this debate—despite the times that I've told you—will end at 5.51 p.m.

STEVE ABEL (Green): Thank you, Mr Chair. I just want to speak to Minister Patterson and say that you may find on your select committee that you have multi-party support for the wool industry, and I just published an article in Canterbury Farming saying that we'd be fools to not back wool.

With the scourge of plastic polluting our oceans from fibres and products and building products and carpets—even in our own schools—we certainly need to back the wool industry. One of the messages that we got in the current briefing before us at the select committee was from some of those quite inspiring operators who are doing incredible things with wool domestically. One of the strong messages was that we need to do domestic manufacturing for the industry to be viable, rather than sending our high-quality product as a commodity into the global market, where somebody else makes the money out of turning it into a suit. Are you—and this is my question—as a Government going to put actual dollars towards things like manufacturing plant in the wool sector so that we can build that manufacturing sector?

I've got a quick follow-up question for the other Minister, if that's OK? Mr Hoggard, further to your point about listening to farmers about farming, will you take into account the multitude of animal welfare experts who tell us time and again, across the board, that there is no way to do live animal exports other than in a way that is cruel? I'll quote but one of them, the New Zealand SPCA chief science officer, Arnja Dale, who says, "It is very clear from the research that there is absolutely no way to achieve good animal welfare on long and complicated journeys." Will you take all of that into account and take that as the primary leader of experts in terms of your determination on proceeding with live animal exports? Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Thank you, and I just remind members to not bring the Chair into the debate.

RACHEL BOYACK (Labour—Nelson): Thank you, Mr Chair—pleasure to have another opportunity to take a call. My question is around the time frames that the Minister has indicated in order to develop the supposed gold standard that live animal exports will need to follow. My question really is why would industry seek to invest, given that from my latest written parliamentary question, the Minister has indicated that live animal exports are not likely to be reintroduced through legislation until 2025? Given that there's a high likelihood of a change of Government in 2026—certainly that's what we're hearing—

Reuben Davidson: Maybe sooner.

RACHEL BOYACK: It could be sooner, actually. I mean, it could be sooner—I think that's a very fair point, Mr Davidson; it could well be sooner.

Why would industry be seeking to invest in such an activity, given that the Government is going to take two years since the election to actually reintroduce the legislation, never mind actually reintroducing the practice? Surely the industry would be looking for some certainty from the Minister. I mean, I guess, is it not an element of wasteful spending—isn't that what we'd call it? We'd call it wasteful spending, I guess, getting officials to do work on this, knowing that, actually, once we see a change of Government, which we do expect to have, I think, sooner rather than later, it would be a complete waste of money for industry to be investing. So that's my further question to the Minister, thank you.

Hon TODD McCLAY (Minister of Agriculture): Mr Chair, thank you. I'm going to go very quickly because there were points raised earlier I'd like to address, in case colleagues have any follow-up questions they'd like. Around cyclone recovery, this is something we're taking very, very seriously. A lot of the things the member raised fall outside of my competence as agriculture Minister. But, just to say, as far as agriculture and horticulture and forestry are concerned, we're looking to work with the sector and many others, particularly experts that actually know what's going on, on the ground; the best way to sort these things out; the harm that's been done and how to stop it in the future. I would be very open to working with anybody that has input into that.

As far as the rural infrastructure is concerned, particularly roading, Minister Patterson has a responsibility for rural infrastructure in that area—although, with that in mind, he's not the Minister who gets to make the decisions as to where funding is concerned. But the rural sector now has a dedicated advocate for rural infrastructure, roading, and so on.

Jobs for Nature, also, as admirable as it is—I'd like to speak at great length on it—it's not an agricultural responsibility. So, unfortunately, that would have to be addressed to the environment Minister.

On Wai 262, that, equally—the responsibility of that sits with another Minister, around intellectual property. But I would say we take our responsibilities and obligations seriously. In the last term of Parliament, there was a Plants Variety Rights Act that was put in place to update that, to make it modern and available to the agricultural sector. Within that, there was support for Wai 262 and recognition of indigenous plants and processes. So there was a say in that, and that's something that's set aside that the agency responsible has to take account of.

To the member for Nelson, 26 votes doesn't suggest to me that the Government's going to change anytime soon.

Hon JO LUXTON (Labour): Thank you, Mr Chair. I've got a couple of questions: one for the Minister of Agriculture and then some for the Minister for Rural Communities.

So my question to the Minister of Agriculture is this: in the Ministry for Primary Industries' (MPI) annual report, they said that industry transformation plans are a mechanism for building a more integrated and shared understanding of how to make the most of New Zealand's food and fibre strength, maximise new opportunities, and respond to challenges on the horizon. Given that all work on these has now ceased, what is the Minister's plan for taking the industry forward, if not with the support and understanding of the sector?

My questions for the Minister for Rural Communities—the first one being this: as he will be aware, since 2019, 32 rural community hubs have been established, with seven new ones in the last financial year; can we expect support and seed funding from MPI for these hubs to continue in Budget 2024?

My other question for the Minister is that when the Minister came before our select committee for annual review, we asked him whether he was actively advocating to maintain and fix State Highway 35 and keep the East Coast connected to the world. The Minister acknowledged that we needed to have roading infrastructure that was fit for purpose and that food security needs to be a factor when deciding how to divide infrastructure spending. The Minister said he had spoken to the Minister of Transport about this matter, and I'm wondering if the Minister could please give us an update following the conversation that he's had with the Minister of Transport about that matter. Thank you.

Hon MARK PATTERSON (Associate Minister of Agriculture): Right. I'll take a couple of those questions. Firstly, the wool one: I thank Mr Abel for his support, and, yes, we are going to be bringing wool back into Government buildings. That piece of work is happening now, in terms of shaping up that policy. You do raise a really good point. We have got a cluster of businesses that are reaching a point where they're, kind of, really ready to go, but it's access to capital in this country. We can start them up, but how do we scale them? And one of the things—and it's not necessarily Government funding that's needed for this. I mean, we can use our influence within this place to help bring people together and maybe package up something for commercial—and I note your colleague; in fact, one of the people I'm going to be ringing is your colleague, or former colleague, James Shaw, who's now looking at green investments. So there could not be a more green investment than into the wool industry.

So around that new wool scourer at Awatoto, there's a $50 million investment there. My vision is for a big wool cluster of businesses developing out of that area; whether that happens—but you can see that. In terms of some of the work around rural hubs, I think a lot of that came out of the COVID money, and then, I think, in cyclone recovery. I think it's been really successful and—no, it came out of the COVID money, but in the cyclone, it was shown to be really successful, and other adverse events, because there was somewhere to go, there was somewhere that had connectivity, there was somewhere that had a commercial kitchen. That's probably something that sits probably more in the regional economic development portfolio. I know it's something that's being looked at there, but I do want you to know that I recognise the good work that has gone on there, both investing in marae and community halls.

And, in terms of the roading thing, that is a bigger piece of work, and the Minister outlined some regional roading priorities earlier, but I do agree that we need to put GDP and access to markets as a big weighting in terms of how we allocate our access to roading infrastructure. Thank you.

Hon JO LUXTON (Labour): I just want to follow up on that answer from the Minister. My question was: can he give us an update, following the conversation that he had with the Minister about that particular road?

Hon MARK PATTERSON (Associate Minister of Agriculture): Well, that's an ongoing discussion. I can't give you an answer, but I recognise and he recognises that important arterial route for the East Coast.

Hon TODD McCLAY (Minister of Agriculture): Mr Chair, thank you so much. On the last question around industry transformation plans (ITPs), well, what the Government's doing to transform the industry is working with them. You see, over the last six years, there were more than 20 pieces of legislation or regulation thrust upon rural New Zealand that didn't achieve what the owners of those rules and regulations, the last Labour Government, said they would. They had a cost and complication. It didn't drive the outcome—didn't drive the outcomes in the environment, certainly not in climate change, certainly not anywhere. And all it did was add cost to what is the most productive food-producing sector in the world.

So we don't need big studies to sit and work with the agriculture sector and decide how to transform them. They actually know how to do this; they're innovative; they're hard-working; they're men and women of New Zealand that grow the economy and who are actually going to help New Zealand pay back the large amounts of debt that the last Labour Government ran up for them. And we're going to do that by working with them and focusing on the outcome, not just the process. We don't want more rules; we want fewer rules. We want better rules that achieve what they need to, that allow the rural committee to get on and do what we want them to, which is work hard, farm hard, take those risks in their businesses, care deeply about the environment, meet their obligations, help New Zealand meet its climate change obligations, and, in so doing, grow the economy, creating jobs and a future for any New Zealander who wants it.

And so when we get asked about, you know, "What are you doing around industry transformation?", this industry doesn't need transforming; it just needs backing. And you have a coalition Government that trusts farmers, backs them, and will work with them to drive the outcomes that we need. And, with that in mind, I'm very, very proud of the work that my two colleagues and I have been able to start—and the coalition Government—in making changes early on that actually will drive better outcomes for water quality and that will back farmers to be able to do the things that they want to, which is farm well and care about their land. Because to any member on my left from the Labour Party that says they know best about the land, they're not the owners of it or the ones that are working on it every day, they're not the Māori organisations that actually care about the land, they're not the men or women that get out of bed every day that will make sure that their land does what it needs to because that's where they get their livelihood from.

And so we campaigned on getting Wellington out of farming, and Mark Patterson, Andrew Hoggard, and I, on behalf of rural New Zealand as the Ministers responsible for that, will make sure that we not only get Wellington out of farming but that farming is strong and the environment continues to improve and it continues to get better. And that job is something that will have to be enduring; it will have to continue; it'll have to every day, because these two colleagues of mine and I care as much about the environment as we do agriculture. And that's something that I hear as we're out in rural New Zealand—farmers talking about the environment, what they need to achieve—more than they talk about production. So what we need to do is get the rules right, get the framework right, build some trust, get the decision making from the small buildings of Wellington without windows out of the way, back rural New Zealand, and allow them to take responsibility for themselves. You've got a Government to partner and do that.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is, That the report of the Finance and Expenditure Committee on the annual financial statements of the Government for the 2022/23 financial year be noted.

Motion agreed to.

Report noted.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question now is, That the reports of committees on annual reviews be noted.

Motion agreed to.

Reports of committees on annual reviews noted.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question now is, That clauses 1 to 8 and Schedules 1 to 6 stand part.

Clauses 1 to 8 and Schedules 1 to 6 agreed to.

Bill to be reported without amendment.

House resumed.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Madam Speaker, the committee has considered the Appropriation (2022/23 Confirmation and Validation) Bill and reports it without amendment. I move, That the report be adopted.

Motion agreed to.

Report adopted.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): This bill is set down for third reading immediately.

APPROPRIATION (2022/23 CONFIRMATION AND VALIDATION) BILL

Third Reading

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister of Justice) on behalf of the Minister of Finance: I move, That the Appropriation (2022/23 Confirmation and Validation) Bill be now read a third time.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): The question is that the motion be agreed to.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): Members, with your leave, I suggest that before we start the first reading of the next bill we adjourn for the dinner break and resume at 7.30 p.m.—sorry, we're suspending until 7.30 p.m. Is there any objection to that? OK, we'll see you back here at 7.30 p.m. Thank you.

Sitting suspended from 5.54 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.

ORANGA TAMARIKI (REPEAL OF SECTION 7AA) AMENDMENT BILL

First Reading

Hon KAREN CHHOUR (Minister for Children): I present a legislative statement on the Oranga Tamariki (Repeal of Section 7AA) Amendment Bill.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): That legislative statement is published under the authority of the House and can be found on the Parliament website.

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: I move, That the Oranga Tamariki (Repeal of Section 7AA) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Social Services and Community Committee to consider the bill.

It's a privilege to stand here and speak to this bill tonight. Many MPs hearing this speech tonight may have been present the last time I spoke to this exact same bill while in Opposition. It was a member's bill that I had put in the biscuit tin in the hope of starting a conversation around the decision making on where our most vulnerable go when they are not safe and when they need the State to step in.

When I became the Minister for Children, I made it clear that my intention was to refocus the children's system on the wellbeing and individual needs of children. I want our system to ensure that every child in this country is raised in a loving and stable home that sets them up to succeed for life, regardless of race or culture.

As a child growing up and dealing with Child, Youth and Family myself, I can tell you that all I wanted was a stable home where I could feel loved, safe, and wanted. During my time in Opposition, and before coming to Parliament, I heard devastating stories about how some Oranga Tamariki staff prioritised cultural considerations and the desires of the child's family over the individual needs of the child. This sometimes led to unsafe care decisions and disruption for both the children and the caregivers. I saw firsthand the devastation on caregivers' faces and the pain in their voices after being told a "for ever home" did not necessarily mean just that. I saw the damage caused to a family that by the grace of God managed to find a Māori relative a few generations back after receiving the threat of having a child removed from them because they were not Māori. That was enough to save them from a reverse uplift. It's the same house, the same people. Nothing had changed; just the fact that they could trace a small piece of Māori in their bloodline.

