General Debate

GENERAL DEBATE

STEVE ABEL (Green): I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. We had the extraordinary privilege just recently—in fact, on Sunday and Monday—to drive down to the Waikato from Tāmaki-makau-rau Auckland. A group of us from the Greens were going down there for the koroneihana. On the way, we visited Waikeria Prison. As you drive through the landscape of our nation with some idea of the blanket of history across that nation, you cannot help but get a sense of each turn, of each hill, of each river, and of each place name as having some sort of reference to, or echo of, the history of this nation: Redoubt Road, Ōrākau, the Great South Road, Cameron Road. These places, down as you enter the Waikato, when you know something of the history of the land confiscation there, can't help but make us think of what went on and the means by which we ended up in this country.

I, as a Pākehā New Zealander, have a great sense of being blessed to have been born in this country. That blessing stems not from the benefits and the privilege I enjoy in our society, which are real. There is a sense that those benefits are achieved by two means in this country, either by the means of the founding agreement on which our country was built, Te Tiriti o Waitangi, or by the means of that other thing that also happened here, which was the raupatu, the confiscation. By hook or by crook or by deceit, by the bayonet, and by the musket, that land was taken from those who currently resided there at the time, tangata whenua Māori.

My journey to recognising the great value and privilege I enjoy having been born in this country and the appreciation of Te Tiriti o Waitangi comes from knowing that every time we lean into Te Tiriti, we actually assert a principle of nationhood that is based on legitimacy. And every time we choose to not lean into that Treaty, we choose a version of nationhood that is based on the spoils of war in a sense.

When we do not know the history of our own country, it is a terrible barrier to being a New Zealander in the deepest sense. It is not only a fault of any of us, but it is kind of a responsibility of us as parliamentarians to make sure we correct that failing. But ignorance of our history is a threat to us not repeating the errors of that history, the era of taking from, of diminishing, of fearing, of denying, and of undermining Māori.

I want to say that, right now, we have a poignant conversation going on, and that conversation rests on the idea that, somehow, those people who my ancestors first encountered in 1769—or earlier, if you were of Dutch ancestry—that somehow the sovereignty of those people who were here was ceded. It is somewhat nonsensical to consider that that is a possibility. Many who have considered this at length recognise that those words in that founding document uphold tino rangatiratanga, the highest chieftainship, of the hapū of Māori, at which point it is clear that the 500 rangatira who signed our founding agreement understood they were certainly not giving up their sovereignty. When we lean into that idea of Māori self-determination, it gives us, as tangata Tiriti, those who are the true beneficiaries of the Treaty, a sense of nationhood and a sense that we can potentially lie contentedly in our bed in the land we call home.

I want to end with the great words of Moana Jackson: "I actually have a sense that there are enough Pākehā people in this country … who see in the Treaty the aspiration for something better than one party perpetually dominating another, that promises made in a document signed by their ancestors must have … [been somewhat credible], and that credibility must rely, in a sense of what I call rightness. The Treaty to me has never been about Treaty rights; it's always been about the rightness that comes from people accepting their obligations to each other. And that … [is] a profound and … visionary base upon which to build a country." Toitū Te Tiriti.

Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance): This past week there have been green shoots across this country, because we have a Government that is on the side of everyday working New Zealanders, that's on the side of taxpayers, of ratepayers, of mortgage holders, and on the side of every New Zealander who uses a bank each week. What we've seen in these past few days are things that make a meaningful difference for everyday people. A reduction in the official cash rate, a reduction in interest rates that, actually, many forecasted wouldn't happen for months ahead. I well remember those on the opposite side of the House saying, "Oh no, you'll never get inflation under control. Interest rates will never come down." In fact, they said they'd rise again. "Tax relief can never be delivered while interest rates are coming down." In fact, this is the case.

We have a responsible economic management team back in charge, and here's what's happening. Inflation is under control, interest rates are coming down, tax relief is sitting in people's bank accounts, and now I have a message for the banks: we're putting an end to your cozy pillow fight too, because we won't stand by while New Zealanders have to pay fees that are higher than they should be. We won't stand by while New Zealanders watch their interest rates not being passed on as quickly when they are paying the debt as when they've got the deposit. We won't stand by while our Australian cousins get innovative services, new technology, and us here in New Zealand get left behind even while the banks extract their profits.

We on this side of the House are on the side of markets that work. We are on the side of competition. We are on that side because we think it is fair that everyday people can know that they are operating in a market where banks are incentivised to give them the best deal possible. So it should be of concern to us all that the Commerce Commission has conclusively proven that, in fact, our banks are some of not only the most profitable in the world, but there is very good evidence that they are not competing hard for New Zealand consumers. What does that mean? That means that instead of going after those consumers with better prices, better services, showing them a good deal, they're sitting back, content with how things are. Well, we're not content for New Zealanders to get a raw deal. We want them to get a fair deal. We want them to pay less for all of those fees. We want them to have better services, and we are going to take the action required to make that happen.

