Parliamentary debates: Wednesday, 12 February 2025

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.

Members, I’m sure you’ll want to join with me in welcoming to our Parliament a delegation of MPs from Mongolia.

No petitions have been delivered to the Clerk for presentation. Ministers have delivered five papers.

Ministry for the Environment strategic intentions for 2025-29

Mana Mokopuna - Children and Young People’s Commission statement of performance expectations for 2024-25

Peke Waihanga annual report for 2023-24, statement of intent for 2024-28, and statement of performance expectations for 2024-25.

Those papers are published under the authority of the House. A select committee report has been delivered for presentation.

Report of the Privileges Committee on the question of privilege concerning a member’s denial that he made a particular statement in debate.

That report is set down for consideration. No bills have been introduced.

Point of order, Mr Speaker. At the beginning of question time yesterday, you indicated that you had considered the matter of David Seymour driving a Land Rover up the front steps of Parliament and had indicated that there was no question of privilege that you could identify at that time. Subsequently, it has now become apparent on the TV news last night that before taking that course of action, David Seymour was twice told that you had specifically said that the Land Rover was not allowed to be driven up the steps of Parliament. He then indicated that he was going to do it anyway, and did it anyway. He then, effectively, made fun of the decision and the ruling that you had taken.

It is well-established practice in this House that making comments about the Speaker and questioning the Speaker’s judgment outside the House is a question of privilege—I know this for a fact because I was referred to the Privileges Committee for doing exactly that—and it seems, therefore, that David Seymour now very much does face a question of privilege. On the TV news last night, it was very clear that he was questioning your decision, that he defied your decision, and, therefore, a question of privilege must arise.

Well, I thank the member for his contribution. I’ve looked extensively and multiple times at the footage that came from TV ONE, I think, and I think, even playing with the volumes and other such, the statement that was made by the organiser of the event, or the person who was driving the Land Rover on the trek, did not reference the Speaker having told them, but did reference security having told them. In the letter that David Seymour provided to me not long after the event, that is the position that he put, recognising that he had, in fact, been told by the security guard that it was the Speaker who had made that decision, and on that basis, I’ve accepted his apology. The question you raise is slightly new and I’ve tested it out today somewhat extensively with the Clerk, and, at this stage, I haven’t decided to proceed with any suggestion of a privilege hearing.

Speaking further to the point of order, Mr Speaker. I think it is important—I understand the distinction that you’ve just drawn there—that all members of Parliament are very clear in their understanding that the security guards here at Parliament operate under your authority, and that for any member of Parliament to not follow instructions from a security guard here at Parliament is directly undermining your authority as the occupant and the employer of those security guards.

That is a very fair point, and I’ve made in my discussion with the House yesterday the clear, I suppose you’d say, support for the particular security officer. He’s been here a long time. He is, you’d say, a person that’s very easy to get along with, but certainly knows his job, and he made a very good decision on the day and most certainly was put into a difficult position. The question comes as to what a privilege case might do, other than reinforce things, and almost inevitably from which case, if it were to be brought, it would result in the request for an apology, which was forthcoming very quickly after the event. But, look, I’ll think further about the points that you have raised today.

Well, a further point of order, Mr Speaker. Just with regard to the very last comment that you made, I think it is important when you’re making decisions on referrals to the Privileges Committee that the last consideration that you raise there is not the consideration that you make. The Privileges Committee has just reported back. The only real remedy is a report where the member will be asked to apologise and there’d be a debate in the House. That is, basically, what the Privileges Committee can decide. Similarly, it would be the case with David Seymour. He has not apologised to the House, he has not apologised to the public; he has only apologised to you, and I think it is very appropriate that the New Zealand public actually sees an apology from a Minister who has clearly broken both the rules of the House and, potentially, the law of the land.

One of the things that’s most interesting about, firstly, your contributions today and the many pieces of advice that I get via the email system is a general view that the Speaker has all-encompassing powers somewhat similar to Henry VIII, and, therefore, everyone’s head is somewhat in a perilous position. That is not the case, as you well know, and what I do have to tell you is that I have not received, as would be the normal case, a letter claiming that a privilege has been breached, stating which points of the Standing Orders that particular claim refers to.

Mr Speaker, I hesitate to do this, but I have to point out that the leader of the Labour Party stood up and misrepresented a television broadcast. He specifically misrepresented the words in it. Now, he either is unable to read the captions at the bottom of the screen or he was deliberately misleading the House about what that says, and I’d put it to you that that actually is a breach of privilege and people are going to be watching very carefully.

The point I made before was that I’d listened to that tape extensively because I’ve got to say that when I first heard it, for whatever reason, I heard, rather than “security”, the word “Speaker”. When you look at it a bit closely, you get the words, so I’m not going to be particularly critical of someone making that distinction. I’ve cleared that distinction up, and we’re now moving on to question No. 1, in the name of Tim van de Molen.

to the Minister of Finance

What recent reports has she seen on the economy?

This morning, Westpac released its latest quarterly economic forecasts. The report is called Turning the corner, and that is precisely what their forecasts show. Westpac expects growth in the economy to be positive in the December quarter of last year, and it is forecasting growth to pick up across 2025, and reach 3 percent in 2026. It also expects inflation to stay within the 1 to 3 percent target band and expects the current account deficit to narrow.

What other recent economic reports has she seen?

This morning, ANZ released its monthly Truckometer report for January. The Truckometer is useful because truck numbers and weights can be measured in real time and are a useful indicator of economic activity. A heavy traffic index continues to trend upwards, being 4.1 percent higher than a year ago on a three-month rolling average. That is consistent with a pick-up in economic activity over the end of last year and the beginning of 2025. I hope that members across this House welcome that, because economic growth is the best way to deliver good jobs for New Zealanders, rising incomes, and more financial security.

When will the next Treasury forecasts be released?

I should stress that forecasts aren’t reality, and as the shifting GDP figures show, even reality can be hard to pin down and measure. But forecasts do contain valuable information for people and businesses making economic and financial decisions, including the Government. Treasury will release its next set of economic forecasts alongside the Budget on 22 May, and the next Reserve Bank forecasts will come out next Wednesday as part of the Monetary Policy Statement (MPS).

What is the market expecting from next week’s Monetary Policy Statement?

Well, good news. The key part of the MPS is the Monetary Policy Committee’s decision on the Official Cash Rate (OCR). That is entirely a decision for the committee, but the market and most economists are expecting a 50-basis point reduction in the OCR. That would take the OCR down to 3.75 percent, supporting lower retail interest rates, lower mortgage rates, which in turn will support a growing economy.

to the Prime Minister

Does he stand by all his Government’s statements and actions?

Yes, and, in particular, the action we’re taking to get our economy moving. We know that life is still tough for a lot of Kiwis, but there are encouraging signs that we are making progress. Wages are rising faster than inflation, goods exports in December were up 17 percent, average mortgage rates have fallen now for two months in a row, and economists—as you’ve just heard from the Minister of Finance—are now predicting we’ll have more interest rate relief very, very shortly. So inflation is low, interest rates are falling, wages are rising, and our farmers and growers are kicking the recovery into gear. There’s a long way to go, but we’re heading in the right direction.

Why is it acceptable for a Minister in his Government to ignore repeated warnings that he’d not been given approval to drive a Land Rover up the steps of Parliament and do it anyway, to deny he’d been told not to, and to criticise the security guard who stopped him, or has he replaced standards of ministerial conduct with Health New Zealand’s new mantra of “fail early and fail often”?

In answer to the first part of the question, the Speaker has dealt to the issue, but we don’t need to take 12 to 16 contraventions of the Cabinet Manual to get rid of Michael Wood.

Does David Seymour’s conduct, in driving a Land Rover up the steps of Parliament, despite repeated warnings not to, along with his criticisms of the security guard who stopped him and his insistence that he should have been allowed to, meet his expectations in terms of ministerial conduct?

As I’ve said before, this is an issue for the Speaker, and the Speaker has comprehensively dealt with the issue.

Point of order, Mr Speaker. Issues of ministerial conduct are absolutely questions for the Prime Minister, not for the Speaker. It would be like saying if a Minister was charged by the police that would be a question for the police and not for the Prime Minister. Actually, regardless of what decisions you have taken, the Prime Minister is responsible for determining whether a Minister’s conduct is acceptable or not. He can’t deflect the question by saying it’s not his responsibility; it is.

Some further elucidation on the question, or the question—ask the question again.

Does David Seymour’s conduct, in driving a Land Rover up the steps of Parliament, despite repeated warnings not to, along with his criticisms of the security guard who stopped him, and his insistence he should have been allowed to, meet, as Prime Minister, his expectations in terms of ministerial conduct?

As I’ve said before, that’s an issue for the Speaker to talk about the Parliamentary Service. But with respect to my Ministers, I have every confidence in all of my Ministers.

Point of order, Mr Speaker. The Prime Minister is responsible for determining the standards of conduct for Ministers. I have asked him whether David Seymour’s actions met those standards. The Prime Minister, and the Prime Minister alone, sets those standards; nobody else, not you as Speaker, not anybody else. It’s not unreasonable to get an indication—I appreciate I can’t insist that he says “yes” or “no”—from him whether David Seymour’s recent conduct, particularly on Monday, meets those expectations.

Point of order.

Speaking to the point of order.

Before I hear any comments on the point of order, I just want to remind members that the Speaker is not responsible for any confidence issues around Ministers.

Mr Speaker, the Prime Minister answered the question. He said, in relation to parliamentary security matters, that is a matter for you—quite rightly—and that he has confidence in all his Ministers. The question was addressed and answered.

Point of order. Mr Speaker, I’d just also make the point that there are several premises in the question which are very close to misleading. I haven’t insisted I be allowed to; I’ve actually accepted your ruling and given you an apology. I have not attacked a security guard; I’ve simply described the facts.

No further on this. I think the Prime Minister might want to repeat his answer.

As I said, with respect to parliamentary security, that is a decision for the Speaker. I have confidence in all of my Ministers.

Point of order, Mr Speaker. I didn’t ask him whether he had confidence in his Ministers; I asked him whether David Seymour had met his standards when it comes to ministerial conduct. The Prime Minister sets the standards for ministerial conduct, he is obliged to indicate to the House whether or not David Seymour is meeting those.

Well, I think him saying “I have confidence in all Ministers” fairly covers it. But ask the question a different way if you want to. We’re not going to try and get away from all this.

How does driving a Land Rover up the front steps of Parliament meet his expectations around appropriate ministerial conduct?

I have expressed my views publicly on both the issues around the letter and the parliamentary steps. I have met with the Minister and had a positive and constructive conversation about it. And I have every confidence in all of my Ministers.

Does Todd McClay’s statement to another MP, “You’re not in Mexico now”; Shane Jones’ statement, “Send the Mexicans home”; and Winston Peters’ statement that immigrants should “show some gratitude” meet his expectations of ministerial conduct; if so, why?

Well, in answer to the last part of that question: I have huge confidence in the Deputy Prime Minister, who really believes in the Mexico - New Zealand relationship and visited the country and cares deeply about those relationships.

Does Shane Jones’ threat to cut funding to organisations that disagree with the Government meet his expectations, as Prime Minister, of ministerial conduct, particularly given a backbench MP in the Key Government was made to apologise for doing the same thing?

I think you’ve actually heard from, in all of those cases, members expressing in the heat of the moment in this place that they may not have got their language perfect, and they’ve admitted as much.

Does this Government have any plans to go through the telephone book and find homebuyers with Chinese-sounding names?

No.

Does he think his Government’s decision to adopt tobacco lobby suggestions as Government policy, add projects sponsored by donors to the coalition parties to the fast-track list, and appoint a gun lobbyist as firearms Minister have contributed to New Zealand getting its lowest ever rating in Transparency International’s Corruption Perceptions Index?