I had caregivers tell me of being forced to send children to visit previous abusers just to keep the family connections, with the attitude that the child needs to know where they came from. There was no regard for the trauma this was causing the child or the caregivers, who were too terrified to speak up, knowing they would be perceived as racist and that the child may be uplifted if they spoke up.

Then we had the very public case of a young girl referred to as Moana. Moana was traumatised and neglected for years before being removed and placed into a safe, loving home—what was meant to be a for ever home, until a social worker decided they needed to remove Moana from their care because a Pākehā family could not provide for her cultural needs.

Then there was the latest Newsroom story that covered four children being uplifted in a similar way, all because they were the wrong ethnicity. This is the most heartbreaking thing to see, and it should not just be accepted. In all of these awful decisions, section 7AA was given as the justification.

Every child deserves the same level of care and support based on their needs, and their safety and wellbeing should always come first. This bill is the first step in this direction. While its original aim was well intentioned, I believe that section 7AA of the Oranga Tamariki Act has been able to be used to influence care decisions that have put vulnerable children in harm's way by prioritising cultural considerations over safety and wellbeing.

While I applaud the incredible work our front-line staff do to protect and care for children in need, section 7AA puts pressure on social workers to prioritise cultural considerations over the needs and safety of individual children while making care decisions.

It's important that I make it very clear that this bill does not prevent Oranga Tamariki from retaining its current strategic partnership or from entering into new partnerships with iwi, hapū, and Māori organisations. I have personally made my expectations clear to officials at Oranga Tamariki that they should continue the good work that has been done in this space if the agreement is working in a positive way and to the betterment of our children. I have never said that whānau, hapū, and iwi should not play a part or a role in the care of our young people. I support empowering all communities, and the Act already required this prior to the inclusion of section 7AA.

I welcome the robust discussion during the select committee process and would like to take this opportunity to encourage all those affected to make a submission. I know there are many caregivers out there who've felt they could not speak up in the past, and this is an opportunity to do so—to have a voice in the debate—because, after all, you are the ones who open your hearts and homes to the many children I have spoken about tonight, and I have to say how grateful I am to all those who do so.

Quite frankly, anyone who argues that the safety and wellbeing of a child should not be the most important consideration needs to take a good hard look at themselves. A child does not choose to live in fear or be harmed and hurt. The Government cannot control what happens to young person before they come to the attention of Oranga Tamariki, but they sure as hell can control what happens after. Abuse and neglect does not discriminate, and when a child cries out for help and we have a system that sees them as an identity first and a child second, we have a real problem.

This bill is about making sure that all our children are in the best environment that will provide them with the best start in life. It's about ensuring the kids' need for love, safety, and freedom from neglect are placed first, as they should be. If we truly see our children as taonga, let's start treating them like they're precious, because right now many children in this country are being treated like a piece of furniture that gets passed around from place to place until they're broken beyond repair, with no care for their rights or needs, and this needs to stop.

It is a disgrace that my role even needs to exist in New Zealand. But I will tell you why I stand here today—

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Because you're a sell-out.

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: —willing to take the abuse and the mud that's been thrown my way. It's names like Baby Nga Reo, or Baby Ru to many; Malachi, Maya, Carla, Leanne, and, most recently, to add to our list of shame, Falute Vaila. I think of the Kāhui twins, Nia Glassie and many more. Those are just some of the names—many names—that will never be spoken again, as they are the invisible shame of our nation. Then there are those who survive and are often denied a better life, their voices being silenced and unheard.

I have heard a lot about Treaty obligations, rights of iwi, Māori rights, and racism. But where is this same level of outrage when a Māori child takes their last breath in this world because the people who are supposed to love them and care for them do not? Surely, love, safety, and treating our children with basic human decency is a priority instead of the easy way out of blaming racism and the Government for our shameful child abuse problems.

This may be hard and uncomfortable to hear, but I will never make excuses for those who choose to harm our most precious gifts. I'm not here to use lazy arguments of racism being to blame for the loss of our precious children. I never want to see another child torn from a loving home for life because the caregivers are the wrong race, and I never want to see another traumatised child sent back to their abusers because they are the right race. That is what section 7AA has contributed to and I am proud to repeal it.

If the other side of the House will try to paint this as racist or try to paint me as some kind of traitor to my race, I know New Zealanders will hear the empty, hollow words for what they really are. I commend this bill to the House.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): The question is that the motion be agreed to.

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Point of order, Mr Speaker. You may not have heard but during Karen Chhour's speech, I certainly heard Willow-Jean Prime say, "You're a sell-out." Now, that kind of personal reflection is explicitly prohibited in the Standing Orders, specifically Standing Order 121, and it's my view that for this House and for this debate, it would be best if she stood, withdrew, and apologised.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): I have looked at the Standing Order, 121, and certainly if the Hon Willow-Jean Prime did use those words—I didn't hear them—then I'll invite her to stand, withdraw, and apologise.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: I withdraw and apologise.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): Thank you.

Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Jack Gibbons, who endured the suffering that section 7AA was helping to stop, says "My extended Māori whānau spent 11 years searching for me. I faced extreme hardship and disconnection, and Oranga Tamariki never revealed my existence to my whānau." Tupua Urlich, a former ward of the State who was the first survivor to speak at the Māori public hearing for the abuse in care royal commission of inquiry said, about repealing section 7AA, that "It's going to take generations to undo that harm. So when the Government turns around and fails to acknowledge our rights, it's just another stab in the back." State care survivor Paora Moyle told 1 News, "It is cruel to take children away from whom they belong to, their standing place, whom they know themselves to be."

The reasons the Minister has given for the need to repeal section 7AA are that the Minister believes that it creates a conflict between the best interests of the child and the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. On 13 December, I asked the Minister to explain what that conflict was, and I asked her how she can claim that there is a conflict in upholding the best interests of the child, when section 4 of the same legislation says that in all decisions of Oranga Tamariki, the best interests of the child is the primary consideration.

The Minister this evening has talked about high-profile cases, prominent individuals—caregivers, I would add, not the children who she spoke to—as the reason for the need to repeal section 7AA. Now, I want this House to take on board what the regulatory impact statement says and what the Waitangi Tribunal's final report on the repeal of section 7AA says about those reasons that the Minister has given. What they have said to those claims that we heard tonight is that there is a lack of robust evidence to support the view that section 7AA causes harmful changes to long-term care arrangements. In fact, on page 9 of the regulatory impact statement, it says that "A range of stakeholders"—and caregivers and concerned whānau members, as the Minister has referred to. In response to that, they say "There is no empirical evidence to support the notion that section 7AA has driven practice decisions that have led to changing care arrangements. We have heard anecdotal concerns from a small number of caregivers". They go on to say, "There is, however, no evidence to suggest that these concerns are related to the duties outlined in 7AA. Some concerned stakeholders and advocates have expressed their view that section 7AA was responsible for previous high-profile changes to care arrangements." They say, "Again, we do not have evidence as to whether section 7AA explicitly influenced these care decisions, but internal evaluations suggest that it did not."

So I only have five minutes in this first contribution, but what I say to this House is the reasons that the Minister is giving to repeal section 7AA, there is no empirical evidence to support it; said by your own officials, said by the Waitangi Tribunal—it is only anecdotal, it is only hearsay. What is actually driving this is political ideology. They are anti-Māori, they are anti - Te Tiriti o Waitangi; that is what is driving this. Because for all the things the Minister has claimed, there is no evidence.

I will finish on the fact that she was not prepared to present to the Waitangi Tribunal and answer these very questions so that we could all understand what the problem is and what the possible solutions could be to this issue. She says she's proud. Well, I don't think she should be proud of condemning future generations to having issues with their whakapapa, their connections, and their whanaungatanga.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): The member's time has come to an end.

KAHURANGI CARTER (Green): Thank you. I am sitting here listening, trying to make sense of why this Government is repealing a law that protects vulnerable children, a law which has proven itself through positive outcomes for those vulnerable children, a law which the Government should be praising because it helps right the wrongs of the State, which has systematically failed children and whānau. This is the Minister's trauma-informed decision-making, not evidence-based policy.

It's important that New Zealanders understand what we are really talking about here. We're talking about a Government who is making decisions based on their own anti-Tiriti vibes, not evidence. We know the Prime Minister doesn't understand section 7AA, because today he said, "We are united in the coalition Government that we are prioritising the wellbeing of the child ahead of their cultural needs." They're the same thing—they are the same thing. This is a dangerous game the Government is playing, essentially saying honouring Te Tiriti is harmful to tamariki. Let me be clear: there has been no empirical evidence that 7AA puts cultural needs above the wellbeing of the child.

If this Government was serious about evidence-based policy making, it would wake up to the hard evidence presented to it by officials time and time again that the ratio of Māori to non-Māori in State care has reduced because of 7AA, that Māori children in State care have reduced because of 7AA, that children and young people in care are telling us 7AA is working. All of the names the Minister for Children has just mentioned, those tragic cases were all before 7AA came out. Evidence—let's use the evidence. When we make decisions based on the best knowledge and evidence, we all win. This Government is gatekeeping knowledge by not using evidence, and our tamariki are the ones who lose out.

We are all here because we want the best for our children. That is what unites us, and we have to hold on to that and embrace it. Isn't that what our kids deserve? It's our duty to take the best knowledge from the mainstream system and from te ao Māori. We can take the best of both worlds so that our tamariki grow up safe and protected. Instead of repealing a bill which is protecting children from a State that was harming them, we need to be looking at more solutions, because there is so much more that we need to do. We cannot throw the baby away with the bath water.

There is no denying that this Government has failed as a guardian, especially to Māori children, who are continuously overrepresented in statistics of abuse in State care, outcomes in health, education, housing—a shameful fact for all New Zealanders. Section 7AA is how we keep Oranga Tamariki and the State accountable to protecting children; 7AA enables restoration into generations of systematic neglect.

Let's not forget why 7AA was brought in: to manaaki children to be their best selves, connected to their community and their whānau, because the State was failing our tamariki. Seven out of 10 children in care were Māori. Oranga Tamariki staff were failing to adequately find homes within a child's whānau, ripping them from their whānau and whakapapa without due cause. Section 7AA is about accountability and protecting tamariki Māori.

Te ao Māori has so much to offer. In te ao Māori, we look to nature for guidance. Tamariki are like seeds in the forest, filled with so much promise and potential. When their root systems grow strong, they can weather many storms. Our tamariki need strong roots connected to their whānau, just like the trees in our forest. Systems in nature teach us how to care for our tamariki. Like that very seed, the child is part of a whānau, a community, and it is their birthright to be connected.

Sitting in the gallery today is Whānau Ora and Kōkiri Marae, who support children and whānau to stay connected. They put the safety and protection of children first always—something this Government should learn from. By repealing 7AA, their incredible success stories and mahi with whānau and tamariki are in jeopardy.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): Members, this is a very emotionally charged debate. I'll invite you on both sides just to observe the tikanga of this House and just keep your comments away from anything personal, please. I'll allow debate to take the course it has, but please just observe that in these quite emotionally charged times, things can get out of control quite quickly. So I'll invite all speakers and all interjectors just to take that into account, please. Thank you.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment): I'm pleased to rise to take a call in this debate. As you said, it is an emotionally charged issue, as it should be, because what is at the heart of this legislation is the protection of our most vulnerable children. That's what this change is about. I want to be clear about what it's not about. This is not about a Government being anti-Māori; it is not about a Government being anti-Treaty.

When the legislation was originally introduced, the intention always was that the child's interests come first. I wouldn't have thought there would be anyone in this House who doesn't want to see the reduction of harm against our most vulnerable children, right? So we want to see more children protected from harm. Unfortunately, we have seen examples—as a constituent MP of 16 years, I have heard constituents who have come to me with exactly this issue—exactly this issue. So I'm not going to stand here and say that Governments of either side have got it right in terms of protecting children from abuse. The list that the Minister read before was a blot on all of us.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Before 7AA existed.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: No, no, it's still happening today. It is still happening today. And anyone in this House who denies that we are not still harming children is in La-La Land, absolute La-La Land. Get real in terms of what the focus of this legislation is about. And although we would like to see that we have not had decisions where children have been removed from homes—

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: You haven't. That's what your regulatory impact statement said when you made your Cabinet decision.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: No. You are completely distorting what this debate is about. It's really unfortunate that the members opposite aren't listening to what the heart of this debate is about.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Evidence.