When I talk about these things, I reflect on what it's been like for a typical family in this country these past three years, because, boy oh boy, it's been a tough slog, hasn't it? We had a Government that thought it would spend its way to economic nirvana. It spent and it spent and it spent recklessly, and the result was sky-high inflation. This time a year ago that inflation rate was 6 percent, the year before that, 7.3 percent. Three years where prices rose and rose—an era of extreme price increases. Every time mums and dads were at the supermarket checkout aisle, that price was more expensive still. Whatever it was, people were paying more. Then, if that wasn't bad enough, they watched while the Government leaned back and the Reserve Bank leaned in and whipped those interest rates higher and higher to try and get a hold on inflation. People with a mortgage, they've paid more, they've struggled, and the shopkeepers have noticed fewer people coming through their doors with less money to spend, and it has been tough.

So we should all, if we are on the side of New Zealanders, celebrate the progress that we have seen these past few weeks. That progress is pretty clear. The Reserve Bank is forecasting inflation to come back in to target this year. With the confidence of that occurring with a responsible Government that's putting fiscal discipline back, they've made the decision to reduce interest rates earlier than they ever forecast they could. I have already had the emails and the phone calls from the parents, from the families saying, "This has made the difference for me." What's more, they've got tax relief in those bank accounts, a Government driving better results, a Government on their side; us, the Government of working people.

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour): I'd like to take this opportunity to talk about the Government's programme on firearms reforms. This is a Government who has appointed a gun lobbyist who was elected on a platform of gun reform. That's not being hidden at all.

Let's just take a look at the consultation process to date. Part 6 of the Arms Act has already been changed by Order in Council, with not so much as even a press release being issued. What those changes have already done is they have changed the regulations and safety requirements for the sales of ammunition and firearms to be recorded on ranges in New Zealand. Do New Zealanders know about these changes? Have they been informed about this? Has there even been a public statement from the Minister on these changes? The answer is no. They were done by Order in Council at the end of June, without anybody in New Zealand being informed. These changes have removed police's oversight and created loopholes for gangs, criminals, and extremists to exploit on shooting ranges in New Zealand—the very place where the March 15 terrorist practised his shooting skills in New Zealand. This Government has now relaxed the restrictions on shooting ranges, without publicly informing New Zealanders about it.

Let's talk about police safety, because police have been talking a lot about their safety, particularly the Police Association, but they have been called "paranoid" by this Minister—paranoid because they fear the introduction of dangerous weapons once again in New Zealand society.

The registry itself: it's unclear what is actually happening with the registry. This morning on Newstalk ZB, Mark Mitchell did say, "I can assure you, as the police Minister, the gun registry is going nowhere." Well, as Nicole McKee, the Associate Minister of Justice responsible for firearms has stated, her intention is for those A category weapons to be outside of the Firearms Registry because it would be too expensive and dangerous to have them included in there. When we look at what information is being provided to her, as the Minister responsible for firearms, we can see that 71 percent of standard A-Cat firearms which are seized by police are from A category.

Hon Nicole McKee: How many have serial numbers on them, Ginny?

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: Interestingly, when I was the Minister of Police and I asked about whether a serial number could be read, the advice I received back is that ESR can determine the serial numbers of just about every single weapon that's had their serial numbers filed off.

So the Minister needs to explain why 50 percent of police investigations, in terms of diverted firearms, revolve around licensed firearm holders. That is because we have an issue with licensed firearm owners either selling or enabling criminals to access those weapons once they have been licensed. The Firearms Registry is the best place for that to be making sure that we check them. Where is the police Minister on this? We have got a police Minister who is asleep at the wheel in terms of protecting the safety of front-line police officers.

When we were in Government, we introduced the Tactical Response Model and invested in front-line safety. This was a direct result of the murder of Matthew Hunt, and the dangers that our front-line police officers now face. The Police Association have every right to be fearful that Nicole McKee is now holding the pen and rewriting the Arms Act and endangering the front line of New Zealanders, because her interests lie with a select group of firearms owners, and not with the safety of our front-line police or with our communities. They are a small select group that are being catered to at the absolute detriment of New Zealand's safety.

What is the point of a firearms prohibition order, what is the point of having all of this investment in front-line safety if we are not strengthening the registry? What is the point if military-style semi-automatic weapons are going to be reintroduced into New Zealand? That is the underlying agenda of the ACT Party. They have made a promise to their voters who increased their numbers in this House from one to 10, from voting against the 2019 changes to our firearms law. They grew their party and they owe it back to those voters. They will be doing everything they can to reintroduce dangerous weapons back into New Zealand, to take apart the regulations that control our shooting ranges, and to make our front line at risk of dangerous weapons in the hands of criminals.

JOSEPH MOONEY (National—Southland): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. It's a pleasure to rise and to speak in this general debate and to speak on behalf of this Government which has been relentlessly focused on everyday Kiwis. This Government came into office promising to focus on fixing the economy, on getting inflation under control, and to delivering tax relief. I'm very pleased that the Government has been doing exactly that, and we have seen the real-life results of that play out. The Government has delivered tax relief, getting money in the back pockets of everyday Kiwis across the country. The Government has got inflation under control, and now we're very pleased the Reserve Bank has dropped the official cash rate to 5.25 percent.