I’m proud of the standing that New Zealand has in the world around transparency and no corruption. We are a high-performing country. I’ve just actually had meetings this morning talking about exactly that with ASEAN members as well. I’d just say to the member, it’s a little bit ironic, as I said yesterday, that we’re being lectured by someone who took 16 goes of contravention of the Cabinet Manual to get rid of Michael Wood. Meka Whaitiri didn’t even tell him she was leaving while he was travelling. We’ve got Stuart Nash with a multiple series of issues before he got sacked as a Minister, and you want to talk to me about conduct of my Ministers.

Point of order, Mr Speaker.

Before you take the point of order, there are a number of people just sitting in that corner of the House who were constantly speaking—well, not actually speaking, barracking during that time. Stop it.

Point of order, Mr Speaker. I suspect the reason for that was that the Prime Minister seems to be more comfortable making commentary on Ministers in the previous Government than Ministers in his own Government. Noting that all of the Ministers he mentioned actually lost their jobs because the previous Government actually had some standards, which his Government doesn’t seem to have.

Also note that your question was about inappropriate sort of comments as you saw them. But you had a lot of inappropriate comments coming from your side during the answer to that question.

If he’s willing to accept a Minister breaking the rules and driving up the steps of Parliament, accept his foreign affairs and trade Ministers making anti-immigrant remarks, accept a senior Minister threating charities, and watch New Zealand’s international reputation crumble—

Point of order. There’s an old saying: when in Rome, do what the Romans do. The real issue here is no one can surely be condemned for expecting immigrants to come to this country to be grateful to the country they’ve come to. What’s wrong with us when that is a complaint from that side of the House? It’s virtue-signalling nonsense and he’s misleading Parliament.

You’ve made a point but it’s not a point of order. Please don’t interrupt like that when we’ve got a question on. Start again.

If he’s willing to accept a Minister breaking the rules and driving up the steps of Parliament, accept his foreign affairs Minister and his trade Minister making anti-immigrant remarks, accept a senior Minister threatening charities, and watch New Zealand’s international reputation crumble, and his only solution seems to be to carve the country up and sell it to overseas investors, is he surprised in any way that more than half the country think New Zealand’s heading in the wrong direction under his leadership?

Just before the Prime Minister answers, I think any reading of Standing Orders’ requirements for questions would find that falls short or is certainly very expansive on what might be expected in those questions. The Prime Minister may reply.

Yeah, I reject the premise and the conflation of all those issues in that question.

to the Minister for Resources

What recent announcements has he made regarding the minerals sector?

On behalf of our pro-growth Government, I have been to a goldmine, located at Waihī, to launch New Zealand’s inaugural Minerals Strategy. Whilst I was there it was evident that economic seeds are germinating, buds are developing; no longer will this sector be shackled in green tape. No longer will people be able to carry on talking on smartphones, dependent on minerals—rare earth minerals imported into the country—when we have them in our own country. Also it’s my pleasure to tell the House that most of the people there reminded me they never left the Labour Party; the Labour Party left them.

Why is the Minerals Strategy and the Critical Minerals List so important in ensuring the continued growth of this crucial sector?

So the New Zealand economy may be conceived as a quiver of arrows and each arrow must strike a target. Consequently, the $3 billion target that has been set for this sector—clear and measurable—will achieved by 2035, but it will only be achieved as we operationalise fast track, an idea that is driven by growth, prosperity, and embraced and improved, based upon the model of the Labour Party.

How has the strategy been received by the sector?

So I can say with characteristic modesty, universal acclaim, that this is an area where even the conservationists, the green lobby realised that we cannot import minerals from the Congo whilst our own children and families know that profit, jobs, and opportunity exist in the mineral estate in New Zealand. Not only will Freddy the frog be protected because the mineral companies know that social licence is important, and guard rails will ensure that there’s the right balance, but there is also the opportunity for suitable locations in the Department of Conservation (DOC) estate to be opened up for economic development, once again within guard rails, because, as we’ve said on numerous occasions, stewardship land is not DOC land.

What other steps are being considered to support the sector?

Of course, the Crown Minerals Amendment Bill has been introduced. Some drafting improvements are being worked upon as we speak, and this will overturn the worst energy decision made in the history of New Zealand, where an entire oil and gas sector was snuffed out by juvenile, childish green thinking, which is now being proven to have been shallow and irrelevant because the power companies today are now underwriting the importation of Indonesian coal. So that shows that not only our Resource Management Act improvements and our fast track but even our friends from the gremlin community know without coal, there will both be dole and no lights.

to the Prime Minister

Does he have confidence in all of his Ministers?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON (Prime Minister): Absolutely, and especially all our Ministers taking action to promote growth and investment across our economy, as you’ve just heard. Just take fast track: it’s now open for applications for regionally and nationally significant projects. We’ve got roads, we’ve got energy, we’ve got housing, quarries, and aquaculture—more than a hundred projects that will make a big difference to our economy. And it doesn’t stop there, because applications are now also open for projects with significant regional or national benefits. It’s all part of our plan to get the economy moving again, and I can’t wait to see many of those projects kick off—and I hope the Greens support them.

Does he have confidence in the Minister for Child Poverty Reduction to meet child poverty targets, considering the Salvation Army’s State of the Nation report found that, in the past year, most of the indicators monitored showed worsening or unchanged outcomes for children and youth?

Absolutely, and that’s why this year’s Budget package takes 17,000 children out of poverty compared to the last year of the Labour-Greens Government, which put 23,000 more children in poverty.

How can he have confidence in the Minister for Children, considering she is repealing the protections for tamariki Māori in section 7AA of the Oranga Tamariki Act, despite the Salvation Army finding that tamariki Māori still make up more than two-thirds of children in care?

Well, the clause is being repealed because we want the paramount focus to be on the safety and safeguarding of a child. That matters above and beyond everything else. I just say to the member I’m also very proud to see in the Salvation Army report that youth offending is coming down, which that Minister’s been a great advocate for.

How can he have confidence in the Minister for Māori Development when the material hardship rate for tamariki Māori was found to be more than twice the rate for European children?

Because that Minister—Minister Potaka—has done an exceptionally good job getting almost 2,000 children out of motel accommodation in emergency motels. He has also delivered $200 million recently to Māori social housing. And what was the record of a Labour-Greens Government for that member, who was responsible for homelessness? A lot of reports. But in 12 months, Minister Potaka has got it done, and I think the Opposition should just simply say, “Thank you. Well done, Tama Potaka, getting 2,000 children out of motels, bringing the households from 3,151 down to 591. Thank you, Tama Potaka.” That’s all that’s needed. [Interruption]

Just wait while everyone’s quiet.

Is he confident in his Minister for Social Development and Employment, when, in 2024, her response to questions regarding funding for food banks was: “If we’re serious about dealing with the cost of living crisis, we have to pull Government spending back.”, and, if so, will he then admit that it is his Government’s decisions that led to sharply worsening food insecurity in 2024?

Well, again, what has created difficulty and hardship for New Zealanders has been economic mismanagement from a Labour and Greens Government that let inflation out of control, drove interest rates up, put the economy in recession, and helped people lose their jobs. We care about people. If you cared about working people—I don’t remember the Greens or the Labour Party supporting tax relief or Working for Families relief recently. I don’t remember you actually supporting the more funding that’s going into healthcare. I don’t remember you actually supporting the more support going to Māori social housing.

Just moderate the use of the word “you”—in this case, you had me quite concerned.

Does he have confidence in the Minister of Housing to build 1,000 net new public homes in Auckland in 2026?

Yeah, look, he’s built 2,000 houses already. What I’d say to you is what he’s not going to do—is that housing was an abject failure under the last Government—

Point of order. Thank you, sir. We need your guidance, in this instance. When we have a Minister, and, in this instance, the Prime Minister, making claims that he knows are not true—blatantly not true—in this House, what measures do we have to be able to pull this up? We cannot rely on him to come and correct it. We know that it’s not true. What can we do?

Speaking to the point of order, given the remark was made about me, apparently, that number is correct, and I invite the member to go to the—

No, no, hang on, let’s—

Government housing dashboard and look it up.

That may or may not be helpful. The point is that I can’t sit here and know exactly whether a number relating to any one of the 70-odd portfolios that Ministers administer is correct. But the member will know that the process is that if someone is alleged to have misled the House, then writing to the Speaker is the process so that we can actually look into it and come to an appropriate conclusion.

Speaking to the point of order, Mr Speaker, to clarify, the question relates specifically to 1,000 net new additional public homes in Auckland in 2026.

Well, it should have stated so.

Mr Speaker, it did.

Well, then, ask the question again.

I will; thank you. Does he have confidence in the Minister of Housing to build 1,000 net additional new public homes in Auckland in 2026?

Yes, and we’re on track to do that. But what we will not be doing is driving up house prices 50 percent, adding $180 of rent per week, having a fourfold increase in the social house wait-list, and putting 3,000 to 4,000 families into motel accommodation in emergency motels. We care about New Zealand’s most vulnerable folk, and we want to help them out of those situations, and that’s what we’re doing.

to the Minister for Social Development and Employment

Does she agree with the director of the Salvation Army’s Social Policy and Parliamentary Unit, who said in their State of the Nation 2025 report, “We can’t wish away the increasing levels of poverty and deprivation that this report is highlighting, but we can prioritise addressing the basic needs of people so that our whānau go beyond barely surviving to seeing them thrive”; if so, how does the level of children currently living in benefit-dependent households compare to 2023?

Yes. This morning, I attended the presentation of the report, and I want to start by acknowledging the Salvation Army for the outstanding work they do in our communities. Our Government is under no illusion that poverty and deprivation can be wished away. That’s why this Government has introduced FamilyBoost, we’ve increased personal income tax thresholds, and we’ve increased the in-work tax credit. In difficult economic times, we always knew things were going to get worse before they got better, but we have improved these numbers once, and we can do it again. The number of children in a benefit-dependent household in September 2017 was around 172,000. This increased by around 50,200, or 29 percent, to 222,500 by December 2023. Since then, it has increased to 232,800 as at December 2024. Our Government is committed to growing the economy so that more New Zealanders can have a job and afford the basics. There is more work to do, but our Government is not afraid of hard work.

Does she acknowledge that we are experiencing the highest level of children with food insecurity in a decade and that this largely comes down to more Kiwis out of jobs and now on benefit?

Yes, which is why we’ve said in this House on multiple occasions—whether it’s the Prime Minister, whether it’s the Minister of Finance, whether it’s myself—when you have a period of economic mismanagement, high levels of Government spending, it leads to inflation, high interest rates, followed by recession, and people losing their jobs. For those New Zealanders who are without a job at the moment, that is devastating. That is why our focus, in going for growth, is to provide the opportunities for Kiwis to have a job, to be able to put a roof over their own head, and to put food on the table.

Why are one in four children reported going without food sometimes or often—and for Pasifika, it’s one in two—and how does she reconcile this with fewer Ministry of Social Development (MSD) hardship grants being granted and less money for food banks?

I want to start by addressing the question around less food grants because, on investigation, there have been fewer requests for food hardship grants. So I would say to any New Zealander who is struggling right now, please seek assistance from MSD. There is assistance available, and we know in these times, as a hangover of the previous Government, families are doing it tough. So I say to you, reach out for help.

What is she doing to help people into work, especially the one in 10 Māori and Pacific people now unemployed, and what impact will their high rates of unemployment have on their child poverty rates?

They are absolutely connected, which is why our Government is focused on reducing the number of people on the jobseeker benefit by 50,000 by the year 2030. So, despite there being incredibly challenging economic times, I’m proud of the work that we are doing as a Government and that the MSD front-line staff are doing, and that we’ve had 33,000 people exit the jobseeker benefit into jobs in the last six months—29 percent more than the same time a year ago when the economic conditions were better.

Is the only thing her Government is growing the unemployment rate, the number of children going hungry, and the number of people living in homelessness?