Hon Peeni Henare: Evidence.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Absolutely. And the evidence is, when a child is removed against their best interests—

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: There is no empirical evidence—

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: I'm sorry, but I've dealt with cases as an electorate MP of constituents when exactly this has happened. So you might want to deny it. I know it would be really nice to deny it doesn't happen, but it does. It is happening. So I'm just so disappointed that the Opposition don't want to listen to the reality of the primacy of what this bill is doing. So when the accusation came before about ideology—and, unfortunately, I think what we're hearing from the other side because of their lack of willingness to engage is about ideology—

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: You haven't read the evidence.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Of course I have—of course I have. I've worked with this legislation for years. I'm the Minister that's changing the oversight to Orangi Tamariki to make sure it delivers better than it is today. How do we do that? How do we do that? We do that by ensuring the best support is available and the decisions are made in the best interests of the child. [Interruption] That should and must always come first. We have to use every tool available to us, and unfortunately—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): Ah, look, members, I've just stopped the clock at the moment. I just wonder whether the Minister engaging across some very loud interjections—this is a very important debate with people who want to hear the arguments, so interjections: short, sharp, and relevant, not a continual barrage. So please, members.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Thank you, Mr Speaker. It's actually quite embarrassing because I think those people who want to listen to this debate would be embarrassed about what's happening in terms of the barracking across the House. Because what members opposite aren't thinking about is it might be a small number of children that are affected by this, but, actually, for them, it has had significant impacts on their life, their future, and their opportunities. Those are the children we should be thinking about in this particular legislation. So, look, in many cases it works well. We need more Māori organisations to partner with the Government to do fantastic work on the ground. But, actually, in some cases, the application of the law has shown that this change is required to ensure that we protect the most vulnerable children in this country. Unfortunately, the Opposition wants to turn it into a debate that it's not.

TANYA UNKOVICH (NZ First): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to support the Oranga Tamariki (Repeal of Section 7AA) Amendment Bill. New Zealand First is steadfast in its belief that there should be a focus on actionable outcomes for those who are in need. We believe in securing the immediate safety and wellbeing of our most vulnerable, especially our children. There has been a concern around section 7AA addressing a child's cultural needs ahead of their immediate safety, stability, and wellbeing. We believe that cultural considerations, whilst important, should not impede a process and possibly put a child's safety and security at jeopardy. There is a genuine concern that section 7AA, when executed, is simply too traumatic for the young child; hence, removing this provision from the Oranga Tamariki Act, which puts an obligation on the chief executive around abiding by the Treaty of Waitangi in decision making when it comes to caring for our young people.

It is hard to imagine the possible trauma for a child when uplifted. The child may have been told that this is their for ever home. They are settled and have developed a connection, a bond with their new carers, some over several years, only then to be removed. Genuine need must transcend race, religion, or other similar factors. The obligation under section 7AA does not put the overall welfare of the child first. The child and wellbeing of the child, the care and wellbeing of the child, must come first. The child must be safe at all costs, period. I look forward to the select committee in hearing submissions and going through this process. Hence, on behalf of New Zealand First, I commend this bill to the House.

MARIAMENO KAPA-KINGI (Te Pāti Māori—Te Tai Tokerau): Tēnā koe Mr Speaker. Kia ora. Meinga hoki! [Is that so!] The parties of the Government have doubled down on the extermination agenda for Māori—[Interruption] Just hold tight. My use of that word made a lot of you uncomfortable, and I'm glad to hear it. The repeal of section 7AA is a targeted extermination of our babies—hold tight: don't have feelings yet—exterminating any ounce of culture, identity, and any sense of their Māori selves.

What many don't have the cultural intellect—despite any other intellect—to understand is that a Māori person is different to a Pākehā. Moana Jackson and He Whaipaanga Hou said: "A Māori person is shaped by cultural forces which are unique to their being Māori, and is subject to influences which are consequent upon that sense of Māori-ness." So I speak to all the Māoris in this room: let that sink in—let that sink in. And if you don't, you've declared to the whole House who you actually are.

The consequence here is cultural extermination—killing the wairua of Māori babies, so they just fall—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): Ms Mariameno.

MARIAMENO KAPA-KINGI: Sorry, I'm just trying to speak over—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): We're debating a bill here, and debating the bill is not attacking the opposition. Can we speak to the bill, please?

MARIAMENO KAPA-KINGI: I'm—yes, of course. Yes, so I'll carry on. Thank you, Mr Speaker. The consequence here is cultural extermination—killing the wairua of Māori babies so they just fall in line and go into Pākehā, making things easier for makers of law.

Let's not pretend section 7AA is about race or segregation. It's about power: a power which can only be maintained where Māori believe from the day that they are born that we are less than. It matters not the exact deals the shameful Government have conjured up using our kids as chess pieces. What matters is that those in power think that they can mess with our mokopuna and get away with it. The very fact we are discussing this repeal at its first reading today exposes the mass injustice by this and all Kāwana.

This repeal reflects the lie fed to us that we are not good enough to look after our own and we are better off handing our flesh and blood to Pākehā. The painful irony is that our babies have been physically harmed in State care, and thereby turn to crime as salvation. E te Kāwana [To the Government], you are criminalising our babies. Meinga hoki rā. [Is that so?]

To say that culture and identity are being valued more than tamariki welfare is a bold-faced lie. This repeal does not point to a single shred of evidence. There might be feelings and stories—that's not evidence—that prove section 7AA has led to decisions which have unduly favoured whakapapa and placed tamariki Māori in harm's way. Even the title of the bill is tactically sterile and underplays the seriousness of the matter. More accurately, it should say "removal of Māori" and perhaps then more of us would oppose this repeal. I've committed over half my life to social work with whānau, hapu, and iwi.

Hon David Seymour: Probably better you're in here.

MARIAMENO KAPA-KINGI: When Puao-te-ata-tu was released, I was on the front lines. I am doubtful, however, the Minister or any of the Government have taken the time to read that seminal report, otherwise we wouldn't be discussing this repeal. [Interruption] I'm just to ignore the nonsense on the left—they can't help themselves.

Section 7AA moves us towards direct Māori involvement in social welfare policy practices—the key priority of Puao-te-ata-tu. But this Government is not interested in analysis, logic, or facts. The Minister's own officials advised against the repeal, in sync with the Waitangi Tribunal.

When section 7AA was introduced, the Human Rights Commission applauded the provision. It recommended the duty be strengthened to a direct obligation to form strategic partnerships with iwi. An indigenous model of care is, and will always be, the answer for our tamariki Māori. While this idea is not revolutionary, I know this new generation of Māori are—and they will see our mokopuna Māori returned into our care in their lifetimes.

Although this Government strives to further alienate our children from themselves, Te Pāti Māori will not stand by and watch—we have never and we never will. I say again—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): The member's time has come to an end.

JOSEPH MOONEY (National—Southland): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise to speak in support of this bill. We've heard some passionate speeches tonight, and we've certainly heard some passionate words said around the country, but I think one thing should be clear to all of us in the House: we all care about our children in this country. We all care about the future of our children in this country. Unfortunately, there have been some words that I think have been said in the heat of emotion and passion that aren't actually connected to the reality of what we're doing here and what this Government is doing, which is aiming to focus Oranga Tamariki on the wellbeing of children.

It's absolutely important—it's vital—that children are connected to their whakapapa, that they're connected to their whānau, that they're connected to te ao Māori, that they understand and are deeply connected to them, but the reality is that's not always possible. So the reality of that is that absolutely, we must focus on the wellbeing of the children of this country—that's absolutely important. I don't think there's one person in this House who would disagree that we need to focus on the wellbeing of our tamariki. That's what we're aiming to do with this. We're aiming to focus on this.

So, look, let me just go through a few short things. So every child deserves the same level of care and protection—every child. The focus on their individual needs and their safety and wellbeing, needs to be put first. Culture, whakapapa, whānau, te ao Māori connection—critical. Absolutely critical—I don't disagree with that.

While this bill repeals references to cultural consideration in section 7AA, it does not remove existing provisions in other parts of the Act which require decision makers to consider cultural factors in care decisions. So they will still be required to consider cultural factors in care decisions—so just be really clear about that. It's absolutely important.

This does not prevent Oranga Tamariki from retaining current strategic partnerships—it does not take that away—or from entering into new partnerships with iwi, with hapū, and Māori organisations. It does not take that away from Oranga Tamariki. So that is absolutely important for Oranga Tamariki, and I have total confidence that Oranga Tamariki will be doing that. They will be doing that—I'm absolutely confident they will be doing that, and I'm making it very clear in this speech that it is an expectation that they will be doing that. So this will not be taking that away—that is absolutely clear.

The Independent Children's Monitor will still report on the strategic partnerships that Oranga Tamariki has with iwi and Māori organisations as part of their broader reporting on outcomes for Māori children, young people, and their whānau, so that will still be happening.

Now, look, if we just go back a little bit into the history of this, there was a Newsroom article back in 2019 which highlighted uplifts of Māori children, and that set a big part of this conversation, and absolutely without due cause. But I don't know whether everyone in this House has seen a more recent article from Newsroom as well: "Restored: the Newsroom story the Crown and court didn't want you to see—'Two wrongs don't make a right' " about a reverse uplift.

So if I just read a little bit from this: "In June 2019, the practice of uplifting babies was exposed in a Newsroom Investigates video. The documentary, which showed … behind the scenes when a young Māori mother from Hastings refused to hand over her newborn, would force a huge shift in Oranga Tamariki's policies and operations."—that's a good thing—"The five official inquiries that followed our investigation slammed the agency's approach to removing babies from their mothers and the systemic racism behind it: it was revealed tamariki Māori accounted for 70 percent of children in state care, and that Māori babies were being taken into custody at a rate five times that of non-Māori."—something none of us want to see—"Then on July 1, 2019, section 7AA of the Oranga Tamariki Act came into force. The new legislation laid out the ways in which the state needs to uphold the right of tamariki Māori to be connected to their culture and whakapapa."—something we all agree on—"The combined effect was immediate. With the Hastings uplift backlash building, Newsroom understands Oranga Tamariki requested an audit to find out where uplifted Māori children had been sent, looking specifically at non-kin carers. Essentially they were finding out exactly where the Māori kids were, and we were asked to find out the ethnicity of their carers and the status of their placements. That's why they're on spreadsheets in OT offices up and down the country," an OT social worker told Newsroom. Oranga Tamariki, it seems, were in a scramble to self-correct."

Then the article goes into a very sad story of where children have been put into what they were told was their for ever home and then they were taken away from that home. So let's be clear: we want to protect our children, we want them to be connected to their whakapapa and their whānau, and we support this bill.

Hon PEENI HENARE (Labour): I stand in opposition to the Oranga Tamariki (Repeal of Section 7AA) Amendment Bill. I want to take some members on a little history journey. First, I acknowledge my whaea Mariameno Kapa-Kingi. I've heard many members in this House, in particular on the other side of the House, do the "He aha te mea nui o te ao? He tangata, he tangata, he tangata." They're quoting my and Mariameno Kapa-Kingi's tupuna Meri Ngaruto. Actually, if you dig a little bit deeper, beyond the facade that members in this House often use, you will find what she's speaking to is whakapapa, connection: the ability to know where you are from, to understand where you are going. I want that to sink in to members in this House, because I've heard it on the political stumps during election, I've heard it at all of the whānau events that I've seen members at. But that's what it means, and that's why it is important that we oppose this bill.

This evening, we've heard from the Minister for Social Development and Employment; who we haven't heard from is the Minister for Whānau Ora. Whānau Ora is important to the wellbeing of families across this country. That's why it's called Minister for Whānau Ora: whānau, family; ora, wellbeing. I want to know whether or not the Minister will front up to the people who oppose this bill, who have made their position clear as day to that Minister and, indeed, to this Government, that section 7AA should not be repealed. The Minister for Whānau Ora—and I was the Minister for Whānau Ora, in my time—acknowledged that we could do things better. Ngā Tini Whetū was born through a partnership, to ensure that we can continue to support our tamariki Māori to stop them from going into the systems we don't want them to go into, like Oranga Tamariki, like the legal system. It was a kaupapa designed to make sure we can support our people our way: connected to their culture, connected to their whakapapa. What this repeal bill does is it doesn't compel the Government, nor does it hold the Government to account, when it comes to the care of tamariki Māori.

We keep hearing that "Oh, well, it's the need for all tamariki", simple maths for that side of the House. Most of those tamariki are tamariki Māori, and every single one of them have a whānau. They have a whakapapa, they have a marae, a maunga, an awa. Tonight, what's happening is an absolute travesty. We've heard from the other side of the House, who continue to say, "We will use the evidence and we make evidence-based decisions." Well, the evidence is quite clear that repealing section 7AA, in the Oranga Tamariki amendment bill this evening, isn't evidence-based. It needs to consider the years and years of evidence, the many reviews that have been undertaken under the previous National Government and under the time when Labour was Government, to make the system better.

This is definitely a step in the wrong direction. I expect it from the ACT Party. I do. I'm not surprised by that. That's their ideology. That's their dogma. But I want to call out the National Party, the Minister for Whānau Ora, and make sure that they are held accountable too. This isn't just an ACT Party thing; this is a National-led coalition Government taking our people backwards. We want to see that Minister, and the many Ministers, front up to our people and explain to them why they're taking them backwards. There are a number of other avenues where these could have been discussed, and, perhaps, even the Opposition clearly debated through, and one of those is in Cabinet. I wonder—and our people are asking the question—did the Minister for Whānau Ora stick up for our whānau? Did other Māori Ministers in that Cabinet discussion stick up for our whānau? Quite clearly, they did not.

Very soon—very soon, the National-led coalition Government, supported by the ACT Party and the New Zealand First Party, are going to have to front up to our people. There are a number of hui coming up. They were happy to come to all the other hui—they'd better start coming to the hui coming up, so that they can front up to the people, answer the questions. I can tell you, Mr Speaker, in the seconds that I have left: that side will be held to account.