The Government is very focused on getting this economy back on track. It has been incredibly challenging times over the last couple of years. Certainly, one of the refrains I've been hearing is "survive to '25". Well, now we're seeing inflation get under control, with the official cash rate coming down.

Dan Bidois: "Thrive in '25".

JOSEPH MOONEY: We are now "thrive in '25", as my great colleague Dan Bidois says—"thrive in '25".

On that, I just have to make a shout-out to my region. Despite these incredibly challenging times, ASB's economic regional scorecard for the first quarter of 2024 showed that Southland knocked Auckland off the top spot. So, as the member of Parliament for Southland, I can't claim credit for that but I can certainly make a shout-out to all of those people in Southland doing that hard work. Otago came in second place—

Hon Member: Oh, have you got part of Otago?

JOSEPH MOONEY: —and that's the sixth consecutive quarter that it's been in the top three. Well, Otago is a big chunk of mine. I also have my colleague besides me, he represents a good chunk of Otago, Miles Anderson. So, look, just a shout-out to all of the hard-working businesses, hard-working farmers, hard-working construction companies, workers, everyone who's been working incredibly hard in tourism, right across those sectors. This is the story of the country.

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: And a shocker.

JOSEPH MOONEY: Everyone's—yes, Dr Duncan Webb. All of the retail outlets—they've been doing incredibly tough times, actually; it's been very, very tough times for them. But they have been doing well to trade through this. So I take my hat off to everyone who's been pulling their bit. The Government has its role to play, but all of these other players are critical for making this economy work.

This Government is also focused on the banking sector, and I'm very pleased, as a member of Parliament who represents a rural area, that there's a particular focus on rural banking. I see my great colleague Stuart Smith and my great colleague from Northland, who have been leading the charge on this with their respective select committees.

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: What's his name?

JOSEPH MOONEY: Mark Cameron. So leading the charge on this select committee inquiry into banking competition, which affects rural banking. This is certainly something that I have been hearing, as I'm sure my colleagues have been hearing a lot: the rural banking has been affecting our farming sector in particular a lot. It's been very, very challenging for them. The farming sector, or the primary sector, underpins the New Zealand economy. It's absolutely critical for the New Zealand economy. At a time of challenge economically, both domestically and internationally, I can't say enough, and I have said this many times over the roughly four years that I've been in this Parliament, the primary sector is critical for New Zealand and we need to do everything we can to support them. So I'm very, very pleased that we are doing this inquiry into rural banking.

It's not just rural banking—we've also had the report of the Commerce Commission into banking competition. It's highlighted something that has been quietly spoken about for a number of years in New Zealand—not as much as in Australia—the banking competition isn't strong enough, frankly. Competition is good for the economy. We need these banks competing hard with each other for New Zealanders' services. We need more competition, so we need more innovation in that sector. I'm very pleased that his Government has picked up those recommendations and is going with all of them and is sending a very clear signal to the banking sector: we want you to compete harder, we want you to do better, we want you to provide more innovation and more services, and we want more players in the market. So this is going to deliver.

Just in the time that I have available, I need to take the opportunity just to congratulate all of those who took part in the Olympics. With my parochial hat on, I just have to make a shout-out to the two from Dunstan High School: Nicole Shields, born in Invercargill but moved to Clyde when she was young, went to Dunstan High School, and got a silver medal in the pursuit; and Finn Butcher, who got a gold in kayak cross. So congratulations to them.

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I'll go quick because I've got a lot to say. What I want to talk about is the numerous ways, the myriad of ways in which this Government has left Christchurch and the South Island behind. Front page of the Press today: that Government showing the hand to the Christ Church Cathedral and the community of Christchurch. Now, what we need is some leadership and governments are supposed to lead. The last Government, with Megan Woods—and the Government before that, under Nicky Wagner who was a Christchurch Central MP—did a great job in bringing parties together to get that reinstatement project under way. Now, it's hit some problems, don't get me wrong, but what did we get from that Government? Not even a conversation; we get the hand—go away, not interested. It's time for some leadership; it's time for you to go and work out where Christchurch is and do something.

What else is happening in Christchurch? The Brougham St overpass, the busiest thoroughfare in Christchurch where there are accidents—about 47 accidents a year—because of the traffic congestion on that road. What's happened to the safety project there? Canned. Megan Woods is doing a great job working with the community to get that project back under way again, and the Government should be listening because it's a shocker.

What about the Pages Rd bridge—the lifeline bridge from New Brighton away from the tsunami risk zone; a bridge that was damaged in the 2011 earthquake that desperately needs repairing? Rueben Davidson's working on that—the local MP; a great new MP. What's that Government doing? Abandoning it, ignoring it. How many social houses are going to be built in Christchurch? How much funding is going to Christchurch from the housing fund?

Hon Kieran McAnulty: None.