As I said, unfortunately we have come into times that are incredibly challenging, and we will not shy away from the very difficult challenges that we know New Zealanders are facing, which is why, in Budget 2024, measures will lift 17,000 children out of poverty. We have a target to reduce the number of people on the jobseeker benefit by 50,000 by the year 2030. It won’t be easy, but it’s not impossible, and we’re willing to do the work.

to the Minister of Transport

What announcements has he made regarding better transport connections in Christchurch?

Some more good news in the transport space, Mr Speaker. I’m delighted to tell the House that last week we announced the delivery of upgrades to State Highway 76 Brougham Street in Christchurch—I’m sure you’re familiar with that site, sir. We are committed to delivering transport infrastructure to boost economic growth and productivity and reduce congestion. Brougham Street carries 45,000 vehicles per day, a critical route servicing the commercial, industrial, and residential areas of Christchurch.

What will be included in the delivery of this project?

It’s a very important project. It includes intersection upgrades and other interventions along the corridor to improve—

Megan Woods delivered it.

—efficiency and safety.

Just hang on a moment. Calm it down. He’s talking about an electorate that’s a million miles away from yours. Carry on—quite close to where I live.

I was going to say, it’s not far from you, sir. It also includes an overbridge between Collins—and I did enjoy this when I learnt the news—and Simeon Street to ensure local residents and school children can safely cross over the highway. I’m advised it’s about a thousand people—

What about the ones hitchhiking to get to school?

—including kids, that cross over that very busy section of State Highway 76—listen up, you might learn something—rather than using the existing level crossing.

How does this drive economic growth?

We are committed to delivering transport infrastructure that boosts economic growth. State Highway 76 upgrades are going to improve productivity and reduce congestion. It is the main freight route to the South Island’s largest port at Lyttelton. Getting freight to places as efficiently as possible is a key part of our plan to grow the economy.

What reactions has he seen about the Brougham Street upgrades?

Let me quote the Mayor of Christchurch, His Worship Phil Mauger: “This is a truly fantastic day for Christchurch.” It’s going to be a game-changer for Brougham Street. Vanessa Weenink, a very hard-working local MP, said residents in her electorate and in the wider region have told her it’s an important route. And it was great to welcome the congratulations from the member for Wigram, the Hon Megan Woods, saying it was a huge win for the local community—of course delivered under this hard-working coalition Government.

to the Minister of Housing

Does he stand by his statement that “We are focused on using every lever at our disposal in the housing market to improve affordability”; if so, how is opting for zero growth of the public housing stock using every lever?

Yes, and we haven’t.

Why has Kāinga Ora cancelled at least 103 public housing projects—comprised of 965 much-needed houses, including 398 houses in the last five months—if the Government is using every lever?

Well, Kāinga Ora’s housing funding ran out, as that member knows—well, the member may not know—

Because you didn’t fund it!

You didn’t fund it.

—from June 2025. No, no—no, no. The people who didn’t fund it, my friend, were you, who, in Budget 2023, pretended that there would be no ongoing operational funding required for Kāinga Ora. It was a fiscal cliff left by Grant Robertson to try and make the books look better in the lead-up to the 2023 election. So we’re not going to stand for that on this side of the House. So as the member may not know, that is a fact—[Interruption]

Sorry, just—the Minister will stop. That’s ridiculous; an interjection is one or two words, not a running commentary. I’m incredibly short on patience for this. I don’t want to have to flick someone out of the House, but it’s not far off.

So I’ve answered—

Point of order, Mr Speaker. Thank you very much. I take your point and accept it, that an interjection should be short and brief. Surely, a response to an interjection should have the same criteria required.

Well, if a Minister is giving an answer to a question, then I think the answer should proceed. Carry on.

I think I’ve dealt with the first part of the question. In relation to the second part of the member’s question, at any one time Kāinga Ora has a range of projects and developments around the country, and, indeed, this was true under the last Government. Some of those projects will proceed; some will not. Land economics and development economics change at any one time. Some projects are required and others are not. There are lots of projects over the years where Kāinga Ora has bought the land and where they may or may not proceed at any one time and, indeed, they may proceed in the future.

How does the Minister reconcile his statement ruling out a mass sell-off of State houses when he is increasing annual State house sales by 2,000 percent, compared with 2017 to 2023?

Well, what we’re doing is taking a sensible approach to the housing stock that Kāinga Ora owns. For example, I don’t know many New Zealanders who think it is an economic use of land and houses for Kāinga Ora to own around 200 houses, most of them in Auckland, worth $2 million or more. Actually, what Kāinga Ora can do with those houses is divest themselves of those houses and use the proceeds to reinvest in many more houses. The Leader of the Opposition himself said, around a week or so ago, it makes sense for Kāinga Ora to sell houses in places where they don’t make sense, to sell houses where the houses have come to end of life, and that when that is reinvested in building greater density, for example, and making much more economic use of the land, that makes a lot more sense. I agree with him; that is exactly what we are doing.

Will the Minister implement Nicola Willis’ pre-election commitment to building net 1,000 new public houses in Auckland every year, including beyond 2026, and, if not, should we just not trust any commitment his colleagues make to forums of over 500 community organisations?

Well, it’s a three-year term in Government. We are 15 months in, and since 27 November 2023, when this Government took office and we got sworn in as Ministers, over 2,000 net new social houses have been built in Auckland. So we’re well on the way to meeting the 1,000 per year commitment and we’re 15 months in. Three-year commitments are not broken within 15 months; you’ve got to wait till the end. We will honour that commitment.

Will there be 1,000 net new public homes in 2026, as promised by Nicola Willis and the Prime Minister just now?

The member needs to listen to the answers I’m giving: I just said we have delivered over 2,000 net new social houses in only 15 months. Again, we will honour that commitment, because we are going to grow social housing, but if you define public housing as “houses owned by the Government”, that is one thing; we have a broader view of social housing in this country, and we think public housing includes not just Government-owned houses through Kāinga Ora but also the community housing sector. [Interruption]

Just a minute. We’re going to hear the rest of this question in silence. It’s unbelievable, the amount of commentary that’s coming from those who are not answering the question.

Point of order, Mr Speaker. I’d just make the point that in the previous question put by my colleague Tamatha Paul, we had interventions from the Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister sitting next to him.

OK, then, I’m sorry I didn’t pick that up, but it doesn’t change what I’ve just said: we’re hearing the balance of this in silence.

My question to the Minister is: given the inability for some members to understand the facts that are being told by you in the answers, could he configure the future answers in cartoon form to make it more understandable?

No—don’t answer that. Is there a further question?

It’s a point of order. I seek leave to table the commitment that Nicola Willis signed at the forum of over 500 community organisations to build those houses.

Good. Was this something that is already in the public arena and publicly available?

No, it’s not.

Well, how could it not be? [Interruption]

It’s not publicly available—

Sorry, just a minute. No further commentary. If it’s something that is an election commitment, then clearly it is in the public arena.

It’s online.

It’s not online. It’s not publicly available, this form.

It must be at some point.

Speaking to the point of order, the fact that she is holding up a copy of the photo of it indicates people know about it; it’s a publicly available document.

I’m going to just save the House and myself a lot of stress, and the House a bit of time: leave is sought; is there any objection? Thank you. Question No. 8, Barbara Edmonds, and we’ll try and—[Interruption]. Excuse me. Listen, someone has got to go, because I’m just going to erupt in a minute, and it could come from all over the place. So this question, of course, will be heard in silence, and the answer will be listened to respectfully.

to the Minister of Finance

Does she stand by all her statements and actions?

Yes, in the context in which they were given or made. In particular, I stand by my statement that economic growth means more and better-paying jobs for Kiwis. This should of course go without saying, but it is a good reminder for some members of this House who seem to believe that if only the Government borrowed more, taxed more, and spent more, nirvana would come. Well, the past Government tried that, and we are still cleaning up the wreckage it left.

When she said she was going for growth, did that mean growing the number of people that are unemployed?

No. My desire is to see as many Kiwis who want to work and can work in good-paying jobs. But I would remind the member of this statement: at the pre-election update, forecasts were released for where unemployment would be right now, and rather than interpreting for myself, I will refer to a statement by the previous finance Minister, who said, “Unemployment is forecast to remain below the long-term average of 5.8 percent - peaking at 5.4 percent before declining to 4.6 percent at the end of the forecast period.” We are tracking exactly to those forecasts, and I would highlight to the member that the previous finance Minister was quick to note that we remain below the long-term average.

Why, then, in the HYEFU, is unemployment due to grow to 5.4 percent?

Well, at the pre-election update, we had the following forecasts for unemployment. It was to be 5.4 percent in 2025; HYEFU has it at 5.4 percent for 2025. It was to be 4.8 percent for 2026; HYEFU has it at 4.8 percent for 2026. It was to be 4.6 percent for 2027, and HYEFU has it at 4.5 percent. So if the member is suggesting that somehow it is the actions of this Government that have led to unemployment, she needs to explain why her previous Government was forecasting exactly the same levels of unemployment that are occurring today. I suggest to the member that the basic economics are this: when you let inflation get out of control, when interest rates have to surge to get it back under control, you constrain activity in the economy, and you put people out of jobs. Your party chose to do that, and we’re cleaning it up.

Was she going for growth when she put the country in the deepest recession for the last 30 years, with the exception of COVID—[Interruption]

I’m going to now give the last warning to anybody in the House. When a question is being asked, no one speaks. If it means a whole block of the House leave the House, so be it.

Was she going for growth when she put the country in the deepest recession for the last 30 years with the exception of COVID, and the accelerating number of company liquidations and closures?

It is a shame to me that I have to give this explanation to that member. The situation our economy is in today is not a result of actions taken by this Government. It is a result of an extraordinary set of decisions made by a Labour-led Government which saw inflation surge to generational highs, all while they spent more, which saw interest rates having to be cranked up at such pace by the Reserve Bank that it killed off all sorts of activity in the economy. So what has happened since we have come into office? Well, interest rates are coming down fast, inflation is back in the target range, and growth is forecast to return. I don’t take responsibility for making your mistakes; I take responsibility for fixing them.

How can we trust that she is going for growth, when we have record unemployment, 13,000 less construction roles in the economy, record net migration, record company liquidations, more hungry children and homelessness, all because of her choices, and half the country doesn’t think she’s up for that job?

Well, in reference to the second part of the question, the question that she refers to asked whether Nicola Willis will deliver good economic growth over the term of this Government. I don’t know about that member, but I have a slightly more humble view of the role of the finance and economic growth Minister. My job is to create the conditions in which growth can occur. Do you know who’s going to deliver it? It’s not you and it’s not you; it’s the New Zealanders who get up in the morning, the farmers who milk their cows and get more for their milk, it’s the businesses who choose to hire more people, it’s the entrepreneurs who decide to start a new business. This is a Government that is on their side. I am confident that with us on their side, the economy will grow, and the Treasury backs me up on that, the Reserve Bank backs me up on that. The only one who wants to say the sky is falling is you, Barb.

Point of order, Mr Speaker. It’s very clear in the Standing Orders and Speakers’ rulings that members should refer to other members with their full name. I take offence that she referred to me in a nickname just to have a jab at me.

Look, I think that’s fair enough. A withdrawal and apology for that part of the answer would be appropriate.

I withdraw and apologise.

Can I ask the Minister, given that all communications are about understanding, in the second question asked by Barbara Edmonds, she referred to this place called HYEFU; can you tell us where in the world this place is?

The Minister makes a good point. The preponderance of acronyms when it comes to descriptions of the economy can be problematic, and it’s certainly something I’ve had words with my officials about. The Half Year Economic and Fiscal Update is simply a set of forecasts about where the economy and the Government’s books will be over the forecast period.

to the Minister of Education

What recent announcements has she made about driving better outcomes for Māori students?