I'm going to say it one more time: "He aha te mea nui o te ao? He tangata, he tangata, he tangata."—speaks to whakapapa, speaks to connection. I'm ashamed when I think of all the times that I've heard members, in particular on that side of the House, use that quote and misquote it.

PAULO GARCIA (National—New Lynn): I stand wanting to say that if children were able to see us now with the passions that are being displayed, with all the good intentions on both sides being expressed, and the indignance behind the desire to strengthen a culture, they would probably look at us and say, "What about us, the children?" They are not as sophisticated in their language. They are not at the level that everyone in this House is able to speak and shout and judge and label. They will just be wanting to be provided the opportunity to live the best lives they can.

There are other children in the care of Oranga Tamariki. While it is true that the greater percentage is Māori—

Kahurangi Carter: Yes, seven out of 10.

PAULO GARCIA: Yes, yes. If I may, I think we can dial down the anger, because we can't see—

Rawiri Waititi: It's not anger; it's righteous anger, and it's passion.

PAULO GARCIA: OK, so I will just—[Interruption] So my point is that if children could see what is happening now, they would probably just want to clamour for what they need, as children do. They need to be cared for, they need to be in stable conditions, and they need to be loved. Love does not call out by race. Love is called out by the kind of values that the care environment provides to the children, or seeks to provide the children.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Are you saying there are no loving Māori whānau that could take these children on?

PAULO GARCIA: No, no, no. I'm just saying what I'm saying. People can take whatever meaning they want to take out of what I'm saying, but what I'm saying is that children just want to be cared for and loved and put in stable environments.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: That's what we want too.

PAULO GARCIA: We all want that.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: With whānau.

PAULO GARCIA: It's true that there is a deeper connection with cultural values behind the upbringing of children. True. There is no battle about that.

Hon Member: That's why we're here. That's what we are debating on.

PAULO GARCIA: No, because not all children in care are Māori.

Hon Member: This is about 7AA Māori mokopuna.

PAULO GARCIA: I'm just pointing out there are children in care who are not Māori, and just like Māori kids, they will be looking for the love and support and environment that they need to grow in a stable environment. There is no—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): Mr Garcia, if you'd mind just sticking to the bill. It might just be a good idea at this stage.

PAULO GARCIA: Thank you, Mr Speaker. The removing of section 7AA does not restrict the engagement and specialised relationship that iwi, hapū, and Māori organisations offer. It does not strip that. It also provides opportunities for existing relationships to carry on, as long as they are able to provide that environment. That's the whole object, because it is possible that, in the way the law is there, it can be abused. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): We've had a number of speeches from the National Party MPs tonight which have passionately defended the rights of children. They have talked about the need for stability, for love, for the kinds of conditions which let children flourish and acknowledge those important things like whakapapa and a sense of identity for children. So how frustrating it must be for these National Party MPs to be championing an amendment to a law that was written and passed by the National Government in 2017, which had support from ACT's David Seymour, which the ACT Party have now made into a political football which has chased votes of exactly the type of people who have rarked up a divisive debate in Aotearoa New Zealand that we did not have before this election campaign that ACT have drawn on for votes.

How frustrating it must be for not only the National members sitting on the other side of the House tonight but also their Cabinet, who have to put up with ACT using our country's legislative process to rark up a debate that is damaging for social cohesion. Even the official advice presented to this House points to Government documents which say that the kind of social cohesion and disruption that this bill and the Treaty principle causes will have long-lasting effects not only on our society but our democracy too. How frustrating that must be to be sitting in this debate tonight on the wrong side of history.

The changes to the original Act that we are talking about tonight were made at a time when the care and protection system was in crisis by National Minister Anne Tolley. She had the right idea here. She was working with New Zealand First Minister Tracey Martin, who called these changes that are being repealed tonight a "circuit-breaker", because things weren't going right for Māori children in care then, and we needed to try something different, and that trying something different resulted in a care and protection system which for the first time was responsive to the needs of Māori children and whānau Māori who were engaged in the care and protection system.

The Minister for Children now, Karen Chhour, has claimed that race-based factors set out in section 7AA create a conflict for the best interests of the child, but the official advice—as you've heard from my colleague the Hon Willow-Jean Prime—says exactly the opposite. In fact, the New Zealand First speaker tonight repeated those claims and said that cultural considerations were getting in the way of proper care and protection. That is verging on misinformation, which is misleading to the public. The official advice says exactly the opposite of that. This House has a responsibility to pass law which is based on facts and evidence, not on political reckons which are then used by a political party to absolutely scrape the bottom of the barrel for votes that they could not garner otherwise. Shame on them.

There is a lack of evidence that section 7AA is leading to settled care arrangements being disrupted, but, again, we heard those claims repeated by the Minister in this debate, when the official advice has proved that wrong not once but twice. In fact, on page 9 of the official advice which the Hon Willow-Jean Prime quoted, it says "However, due to Ministerial commissioning, the identification and assessment of [other] options"—other than this option which we are being presented with now—"falls outside the scope of this analysis." So not only is this Minister coming to the House and presenting this bill as if it is the only solution, she also commissioned the advice in a way that did not let her officials propose any other solutions to care for children.

So when that side of the House comes here and says that this is about caring for the most vulnerable children, we can see a paper trail of evidence where the officials are telling Cabinet that they were not afforded the ability to suggest changes that would actually have a lasting effect. This is about politicising our most vulnerable children, and shame on that party for drumming up that kind of debate in Aotearoa where it doesn't belong.

The proposed repeal of section 7AA would also remove the requirement for the chief executive to report on the impact of Māori children who come to the attention of Oranga Tamariki. This change was absolutely a good one. It allowed the chief executive to spotlight the treatment of Māori children in care. Those children have been on the steps of Parliament every year asking legislators to highlight their needs and this Government has removed a legislative requirement without any consideration for what they've heard over and over again from these children.

This is a divisive piece of legislation, designed to drum up divisive, ugly politics. They're ugly politics for political end and they have no place in this House.

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR (Minister for Regulation): Well, thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of ACT in support of this Oranga Tamariki (Repeal of Section 7AA) Amendment Bill. I've stayed to listen to this whole debate to see what different members have said. I heard Karen Chhour, the Minister responsible, say that this Government's ambition is care for vulnerable children that sets them up to succeed for life, regardless of race or culture. She said that there are alternatives where the Government takes children out of a safe environment and puts them in a dangerous environment because the safe environment has parents of the wrong race.

She gave an example of one such set of parents, where they were going to lose the child that they had committed to care for for life. They were going to lose that child because they weren't Māori, and then because they found a distant Māori ancestor, they were allowed to keep the child. That is how absurd and how racist our society has become—the way that Oranga Tamariki has been behaving—and I'm proud to stand on this side of the House where we are saying that each child should be alike in dignity and have the same basic rights and duties as they grow up in this country, regardless of their race.

You might wonder how people could start thinking about that. Well, actually, then we heard from Willow-Jean Prime, and if there was ever a failure of logic, it was this: Willow-Jean Prime repeatedly said that there was no evidence that section 7AA made any difference because section 4 actually says that the rights of the child always come first anyway. Now, if she's right, then she wouldn't care about section 7AA because it doesn't make any difference. But then came the lady from the Green Party, who's been here for five minutes—I don't know who she is; I don't much care, because she'll probably be gone in a scandal next week anyway. But this Green Party person said, "Look, actually, the wellbeing of the child is the same as their cultural needs." So, if we believe this lady, then all of a sudden, actually, 7AA is going to affect whether a child is taken out of a home or not.

Camilla Belich: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I understand it is the practice of this House to refer to members by their full name.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): That's fine—carry on.

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I'm sorry to the people at home for that gratuitous and out-of-order interruption.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): No, no, Mr Seymour, no—now you will withdraw and apologise. Do not comment on the Chair's findings, so you will now apologise.

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: I withdraw and apologise, Mr Speaker.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): And now continue.

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: Thank you, Mr Speaker. The facts are that these two speakers contradicted each other. One of them says that section 7AA makes no difference, which raised the question of why she cares if we get rid of it. The other one said that, actually, your race and culture are the same as your wellbeing. Unfortunately, that is the problem at the core of the debate, that children have been taken out of houses where they are physically safe, where they're nurtured, where they're loved, and put back into dangerous environments as a result of race. That is absolutely reprehensible in any free society that respects the rights of each person to live in equal dignity.

Over here on this side of the House, we believe that there should be a place for everyone, and we believe that people are made up of many different strands. People have different hopes and different dreams. Yes, nearly every New Zealander has a blend of racial background, and that brings me to the real question of this debate, of why people are just so angry—why we heard the speaker from the Māori Party saying that the consequence is cultural extermination, killing the wairua of Māori babies, and making them Pākehā. That is really what betrays the motivation of people on this other side of the House who oppose this bill. They are race fanatics. They believe that a person's race is more than all the other attributes that make up a person.

Well, I'm so proud to be standing next to Karen Chhour, one of the most courageous women and people in this Parliament, who is standing up for that simple, timeless, and essential idea that it doesn't matter who you are or where you come from or what your race is, you will be treated the same under the law of this country by the authorities of this country. There'll be a place for you in this country, no matter what your background may be, and maybe one day these folks will understand it, too. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Oranga Tamariki (Repeal of Section 7AA) Amendment Bill be now read a first time.

Ayes 68

New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Noes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a first time.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): The question is, That the Oranga Tamariki (Repeal of Section 7AA) Amendment Bill be considered by the Social Services and Community Committee.

Motion agreed to.

Bill referred to the Social Services and Community Committee.

RESIDENTIAL TENANCIES AMENDMENT BILL

First Reading

Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister of Housing): I present a legislative statement on the Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): That legislative statement is published under the authority of the House and can be found on the Parliament website.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: I move, That the Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Social Services and Community Committee to consider the bill.

This is an important bill that proposes sensible, much-needed changes to the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 which will remove barriers to increasing private rental housing supply as well as introducing pet bond provisions—which is part of the National-ACT coalition agreement and has generated a lot of excitement amongst many people, particularly pet owners.

The approach of the previous Government when it came to landlords ultimately caused worse outcomes for tenants. Rents increased rapidly under the last Government; the social housing wait-list that we've been talking about a bit in the House over the last couple of days increased by around 20,000 families; and of course we have, very sadly, many families in New Zealand living in emergency housing motels.

Not all of these problems can be put down to the residential tenancies changes that the previous Government implemented in progressive stages, but some of those problems can be put down to that. For example, the removal of 90-day no-cause terminations by the last Government made some landlords unwilling to take a chance on tenants who don't have perfect references or a steady nine-to-five job, or had just left prison, for example, or for a variety of reasons landlords didn't want to take a chance on. Many landlords just decided to exit the market altogether. I've had many, many people say to me, "The combination of interest deductibility, 90-day no-cause terminations, the brightline test. It's all just too hard—I'm out." Ultimately, mum and dad landlords are an important part of the housing market in New Zealand, so this bill reintroduces 90-day no-cause terminations for periodic tenancies.

It also fixes the situation around the end of fixed-term tenancies. The last Government's changes to, essentially, make the roll-over of fixed-term tenancies into periodic tenancies essentially automatic has caused chaos in a variety of markets, most notably down in Queenstown, where previously there was a situation where many people would offer up properties into the market for, say, six to nine months when they didn't need to use the property to become available for a fixed-term tenancy. The near-automatic roll-over of those fixed-term tenancies into periodic tenancies has meant that people just think, "It's all too difficult, we'll just put the property on Airbnb.", and then the property just is not used for much of the time.

So we had the situation in Queenstown where you've got a real homelessness problem; you've got workers unable to get access to accommodation—I see my good friend and colleague Joseph Mooney here, the MP for Queenstown and the wider region. So we are going to fix that problem. The chamber of commerce down there has made this point multiple times in the media. Because interestingly, the former Minister of Housing, Megan Woods, turned up there at the height of all of this. I've forgotten, was it July last year? Maybe August?

Joseph Mooney: It was around then, yeah.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: It was around then. We were approaching the—she said, basically, "I acknowledge the problem but, you know, we can't just fix this. You know, it's very difficult to change laws." Well, actually, she was the Minister. I found that quite remarkable, and I said to her, "You could put a bill towards the Parliament right now. We'd back it. Put it through under urgency—can fix it next week." That idea seemed to go nowhere. Well, we are fixing the problem. We're doing it as part of a suite of changes.

I've also heard that this provision has caused problems in the Dunedin market. I've also had some anecdotal evidence that this fixed-term tenancy change from the last Government has caused problems on Waiheke Island, which is a similar market in some senses to Queenstown.

Joseph Mooney: Is the local MP going to support it?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, that'll be interesting to see whether or not the local MP for Waiheke Island—who I think is Chlöe Swarbrick—whether or not she supports this, because we've got a similar problem with rental accommodation over on Waiheke Island. So let's wait and see whether or not that happens, but I'll hold my breath.

So, ultimately, when it comes to fixed-term tenancies and the 90-day notices, we are incentivising landlords back into the market to put downward pressure on rents—that's a good thing.