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: None, that's right, Kieran McAnulty, absolutely none. What's happened to the Youth Hub, the transitional housing that's being built there? It's being unfunded—$4 million in dedicated funding taken away; so there will be 20-plus beds for young people in transitional housing lying empty because that Government has taken funding away. Te Tahi Youth, Sue Bradshaw's baby, what's happened to that? Social workers defunded by Oranga Tamariki—two social workers and community workers taken away. What's happening at Rangiora, Matt Doocey's electorate where he promised 24/7 medical care? I'll tell you what's happening there: nothing. What's Matt Doocey saying? Nothing; he's gone strangely quiet, not making promises any more. What's happening in the other electorates? Burnside High, the Ilam electorate: school rebuild on hold. What's that local MP Hamish Campbell saying? Nothing. What about the Rolleston School rebuild, Nicola Grigg's electorate: scaled back, on hold, in portacoms. What's that MP saying? Nothing. It's an absolute shocker.

What else? The rest of the South Island; what's happening in Nelson? The Hope Bypass pushed out till 2030 and beyond and, what's more, a toll road. This is an arterial; this is a major arterial between Nelson and Richmond. Now Rachel Boyack is speaking out on that, another great Labour MP, but that can's being kicked down the road and the people of Nelson are crying out. Women's Support Motueka: funding cut with three days' notice. Family Start, Nelson: funding cut; 40 percent of their staff are going to go. This is a shocking Government. It's left Christchurch behind, left the South Island behind. Sometimes you wonder if they know where it is on the map. As for the abandoning of the mosque response, and the doing away with the eight outstanding matters from the royal commission—another shocking decision by this Government.

Of course, the worst of all has got to be the connection between the two islands. That project was under way. We had a great deal on those ships, which were going to be built for a song, and what does this Government do? We don't even know how much that's going to cost this Government, who breached the contract and said we're not taking them. That project is a lifeline project between the islands. That Government has run aground. That Government is now adrift; it doesn't know what it's doing, and as far as the South Island—and I see Dr Vanessa Weenink, one of the MPs for the South Island, for Christchurch has walked in, and what do we hear about her? What do we hear about the road between Akaroa and Christchurch? She's gone strangely silent on that one as well.

So that Government and those MPs need to start advocating for electorates like we do on this side of the House.

SIMON COURT (ACT): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Two stories from the past couple of days show how the energy shortage is starting to bite. Together, they paint a picture of a colder, darker, poorer future for New Zealand, unless we take urgent steps to restore confidence in the exploration and development of our natural gas resources.

Winstone Pulp has responded to the unsustainable high prices—they claim that they pay, potentially, five or six times more for electricity compared to their competitors overseas—by shutting down mills and putting hundreds of workers on notice this week. That is an outcome that, if they proceed, would devastate another regional community in New Zealand because of high energy prices. Jude Sinai, a worker at Karioi Pulpmill and a FIRST Union delegate, said that mill workers were already talking about emigrating to Australia, given the lack of comparable manufacturing jobs in the region. Jude said, "This is horrendous not just for us but for all Ruapehu locals—the teachers, schools, doctors, supermarkets, and everyone else in the region who has relied on these mill jobs to support our local economy." Labour and the Greens should listen to Jude.

Down south, Tīwai Point has extended the shutdown in production in a deal to give energy back to the gentailers so that they can supply New Zealand homes. It mirrors a similar deal Methanex struck recently to free up natural gas to allow electricity generators to run at higher loads. In a First World country, we shouldn't have to shut down productive industries just to keep the lights on in our towns and cities, but that's where we're at right now.

We can't go on this way. We're in an energy crisis. If it becomes an annual event, then we will see the hollowing out, the de-industrialisation, and the loss of wealth in our regional communities and provinces.

On cold mornings, we're coming close to blackouts—New Zealand is coming close to blackouts. We can't rely on hydro alone, although it's a great, great renewable. Usually in an energy crunch, we'd dip into our vast supply of natural gas, but the previous Government quashed that by insisting on a poorly thought-out ban on gas and oil exploration. They've wrecked investor confidence to explore and develop new resources and to invest in businesses, including electricity generation, which requires gas.

New Zealand has been here before. This should not be a surprise to us. In the 1990s, a succession of dry years, combined with increased demand for electricity and energy, led to an energy shortage and blackouts, but do you know what? New Zealand responded in a sensible and logical way. There was opposition then to using natural gas because of the effect of greenhouse gases on the climate, but two combined-cycle gas turbines were built: one at Stratford in Taranaki, of about 400 megawatts, and another in Auckland, at Southdown, of about 200 megawatts. Well, the Southdown plant has just been demolished—it had reached the end of its 30-year life—and the 1996 Taranaki plant can't have too many more years left in it. That's around 600 megawatts of electricity firming, or baseload, that even our renewable development is absolutely dependent on.

Natural gas must be a part of New Zealand's energy future. This Government has committed to reversing the ban on oil and gas exploration, but the sector still looks at New Zealand—both here, domestically, and internationally—and thinks that the New Zealand Government is a risk to future development. A future Government could shut them down, just on a whim—maybe in an announcement at a university, like the former Prime Minister Ardern and the energy Minister Megan Woods did.