Right now, for the first time ever, we are delivering, to 310 classrooms across the country, nationally consistent maths resources including student workbooks, teacher guides, and tactile materials in te reo Māori. These world-leading, curriculum-aligned resources, grounded in the science of learning, will benefit 27,000 ākonga across the country, learning in immersion settings. And as the Minister responsible for a bilingual education system that strives for excellence and equitable outcomes, I’m being intentional about replicating my English medium work in te reo Māori so that all Kiwi kids can reach their full potential.

He rawe [That’s great]. How are these resources setting up ākonga for success?

Well, structured and sequenced resources grounded in the science of learning will help deliver on the Government’s commitment to teaching the basics brilliantly and raising student achievement. As we introduce the refreshed Te Marautanga o Aotearoa Curriculum, it’s essential to support kaiako with high-quality, curriculum-aligned resources. This not only reduces teacher workload but helps build confidence, capability, and consistency in the classroom. Whānau will be able to walk into classrooms and see these workbooks and know more about how their tamariki are progressing.

How will the new decodable books in phonics check Hihira Weteoro support better outcomes for tamariki learning into te reo Māori?

From right now—this term—kura and immersion units can use newly developed purpose-built tools used to monitor student progression in reading in te reo Māori. Students will be checked at 20, 40, and 55 weeks of schooling to see how they’re progressing with identifying sounds, letters, and words, if they can segment and write words, and whether or not they can read sentences comparing basic sight words. Data from these phonics checks will help us better target structured literacy interventions to those learning through te reo Māori.

He pātai mutunga [A final question]. What feedback has she received from schools who are benefiting from these new resources?

Just today, Dr Sarah Brown from Kerikeri Primary School wrote to me about the new te reo maths resources being used in her bilingual classrooms. She said, “The content is both relevant and comprehensive, making it a valuable asset for structured learning in literacy and maths.” She said, “Our tamariki are finding the resources motivating and easy to engage with. The kaiako—teachers—have reported that they are being seamlessly incorporated into daily lessons. It is clear that these resources are making a real difference in our classroom. We truly appreciate your work and dedication to the future of te reo Māori education.”

to the Associate Minister of Housing

Does he stand by his statement that “those people who have a genuine need for a short-term stay in temporary accommodation known as emergency housing have a pathway to do that”; if so, what is his reaction to the finding in the Salvation Army’s State of the Nation 2025 report that “there are rising numbers of people who are homeless”?

Āna. Kei te tautoko au i tāku i kī ai, ki te nuinga o ngā tāone me ngā tāone nui i roto i a Niu Tīreni. [Yes. I support what I said, in the majority of the towns and cities within New Zealand.] A lot of whānau are doing it tough, and often because of the cost of living challenges and other health challenges that they face. But I acknowledge the Salvation Army and their very supportive mahi, particularly at Grandview Road in Hamilton West. I’ve not read their whole report, but note that it does report on the number of households in emergency housing being the lowest in eight years, and reducing over 80 percent. We are proud of this reduction and the reduction of over 5,000 households on the Housing Register. These reductions have happened, notwithstanding the increase in the number of people being reported as in severe housing deprivation, which rose by 10 percent between 2018 and 2023.

Does he seriously expect New Zealanders to believe his claim—

Yes.

—that the numbers—

Sorry, that’s just not on. Let it go. Start the question again.

Does he seriously expect New Zealanders to believe his claim that the need for emergency housing has reduced when front-line providers such as the Salvation Army have shown that the real reason emergency housing numbers have dropped is due to his policy to stop people getting in?

I do believe that most New Zealanders recognise that there has been a severe cost of living crisis that has contributed to a number of housing challenges throughout the country. A lot of people are doing it tough. There continues to be a number of avenues for people to access better housing support, whether or not that’s Housing First, Rapid Rehousing, transitional housing, or, indeed, when there’s a genuine need for a short-term stay in temporary accommodation in most towns and cities for emergency housing.

Does he feel ashamed celebrating the reduction in emergency housing costs when a pregnant woman sleeps not in a social house, nor in emergency housing, but in the doorway of the Salvation Army’s Rotorua base?

I am very concerned by the number of people with severe housing deprivation throughout the country, and this is some of the legacy that we’ve inherited over the last 15 months.

Why won’t he just admit that the drop in emergency housing numbers is a crock, that his policies have led to increased homelessness, and, actually, all this is about is saving costs, not housing people?

I’m actually very proud—indeed whakahīhī, in a humble way—that we have committed our efforts, our energies, the taxpayers’ resources, and our networks to ensure that we can reduce the number of whānau and households living in emergency housing by over 80 percent. What I’d also acknowledge is this: when we arrived, we knew where about 50 percent of people were going to once they left emergency housing; now we know where there’s more than 80 percent. I think that’s progress; don’t you?

Why should New Zealanders take him seriously when he has broken his promise to build more houses than the previous Labour Government; when Chris Bishop broke his promise to build enough houses to eliminate the housing waiting list; and when this pledge, signed by Nicola Willis, promised a net increase of 1,000 State homes in Auckland but demonstrates that her word is worth nothing?

We’ve traversed these matters at various times during the last hour and, of course, over the last 15 months, but what we do know is that we continue to be committed to facilitating the use of taxpayer funds to build houses through community housing providers—1,500 by June 2027, Kāinga Ora is probably 2,650 by June 2026, and the numbers of Māori housing projects that we continue to facilitate using taxpayer funds. We’re actually very proud of that. We’re also very proud of the reduction in numbers of households and whānau living in dank, dark motels in far out places like Masterton.

You should be ashamed.

Well, I’m not.

Well, that’s fair enough, sir. He should be ashamed.

Yeah, that would be a better way to put it. But it’d be better if you’d said nothing at all.

to the Associate Minister of Housing

What recent announcements has he made about Kāinga Ora?

In March 2024, this Government instructed Kāinga Ora to end its Sustaining Tenancies framework and introduce a new rent debt policy with fairer consequences for tenants who do not pay their rents and meet their obligations. Between 2017 and 2023, Kāinga Ora tenant debt increased from $1 million to $21 million, with some whānau struggling to repay their debt. We are seeing blue shoots on action with disruptive tenants, and we want to continue that momentum to ensure that Kāinga Ora tenants pay their rent.

What is Kāinga Ora’s new rent debt policy, and what differences will it make?

The new policy focuses on preventing tenants from getting into rent debt, acting quickly when rent payments become overdue, preventing large debts in the future. Kāinga Ora will continue to support tenants who fall behind on rent but are making genuine attempts to get back on track. Kāinga Ora will also be firm with tenants who regularly skip payments and refuse to work with Kāinga Ora to address the debt challenges. In those situations, and if necessary, Kāinga Ora will take steps to end the tenancy. The new approach will endeavour to ensure that tenants who get into more than 12 weeks’ worth of rent debt when their tenancy has ended—this means that Kāinga Ora will begin that process of ending the tenancy earlier than in the past.

Why did Kāinga Ora’s rent debt increase so significantly?

Tenant rent debt increased significantly between 2019 and 2023, skyrocketing to nearly $22 million by January 2024. A range of things contributed to this, such as the lockdowns, the cost of living crisis, and the economic challenges. But the Sustaining Tenancies approach, directed before my associate housing role commenced, meant that the efforts of Kāinga Ora, in taking appropriate action under the Residential Tenancies Act, were very minimal, causing fiscal implications to whānau, seeing them get into unsustainable amounts of rent. Operational changes at Kāinga Ora has seen debt fall from a peak of nearly $22 million to $16 million at the beginning of the year—more blue shoots. This Government expects Kāinga Ora to work carefully and prudently with their tenants; be firm but fair.

Why is Kāinga Ora forgiving some of the debt owed by its tenants?

This Government is committed to turning around Kāinga Ora and delivering better public services for all in Aotearoa New Zealand. Some tenants of Kāinga Ora have been left to accumulate huge amounts of debt under the previous Sustaining Tenancies framework. The reality is that if left, some whānau would spend the rest of their lives with the stress of having a huge debt hanging over their head that they simply cannot clear. We support the Kāinga Ora board’s decision in forgiving some of the debt to a reasonable amount for those tenants who are working carefully with them to pay down their debt. This policy will provide some debt relief to tenants who are struggling with the level of debt they have, but Kāinga Ora is adopting a firm but fair approach that this Government will tautoko.

to the Minister of Health

Does he have confidence in New Zealand’s health system?

Our health system is faced with significant challenges. We know that Kiwis are waiting too long to be seen at emergency departments, to receive first specialist assessments, or have elective surgeries. There has been a steep decline in delivery in recent years, exacerbated by members on the other side of the House who thought removing health targets and reforming the health system in the middle of a pandemic was a good idea. My focus is on patients and backing our health system to turn this around. New Zealanders rightfully expect access to timely, quality healthcare, and that’s what my absolute focus is on.

Does he have confidence in health commissioner Lester Levy, given that under his programme of funding cuts, teams within Health New Zealand have been told that, “Failing often and failing early is the way to succeed.”?

I have confidence in the commissioners and the work that they are doing to get Health New Zealand back on track and focusing back on delivering for patients. You cannot manage what you don’t measure, and they got rid of the health targets, and I just say shame on them. People are waiting too long to get an elective surgery, waiting longer at emergency departments, immunisation rates declining. They need to look at the mirror and actually look at the results that they left, and we’re fixing it.

Point of order, Mr Speaker.

I think I anticipate the point of order and I’m going to say right now: that sort of answer to a question is going to mean that the Minister answering the question is terminated. That’s unacceptable. This is a question and answer session. Stick to the answers, not the hyperbole that might somehow varnish an answer.

Can he confirm how many health commissioners there are in New Zealand and why won’t he support Mr Levy, who was hand-picked by the Prime Minister to be health commissioner?

Well, there is one commissioner; there are three deputy commissioners. I support the commissioners in the work that they are doing to deliver on the Government’s priorities. I put it to you, Mr Speaker, when the last Government came into office in 2017, there were 918 people waiting longer than four months to get their first specialist assessments. When we came to office, it was 59,000—

No, that’s enough.

Can he state to the House and name Mr Levy as a person with his confidence?

Well, Mr Levy is the commissioner of Health New Zealand. He has my confidence and he is focused on delivering on the Government’s priorities.

Good. That answers the question.

Can the Minister confirm: is he the “one vanilla-flavoured brown-bag common cheap solution per problem” that Health New Zealand leaders are describing in their presentations?

Well, I have been called many things in my career in politics and I’m sure that’s probably not the worst.

Point of order. I’m going on your ruling with respect to what the Minister was being allowed to say. Now, you saw from that last supplementary question the epithet of insults and the Minister’s now been constrained in his reply. I have looked at parliaments and democracies all over the world. This is the most constrained one now because some members here can’t take it when somebody hits back at them. It’s an essential part of this Parliament that we have a vigorous debate. And I would ask you to reflect upon your rulings and have regard to the past times when this was a better Parliament because people came here better prepared.

Well, let me just respond to that by saying that I reflect upon the Standing Orders, which are relatively clear, and for the most part allow a huge amount of variation from those Standing Orders. I think, when a straight question is asked, it should get a straight answer without the additions to it. That last question, I hope the Minister would have understood, being deeply political in nature, would have allowed him enormous amount of room to say whatever he liked. That comes to the end of question time. We’ll just take 30 seconds while those who have other duties quietly leave the House without discussion on the way.

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. The Prime Minister’s statement to Parliament lays out the Government’s agenda for the year ahead. This Government is focused on saying yes to growth opportunities and rejecting the negative politics of the past in which we invented reason after reason to say no to economic growth, because it’s easy to say no to things. It’s the easiest thing in the world. As any new parent knows, saying no to kids is easy—as I’ve discovered. It’s incredibly simplistic and it’s incredibly easy. Actually, the tough decisions—the things that make a difference—are when you need to say yes, and, for too long, this country has made a habit of just saying no.