Of course, in the medium term and the long term, the ultimate answer to rental affordability in this country is growth of housing supply. That's why we've got a wider package of reforms coming that builds on the work of the Hon Phil Twyford, who I see in the Chamber, around the National Policy Statement on Urban Development, and the last Government—the sole good thing the last Government did when it comes to housing. It builds on that work and tries to smash urban limits and allow for greater density inside our cities and sorting out the infrastructure funding and financing settings. So I won't dwell on that, but just to say we have more work to come on that.

I think the good news is that collectively across the Parliament now, there is a consensus that the solutions to our housing challenges are fundamentally around supply—actually tinkering around the demand side of it, tinkering around with other things extrinsic to the fundamentals of supply and demand leads you down a path that doesn't actually deal with the underlying issues. But the fundamental answer to our housing affordability challenges, whether it's homeownership or of rental affordability and indeed in social housing—because Kāinga Ora and the community housing sector face the same planning and the same funding and financing constraints—

Hon Phil Twyford: That's a misrepresentation of the consensus.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, I meant in a broad sense. I meant in a broad sense, there is now a—well, put it this way: compared to, say, 20 years ago, when most of Parliament thought that the solutions to our housing crisis were not around supply, we're in a much better situation now than in comparison to 20 years ago. I mean, the Greens are yet to join the fun on this—the Greens, sadly, still propose economically insane policies like rent controls, so the Greens are yet to kind of join the mainstream of the of the Parliament when it comes to housing supply. But we've got a new spokesperson.

Tamatha Paul: We'll always do better.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Right, well, I don't think rent controls are doing better. Because, as I said in a debate—I think it was last week in the House—economists don't agree on much, but they agree on two things: one, free trade is good and it lifts incomes and raises economic growth; and the second thing they agree on is that rent controls are nuts. In fact, I can't remember the exact economist, but the quote is basically "The single best way to destroy the housing stock of a city is rent controls." But we've got a new housing spokesperson for the Green Party, Tamatha Paul—she's an energetic spokesperson and I'm looking forward to her seeing the light and changing the Greens. But anyway—

Tamatha Paul: Never!

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: —I digress. "Never," she says. OK, we'll see—we'll see. The other thing this bill does is it introduces provisions related to pets. So it's too hard to find rentals that are pet-friendly, and one of the reasons why that is is that many landlords are reluctant to take on pets. They worry about the damage; they worry about the costs. So what we are doing is enabling landlords to require a pet bond if they have agreed to the tenant keeping a pet up to the equivalent of two weeks' rent. They're a win-win: landlords have additional assurance they won't be out of pocket for the possible damage, and tenants with pets will have more rental options.

It also clarifies the consent rules. So the status quo is landlords are able to, essentially, say, you know, advertise on TradeMe, "No pets; don't allow pets". So under the bill, tenants will be permitted to keep a pet with the landlord's consent. Here's the critical point: landlords can only refuse a pet if they have a reasonable ground. So the bill includes a non-exhaustive list of reasonable grounds. For example, the property's unsuitable due to its size or the type or the breed of the pet; or the property's unsuitable because it's too small, for example. So there's a range of non-exhaustive list of reasonable grounds in the bill, and I'm sure the committee will want to kick this around and I'm very open to sensible amendments around that.

There's also a range of technical changes to improve the clarity and efficiency of our tenancy laws. So the bill enables online lodgment of bonds, for example—and you would have thought that would be able to be done for a while, but indeed it isn't. So we have to legislate for that, so we are doing that. That will improve the customer experience. This is a small but good change: the bill will allow the Tenancy Tribunal to make decisions by reading the relevant papers instead of having the parties attend—

Arena Williams: Which ones are the bad changes?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, they're all good changes—they're all good changes. You might disagree, but they're all good changes. It's basically hearings on the papers rather than attending in person. Reduced costs. There's massive delays in the Tenancy Tribunal right now. This will help. It also confirms the long-held understanding that a landlord may prohibit a tenant from smoking indoors, which clarifies the law after some recent Tenancy Tribunal decisions to the contrary. I commend this bill to the House.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): The question is that the motion be agreed to.

Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Labour): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. Right throughout every single debate, every announcement, and every policy debate, this Government has not been upfront with New Zealand when it comes to housing. They have been disingenuous, and this bill is yet another example—the second in the last two days. There are aspects of this bill that makes sense. Their provisions to encourage landlords to take on tenants with pets, we support. The provisions to allow tenants to withdraw from a tenancy in the case of family violence, we support. But the core of this bill is that it is easier for landlords to dismiss tenants and make them homeless than it would be otherwise, and that is simply why we cannot support this bill.

But in order to fully understand this bill, it's important to understand the broader context of the housing debate and housing policy from this Government, and that is why I say they are being disingenuous. For the Minister to stand up in the House when introducing this bill and say that there is a consensus on increasing the supply, yet in seven months they have not made a single announcement that will lead to the increase in supply, or—i.e., in simple terms—the building of new houses. In fact, what is clear is that the policy changes that this Government has made will decrease and disincentivise and lead to fewer houses being built.

It is that simple, and that is exactly what this bill will do. When you consider this bill in the context of things like reintroducing interest deductibility, like what we've seen throughout—

Carl Bates: How will it make the building of houses less? Can you just walk us through that logic?

Hon KIERAN McANULTY: I've been asked for logic. How about you listen up? Here it is: taking away interest deductibility made an incentive to invest in new builds, and it was working. If you don't want to listen to this, listen to the evidence. As a result of moving that, we saw an increase in new builds and an increase in new homebuyers in the market.

Carl Bates: What—KiwiBuild?

Hon KIERAN McANULTY: And then—oh, he's changing the subject now. Typical—typical National MP. He's asked a question, gets presented with evidence, doesn't like the answer, and so changes the subject. But I'll tell you what, for the sake of everybody else, I'll continue.

We saw investment in new builds, rather than contesting between speculators and investors on existing stock. That was driving up house prices, and this bill does nothing to help with that. By changing that, what they've done is they're going to move investment away from new builds and increase speculation on existing stock. That means new homebuyers who were entering the market will not—exactly what happened the last time National were in Government.

So why is that important in the context of this bill? Because when people are able to be kicked out of their home easier, what's going to happen to them? They are going to look for more rentals, or they're going be homeless. Now, homelessness is an interesting part of this debate, because this Government has made it harder to access emergency housing and easier to be kicked out of Kāinga Ora properties. What is going to happen to them if there's no houses going to be built? They are going to be homeless.

Every way you look at this, this leads to more homeless people. The easier it is to kick people out of tenancies, the higher the likelihood that the homeless rate will increase, and it's very simple. They can holler, they can bicker, they can shout, and they can heckle, but they actually have nothing to refute the fact that their policies last time increased homelessness and increased house prices, and we saw a drop in the build of new builds, of affordable builds, and of social housing.

They follow exactly the same policies, and now they argue that it's going to be a different outcome. It's rubbish, it is disingenuous, and that is the core point of my speech. It is that they are telling the New Zealand public that something is going to happen that actually isn't, because all evidence and all experience shows that what they're saying is simply not true. What they have done is they have packaged this up with the nice and fluffy bits, like the pet bonds—and did you notice how the Minister focused on that for much of his speech? Because he knows the guts of this bill is actually going to be unpopular and that Kiwis can see through it, and they know that this bill—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member's time has expired.

TAMATHA PAUL (Green—Wellington Central): Tēnā koe, Madam Speaker. So today, the Government is introducing dramatic changes to rental laws in Aotearoa, and I want to be very clear about what these changes mean for ordinary New Zealanders.

Hon Member: Lower rents!

TAMATHA PAUL: Lower rents? I'll get back to you on how that actually goes as a renter. At a time where homelessness is increasing and more people are rough sleeping on the streets and in their cars; at a time where public housing projects for thousands of homes are being cancelled and delayed because those people cannot guarantee sustainable funding; at a time where families are trying to raise their families in motels and backpackers, where you have 16 people overcrowding in three-bedroom houses; and where children are routinely admitted to hospital because their homes are making them sick, because they are that mouldy and that damp that our Government has chosen to prioritise making it easier for landlords to kick tenants out of their own homes, not building more houses, not committing to sustainable funding to allow for more housing to be built, not making renting more secure or reducing the discrimination that renters face when trying to find a home, but making it easier for landlords to kick people out of their homes with no reason at all.

Because regardless of whether you have been the best tenant in the world, regardless of the value you have added to your home by maintaining it or even improving it, and regardless of whether your whānau has settled into the communities that you have built roots in, your landlord can kick you out for no reason at all. And this is on top of the billions of dollars of tax cuts that this Government is giving to landlords. It makes me wonder who is being served by this Government. Is it purely landlords?

What else do you expect when you elect a leader of a Government who owns seven houses at a time where people can't even make their rent? Minister Bishop would have you believe that good tenants don't get kicked out. And this is a statement by a Minister that is so deeply out of touch with the reality for average New Zealanders, because I put out a call asking good tenants to share times when they had been unfairly evicted, and I received over 500 responses in less than 24 hours. I want to share—

Carl Bates: How many of them were from Green Party members?

TAMATHA PAUL: Oh, you wish you had this level of social media engagement. The stories included this one: "I lived alone."—true story; first one there. Next one: "I lived alone, paid rent on time, kept my home tidy, cosy, and maintained. Worked full-time as a senior analyst in a Government ministry. My landlord threatened me with eviction on multiple occasions for the following reasons: asking her to lodge my bond, asking to move in on the date that was set out in my rental tenancy agreement, keeping a small compost bin, and asking for the full 48-hours' notice of inspection."

Here's another story: "My children had 12 homes by the age of 14. Many of them were houses that the landlord was selling or I chose to go into other houses, as they were better suited, to find out that they would be sold in six months' time."

This can't be the country that we're living in where every single housing avenue for ordinary New Zealanders, whether that is private rentals or public housing, is insecure, unaffordable, and unattainable.

And the consequence of kicking people out for no good reason is this: constantly having to pay moving companies to move houses multiple times in a year—if you can even afford a moving company; if you can't afford a moving company, you have to move the stuff yourself, which is impossible, impractical, and unaffordable for seniors and for people with disabilities; and you have to continuously re-enrol your kids in different schools because your new rental is in a different school zone. Moving those kids around schools is extremely unsettling for them and makes it harder for them to make friends and achieve in school. It means people are less confident in enforcing their rights and it means worse health impacts and costs to our already under-resourced public health system.

I'll close by saying this: renters deserve better and I have no doubt that they will rise up and kick this Government out in two years' time for these actions.

CAMERON LUXTON (ACT): Thank you, Madam Speaker. We've heard tonight a lot about people leaving tenancies, despite not wishing to, in circumstances where landlords have given them notice to leave. We live in a country which is sparsely populated. The only reason we have got a shortage of housing is because of decisions made by Government that make it harder to build and provide housing to each other.

The coalition is committed to easing access to housing for over 1.7 million New Zealanders by removing barriers to rental supply and incentivising landlords to get back into providing to the rental market. This bill affects slightly under a third of our population. And ensuring Kiwis have access to housing is the first step in providing a future where all people and pets have a safe and happy home.

The previous Government sought to increase hurdles in the housing sector, causing many of our landlords to exit the market. The amendments made today are sensible changes that work to fix that. This is a positive for landlords and tenants alike. These changes are part of the Government's plan to create a well-functioning property rental market. This ensures New Zealanders have a greater ability to access rental properties. To do this, we use all the tools we can to increase supply and make sure landlords and tenants feel represented in the changes we make today.

ACT has been fundamental in ensuring landlords and tenants can leave a fixed tenancy by reversing changes made by the previous Government. This allows a landlord or tenant to give notice to end a tenancy up to 90 days but no less than 21 days before the expiry of a fixed-term tenancy. This bill reinstates the 90-day no-cause termination for periodic tenancies, and returning landlords notice period to 42 days in specific circumstances. And good news for tenants: we will increase the amount of notice that a tenant gives to end a periodic tenancy to 42 days as well.

This Government is introducing pet bonds, because we know that there are tenants out there who are more than willing to pay a bit extra so they can live with the pets they know and love. Anyone who has tried to rent in our major cities knows how impossible it is to find a place that is pet friendly. Approximately 64 percent of New Zealand households own at least one pet, and more than half of those remaining would like to get a pet. We are enabling you to have pets in rentals by ensuring landlords feel protected from some of the risks of sharing their housing.

We are modernising our residential tenancy practices by including a range of changes to improve the clarity and efficiency of the Act. The bill proposes changes for the tenancy bonds, as we heard from the Minister, so that they can be lodged online, and maybe you won't need to chase your landlord up, as the previous Green member pointed out, but that should never be the case. We want to see responsible landlords in this country, as well as enabling some decisions in the Tenancy Tribunal to be made on papers, rather than dragging everybody in with expensive in-person hearing costs. Finally, this will allow the Tenancy Tribunal to process cases with much less of a delay.

We are making it easier for people to have a safe home to live in. I am excited to see this bill before the House. Fundamentally, this legislation is about making it easier for one Kiwi to offer another a place to call home. It is a rejection of the Opposition's cheap campaign to pit landlords and tenants against each other. I commend this bill to the House.