I've written to party leaders from across the House, asking for a cross-party agreement on the future of natural gas. If the likes of Chris Hipkins and Chlöe Swarbrick can meet in the middle and agree that natural gas companies will be allowed to operate and that we can develop our natural gas resources, then we'll see more investment and, ultimately, restoration of affordability and resilience. The ACT Party looks forward to their reply. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Hon ANDREW BAYLY (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): Thank you, Mr Speaker. As the Minister for manufacturing, I would dearly love to continue to talk about the impact of high electricity crop prices on manufacturing, but what I'd like to talk about today is that yesterday the Commerce Commission released its final report on personal banking. First of all, I'd just like to acknowledge the hard work of the Commerce Commission. It's one of the four studies that they've undertaken, and they came up with some very valuable insights. I think the first thing I should say is that the ComCom, or Commerce Commission, has confirmed what many people know, that simply we are not getting a good enough service and pricing in New Zealand from our banks and for our banking services.

Of course, many of us will know that the banking sector is dominated by four large banks that have just over 90 percent of the market. The key purpose of the report by the Commerce Commission was to look at whether that structure was working well, and particularly from the perspective of whether it was promoting competition. To put it simply, the Commerce Commission found that it's not. That is the issue that the Government has now got to grapple with. I think one of the key messages that Dr John Small and his team identified is that there is price matching going on in the banking sector, not price competition. That is a significant issue, and that is a result of insignificant, or far from substantial, competition factors coming into play.

Now, the Government—just to put it on the record—is intending to implement all 14 recommendations. I just wanted to go through what the component parts are, and they fall into seven different parts of recommendations. The first one is that the Commerce Commission recommended to the Minister of Finance that we look at the prudential arrangements for banks, and specifically enabling fintechs to get access and to get established more quickly. There's a high requirement for capital, at the moment it's minimum $30 million, and there is a recommendation about reducing that quantum to make it much easier for fintechs to be able to do that.

There's also the issue of making sure that when it comes to the productive sector—and particularly areas like agriculture, which I know member Miles Anderson will be talking about soon—it is important that they are not disadvantaged. That's the first thing.

The second thing, again to the Minister of Finance, was about making changes to the Kiwibank arrangements to make sure that it's a much more competitive organisation and, in essence, to be a disruptor to the industry. The third one was about removing the impediments to the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act or CCCFA—the infamous CCCFA Act—and I'll talk about that briefly. Fourth, about bringing into play open banking at pace, dealing with anti - money-laundering, which Minister McKee—and I see her here—is dealing with in the third quarter priority for the Government. The sixth one is addressing issues relating to mortgage advisers, and that was one of the revelations out of this final report. And seventh was about improving access to better banking services—particularly for Māori, but also for people who are very vulnerable: those who've come out of prison, those who are not financially aware. That was a very important part of the recommendations which has seen to have just been slightly lost in the telling. So I do acknowledge that there is a banking inquiry under way in conjunction between the Finance and Expenditure Committee and the Primary Production Committee, but it is an important piece of work.

I just want to talk about a couple of things. The mortgage advisers—one of the revelations that I said is that many mortgage advisers are tied to specific banks. They do not actually go and get the best deal for everyone; they get the best deal of who they have a relationship with. There's a very distinct commission structure, and I am in the process of writing to the FMA, Financial Markets Authority, to make sure that there should be transparency around the commission arrangements as part of the CoFI, or conduct of financial institutions bill that we're progressing and putting in place more arrangements.

The big area is open banking. This is my prime, absolute focus. We've introduced the Customer and Product Data Bill, but what we need to do is put in place all the institutional arrangements as quickly as possible.

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Migrant exploitation has no place in Aotearoa, and certainly no one in this place should be enabling it to happen. Migrant workers are an integral part of our communities, and successive Governments have treated migrant workers as expendable cogs in a broken immigration system that fails to treat workers with respect and dignity.

A few years ago, during the pandemic—well, during the peak of the pandemic—everyone talked about how migrant workers were essential to our economy and how we should retain them. But as the pandemic moved on and the borders reopened, even parties who I got the chance to work with last term, such as the National Party, started treating migrants once again as expendable. The truth is that Government parties turn their backs on migrants when it is politically expedient.

Last term, National was crying out for more workers and for greater pathways to residency. Now that they're in power, they're basically turning their backs on those in communities and talking about how the previous Government opened the floodgates—language that only inflames anti-migrant sentiment in our communities. [Interruption] Those Government members who are scoffing at my comments should reflect on their own colleagues' comments in relation to migrant communities in this House and reflect on how those comments reflect in broader society. Migrant workers deserve more than red and blue teams taking turns saying things like "Chinese sounding names" when it comes to the housing crisis or talking about so-called floodgates. We deserve an immigration system that's actually committed to tackling the issues that migrant workers face, particularly when it comes to exploitation.

One of the practices that we still have is the practice of tying work visas to single employers, a practice that creates coercive control, that enables practices such as modern slavery and human trafficking—something that has been well reported. If your whole ability to remain in the country depends on a single employer, you will go to great lengths to ensure that you can stay in the country even when it means going through exploitation.

The safety nets available to support those exploited workers are not good enough. We know this not just because of my own work with migrant communities; unions and the Migrant Workers Association of Aotearoa alongside other groups have long called for changes. Just this weekend the Human Rights Commission put in a report highlighting how the current system enables things like human trafficking and systemic exploitation, including highlighting the modern-day slavery practices. It is time that those champions at the front lines are listened to by this Government and that we decouple work visas from single employers and end this modern-day slavery practice.