Everyone says that they’re in favour of growth—well, apart from the Greens. The Greens are the official de-growth party. They’re not in favour of economic growth, but most rational political parties are, apart from the Māori Party—they’re also not in favour of growth. Let’s leave Te Pāti Māori and the Green Party out of this, and let’s just pretend that this conversation is happening amongst rational, normal people. The National Party and the Labour Party and New Zealand First and the ACT Party—we’re in favour of growth, and most reasonable people can agree on that.

The problem with that is that it’s easy to say that you’re in favour of growth, but there’s always a “but”: “I’m in favour of growth, but growth has got to be equitable”—as if that’s a real thing. “Growth has got to be sustainable”. “I’m in favour of growth as long as it doesn’t involve foreigners making money”, “I’m in favour of growth as long as it doesn’t involve trading with the rest of the world”, “I’m in favour of growth as long as we make sure that live animal exports are not allowed”, “I’m in favour of growth as long as we preserve every wetland everywhere in the country”—even if it is, in fact, not a real wetland.

“I’m in favour of growth as long as someone doesn’t make a buck out of it”, “I’m in favour of growth as long as it doesn’t involve trade with the rest of the world”, “I’m in favour of growth as long as we don’t build any McDonald’s in Wānaka”—which is the latest thing, today. “I’m in favour of growth as long as I can see everything”, “I’m in favour of growth as long as I can see Mount Eden from every part of Auckland”—including on a particular part of the Auckland Harbour Bridge where the toll booth used to be 30 years ago, until we removed it.

“I’m in favour of growth except”—except, except, except. That’s been the story for 30 years. We just say that we like growth, but we’ve found every reason under the sun to say no. We wake up in 2025 and we find ourselves 35 to 40 percent poorer than Australia. We find ourselves with a productivity growth rate that’s lower than most of our trading partners that we’d like to compare ourselves to, and then—

It’s called neo-liberalism.

See, I told you that they were the de-growth party. The Greens don’t believe in growth. Well, here’s the rub: they’re the first people to complain about underfunding in hospitals and schools, and all of the living standards and the public goods that the New Zealand Government should and does provide. But, I tell you, here’s the rub: how do you have a better public health system? Growth. How do you have a better standard of living? Growth. How do you have a better education system? Growth. In fact, here’s the truth: what are the countries that look after the environment the best? Wealthy countries that grow. The poorest economies in the world desecrate the environment. They ravage the environment.

I invite the member to travel through the developing world. He would find the developing world going hell for leather on growth, and, actually, half the time utilising natural resources from fossil fuels to grow, because the great driver of human history is growth. This idea that we should lock ourselves in a hermetically sealed vacuum off from the rest of the world and pretend, and wear hemp and eat vegan food all day is nuts. It is nuts, and that’s what the Greens believe. They’re entitled to those beliefs, and New Zealanders are entitled to believe in them as well, but I aim and we aim for better things—we aim for better things. Fast-growing economies look after their people better and they look after the environment better, and that is why we are going for growth.

About 20 years ago, there was an interesting exchange in the House about why Australia has access to better cancer drugs than New Zealand, and why Australia has better access to pharmaceuticals. The simple reason is that they are wealthier than we are, and Michael Cullen said that 20 years ago.

We’ve got to go for growth, and that means everything the Government is doing. That means fast track, and, yes, there will be projects that the Green Party does not like, but I’ll tell you what this country needs: it needs more roads, it needs more mines, it needs more renewable energy, and it needs more solar farms. It needs to be easier to build wind farms in this country. It needs to be easier to do just the simple task of subdividing a house, the simple task of putting a house on a section of farmland so that people can live in those houses, or the simple task of adding extensions to houses without going through endless red tape by the local council and the regional council, and all of the plans that get in the way of that. We need to say yes to trade. Todd McClay—where is Todd McClay?

“Trade McClay”.

“Trade McClay”—I don’t want to see him in this House ever again! He needs to be offshore, doing trade deals. He’s just come back from the UAE, and we’re in the first 14 days—a fantastic deal.

We’re doing an investment summit in the coming weeks, in March, and I make a prediction that the Green Party will turn up and say, “This is really bad. We can’t have foreign pension funds investing in New Zealand infrastructure, because it might mean that someone makes a buck.” I predict that; in fact, I hope that the Labour Party won’t say that, but we’ll see—we’ll see. They are vaguely rational, sometimes, on growth.

We need foreign investment. We need fast track. We need trade deals. We need our investment summit. We need planning reform, and this year we’ve got a big programme of work around the Resource Management Act. I’ll guarantee you that the Labour Party—TBC—will oppose it, and I guarantee you that Te Pāti Māori will oppose it.

It’s time to stop saying no to everything, and time to start to say yes. It’s interesting to look back over the Labour Party’s response to this Government’s ambitious agenda so far, because we’ve got “Mr No” and “Mr Slow” over there. “Mr No” is Chris Hipkins, and “Mr Slow” is Kieran McAnulty.

“Mr No”—Chris Hipkins—is not in favour of fast track and they voted against it, but it looked like he was in favour of digital nomad visas. We had this great idea and Louise Upston, Nicola Willis, and Erica Stanford announced it, and we thought that this was pretty good. It went down extremely well and it had a huge amount of interest from overseas. Chris Hipkins said a year ago that this was a vision for New Zealand: “Digital nomads calling New Zealand home while using the international time difference to work productively and remotely.” Well, I agree, but it turns out that the Labour Party opposes that, like they opposed fast track, even though they came up with the original idea for that in the first place.

Now, “Mr Slow” over there, when it comes to the speed limits in the Wairarapa—and let me talk about the speed limits. There’s been quite a bit of debate about them, and I want to acknowledge Mike Butterick, who’s right down the back of the Chamber, but he’s at the forefront of this debate. He’s done a fantastic job on campaigning and overturning it.

Who remembers the policy bonfire when Chris Hipkins came into Government? Jacinda Ardern resigned as Prime Minister, and everyone got very excited about life—all the stupid ideas that that Government was advancing? New Zealanders said, “Oh, this is quite good—a policy bonfire.”, and Chris Hipkins stood up and said, “I’m getting rid of all the speed limit changes.”, because he knew they were really unpopular, and he then did nothing about it. I think that the good people of the Wairarapa got very excited because they thought, “Oh, this is quite good. This stupid 80 kilometre stretch from Featherston to Masterton—we’re going to get rid of that.”, but nothing happened, and it took the election of a local National MP and a National Government to get rid of it. I’m pleased I’ve made Kieran McAnulty’s day around that.

We’ve got “Mr No” and “Mr Slow”, and then we’ve got “Miss No-show” over there—the finance spokesperson for the Labour Party—who is just not part of the economic debate. She’s got two different positions at any one time. On the one hand, it’s “They’re borrowing too much.”, and then at the next minute, it’s like “You need to borrow more because we need to invest in this and that and the other thing.”

Then they can’t make up their minds about the capital gains tax, and I’ll make another prediction for the year ahead. I’ll make another prediction for the year ahead, because we’ve got “Mr Piketty”—David Parker—down the back, alongside the merry crew, and Helen White is smiling over there. She’s nodding and smiling, because what’s happening is there’s a—I hesitate to use the word “coup”, but there’s a lobby in the Labour Party. Helen White, Phil Twyford, David Parker, and, let’s face it, 80 percent of the Labour Party membership are going to push hard for a wealth tax, and the Labour Party needs to sort out its position. Oh, I’ll tell you our position: they’re both dumb ideas. Wealth taxes are stupid and capital gains taxes are stupid.

I’ll tell you what is a good idea: going for growth. That’s what this Government is going to do, and only when the Labour Party starts saying yes to economic opportunity will the public take them seriously. Thank you very much.

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. This Government is arrogant, it is incompetent, it is disingenuous, it is heartless, and it is cruel. If we go by the previous speech, you’d also think they’ve given up. That was supposed to be their brightest star. I’ve seen duller things in the middle of a paddock. That was pathetic. Did you see the level of energy? The most energy that Chris Bishop could bring up, and the most energised his bench mates were, was when Mark Mitchell crossed his arms—that was it. That was the best they could come up with. The reason I think they’re so deflated is because they know that they have stuffed up. They know that the public is starting to wake up to the fact that they were told fibs during the campaign. That is why the Government is arrogant: because they think because they say it, it must be true. It is not true. It is far from true.

Think back to the campaign. Everyone told them that their tax plan didn’t add up—everyone—except Nicola Willis and Chris Bishop and Chris Luxon. “No, no, we’ve got it. We’re all good.” Who was right? Was it them? No. It was everybody else. And now they stand up and they tell regions around the country, “We don’t have money for your hospital. We don’t have money to replace your orthopaedic surgeons. We don’t have money to replace your birthing unit. We don’t have money to fund our roads that we promised. We don’t have money to fund houses. We don’t have money to fund early childhood education, despite our promises—we’re going to make it so hard to apply, to save ourselves money.” All of these things come from one thing: that party misleading the country during the campaign, and it’s coming home to roost now. They have failed the economy: 2.4 percent growth in GDP when they took office, and now we’re in recession.

We saw it today in question time, didn’t we? When the Prime Minister comes under pressure, he just makes things up. When he was being asked about the economic performance of this Government, he said, “We’ve been in recession for three years.”, and everyone’s standing around going, “No, we haven’t.” We’ve been in recession for nine months—entirely in your time. We saw it again today: “Oh, we’ve built 2,000 houses.”—bull. Not true. Not even close to true. They have built zero houses. The only houses that have been built are the houses that the previous Government paid for. Now they are so desperate to claim some sort of win, that they are claiming the work of other people. Should this come as a surprise? No. What do they do when they’re confronted with their own mistakes? They blame other people. That is the typical behaviour of an arrogant person: claim credit for somebody else’s win and blame them when it’s actually your fault.

They are so incompetent that the only thing that they can grasp at now is the failed policy of privatisation—the very policy that has led to unaffordable energy bills, because John Key sold 49 percent of the power companies. Apparently, the solution to that is to sell the rest! It is dumb—it is dumb. It’s been tried before; it’s failed before, but when you’ve got nothing left, what have you got? That is the only thing that they can grasp. The reason I say they are disingenuous is because they stand up in this House and they say they care about people’s jobs.

Rubbish.

Rubbish. They stand there after firing thousands upon thousands of people, after pulling funding out of hospital builds and school builds and social house builds—to the tune of 14,000 people have lost their jobs in construction. That is their decision. That is on their heads, and when we raise it to their attention, what do they do? They blame everybody else except themselves. Well, they’re going to have to suck it up because that is a direct result of their decisions. It is actually the reason why I call them cruel and heartless.

Homelessness is growing. That is proven in the Salvation Army State of the Nation 2025 report released today. Homelessness is growing. Compare that to the findings in last year’s report that said we are finally finding some momentum and finally making some ground in housing people. Why? Because the Labour Government invested in houses and actually built houses. We built so many houses, they think they can claim credit for 2,000 of them and no one will notice. But we do notice, because we know that they have funded and built nothing. When homelessness is growing, a caring Government that actually follows through with its promises would have done what they said they would do during the campaign.

Tama Potaka said that they would build more social houses than the previous Labour Government. That’s a big commitment, because that’s 14,000, right? Chris Bishop said that they would build so many houses that they would eliminate the housing wait-list, and Nicola Willis signed a pledge, with her own name, that they would build a net increase of a thousand State homes in Auckland every year. What’s happened? They have stopped the expansion of State houses. Despite all the bluster and the attempts to do witty points of order, Chris Bishop needs to front up to the country. His policy means that there will be no increase in State houses.

They have only funded community housing providers to the tune of 750 houses a year from next year. That’s all they’ve funded, so they can’t lay claim to anything up to now. Then, from 2026 onwards, it’s 750 a year. There are over 20,000 people on the social housing waiting list, and their solution is to fund 750 a year, but the thing that I find most egregious and most disingenuous is the claim that they have met their emergency housing target five years early. It’s just not true. Do they think New Zealanders are thick? That they can turn around and say, “Look at this, we’ve reduced it from 4,000 to 600 just like that.” You’ve got to ask the question: why?