ANDY FOSTER (NZ First): Thanks, Madam Speaker. Look, we've heard quite a lot of hyperbole already in this debate and how radical this discussion that we're having is, but the reality is that we've actually had this discussion before in this House, probably not that long ago, when the roles were reversed and the direction of the legislation was reversed, so it's not particularly radical. This is something which was signalled quite clearly in the campaign and signalled quite clearly in the coalition agreement that this was the thing that the Government was going to do, and the Government is doing exactly what it said.

I look across the House there and say that you guys should try that, because it would have done you a lot better than some of the things that you did actually do when there were a lot of hidden agendas that you didn't tell the public about and you then proceeded to embark upon.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Not "you", Mr Foster. Don't use the word "you".

ANDY FOSTER: Oh, sorry, Madam Speaker; it wasn't you—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: It's OK. Keep going.

ANDY FOSTER: We've been accused of being disingenuous by the Hon Kieran McAnulty, but this is very, very clear. This is exactly what we said we were going to do and it's exactly what we are doing.

It's interesting that when you read the regulatory impact statement, there is clear difference between the submissions which were made by the landlords and people representing landlords and people representing the tenants—clear difference between those two parties about what the best arrangements are between them.

It's also clear that the advice that we're getting actually is nuanced and there is no parallel universe to test the advice and say, "Well, if you do it this way, it's going to work better than this way." or "If you do it this way, it's going to work better." So this one is a balancing act. Obviously, on that side of the House, they're falling on one side of the argument; on this side of the House, we're falling on the other side.

But the great thing here is what we're going to do is we're going to go out to the public with this piece of legislation and we'll give the opportunity for the public to have their say. What I hope is instead of going backwards and forwards and backwards and forwards, somewhere we might have the collective wisdom to be able to find the right arrangement.

Because the reality is that the vast majority—if we had good tenants and good landlords, we wouldn't need to be involved in this at all. The vast majority of people are good tenants and good landlords, but there are some who are not. Sometimes the tenant needs to be protected against the landlord; sometimes the landlord needs to be protected against the tenant.

We heard over there from the Green Party that so often, tenants are kicked out for no reason. But as a landlord, why would you kick a good tenant out? What is the purpose of doing that? If they're a good tenant, they're paying their rent, they're not damaging your property, why would you kick them out? That is completely stupid and is against your best interest.

Look, we know that the Labour Party didn't set out to demonise landlords, but the reality is you look at the kind of legislation they've passed, you look at the approach they've taken, and time and time again from that side of the House, we're hearing the arguments against the deduction of interest against the cost of running a business. Every other business is able to do that, but poor landlords, they're not able to do it, according to that side of the House—there's something wrong with that.

But while they probably didn't set out to demonise the landlords, what it looks like is that's exactly what they are doing. You know, the funny thing is that what landlords are doing is they've responded to that and they have withdrawn from the market. The funny thing is that what that has done is it has driven up rental costs, so it has actually not been in the best interests of the tenants. So what I'm saying is that we need to find a balance and find a way through this, and that is exactly what the idea of the legislation is to do, because it opens up the conversation again to be had.

A good tenant is worth their weight in gold to a landlord. It gives you security. It means that you know that the hard-earned money that you put into that property is going to be looked after well. It means you know that there is going to be a secure income coming against that property. I cannot see why a good tenant will be kicked out by a good landlord. The legislation which we're bringing in really is about dealing with the problem relationships which there are from time to time, and if all relationships were good, we wouldn't need to be involved in this. The problem is that they are not.

The debate has been had, and, sadly, we're all going to have to do it all over again, so my appeal to submitters and my appeal to us in this House is to see if we can find a middle ground that is a sustainable way forward for both landlords and tenants and for "New Zealand Inc.", because if we don't do it, it is not going to be good for anybody.

The final thing I'd like to say, in the last few seconds I've got—Kieran McAnulty talked about house building. The reason that house building has dropped off is a very simple one. It's the economy—the cost of building has gone up like that. The value of houses went down like that. What do you expect to happen? Lots of developers have pulled out of the market simply because they cannot make the numbers work. Similarly, a lot of landlords have pulled out because they can't make the numbers work with the kind of regime that is in place at the moment and without that interest deductibility. I commend this bill to the House.

MARIAMENO KAPA-KINGI (Te Pāti Māori—Te Tai Tokerau): Kia ora, Madam Speaker. I rise to speak against this bill. Changes to the Residential Tenancies Act are dangerous for Māori. The changes would, for one, reintroduce 90-day, no-cause terminations for periodic tenancies. This supports landlords' power to end a tenancy without requiring a specific reason. This is dangerous for our people, given that there is a higher proportion of Māori who reside in rental properties and social housing.

The research shows that Māori report higher rates of movement between homes, at 8.7 percent compared to 5 percent of New Zealanders. The reality of this is Māori moving five times within five years. Creating changes to the Act will likely make living conditions within the homes of our people more difficult, less manageable, and, ultimately, unstable for our tamariki. Anyone with a whānau, raising children, will know the difficulty of having to move, especially with young ones. Our whānau make it work, but they shouldn't have to.

In Tai Tokerau, nearly 40 percent of the population identify as being of Māori descent. We have some of the highest rates in the country for our Māori population, and at home we are facing increasing numbers of our community accessing social housing. We cannot reduce this, we cannot aid in a transition into stable housing, when we continue to place more power into the hands of landlords. The Minister of Housing, Chris Bishop, claims that the changes to the Act will encourage landlords back into the rental property market. I must implore the Minister: is this the most effective way to improve the housing market? I must then question whether the Minister understands the obligation as a partner of the Te Tiriti o Waitangi, when he continuously supports choices that he knows will negatively impact on Māori communities.

Of Māori in Te Tai Tokerau, the median age is 27 years of age. It is difficult, country-wide, for our younger generation of first-home buyers to enter the housing market, given that it is predominantly the older generation who remain in a position of homeownership. Our young Māori in Te Tai Tokerau face major challenges when looking to transition from rental properties into the housing market. To improve this market, our focus should not centre around enhancing conditions for landlords. We should, simply put, be providing quality housing at affordable rates. Regardless, age factors cannot be attributed as the sole reason for lower rates of Māori homeownership. Intergenerational wealth plays a major role in this process, and considering our continued experiences of colonisation, it is unsurprising that Māori remain excluded from spaces. The figures recorded in 2018 are reflective of this. Only 31 percent of Māori were in a position of homeownership, compared to 57.9 percent of New Zealanders.

It is evident the group of people whom this Government prioritises, and it has been evident since the beginning of their term. Again, Māori are disregarded, and, in actual fact, the poor are. What the Government illustrates to us is that we are not worth a single bill, a single amendment or repeal, unless our failure is their financial success. I do not at all commend this to the House. Tēnā koe, Madam Speaker.

JOSEPH MOONEY (National—Southland): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. I appreciate the opportunity to take a call on the Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill. I rise in support of this bill.

This reverses changes made by the last Government, which were no doubt well intentioned and trying to assist renters, but actually had quite the opposite effect; a classic example of the unintended consequences principle, which is often seen in this House, and the implications flow out into our country from well-meaning decisions that unfortunately aren't well considered, and don't take into account all factors, and, in some cases, have effects that can't be foreseen by anyone. This, however, was an impact that was foreseen.

What has happened is that this, effectively, is an example of the perfect being the enemy of the good. So, trying to protect renters but not taking into account the reality of human nature, and the reality of conditions for people who own houses and need to rent them to others. There are 1.7 million renters in New Zealand; 80 percent of those renting rent from the private market—not from the Government—from the private market. It's over half a million homes that are provided by the private market in New Zealand. That's something that the Government cannot do—the Government is not in a position to be able to provide those homes. The regulatory environment needs to be structured in such a way that people are willing to rent their houses, and the no-cause termination—or the periodic tenancies—that we've seen have had an impact that has been quite extraordinary in my own region in Queenstown, as well as other places in the country. Literally, it became a crisis where people were unable to find a house. People were sleeping in their vans, sleeping in cars, sleeping in all sorts of places around the region that were literally unsafe.

Now, people had houses, but they were not in a position to rent them out, or not willing to rent them out. So, I'll just give you an example. This is a fairly common one that was recounted to me. People often have a holiday home in the region—

Hon Member: They live in Arrowtown, and they have a bach.

JOSEPH MOONEY: No, they don't just live in Arrowtown, they have a holiday home in the region. They used to be quite willing to rent those out for some of the year, when they didn't need that house. They wanted to be able to come on over usually during the summer season to spend roughly a few weeks or a month in that holiday home—something that they worked hard for much of their lives for to be able to purchase and have. Because of this change to the legislation, they are unable to do that. That meant that a lot of people who would otherwise have had access to the house throughout the year, and many of them—people who worked a seasonal job were unable to have those houses. That means that people were literally living in their vans as a consequence.

To be clear, this bill will not solve everything. The reality is we need a lot more houses, and that is something that the Government is doing with the fast-track legislation, which I know that the Opposition is also opposing. But the aim is to actually try and get a lot more housing into our market, because ultimately we want people to own their own home, and that is something that young people, I think, aspire to. We want our young people in this country to have that opportunity to purchase their own home, make a life for themselves, and to have a place that they can call their own. But, in the interim, they need to rent, we need them to be able to have places to rent, and we need to have landlords who are willing to rent that to them.

Another example is a survey done in Queenstown: over 70 percent of businesses cited housing for workers as an important issue for their businesses, with one in three saying that housing represented the biggest barrier for achieving optimum staffing levels. They advocated for urgent solutions, I note. As Minister Bishop spoke to before, the previous Minister of Housing from the previous Government came down to Queenstown, was told this was an urgent issue that needed to be solved, and that though, again, wouldn't solve everything, addressing this issue around these no-cause terminations, or the lack of, would help solve that problem—literally, people would put more houses on the market. However, the last Government didn't address that, and I'm very pleased that this Government is doing so.

I'll just make one last comment on rent controls that I was speaking about earlier. I have to say Sweden is an example of rent controls: it takes nine years for someone to get a house there—so, again, a well-intentioned policy that has not worked.

ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): Madam Speaker, thank you. It's a good day for mega-landlords. If you are one of the 900 people or legal persons who own the 22,100 homes which are owned by this special class of large property investor, then 90-day evictions clauses—that's the policy for you. You'll be excited by this bill, but for everyone else, this will have a big impact on our communities, on not only housing but on education and on the ability for people to put down roots into their communities and to make a contribution. So this is not the bill that this House should be voting through tonight. This, in fact, is something that all members of this House should reject, because it does not do anyone any favours, not just the renters, for whom their rights are being taken away by this bill but everyone who has to live alongside people who are being disenfranchised in the very homes that they live in and in the places which they call home, which are meant to be safe for not only them but for their children. This is not well-thought legislation. It is also being rushed through, and it's something which I hope we will see some wisdom about later and come back to this House and amend.

The problem with this bill is that it's also part of a suite of bigger packages which go alongside rules which take away renters' rights and make it easier for landlords to get rid of tenants that they see as problematic. That together, we've heard from the Prime Minister in question time today, is meant to put downward pressure, as he said it was called, on rents. Now, the problem with this is that the Reserve Bank, the Ministry of Housing and Urban Development, and Treasury have all presented reports which are publicly available which say that, actually, rents are not determined by downward pressure on landlords' costs or by taxation but they are in fact determined by the amount of money that people have to spend on them—by people's incomes. So making that claim repeatedly in this House that this kind of legislation will bring rents down is simply false. It's not true that this kind of legislation, which would see more people out on the street, which would see more vulnerable families displaced from their houses and will ultimately increase homelessness, is the answer to rents.

Grant McCallum: Yours increased rents—your policies increased rents.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Not the word "you".

ARENA WILLIAMS: What is the answer? It's putting more funding into Kāinga Ora and the ability to build more houses. But instead we have heard an obstinate refusal from that Government to put any of the extra funding that's required into Kāinga Ora to build more homes. In fact, those programmes are paused, and it's that kind of decision making which is short-sighted and we should see for what it is, which is taking away renters' rights with no ability to provide the housing that New Zealanders need to live the kind of lives that they want their parliamentarians to be enacting for them.

This kind of thing leads to bigger problems. For people who are not renting, we should see this as leading to further absenteeism in schools. We should see this as the kind of movement around communities which displaces people and stops parents from being able to keep their children in the school which they had started in and also keeps parents from being able to contribute to community sport, to their churches, to their local organisations, which need volunteers but will not have them if people have to constantly move around.

You heard from my colleague Mariameno Kapa-Kingi, who said that, actually, this is an issue of equity too, that the people who are most frequently displaced in Aotearoa New Zealand are whānau Māori, that these people find it the hardest to find long-term, secure, warm, dry homes. These are exactly the people who we should be supporting into those homes, so that they can continue to make a contribution to their communities, so that they can put down roots and find the kinds of lives that we want them to be able to live.