This Government is actually making changes that will make life harder for migrant workers who members of this Government previously called essential and important for our communities. For example, in the Accredited Employer Work Visa system, the Government has now created a stand-down period that forces migrants to actually leave for a year and then come back after a period of time. Members of the ACT Party have actually called on their own immigration Minister around addressing those changes. So we know that it is not just us on the left who see that this is problematic. Yet the immigration Minister sits with crossed arms while knowing that her own policies will inflict more harm, more hardship, and create more precarious conditions for workers.

As the Government cuts jobs and creates conditions for a huge slowdown in the construction industry, it is migrant workers who are facing the brunt. We're seeing companies, and labour hire companies in particular, such as Extrastaff, Adecco, ACE Global, and Buildhub all closing and leaving over a thousand migrant workers without jobs. Many of those migrant workers faced exploitation, were promised full-time hours and, effectively, full-time pay only to come here to Aotearoa with no jobs to actually allow them to survive.

We know that the migrant exploitation visa is not sufficient to support those workers. Many of them are now relying on grants and charity services just to make ends meet, and the Minister told them that if their time is up, they're not going to receive any support and they're going to be sent back. This is no way to treat migrant workers, who many of us have acknowledged are essential to our economy and to our communities.

Finally, the Recognised Seasonal Employer (RSE) changes. The Government announced an increase to the cap on RSE workers but has actually lowered their wages and accommodation conditions. The Government is simply happy to bring in workers while literally lowering the standards of that work. That is no way to treat our Pacific neighbours and our migrants. But migrant workers are fighting back. A shout out to the Loasi Latu family, who fought back against policies that criminalised overstayers. A shout out to Noland Kinney, a Waikato farmer who fought for residency pathways, to Juliana Carvalho, Stephanie Adams, and many others who formed part of the Migrants Against Acceptable Standard of Health Aotearoa.

The Green Party's got our migrant communities' back. We will keep fighting to stamp out migrant exploitation no matter where it is happening and we will fight to ensure the next Government will end the practice of tying work visas to single employers.

Hon SHANE JONES (Associate Minister for Energy): Exhibit one: the unilateral cancellation of the oil and gas industry by Megan Woods and the former Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern. Not just ruining our sovereign risk profile, but two politicians who chilled and undermined the confidence and certainty in the investment community. Thus, today, we have shrinking supplies of a key indigenous resource, the oil and gas industry. Look no further, New Zealanders, to the long-term consequences of that decision which was celebrated as a nuclear-free moment. Sadly, it's fact free. We are now living with the consequences.

Exhibit two: an unwillingness, a level of animus, from the Green Party to the coal resources of New Zealand. We can power up New Zealand by using our domestic coal resources, but that party would rather see New Zealanders thrown on the unemployment scrap heap, as we've witnessed this week. They would rather see people cold. They would rather see people in their retirement years too afraid to put the jug on—or the sleeping blanket—just so they can cover themselves in an ideological blanket of piety and self-righteousness.

Exhibit three: look at the attitude and the behaviour of the cartel otherwise known as the gentailers. They have no accent, emphasis, or responsibility to care for the overarching energy interests of our entire nation. Sadly, they are responding to the incentives that they are legally entitled to enjoy—i.e., short-term profit, 150 percent rise in profit with one of those companies; if I'm not mistaken, it's Mercury; yet a 3 percent reduction in the amount of energy they produce. If that's not evidence that "Something", as Shakespeare says, "is rotten in the [heart] of Denmark.", there's something rotten at the heart of the rules and regulations where households are going to suffer energy hardship and where firms are being driven to the wall. But, no, extraordinarily high dividends are being celebrated in those boardrooms today. That is not paving the way for a prosperous or internationally competitive New Zealand. That is why we need to delve deeply and robustly and to change the rules and regulations and not rely on these phantom organisations, such as the Electricity Authority, to regulate on behalf of New Zealanders. If they were ever going to do that, that vanilla popsicle, why have they not delivered the results today?

I recall when Helen Clark broke Telecom in half because there was no trust between where the true costs and true profit centres were in respect of the wholesale and the retail market. We've reached a point in time where we need to be absolutely sure that the people who own the customers and the power industry in New Zealand—i.e., the gentailers—are not profiting at a rude level from those such as industry, those such as enterprises, sadly, that we've seen go to the wall today.

Beyond this power debate, we've got a deeper problem in New Zealand—i.e., the divorcing of climate rhetoric, climate shrillness, from facts. I belong to New Zealand First, not climate first. We have many challenges in New Zealand, not just climate. We have challenges of defence; we have challenges of security; we have challenges of equity. None of that can be paid for unless we generate consistently an economic dividend—something that that side of the House is incapable of getting around or incapable of supporting us to achieve. In the absence of clear pragmatic trade-off politics, we are going to condemn ourselves to a downward trajectory. Whether it's the ranting from the Māori Party trying to mythologise the quality of life prior to the Treaty. No, we need a pragmatic, forceful quality of leadership, and I look forward to providing that example over the next few weeks in terms of turning around the gruesome ways of these gentailers profiting at the expense of ordinary Kiwis.