If you look into the numbers, everyone that has left emergency housing to go into a social house has gone into a social house that we paid for and built. Twenty percent that have left emergency housing are unaccountable for, and Tama Potaka is on the record to say that he doesn’t care if they’re on the street. If you don’t believe me, look it up—it’s in the Stuff article. Here’s the thing: the Salvation Army and other front-line providers stood in front of the Minister and they said, “Your policy is preventing people from getting in.” He didn’t care, because they only care about reducing costs, and they only care about meeting targets—arbitrary targets that don’t actually mean anything because they don’t give a true reflection.

Homelessness is going up—while they stall State houses, underfund community housing providers, and literally prevent people from going into emergency housing to make their numbers look good.

Shame.

It is shameful. Just in the last two weeks, we have presented the Minister with examples of people that he has looked in the eye and said that, if you are in genuine need, you will get help. The example today is a Rotorua mother who’s pregnant and who is sleeping in a doorway; the man from Christchurch who was sent out of hospital, denied emergency housing—readmitted to hospital from complications from sleeping in his car; the mother with a four-month-old in Tauranga who was denied the opportunity to apply for emergency housing and is living in a tent; and the woman and her children in the Wellington region who escaped domestic violence and wasn’t even able to apply.

This is a result of your decisions, a result of the Budget that each and every one of you voted for. No wonder you’re deflated, and no wonder your heads are hanging in shame. They deserve to be.

This is a split call. I call on Tim Costley.

Well, I guess if you’re bereft of your own ideas, you just start talking about everybody else’s, because I didn’t hear one idea on how to actually improve the quality of life for everyday Kiwis in that last 10 minutes of whatever that was. All I heard was wanting to point the finger and deflect from the track record of the last six years.

If you want to go back, read the Hansard from 16 February 2022, when the Salvation Army State of the Nation report came out, where they said, “Oh, it wasn’t just a housing crisis; it was a catastrophe.” Of course, the Ministers that day were, “Oh, no, no, no, we haven’t done anything wrong. We’re making everything better.” It’s never the fault of anyone over that side; it’s just a mystery to people like their finance spokesperson how we landed up in the worst recession in 30 years. It’s a complete mystery, and it doesn’t surprise me when I hear the questions that come from them that it would be a mystery.

We actually need to make progress for everyday Kiwis. We heard it from the last person to speak, Kieran McAnulty, talking about the fact that as a country we have no money to pay for things. No kidding. Look at what happened for the last six years under their Government. That’s why we need growth. If we want to pay for more doctors, if we want more teachers and more nurses and more social workers, if we want to have better welfare, if we want to have better public services, we have to pay for it, and that means we need growth.

Growth gives us choices; it gives us opportunities. It means family can make a few decisions at the end of the week. That’s what our plan is all about. Yes, I’m proud that we’ve done stuff like going from almost 5,000 households in emergency accommodation, to 591 in a year. We set a target of six years; we did it five years early. That is outstanding, but there is more to do, and that’s why we’re going for growth. In my five minutes—it’s less than that now—let me give you five ideas that are actually going to help us get growth.

Firstly, we need a skilled workforce. That’s why in schools last year we took away the cellphones, we started doing the basics brilliantly—an hour a day of reading, writing, and maths; and this year we’re bringing back structured literacy, structured maths. I had messages from families of Paraparaumu Beach School, families telling me how excited they were to see the new textbooks that were funded coming home. This is, of course, the first time we’ve also fully funded textbooks in te reo Māori. This came out from another principal that says, “We’ve definitely seen the benefits of children completing, now, their maths knowledge work, reinforcing their basic maths skills in our class learning.” They are loving what we’re doing because it gets results, and if we want to have a growth economy, we need the skilled workforce to deliver that.

Secondly, we need to improve regulation. It’s not just Resource Management Act reform or improving the rules and simplifying them for building new homes. The things that annoy you, like traffic management—I was speaking with Horowhenua District Council staff about this; more than $35,000 in traffic management for an Anzac Day parade. How do we get to the point in this country where we think it’s OK that we’re spending tens of thousands of dollars to let our veterans march down the street when there’s a police car up the front and the back anyway? It’s this kind of unproductive spending that doesn’t create growth. It doesn’t help anyone in our community. It is just wasteful spending that we are focused on getting rid of. If we keep taking this lowest common denominator approach, we’re never going to grow our economy, we’re never going to deliver the opportunities that Kiwi families need.

Time ticks on—number three: we need innovation at home and from offshore. I think of some great local businesses in Ōtaki, like Stanmore Farm, that produce grapevine stems for all around the country and overseas, exporting them overseas. The technology that they have developed themselves on site is amazing. We’ve seen what Rocket Lab can do. Last year, I went to visit Robinson Research Institute. They’ve developed high temperature superconductors to power little satellites; it’s just gone up on a NASA space station, but there was no plan to commercialise it. This is the best and the brilliance of Kiwi scientists. We need to be commercialising these opportunities so that we bring the opportunity back home.

Four and five really quickly: we need to strengthen our international connections. It’s not just free-trade agreements; it’s getting rid of non-tariff barriers. It’s the work that people, like our Defence Force, do overseas to build those relationships. Number five: it is about investing in quality infrastructure. In my area, that’s things like the Ōtaki to north of Levin expressway, 110 kilometres an hour on day one. It is going to be magnificent. That’s something we’ve campaigned for, for a long time, but it helps get our community moving. It’s also things like the solar farm in Foxton that this Government has committed to supporting, and we’ve put through the fast track—well, they’re open for applications now in the fast track. I look forward to seeing it.

If we do these things, if we have the skills starting from a young age, if we improve regulation, if we innovate at home, if we strengthen our global connections and invest in quality infrastructure, we will have a growth economy. Growth isn’t a certainty, but with our plan, Going for Growth, we will deliver it for everyday Kiwis, so they get the public services, they get the quality of life, and the choices they deserve.

I love Waitangi week—love it. Love being in Northland, love what it is that we’re celebrating up there, love the vision. Last week, of all the things that I had the privilege of doing up there, my highlight was, I think, on Tuesday when I was able to visit three different Northland businesses with a number of our Ministers here. I want to speak briefly to each of them today and then pivot from there to one of the most exciting things that I’ve seen in our plan for this year, which is to turbocharge Invest New Zealand. Those three businesses were Kawiti Glowworm Caves, Ngawha Springs, and Manea Footprints of Kupe. Every one of those are a hapū-owned and -directed business and every one of them have been able to weave the pūrākau o ō rātou tīpuna i roto i tēnei kaupapa. [stories of their ancestors in this issue.]

The richness that that brings to the experiences—it really was an unforgettable day. It was an unforgettable day not just in terms of what we learnt and what we what we felt and what we were connected to in terms of those places but it was unforgettable too in terms of the inspiration for what is possible when communities are supported and resourced and enabled to actually develop their own economic growth and their own economic independence. That’s what every community, every hapū, every family in this country wants. They want the ability to be able to look after themselves. They want the ability to be able to create employment and care for their own, and that is why, as I mentioned in my introduction, I’m so excited about the turbocharging of Invest New Zealand.

Tell us, Greg.

I will. Invest New Zealand, under New Zealand Trade and Enterprise (NZTE)—and on this one, can I just acknowledge my colleague, friend, and former constituent Courtney Wilson-Yalden: rā whānau ki a koe e Courtney mō tēnei Rāmere [happy birthday to you, Courtney, for this Friday]—coming up there. Under NZTE, in just three years, Invest New Zealand has backed 324 Māori businesses, generating $753 million in investments. It is a New Zealand success story that we are taking to the next level; we’re going to scale it and it’s going to have massive impact on Māori communities, on Māori businesses, and across the whole country as well.

I also want to speak about a couple of businesses in my electorate of Maungakiekie and give them as an example to the House of how it is that businesses drive community flourishing. These are the businesses owned by Will Batts and by Dmitry Gafiyatulin. Will owns the Sentinel Homes franchise. He lives in Onehunga. Dmitry’s business is called Reliance Utilities and it’s based in One Tree Hill. These two guys are both in their early- to mid-thirties and they stand, I think, as fantastic examples of why it is that we, as a Government, are focused on economic growth and why we believe that economic growth is the best way forward to seeing our communities actually flourish. The single biggest thing in Dmitry’s business—he is an energy retailer—that he needs to be able to provide better services and more affordable products to his customers is more energy. That is what fast track is all about: it’s actually entirely about driving that kind of rapid development so that we can have more energy going to businesses like this that will then help our communities flourish.

In Will’s case, he is all about building homes—building dozens of homes for our communities. The three things that he needs more than anything else is residential land, he needs faster building consent processes, and he needs more competitive building products. Well, we’ve got great news, Will. We’re delivering all three of those, and we’re delivering them at pace. Because Dmitry and Will, and dozens and hundreds and thousands of small-business owners, like them, invest their capital, they create employment for people, they generate income, and from that income they pay tax, which allows us in this House the privilege of funding the public services that everyone needs and deserves. But then Will and Dmitry do even more. From what’s left over after delivering services, building homes, funding employees, paying tax, and feeding their own families, they choose to invest further in their community. They give substantially and generously to charitable causes from the fruits of their business, including, just beginning this week, the co-funding of a 24/7 youth worker at One Tree Hill College.

That’s the differences that businesses make. That’s how we make our communities and our hapū and our whānau in this country flourish, and that’s why we’re about economic growth and productivity.

Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Tēnā koutou e te Whare. The Green Party, from the very beginning, has always been about improving quality of life, about understanding what real wealth is to people. Real wealth is not measured in GDP; it is measured in the time that we are able to spend with our children. It is measured in the flourishing of ecosystems of which we are part—being able to see nature return to a city like Pōneke Wellington. In my electorate of Rongotai, we have a predator-free peninsula. We have record numbers of native birds coming back to the city. This is a unique position to be in in the world right now, because the ideology, of the last century, at least, has been growth for growth’s sake, and that is the ideology of the cancer cell. It means we have more pollution, we have more waste, we have more people getting sick, and all of that may be higher GDP, but it’s not actually real wealth—it’s not improving quality of life.

I mean, imagine this: we could have an Aotearoa where all people have access to a healthy, dry, simple, and lovely home that is powered with plentiful locally generated renewable electricity from wind and solar. You know, having an energy-efficient home means you don’t have to use so much electricity, and the electricity we use could be more affordable if we were investing in the right solutions. We could have neighbourhoods where when our kids left the house, we didn’t have to worry about them being run over by a double-cab ute or some other fast-moving vehicle. They could have the freedom to walk or cycle or scoot to school, and that is productivity, because that is time saved for parents. That is less traffic on the road. That is healthier, happier kids that learn better. The people in the Government apparently think that this is a terrible thing, the idea that kids should be able to walk and cycle or roam around their neighbourhood without being worried about getting run over by a fast-moving vehicle. To them, they don’t understand that that is actually harming our society. It’s hurting us. It’s costing us.

The best way to improve productivity is to invest in our people, to look after our natural resources, and to get off fossil fuels. We can’t thrive—humans cannot thrive—if we have an unstable climate. We cannot live good lives if we are constantly dealing with droughts, floods, and catastrophic fires. We have known for quite some time now that our use of fossil fuels and land use that is overly in agriculture and not in enough native biodiverse ecosystems is driving catastrophic climate change, which means we are going to have an unstable climate and it’s going to be more difficult to grow food and we’re going to have less access to fresh water. Globally, we all have this opportunity to work together. The steps that the Greens know that we need to take—which are pretty much the opposite of everything the Prime Minister laid out in his statement—and the steps that we can take will not only benefit Papatūānuku, will not only look after nature; look after our peers, our friends, our communities, and look after ourselves. It’s all one and the same.