But instead, this kind of legislation says, "No, we don't care about that. Instead, we're going to prioritise the 900 people and legal persons who own 22,100 homes between them." That is the size of the city of Nelson, owned by mega-landlords in New Zealand, and this kind of policy makes it easier and cheaper for them to run that like a business. Housing should not be treated like a business. Housing is a right, and the renters whose rights are being taken away by the National Government should hold them to account at the next election. Consider these changes alongside those housing changes at Kāinga Ora which are actively promoting tenants being kicked out of their homes. These changes are not going to make a positive difference in our society, and I do not commend this bill.

PAULO GARCIA (National—New Lynn): We do need to use every tool that we have in New Zealand to increase housing supply. One of these tools is to incentivise or to encourage people with more than one house to enter or re-enter the property rental market and to increase the number of properties that are available for rent. It really boggles the mind to propose that when a good tenant has found a good home with a good landlord, the landlord would want to use any opportunity, willy-nilly, to get rid of that tenant.

The Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill focuses on that very situation where it may be that a tenant has demonstrated that they are unable to maintain the tenancy agreement that they have signed into. The Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill focuses on providing the landlord with the opportunity for no-cost terminations. Now, whenever the 90-day, no-cost termination is mentioned, there is that reaction: that this will be used willy-nilly to get tenants out of homes. But, again—if we pause for a moment—good tenants will always be in demand by persons who consider themselves landlords and offer their properties that they have worked hard to hold and offer to other people to live in. There is that responsibility to maintain that household for the tenant. Reintroducing the 90-day, no-cost termination for periodic tenancies is really just providing an opportunity for landlords to exit, should they need to, and, again, it is not something that a reasonable mind would consider to be there for willy-nilly use.

Also, providing landlords with the opportunity to end a fixed-term tenancy without requiring any specific further reason—it's a fixed term. The term ends and the landlord can choose not to continue for another fixed term or to go into a periodic tenancy—this is restored to the landlord.

The amendment bill also addresses a major issue among New Zealanders, which is that Kiwi families are estimated to have around 64 percent of New Zealand households owning at least one pet and—this is very interesting—59 percent of people who don't have a pet would like to have a pet, and I am probably one of those. The restrictions on having a pet in a rental property are very complex, and what this bill tries to bridge is that idea of having pets in a house that may be destructive. We all know that dogs, when they're very young, will be trying their teeth out on everything that they can manage to find—and also cats, especially, who are wanting to run around.

So the bill provides for pet bonds and for more people with pets to have the opportunity to find good rental accommodation alongside their pets. I commend this bill to the House.

LEMAUGA LYDIA SOSENE (Labour—Māngere): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It's a real pleasure to rise and speak against this bill. Because the Government has signalled its strong support for landlords, it has chosen to ignore the longstanding work that Labour had delivered under our previous Government. But instead, it's chosen to make the choice that it will be rewarding landlords with $2.9 billion—and you would think that's a sufficient incentive; it goes further with this bill because it weakens the ability for tenants.

Many of our tenants across the motu will be very worried that the Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill doesn't provide the hope and also will add the stock availability for housing choices for people who are still on that rental ladder. In fact, reading through the bill, it will not provide a single rental property in the private rental market and it won't help tenants, and I'm going to just continue to stress that point. It actually weakens the ability for tenants. It provides them with uncertainty. Tenants across the board who don't have the current means, financial means, to step on to the property ladder; it makes that dream go further. The no-cause termination proposals are not about helping tenants; it actually proposes the opposite.

We heard Minister Seymour say the policy will fix the problem for tenants, but in actual fact due to landlords being given the ability that within pet clauses, that will actually help them. And the Minister quoted the rationale of these proposed changes that tenants will have the required benefit, and a better incentive for landlords would be to negotiate and critique and be able to offer their tenants or new tenants to be able to critique them, because they can now come in with a pet. We don't oppose that and it offers that closeness or option for that particular family or tenant.

We also heard Minister Bishop announce recently that the changes implemented quoting sensible pro-tenant changes to help increase the supply of rental properties. The reintroduction of the 90-day no-cause terminations for periodic changes means landlords can now go back to ending a periodic tenancy agreement without providing a single reason. Now, that's not going to assist many of the tenants across the motu. What does that do for the tenant? What pathway of certainty does it provide for families who are in a vulnerable situation?

I just want to quickly talk about a local example in Māngere. In my rohe, in my electorate, there are over 4,000 Kāinga Ora properties which provide housing choices for over 16,000 tenants. In the private rental market, there is also a number of thousands and we've seen some new dwellings of properties in our local area. But we also have other pressures of cost of living. And we've got a number of school principals that I have spoken to recently who are worried about tamariki being moved all over the motu because of the situation and the new bill. So it provides a myriad of issues for people in my local area.

I'm just going to quickly talk about an example of a tenant who moved into a property, who didn't because English was his second language. These are the types of problems that are caused when a tenant doesn't fully understand the obligation. The landlord had been quite kind and given him the opportunity to miss one week of rent, but that's $600. This bill will not give the confidence for that particular tenant because the landlord at any time can choose to end that tenancy without any specific reason. Labour opposes this bill.

GRANT McCALLUM (National—Northland): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Well, great news. This is great news: the war on landlords is coming to an end. Finally, we have some common sense coming back to our rental market. This is what the tenants require, and this is what the landlords require. Look, one of the early things we did was we've brought back into play the ability for people who run a business—like every other business—the ability to deduct interest as a business expense. That's the first thing we brought back to the table for landlords.

During the campaign, I got people coming up to me who were mum and dad investors, and this figure was something that was pointed out to me by one of my colleagues: 83 percent of rentals are owned by mum and dad investors—83 percent. These are the people that have worked hard, saving a few dollars for their retirement so they can enjoy themselves in their twilight years. They came up to me and showed me their little profit and loss account, and they were losing money under the previous Government. Losing money, going backwards—why? Because the previous Government declared war on them. They didn't care about landlords, and they didn't care about the fact that they were looking after themselves. Appalling!

So we're changing that, and it's desperately required. Then the other thing we're going to do now is actually allow people to have fixed-term tenancies. Well, actually, as was indicated by the member for Queenstown—well, Queenstown and the Southland area—when he pointed out that you couldn't do that because there weren't enough rentals available for the workers in a seasonal occupation like skiing for people to have places to stay. So what was happening? They were staying in cars and that sort of thing, which is just appalling—absolutely appalling—and not what we want to achieve.

But one of the actual real highlights of this bill—the real highlights—is the pet bonds. The pet bonds are the real big—they allow us to bring our pets so people can take pets into rentals, a really, really good thing to be able to do.

In fact, I can talk about pets. I've got a few of my own. I've got a dog called Mack and another dog called Bell, and they would love to be able to move into a rental, but they wouldn't have been allowed to under that Government. It would have been too hard. It would have been too hard. But, now, under this Minister, we're going to be able to bring them into a rental, and there's good terms around it. It's just what we require, right, and it makes for a much better outlook. It shows that we care about animals, on this side of the House. Believe it or not, we actually care.

Carl Bates: And people.

GRANT McCALLUM: And we care about the people—that's correct. That's right. Also, the other side of the House gets so very righteous about the fact that the State is the only one that can look after them, and you look at what they did to the market. What did they do to the rental market in New Zealand? I'll tell you what they did. They drove up the price of renting a house by 170 bucks a week. How does that help anybody? That is a disgrace. You should hang your heads in shame. An absolute disgrace. We are focused on actually allowing people to rent their houses, and there seems to be this view that good landlords want to kick out good tenants. Why? If you've got a good tenant, why would you want to kick them out?

Landlords are running a business. If you've got a good tenant in there, you want to look after them, which is another good reason for the pet bonds. The good tenants often have pets, and they want to be able to bring their pets into their houses.

It is great to get to the stage where we're finally going to allow landlords in this country to be given the respect that they deserve, particularly the mum and dad investors. We, on this side of the House, understand who they are, understand how important they are, and understand that they are looking after themselves. They're not going to rely and look on a Government to look after them; they want to look after themselves, and that's what we're about on this side of the House: personal responsibility and actually allowing people to get on and do business in a fair way. I commend this bill to the House.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill be now read a first time.

Ayes 68

New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Noes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a first time.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): The question is, That the Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill be considered by the Social Services and Community Committee.

Motion agreed to.

Bill referred to the Social Services and Community Committee.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): I declare the House in committee for consideration of the Immigration (Mass Arrivals) Amendment Bill and the Māori Fisheries Amendment Bill.

HOUSE IN COMMITTEE

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Members, the House is in committee on the Immigration (Mass Arrivals) Amendment Bill and the Māori Fisheries Amendment Bill.

IMMIGRATION (MASS ARRIVALS) AMENDMENT BILL

In Committee

Part 1 Applications for visas and entry permission

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): We come first to the Immigration (Mass Arrivals) Amendment Bill, and we begin with the debate on Part 1. Part 1 is the debate on clauses 4 to 6, "Applications for visas and entry permission". The question is that Part 1 stand part.

JAMES MEAGER (National—Rangitata): Point of order, Madam Chairperson. I seek leave for all provisions to be taken as one question.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Leave is sought for that intention. Is there any objection? There is objection.

Hon CHRIS PENK (Associate Minister of Immigration): Thank you, Madam Chair, and good evening to all members of this committee of the whole House. Representing my colleague and friend Erica Stanford in relation to this bill, I make just brief comment on the nature of Part 1, and, of course, I look forward to the discussion by members who are minded to contribute to the debate.

The spirit of Part 1 is very much around providing clarity where it does not currently exist in the Immigration Act. This is reference, of course, to the situation of what we call mass arrivals. So clause 4, then, is going to amend a situation where it's currently unclear whether members of a mass arrival group would be considered passengers. So just to define "passengers" in distinction from a group of mass arrivals, and that would go to, for example, the question of whether there were a rescue at sea and whether those human beings who were involved in that might be regarded as passengers or not. Therefore, the implications for that we'll see in further clauses, because, of course, the treatment of those within a mass arrival group is deliberately and significantly and importantly—but still humanely—different from those who are making an individual arrival and are able to apply for and, indeed, are required to apply for visas on their own individual terms.

Clause 5: again, there is a lack of clarity currently about whether members of a mass arrival group have the ability to apply for entry permission and a visa. They will, under this bill, have the ability to do so under clause 6(1), which is amending section 103(1) of the principal Act by inserting new paragraph (daa). That will oblige them to apply, and then the following clause, which is also amending section 103, will state that, effectively, if they haven't applied, then, nevertheless, they can be treated as though they had. It would be an anomaly to, essentially, privilege a mass arrival group in the event that they hadn't actually applied, and therefore had been denied such permission. So, with that, I welcome our discussion on Part 1.

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): Thank you, Madam Chair. I acknowledge that this is the first time the Minister's in the chair on a bill such as this. This is the bill that was started by the previous Labour Government—in fact, this is the Labour Party and the National Party colluding to diminish the rights of asylum seekers. Quite frankly, I'm yet to see the Labour Party come with a critical analysis of this bill and I look forward to their own contributions around the justification for a rights-diminishing bill.

I was keen, in Part 1, to touch on the "mass arrivals" definition, because one of the key pieces of feedback that we received from human rights advocates, from people who work directly with refugees and who work with asylum seekers was around the concerns around creating, effectively, two tiers of asylum seekers who have, effectively, different treatment by the system. So you would have the people who would be arriving, say, by plane, and then you would have, in this bill, a categorisation of people who would be arriving by boat.

It's difficult to not obviously allude to what's in Part 2, because Part 1 is about creating that category, but then it's about how those people get treated once they arrive. So I'm curious to understand, particularly since the Minister in the chair is new to this Government, what level of engagement he has had in this role since taking on the role with human rights advocates around, effectively, this notion that there's now a kind of two-tier system around how asylum seekers would be treated by the system, and whether he himself has actually engaged with human rights advocates, with people who work with asylum seekers, on this concern that has been raised in the select committee stage.

So that's my first question. I have other questions around the ability for the system to cope with mass arrivals per the definition used in this bill, but I'm really keen, first and foremost, to hear from the Minister around the level of engagement he's had with the sector, and particularly concerns around the two-tier categorisation of asylum seekers.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Ricardo Menéndez March.

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH: Righty-o. So I'm looking forward to the Minister taking notes and, again, looking forward to some critical engagement from the Labour Party on this issue, seeing as they raised some concerns. You're welcome to engage on this bill, so I'll allow the Minister to take some notes and get ready for his reply.

But one of the other things that I particularly wanted to unpack was the evidence that he had seen around whether this bill was actually needed, because, obviously, the bill identified in Part 1 the need to create a specific categorisation of people arriving by boat. One of the key debates that has been playing in the media and, actually, that people who work with asylum seekers have raised time and time again has been the issue that, actually, the Government and successive Governments haven't actually been upfront with the public around the need for this legislation. In fact, this is something that other parties that are now in Government and the National Party in Opposition raised as a key concern, around the need for this legislation in the first place.

One of the key concerns that has been raised by human rights advocates, by people who work with asylum seekers, from former refugees themselves, was the fact that if there were concerns around a large group of asylum seekers coming in, then one of the key priorities could have been resourcing the judicial system to ensure that they could be processed. Instead, we're creating this whole other categorisation in Part 1.