CUSHLA TANGAERE-MANUEL (Labour—Ikaroa-Rāwhiti): Tēnā koe e te Māngai o te Whare; pai te kite anō i a koe.

Heoi anō rā, koutou mā, tēnei te mihi atu ki a koutou katoa. Nāku te hōnore ki te kawe i ngā reo o Ikaroa-Rāwhiti ki waenganui i a tātou i tēnei rā.

[Thank you, Mr Speaker; it is good to see you again.

Anyway, to everyone, this is my greeting to you all. It is my honour to bring the voices of Ikaroa-Rāwhiti among us all today.]

It's my privilege to bring with me today the voices of Ikaroa-Rāwhiti. What you hear today comes from the people I've recently visited on an electoral visit, not just from myself. So it's my pleasure to be here today.

Throughout Ikaroa-Rāwhiti there are many diverse communities. There are communities like the beautiful Rangitukia, where I come from—population approximately 150. I note a whanaunga up in the gallery today, and there are bigger regional towns. Every day, as I said in my maiden speech, we bring light to Aotearoa. We are the rāwhiti. However, today, the people of Ikaroa-Rāwhiti feel like they are in the shade. So I'm bringing their light today, in spite of the shadow being cast by that side of the House.

Today we've heard speeches about the value of farmers, and I should be excited; however, clearly that does not include the farmers who currently live at Aropaoanui in Tāngoio, Hawke's Bay. The farmers who, while they have cleared their logs, have not received a visit from anyone on that side of the House. No one from that side of the House has gone down their unfinished driveway to see how they are recovering. You don't have to look far in Ikaroa-Rāwhiti to see that we have not recovered. I do acknowledge te Wairoa, who once again have been hit. But we can't go past the people like Aropaoanui, who seem to be invisible under this Government.

But while not recovered, they will recover. Ikaroa-Rāwhiti will recover, and we will thrive, and it will be in spite of this Government, not because of this Government. I want to assure people in places like Tāngoio that Labour get it. Labour get it, and that's why we invested $1 billion in cyclone recovery, to enable people like the whānau at Aropaoanui to stay on their whenua and to thrive. Right now, what they're left with is piles of contaminated chip and land that will not be productive for approximately another five years. So I'd like this Government to prove me wrong: get out to farms like Aropaoanui and help them thrive as well.

Housing has been alluded to. We heard about emergency housing. I want to address the rangatahi. Currently in Maraenui, Heretaunga alone, there are 60 homeless rangatahi. We all know the $20 million that was previously budgeted to youth transitional housing is gone. So I want to mihi to all the people in Heretaunga supporting our rangatahi, and a special shout-out to Te Hiwa a Māhaki, who are doing it off their own backs. Why? Because they love their community, they're connected to the whenua, they're connected by whakapapa. And once again they are doing it in spite of this Government, not with this Government. You will recover and you will thrive.

We've heard employment being talked about. Well, in all the things that we're hearing about what this Government want, another thing that's been taken away: progressive procurement. Soon I will be going to attend the investiture of Kat—I was going to say "hubba"—Kaiwai KSM, who employed many, many people throughout the Tai Rāwhiti. That side is right, employment does change lives, it impacts whakapapa for generations to come.

So that said, I also want to make a shout-out to the Tolaga Bay innovation hub. It was great to be there with my opposite member Dana Kirkpatrick, the Mayor Rehette Stoltz, and the chair of Te Runanganui o Ngati Porou. However, what support will this Government provide? Ūawa, you will recover, you will thrive, and it will be in spite of this Government, not because of them. Please prove me wrong, e hoa mā. Tautoko. Get out there. Listen to Ikaroa-Rāwhiti and support them.

Finally, a big mihi to all the councils throughout Ikaroa-Rāwhiti who have already supported Māori wards. Nothing to be afraid of. Kia mahi tahi tātou. Tēnā koe. [Let us work together. Thank you.]

MILES ANDERSON (National—Waitaki): Thank you, Mr Speaker. There are many sayings when it comes to money: "Money makes the world go around.", "Cash is king.", "Money is power." There are others that have a rural flavour: "The cash cow", "Bring home the bacon.", "Bet on the farm." Then there is one saying that no one wants to hear, and that is "Break the bank." The question before us is: are the banks already broken?

I want to share something with you today. Farmers, like so many others, are doing it tough, but the war on farming has ended. The war on farming ended on 14 October last year, when the people of New Zealand decided that enough was enough and voted to get this country back on track.

Well, the hangover of bad fiscal decisions and unwarranted, unworkable regulations from the previous Government is still being felt, but this Government is listening—listening and working hard to ensure that our primary producers across rural and provincial New Zealand get a fair go.