Here’s a really good example of why this Government is so off track. Everything they’re proposing is not going to work to deliver the things they say they want. A perfect example is the fast-track project in my electorate, Rongotai, a proposal for a road tunnel that is going to cost billions of dollars. Just in the news yesterday, it’s been reconfirmed that the Government’s own documents show it doesn’t save travel time; it makes traffic worse. This is what we’ve been trying to tell people for decades. This isn’t a culture war—if you designed a transport system where more people can walk, cycle, take public transport for the short trips, then the roads we have would work perfectly to move freight and to move the things that need to be moved by road. That’s how cities all over the world function—in countries that that party, the National Party, said that they admired; places where less than half the trips are made by car. Yet they’re still going to fast track this project, which is going to cost billions of dollars, and it doesn’t even solve the problem.

Then they say we’re the irrational ones—projection, much? I mean, the least rational thing you can do is keep doing the same thing and expect to get a different result. We need a Government that’s going to show real leadership, that understands values, that understands the interconnectedness of our world—and the solutions are there; they are Green.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s a privilege to take a call in the Prime Minister’s statement.

It’s always interesting, in these things, that what’s not said is often more important than the things that are. The Prime Minister didn’t mention the southern hospital even once in his statement, and no wonder why: we find out why, a few days later, when his newly minted Minister of Health confirmed that the hospital rebuild would proceed but it would proceed with less beds than the current Dunedin Hospital. Now, this is totally unacceptable, but the Prime Minister must have been glad for the support from the other legacy party—from the Labour Party—when they celebrated it. I’m holding up the quote. It’s a very small thing; should have reprinted it. It says, “Fewer beds but still a win for Dunedin.” The Greens will never celebrate a cut in the beds as a win for Dunedin. We will keep fighting with the people of Dunedin to get Dunedin the hospital rebuild and the southern region the hospital rebuild it deserves.

What was also interesting in the Prime Minister’s statement is that he thanked National Ministers, he thanked National backbenchers, but he didn’t thank a single one of his once and future Deputy Prime Ministers; not a single mention of his coalition partners. Look, no wonder why: this is their second year in office, and what have these two once and future Deputy Prime Ministers actually accomplished? Well, the future ex - Deputy Prime Minister David Seymour has set up a few white-elephant bureaucracies. He’s degraded the school lunches programme so that, where there were once healthy, nutritious lunches for kids, they’re feeding them inedible slop. Earlier this week he ram-raided Parliament. No wonder—no wonder—the Prime Minister isn’t dishing out praise for these coalition partners. The current Deputy Prime Minister Peters, well, you know, he’s picked fights with our allies within the Pacific and across the Pacific, so no wonder he’s not getting gold stars from the Prime Minister either.

The one thing that the Prime Minister did mention in his speech—well, more alluded to—was the Government targets. He said that they were making good progress on reducing violent and youth crime, but what he didn’t say in his speech is that they’re actually wildly off track. If you look at the latest Government targets update, which was released in September, it shows a sea of red and a sea of yellow against the Government targets. When we heard from the Salvation Army earlier today, they confirmed that this Government isn’t delivering better public services for New Zealanders. What they are delivering is crime going up, what they are delivering is child poverty going up, and what they are delivering is unemployment going up. That’s what the Prime Minister and his Government have said yes to—all these things going up.

Now, the most egregious thing about this is that it didn’t have to be this way. You can understand our scepticism when the Minister in charge of delivering these improved public services has now been reshuffled off and put in charge of delivering economic growth. We’ve already seen what one year of her economic stewardship has delivered to this country: unemployment at record levels, poverty at record levels, the economy breaking at the seams, and more and more New Zealanders leaving this country in record numbers. So, forgive our scepticism; she didn’t deliver on better public services, and there’s no evidence that she’ll deliver on economic growth, either.

I want to use the last part of my speech to thank the New Zealanders out there for their work in holding this Government to account. Thank you for all the hundreds and thousands of submissions that you’ve made against the terrible bills and the terrible legislation that this Government has introduced to this House. Thank you for your continued support, whether you’re sharing social media posts, whether you’re hitting that “Like” button, or whether you’re donating to the parties of the left, here. While we have occasional disagreements, we are all united and we will all make this a one-term Government. Thank you for your courage. This is not an easy Government to be living under. Every day, there seems to be another fresh attack on the environment, on the people, on Te Tiriti, and it’s not an easy context to be dealing with.

Thank you, everyone out there, for your courage. The tide is turning and we will make history by making this the first one-term National Government.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I’m pleased to be able to take this split call to be able to speak on the Prime Minister’s statement, and, of course, what we are going to do to help build this economy, and what we’re going to do this year.

In 2023, the ACT Party campaigned on real change, making sure that we had change that was going to affect the lives of people of New Zealand, and, boy, have we been getting stuck into that. We’re growing our economy, especially needed after the last effort of the last Government and their “drunk uncle” ways of spending taxpayer money with no accountability, and wrapping everybody up in continuous red tape. This Government is about supporting businesses. This Government is about supporting communities. This Government is about removing the red tape and all of the regulations that are binding people up and stopping them from going about living their lives. We have listened to the people of New Zealand and we’ve been sitting here as Ministers of the Crown, thinking “What is our little bit that we can do to help improve our economy?”

One of the portfolios that I have is in the AML/CFT space—which is the anti - money-laundering and countering financing of terrorism space—and we’re making changes there. Part of the changes that we are making actually come in relation to what businesses have told us that they need, what customers have told us, what the people have told us.

I’ll refer now to a letter that I received from Catherine—she’s my age, I could tell—who told me, “Do you remember when we were children and when you went to school when you were five years old, you were given a little bank account card and you were taught how to save, and you put money into the bank account, and the people from the bank would come to the school and they would take your money, take your little booklet, and they’d bring it back, and you had typewritten in there exactly how much money you had, and you were taught how to save.” Catherine wrote me a letter to tell me, “I can’t even open a bank account for my child. I can’t do that anymore.” The reason why is because the AML/CFT regime is so strict that unless she can prove that her child lives in that house and has some sort of letter that has the child’s name and address on it, she can’t prove the existence of the child and can’t open a bank account for her child.

Then we have the elderly widows, those who have relied on their husbands throughout their lives to keep them safe, to take care of the bills and all the bank accounts; then, when their husbands pass away, they have to go and have a bank account put into their name and transfer everything over, but, lo and behold, they can’t find a letter that has their name on it from a utility, like a power bill. They have no proof to say that they live in the home that they may have brought their children up in over many, many decades. They too cannot just get on with life in their elderly age.

What I can do is help provide regulatory relief for New Zealand businesses and create a system that’s more responsive to the needs of Kiwis. In October last year, we announced a major overhaul of New Zealand’s anti - money-laundering and countering financing of terrorism regime. We’re going to be introducing reforms—some are already here; some are still coming—which are going to allow the system to be more responsive to industry and community needs. They will be more agile and more focused on the real risks posed by money-laundering and New Zealand businesses. This relief is going to have flow-on effects for lower costs on customers because there will be lower costs on businesses who are trying to comply with the burdensome and unnecessary red tape that has been placed upon them.

One of the things that we’re going to do in the first instance is make sure that we remove the three confusing bodies that are meant to give advice to our businesses and make it just one so we can get on with giving that advice and also get on with giving that relief. This includes a couple of bills that I’ve already lodged that will give small but effective changes to Kiwis and to businesses. I’m so looking forward to this continuing forward through the Justice Committee, because I think everyone in this House wants Catherine and her children and their children to be able to open bank accounts and be normal Kiwis living a normal life. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Firstly, I think it would be rude of me to not address the speech made by the previous Green member, Francisco Hernandez. I think the Deputy Prime Minister in waiting has achieved an awful lot in this Government, as have quite a few of the Ministers from the ACT team and across the House. What I would say is we have a Ministry for Regulation set up to cut that red tape, the likes of what Nicole McKee has been talking about—a hotline where Kiwis can actually tip off this bad regulation; something that people have been screaming about for years. This regulation has been crippling small and medium enterprises—possibly that regulation landed me in this position in the first place.

Secondly, the most important thing that he’s done is probably charter schools, and that’s quite fitting because this is what today I’m actually going to speak to you about. This week has been a fantastic week—well, actually, the past fortnight of new and improved choice for parents and for children in where they can actually send their children to get education. For too long, we’ve had schools that are not meeting the needs of our communities, not meeting the needs of our kids, and we’ve got a whole array of children that are disengaged.

Now, the two charter schools in Ōtautahi Christchurch, my hometown, I could not be more proud of—the first time that Christchurch has actually had two charter schools. We’ve got Mastery Schools. They are an Australian proved model. Kids at risk of falling behind—maybe they’ve got a little bit of neurodiversity—in years 1 to 7 will be brought up to speed. They’ll have tailored programmes that are actually what these kids need, teaching their level, not just the year that they’re in. We’ll also be utilising our trainee teachers, because they’ve created a programme with the University of Canterbury to actually hire some of the trainee teachers. These teachers that would otherwise just be working in a cafe—not that there’s anything wrong with that, but why can’t we be utilising these in the classroom? I’m super excited for them and I can’t wait to see what they achieve.

Christchurch North College—the next charter school to open. That deals with the kids that are from year 7 to year 10 that have really fallen between the gaps. Some of these kids have not been at school for between one and two years. This school’s going to provide the opportunity to get them the education they need and focus on some of those vocational skills, because, guess what, going to university, having higher education, isn’t for everybody, but we all know that we need some kind of education to get a good quality head start in life. I’m very excited for those kids.

Look, I just want to recount a story about one of the children that I actually met at Christchurch North College. He was sitting next to me during the pōwhiri, the opening, and he was shaking quite a lot, and it made me reflect on how nerve-wracking it must be if you’ve not been in education for a couple of years and you are taking that risk, you’re getting out there, and you’re getting back engaged in that system, how scary that might be. I wanted to talk to these kids and let them know that ACT and this Government actually support them. We want you guys to get back into education and we hope that you have more choice in doing so when you get there.

Secondly, I think that these kids, they look around and they think, “What has gone wrong in the system? Where have I fallen through?” Maybe it’s that they had some kind of neurodiversity. Maybe it’s that they couldn’t get to school for various reasons. It could be that they’ve got poor mental health, and they’ve been looking to find ways to be engaged but there has been nothing. Their poor families—their parents—have been screaming out for help. While, yes, there are some services out there, none of them can offer the wraparound, tailored service that something like Christchurch North College can offer. The future is bright for these guys, and I could not be more excited.

My question to the Opposition would be: if having more choice in education, if giving our children the best start in life has become a political football and so controversial, and you don’t want to hold the hand of that child that is shaking in their boots about attending school, then what are we doing here? The public and parents, they are sick of education being a political football. They want us to all get along. They want to have choice where they send their children. This should not be an issue that we continue to flick around. It should be that, actually, you know what, we all actually agree that kids need a good start in life.

My challenge to the Opposition is to go and visit these schools, see what they’re about, get on board. If you really care about the futures of our children, then come along, have a look at it, get behind, and we can all have a bright future. Thank you.

I’m very pleased to be able to stand in this House today and speak about the Government’s focus on what the important matters are that New Zealanders care about and that affect all New Zealanders’ lives. This Government’s focus is on economic growth and infrastructure to drive the very important growth that New Zealand needs, especially now. We are delivering with a strong focus on growing the economy to make New Zealanders better off—New Zealanders throughout the country, including New Lynn—by advancing trade initiatives and pushing for trade relationships to be stronger and more dynamic.

Our trade Minister, Todd McClay, has been all over the world and constantly on the road pushing for agreements to be strengthened and put forward—for example, the United Arab Emirates free-trade agreement that’s reduced 98.5 percent of the duties that are due on New Zealand exports. Wages are now growing faster than inflation, and cost pressures are reducing. We look forward to more relief from the Reserve Bank, with an economy that is fighting back the inflation that it has found itself in.