So I'm also keen to get a sense of the evidence base for this bill, and particularly the evidence base for the need to create a categorisation of mass arrivals and whether this is based on evidence, or, say, for example, fearmongering and dog-whistling. If the Minister does have evidence around this, will he be able to finally, for once—because the previous Government wasn't able to do that—present the level of evidence around the need for this legislation and the categorisation around mass arrivals? To be honest, this idea that this is simply a tidy-up or closing some loopholes around, for example, people arriving by cruise ship etc., isn't good enough, because Part 1 isn't in isolation; we're seeing this in Part 2 in terms of the rights-diminishing stuff.

So I haven't got an answer on the stuff around engagement with the sector. I'm reiterating the need for the public to have confidence that this bill is based on evidence, and particularly the concerns that have been raised by many stakeholders around a two-tier treatment of asylum seekers.

Hon CHRIS PENK (Associate Minister of Immigration): Thank you, Madam Chair. I thank the member for his engagement, and, indeed, I know he has been diligently engaged in the legislative process. In terms of my own engagement, I think, in addition to being able to point to the excellent advice that I have received along with other ministerial colleagues in relation to this which reflects their close attention to the legislative process, obviously I've made myself aware, in preparation for this exercise, of some of the key arguments in relation to human rights aspects particularly. These are the issues, of course, that have rightly been raised at the select committee process and also, more recently, in a letter from representatives of a number of different civil society groups, many of whom I have great respect for. I cite, for example, the Refugee Alliance, English Language Partners, Asylum Seekers Support Trust, Aotearoa Resettled Community Coalition, and the likes. That's a letter addressed to Minister Stanford and Associate Minister Costello, but, nevertheless, between that and the reply made by Casey Costello, obviously I've taken note of those and some of the arguments.

I acknowledge, for example, the argument that it would be desirable for the situation of a mass arrival group to be monitored by some independent authority, and the letter from Casey Costello did, of course, point out that the Ombudsman already has this role. There is independence in the role of the Ombudsman, being an Officer of Parliament, and therefore constitutionally separate from the Government of the day. That's a long-recognised and exercised role that that person has and, as I say, does carry out in relation to other situations of detention, if I can just use that word more broadly for a moment.

Likewise, I've been engaged, and, importantly, the Government as a whole has been engaged, in other concerns and questions raised by groups of civil society and advocates for those who might be in a mass arrival group situation—for example, around consistency with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act; also, in relation to international legal obligations; and if I think about particularly—or at least in the starting position—access to legal justice, access to legal advice, access to representation, the ability to have one's time in court. Of course, there is nothing in this bill that precludes that, and, indeed, it's the case that with the extended time frames that are being allowed, actually, a quality of representation is more likely to be provided within that four- or seven- or 28-day time frame, as the case may be, because there would be opportunity for proper advice to be given for the judge deciding how to rule in the case of the situation of the mass arrival group. They can do that in the time frame really that is needed and not make a rushed decision that actually might be to the detriment of the mass arrival group.

So, for all these reasons, I hope the member will agree—whether or not he agrees with the conclusion that I've reached and that the Government's reached on the submissions made by such people—that I have and we have engaged with the substance of the arguments that have been made.

I would just point out in relation to what's characterised as a two-tier system. I mean, admittedly there is a distinction, a discrimination—but not, I would say, in the ugly sense of that word. But it's a meaningful distinction based on the fact that a mass arrival inevitably would be by sea because it's not possible physically, in most modes of transportation by air, to have arrived in such a large group after such a long period of time. The fact of a large group and the fact of a long period of time at sea would indicate a particular vulnerability and a particular set of characteristics of a mass arrival group that would make it appropriate for them to be treated as one whole entity—albeit with individual circumstances needing to be taken account of within that.

Likewise in terms of some of the complex needs that one might have after some weeks at sea. Of course, if they're arriving in New Zealand, our geographical isolation being what it is, inevitably it would be after quite some time that they'd been away. So the requirement to house them in a way that would be secure—but not in prison-like conditions, I hasten to add—is a characteristic particularly that belongs to mass arrival groups that would not attach naturally to smaller numbers of individual humans arriving by some other method. Madam Chair, if I am able to continue?

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Yes—the Hon Chris Penk.

Hon CHRIS PENK: Thank you. Then I will simply answer what I think was the final point that the member had made in which he was seeking response, which is around evidence. Of course, it is difficult to provide evidence of the need of something that hasn't happened. And by the time it's happened, it's too late and we can't be legislating in urgency within in the 28-period that's now going to be allowed. It's always unexpected that there would be mass arrivals—it's not an everyday event—but one doesn't expect the unexpected, by definition, but, of course, one has to be prepared for it.

So to provide a mechanism whereby, in that worst-case scenario, there is a legal mechanism safely to provide a reasonable process, humane conditions, and sort of a maximum extent of additional time, seems, to us, a sensible precaution. Noting, of course, that within those time frames it's still the case that the cases would need to be decided as soon as possible, just with extra time should it be needed.

Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū): Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm looking forward to speaking to the amendments in Part 2 of the bill, and we'll have a few things to say about the content of the Government's Amendment Paper. I'll also be bringing to the committee three additional amendments that have been developed in conversation with the former refugee and human rights community over the last few weeks. And the committee will see proposals that that community has made to improve the bill. I'll be speaking to those in in Part 2.

But I did want to say, at this point in the debate, that Labour is supporting this bill, because the prospect of a mass arrival is a low-probability event—probably a very low-probability event—but not a no-probability event. And the experience of a large steel-hold vessel carrying a large number of asylum seekers arriving in Canada and the more recent experience of, again, a large vessel making its way towards New Zealand, that rather spookily disappeared off the radar screen, is enough evidence to suggest that New Zealand could, one day, face a mass-arrival scenario. And it's in our interests, as a country, and in the interests of asylum seekers who did arrive in that kind of scenario that there is an orderly and humane system in place to deal with them.

There are questions to do with security. There are questions to do with the health of the people who are arriving and, most importantly, that their legal rights are respected, and that due process and legal representation are provided for with enough time and in a way that all of those matters can be dealt with in an orderly way. That's why we're supporting this bill.

If it wasn't for the four substantive additional safeguards that are contained in the Minister's Amendment Paper, we would not be supporting it at the committee stage.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Your party introduced this bill as it was. Come on! Fuck. You voted for the bill without those amendments.

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: I'm not sure—[Interruption] I'm not sure I can ever remember someone who has displayed such incredible self-righteousness as what I have observed in the Chamber this evening from that member. I'm absolutely stunned at the display.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The Hon Phil Twyford, I don't think we'll start making comments to other people of a personal nature like that, but you're very welcome to carry on your speech about the legislation.

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: So I look forward to the rest of the debate, but I wanted to make it clear that that's the basis on which we are supporting the bill. Notwithstanding what I've said, there is an argument to be had simply about the notion of detaining asylum seekers. We have an obligation under international law to treat asylum seekers, convention refugees, just as humanely as we do quota refugees who come here through the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. Their rights are clearly set down under international law that we are bound by. And what's important about this debate is, I think, for us to do some soul searching about the safeguards and the protections that are built into this legislation to ensure that people who are being deprived of their liberty suffer the minimum necessary detention, that the conditions of treatment and detention are protected and independently monitored, and that all of the administration of the system that's been put in place is subject to appropriate judicial controls. And those are the matters that I look forward to debating in Part 2.

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): It's interesting what the member Phil Twyford, just now, from Labour calls self-righteousness. It's actually the views of human rights advocates, asylum seeker - led organisations, and, literally, I would challenge any member in this House who is supporting this bill to name a single human rights advocate or organisation that works for refugees or asylum seekers who is supporting this bill.

Let's make it clear: the bill as introduced was introduced by Labour, so Labour are now saying that they no longer support it without the amendments is them realising that there's no single organisation that works directly with refugees and asylum seekers who submitted on it who say that this is a good bill. In fact, a large number of organisations who work with the people impacted by this bill question the need for this bill. So my question to the Minister, because I thought this was about not just platitudes but about actually questioning the Minister, is: can the Minister name specific groups that he may have engaged with since taking on the role, because I do make the distinction—right? We had the select committee stage under the previous Government, and I'm keen to understand the change in tone and position from the National Party as it indicates to me that perhaps there was some engagement or further information. So was there a specific stakeholder organisation—a human rights advocate group that works directly with people—who told him about the need for this bill?

The second part was that I want to pick up on the comments. The Minister in the chair talked about and acknowledged how this bill does create discrimination—I mean, he used the word—and I'm curious to know whether that discrimination is rights-diminishing, because, ultimately, we are creating completely different ways of processing asylum-seeking claims. One of them includes, basically, detention and has a quite a specific set of rules, effectively, about how that's going to be carried out. So is he sure that, for example, that level of discrimination that comes from creating a whole definition around mass arrivals doesn't risk actually compounding harm for the people who he himself actually recognised come from experiences that none of us could have ever imagined—or most of us, I think, would never imagine? We've certainly had former members of Parliament who have gone through those experiences, some of whom were actually from the Labour Party, who I could see were quite upset at the time when the bill was introduced.

But I would say that it's important for the Minister to make it clear as to whether he thinks that additional discrimination for people who are fleeing genocide or who are fleeing some of the most harrowing things one could ever imagine are actually rights-enhancing or rights-diminishing, because I know that he talked about the ability for the system to process asylum-seeking claims. I do have some questions in Part 2 more specifically to that. But, ultimately, the premise of this bill is about the chicken and egg situation: is it about needing to create a whole mass arrivals definition, or is it about resourcing, for example, the community organisations and the judiciary, who are the ones who can ensure that those asylum-seeking claims can be processed quickly?

Hon Shane Jones: Security—safety.

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH: And I hear Shane Jones doing his usual kind of parrot-style—he just yelled across the Chamber about safety. But the Minister himself couldn't actually elucidate specific risks or evidence that created the need for this bill.

I think it's not good enough to just have the Minister say, "Look, at one point maybe we will have a mass arrival in the future.", and, if so, if there's no specific date line or no specific time that we think those are going to increase, there's therefore plenty of time to actually do all the other things that the Casey report talked about and that human rights organisations talked about. So if there is no imminent great risk of mass arrivals coming, then the question is: why didn't the Government can this rights-diminishing bill and do the right thing by working directly with the organisations who work with asylum seekers and who work with former refugees?

I would encourage the members from the Government who are just doing seal clapping to take this bill seriously, because it affects the people in our communities who have actually lived through the absolute worst, most harrowing experiences in their lives. I look forward to the Minister actually presenting us with a bit more robust back-up around why this is required and—most importantly—giving us the guarantee that the discrimination he mentioned won't be rights-diminishing.

Hon CHRIS PENK (Associate Minister of Immigration): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I believe, on the subject of engagement, I've referred to the discussion that's been had effectively through the excellent select committee work in relation to this. And, as I say, Government Ministers, including the Minister of Immigration herself and both associates, including me, have been made well aware of the views of certain groups that have written in, and, as I say, in the case of our colleague and friend Associate Minister Costello, have responded to that. I've given an example of some of those discussion points back and forth.

In terms of whether the distinction between a mass arrival group and individual arrivals is reasonable, I believe it is. I believe that it's proportionate, but also more particularly that it recognises the particular complexity of the situation that mass arrival groups face. Again, that goes to numbers, it goes to length of time prior to arrival. There may be health conditions associated with those periods of time spent at sea and so forth. Of course, whether the measures and the particular time frames, for example, are proportionate and reasonable is the subject for debate under Part 2, because, of course, that's where those provisions are contained.

And in relation to whether human rights are diminished by the measures of the bill, of course in any human rights discussion it's necessary to consider not only proportionality, which I've already referenced, but the balancing. So we're balancing, yes, issues of security, geopolitical matters that may feed into the likelihood of such situations arising. Of course, it's impossible without a crystal ball to know exactly what that may entail at what particular time, but suffice to say the issues arising in the South China Sea and the Pacific Ocean—the Asia-Pacific region—tend to be getting more complex, not less. I simply make the point that I don't know when my house might burn down by fire, but I'm going to get insurance anyway. I think that we need not to be able to predict with exactitude the nature or timing of an event to be wanting to prepare ourselves against the possibility of it happening.

Of course, though, we talk about rights in relation to human rights but also responsibilities too, and so the responsibility of the State to ensure that we have humane and appropriate processes must be seen as a relevant consideration, alongside the rights that, of course, all humans enjoy, regardless of immigration or refugee status. And I think this bill strikes a good balance on that, and I think in Part 2 we'll be able to have a good conversation about exactly where those lines are drawn.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Members, the time has come for me to report progress.

Progress to be reported.

House resumed.

REPORT OF COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE HOUSE

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Mr Speaker, the committee has considered the Immigration (Mass Arrivals) Amendment Bill and reports progress. The committee has also considered the Māori Fisheries Amendment Bill and reports no progress. I move, That the report be adopted.

Motion agreed to.

Report adopted.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): Those bills are set down for further consideration in committee next sitting day. Members, the House is adjourned until 2 p.m. tomorrow. Have a good evening.

The House adjourned at 10 p.m.