In June, the Hon Nicola Willis announced that she had written to the chairs of the Finance and Expenditure Committee and Primary Production Committee, requesting a select committee inquiry into banking competition. This inquiry will be led by the Finance and Expenditure Committee, in conjunction with the Primary Production Committee, which will focus on rural banking. This request reflects the commitment outlined in the coalition agreement between National and New Zealand First. This announcement not only demonstrates this Government's commitments to ensuring that Kiwis have a transparent and fair banking system that is accessible and allows businesses and individuals the flexibility that is afforded to customers in other countries; it also demonstrates that this Government is doing what it has promised to do. Farmers across the country have been asking for rural banking practices to be investigated for years.

We need to ensure our banking systems are not broken. Earlier this year, my Primary Production Committee colleagues and I were involved in a briefing on rural banking. Many of the submitters raised significant areas of concern. There are so many perceived inequities and practices within our banking system and they need to be looked at.

We heard from a number of submitters. These submitters questioned the Reserve Bank's capital requirements for rural lending, the higher interest rates charged to farmers to derive better capital ratios, the reduction in headcount of bank staff, reduced access to services with many rural bank branches now closed, the reduction in risk appetite for agricultural loans, and simply a lack of competition. One submitter—New Zealand Agri Brokers—has stated that the net result for farmers is less competition, higher interest rates, decreased viability, and an ability to access the right long-term capital for their businesses.

For many, the banking inquiry cannot come soon enough. Having a rural focus is something that the National Party is committed to. Currently, the rural sector is under extreme duress as international trading conditions have tightened in the past 18 months, various weather events have made production difficult, and inflation and interest rates have eroded profitability.

The crux of the issue is: is it Government policy, is it Reserve Bank policy, or is it financial institutions' policies and practices that have made rural lending seemingly more expensive than our trading partners? The inquiry will be in depth and will no doubt hear from many individuals, groups, businesses, and financial institutions. It is critical for the people of the Waitaki electorate and for all of New Zealand that concerns are identified and addressed.

It is this Government's objective to double the value of our exports in the next 10 years. To do this, we are removing red and green tape that is holding the productive sector back, actively engaging across the globe to seek out new trade agreements that remove tariffs or non-tariff barriers and reduce inflation to give businesses the confidence to invest, create jobs, and grow our economy. One piece of the puzzle in achieving this is to ensure that our financial systems are competitive, open, and not an impediment to our economy. The good news is that this Government believes in our farmers and growers, and we are going to back them.

DAN BIDOIS (National—Northcote): One of the things that surprised me most when I lived overseas was the lower cost of living that resulted. Whether you were talking about utilities, retail, transportation, grocery, or other services, that was the biggest thing I noticed. I think a big part of that is the lack of dynamism and the lack of competitiveness in New Zealand's sectors. We know that there is a lack of competition in New Zealand. The evidence is clear. There's a large amount of sectors with a concentration of a few large players that dominate the market. There's a large presence of high pricing, a lack of new entrants, low levels of innovation, and also of high profit margins.

By these measures, there's actually a lot of domestic sectors in New Zealand that meet that definition—the grocery sector, my colleague from the New Zealand First Party was talking before about the electricity sector, the telecommunications sector, the airline and transportation sector, and also construction and building, to name but a few. The impact on Kiwis is very clear: higher cost of living as a result.

Banking is one such sector, and the symptoms are clear for us to see. The banking sector, as my colleague Andrew Bayly mentioned, is dominated by four large players, accounting for 90 percent of the banking market. There's very little evidence of new entrants, a lack of innovation among the top players, and also high pricing and profitability as a result. The impact on Kiwis is very clear in the way of higher interest rates and short-term fixed periods. I mention that because in the US there are 15- to 30-year mortgage periods that people can fix for. In New Zealand, it's only up to five, and there are extra charges and hidden rates that are applicable.

It is my support in the Commerce Commission's recent report on the banking sector—the report made it very clear that New Zealand actually has the second highest return on equity in the countries that were studied in banking, so I think the evidence is clear that actually we can and should be doing better as a country.

Out of the 14 recommendations that have been well traversed here today, I just want to highlight a couple of key areas. The first is around making progress on open banking, and that is, I think, an area where this Government is going to make some real progress in terms of allowing banks and actually requiring banks to share information and data with other banks, but also with other potential entrants or players, for example, in the fintech space.

The second such area is around recommendations to empower consumers, because, ultimately, it is about empowering consumers to make the right decision and to get the best outcome as a result. It's quite clear from the report that actually the banking sector is very opaque. It's very hard for consumers to understand if they're getting the best deal and how to switch it to the best deal available.

So a number of the report's recommendations are designed to empower consumers and provide them with the information that they need in order to get a better deal and shop around and reduce the barriers to actually getting a better deal, so, for example, enabling better switching between banks. Right now, it's very hard if you've got a mortgage to switch from one bank to another, and there's a lot we can do to make sure that that is efficient and streamlined. Standardising the way home loans are presented to customers is another area, and reducing the cost of switching between lenders and making certain clawbacks restricted. Finally, as my colleague Andrew Bayly mentioned, it's around making sure mortgage advisers work to promote business competition.

So, in summary, this Government is committed to improving competition. It's all part of our plan to lower the cost of living and get our country back on track.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.

SPEAKER: I declare the House in committee for consideration of the Fair Trading (Gift Card Expiry) Amendment Bill.