In recent years, we’ve faced many challenges, especially in our cities where the pressures on transport and healthcare, the cost of living, and the effects of crime have been keenly felt, but despite these challenges, we are moving New Zealand forward. The National Government has made it clear that to alleviate all of these pains that we are struggling with, the challenges, the way forward is to drive economic growth and long-term prosperity for New Zealand.

We stopped wasteful spending. We’ve provided tax relief. We’ve had Resource Management Act reform, fast track, and new roads, and we are restoring the consequences of crime, including the Crimes (Coward Punch Causing Injury or Death) Amendment Bill, which has been newly picked from the ballot. We hope to pass it this term.

The investments in healthcare are new and record-breaking—$17 billion in healthcare and new cancer treatments—a refocus on the basics in education, and making investment coming into New Zealand a much easier and more transparent and clear process. We are keeping councils to the basics, and we are getting things moving for all New Zealanders to feel better off.

This is what our local businesses need, especially for exporters throughout New Zealand. What a big help it is to the growers and all producers of products that go all over the world. We can now tap on all of these opportunities and bring growth to businesses, and that enables higher pay and more stable employment. Trade isn’t just about making money; it’s about creating those important local jobs that support our local families and that strengthen our communities.

We’re also working very hard to cut red tape and the barriers to growth. It is what 2025 will be about for this Government. It’s all about growth. It’s all about bringing New Zealand forward. It’s all about helping New Zealanders feel better about living in New Zealand. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s great to rise and speak on the Prime Minister’s statement, and I don’t know if I’m breaching the Standing Orders by saying it’s great to have you back, Madam Speaker, as well, and the House is brighter for you in it. Kia ora tātou e te Whare.

新年快乐, Year of the Wood Snake. Happy Chinese New Year. Today is the Lantern Festival, which marks the official end of the Chinese Lunar New Year, and I just acknowledge the Chinese community, in particular those in Hamilton East who have been a tremendous support—

And lucky to have you as their MP.

—for me back home. Thank you, Mr Costley. It’s great to speak on behalf of Hamilton East, Kirikiriroa Rāwhiti, and on behalf of the city which is now New Zealand’s fastest-growing city—the city of the future. It’s truly a privilege and an honour.

What a great speech we had by our Prime Minister only a few weeks ago. What I loved about it was it was such a pragmatic speech. He touched on so many things which are so key for New Zealand and our economy. He talked about law and order, health, education—

How’s that going in Birkenhead?

—productivity, law and order, education, Shanan, productivity, investment, and unlocking potential. The latent potential that we’ve been sitting on within New Zealand, particularly over the last six years, we’re about to unshackle. We’re about to unlock the potential of this great country, and within the regions, and it’s going to be awesome.

We’ve got a productivity plan and it starts with education. Our great Minister Stanford is doing incredible work there with structured literacy and maths and educating our future—it’s so good to see. Technology and innovation, less regulation, infrastructure investment, and investment support. And, of course, we’ve got the investment summit in March, a few weeks away, which is going to be so good.

Who’s coming?

It’s invite-only, so you probably won’t be invited to that one. Speaking of the economy and boosting all good things, I’m so excited that Hamilton Airport is going to be having international flights from July. We’re excited to share that that will bring in about $45 million to the regional economy a year; 100,000 passengers will be leaving and going forth to Sydney and the Gold Coast, five flights a week out of Hamilton, the city of the future. Very exciting indeed.

I’d like to talk about the idea, the prospect, of this third medical school. We’ve got short-term health challenges which Minister Brown is tackling head on, and we’ve got some long-term challenges. The medium-term solution is a medical school in Waikato, and that’s before a business case at the moment, but I’m optimistic, because it’s also like a fast track: instead of the usual six-year degree, doctors will be able to do it in four years. It’s a graduate degree, it’s innovative, and it’s exciting, and it’s a key part to New Zealand’s future of our GP shortages. I’m looking forward to hearing about that.

One of the other key points in the Prime Minister’s statement was the emphasis on infrastructure development. Only recently, we opened up the Peacocke bridge over the Waikato River, connecting east and west, Te Ara Pekapeka Bridge, across our mighty awa. That was started under the National Government HIF loan—or Housing Infrastructure Fund loan—and it was great to start it and complete it under National, the party that gets things done, in collaboration with our great partners in the coalition agreement.

I’m also pleased to announce that I’m on the Environment Committee, and we’re doing some awesome stuff around Resource Management Act (RMA) reform: housing, infrastructure, farming, water, emergency, and natural hazards. Fast track—55,000 homes potentially going to be unleashed throughout this country, and 19 projects in Waikato, which I’m super stoked about. The Government, this year, plans to introduce legislation to finally replace the RMA with a fairer and more efficient system based on property rights that make it easier, faster, and cheaper to build while still protecting our natural environment, because we know we can do both.

Moreover, this Government’s focus on creating a high-wage, innovative economy aligns perfectly with Hamilton’s aspirations. Just last week, I met with some individuals at Innovation Park in Hamilton at a company called Farm Medix, and they’ve got a technology that supports mastitis and foot disease for cattle, and they export that intellectual property all over the world. They’re also looking at a climate technology where they can burn slash or other waste products, capture the carbon, and palletise it into what’s called biochar, and earn carbon credits.

All in New Zealand.

There’s some exciting stuff happening—all in New Zealand, and especially in Hamilton East, Rima, you’ll be pleased to know. But, Madam Speaker, the future is bright, and I’m pleased just to share those few insights with you. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise to take a call on the Prime Minister’s statement, and I stand by the words by the Rt Hon Chris Hipkins in the amendment to that motion that all the words after “That” be deleted and replaced with “This House has no confidence in this coalition Government because under its incompetent, arrogant, shambolic, and divisive leadership, New Zealand is going backwards, Kiwis are losing their jobs, record numbers are leaving the country, and their priorities are wrong and out of touch.” I absolutely stand by those words from the leader of the Labour Party and the Leader of the Opposition because that’s exactly what we are seeing on a daily basis from this Government.

I was really interested to see a number of MPs on the other side during this debate actually spend more time, rather than speaking about what they’re going to do, giving pot-shots to this side of the House. I noticed quite an interesting strategy, actually. Half of those National Party MPs were trying to talk about that Opposition finance spokesperson—that Opposition finance spokesperson. How about you talk about your Minister of Finance? How about we talk about the Minister of Finance and that one out of three National Party voters don’t believe can make this economy grow? How about we talk about that Minister of Finance where 50 percent of New Zealanders do not trust her to make this economy grow?

I understand why you’ve changed the strategy a little bit to try and throw back at the Opposition finance spokesperson, to try and destabilise the Opposition finance spokesperson, but I’ve got some news for you.

Give us some ideas.

See, here is Tim Costley, the Ōtaki MP, who is saying, “Give us some ideas.” Well, guess what, Tim Costley! You’re in Government. You are accountable for the last 16 months. The interesting thing is that this Government, in the same way that Tim Costley from the Ōtaki electorate says, “Give us your ideas.”—of course they want our ideas. Of course Ōtaki wants our ideas, because unlike Tim Costley where all politics is local politics, part of my electorate in Mana covers Kāpiti, and my office has been open for just over three weeks. Guess how many cases of homelessness, people that cannot access emergency housing, social housing—

It’s been 16 months. Where were you for the first 15 months?

It covers the Kāpiti area—and you can keep interjecting, Mr Tim Costley, but the thing is I’m not going to back down, because the evidence is showing through electorate offices across this country that this Government is making cuts, is refusing to build more houses. It’s actually just today confirmed that they’re going to take the numbers of community housing providers and claim them as their own, never mind the funding. I’m waiting to see where the funding is to support those community housing providers who do want to build more houses, but I’m not seeing any funding commitment from this Government. You cannot claim, in terms of all those community housing providers, who possibly may get no funding from this Government, that those houses are yours.

Then what you also heard from this Government, just today in the House, was there’s this new strategy. First of all, attack the Opposition finance spokesperson, because it’s quite clear the Minister of Finance is rattled by the polls and by the way the economy is falling. The second strategy is fudge the numbers a little bit—just a little bit. See, the problem is, though, that could work during an election, but when you are sitting on those benches, when you are a Government Minister, when you are the Prime Minister, you are accountable for your words. That’s why Kiwis across the country do not believe the buzzwords that are coming out from the Government benches.

When the Prime Minister says that New Zealand has been in a recession for the last three years, well, let’s fact-check that. I did. I asked the Treasury chief economist, “Has New Zealand been in a recession for the past three years?” Well, actually, just for nine months in 2024. Again, as much as the Prime Minister wants to say that we’ve been in recession to try and fudge the numbers, to try and convince the country that things were worse under Labour, and that they’re doing something to improve it, the actual numbers don’t lie. The actual evidence from Treasury says that we have not been in a recession except for the last nine months under this Government.

The second little piece of fudging which I observed today from the House—and it was something that my good colleague and friend Kieran McAnulty picked up—was saying that, “Yeah, we built 2,000 more homes.” Absolute bull, I think were the words that Kieran McAnulty used. Again, it was the Labour Government that funded those 2,000 homes and continued the build, which is why we have 2,000 more homes. Every day, I am reminded through the people coming through my office in the Mana electorate who were homeless, who cannot access emergency housing, who cannot access transitional housing because the criteria has been tightened. It has been tightened because this Government is cutting the funding and making it more difficult for those Kiwis who need support to get that support.

I heard Tim Costley earlier, in his speech, talk about the lowest common denominator approach. Well, I’m sorry, but on this side of the House, the Opposition believes that a country and a society should look after those who cannot afford housing, who cannot afford lunches in schools, who cannot afford to catch the bus to their rural school. That is an atrocity, the fact that funding to rural bus routes has been cut and that a parent is having to tell their child and teach them, “This is how you hitchhike safely.” Is this the type of society which doesn’t have any regard to that lowest common denominator approach? Well, that’s not the society that the Greens, that we’ve heard from Te Pāti Māori, that the Labour Party will stand for, because we believe that you need to look after those who are the most vulnerable in your society, the reason being that’s how you get growth, that’s how you get productivity, and that’s how you get families to go to school.

I do want to acknowledge the ACT MP Laura Trask, who talked about attendance at school. I was a board member. That was back in the day of decile 2 schools. Attendance is so important for children to get to school, but what did Labour do to help with that attendance? Social workers in schools, lunches in schools, and we helped remove school fees, but this is a period where, for children across the country, their parents are having conversations about how they afford to send their children to school when public transport subsidies were taken away by this Government.

Lunches in schools: in order to save $130 million, you’re now having lunches arrive late if they arrive at all. The quality of the lunches—this is the stuff we are serving our children in some of our poorest communities. But that’s OK, because that lowest common denominator approach means that, sure, you can give them a $3 lunch, even though I may be having a really fantastic lunch in Epsom. That’s not how this side of the House wants our New Zealand society to go.

You will see time and time again—you’ve heard it from the other side of the House—“We are going for growth”. Yes, growth in unemployment. Those unemployment numbers would actually be higher had 125,000 New Zealanders not left New Zealand for overseas. They’re going to Australia. One of the reasons which I saw recently why they’re going to Australia—and it goes back to, again, one of the very earliest decisions that this Government made. When this Government came in, within their 100-day plan, they removed the remit for maximum sustainable employment for the Reserve Bank.

That’s right.

Ryan Hamilton says, “That’s right. We removed it.” Yet in Australia, there is lower unemployment, their inflation levels are better, and 125,000 Kiwis, a large portion of them, are going to Australia because they know there are jobs. Yet the Reserve Bank of Australia, guess what they have which this Government removed in the first 100 days!

Take off the rose-tinted glasses.

They have maximum sustainable employment. I love hearing the other side of the House saying, “Take off the rose-tinted glasses.” Again, every day in my office, we are having homeless people, we are having people who cannot access emergency housing and transitional housing—those are the facts, because you have changed the criteria on which people can access help, which is why one in two Pacific children is going hungry, which is why one in 10 Pacific people does not have a job. All these figures are evidence. There is data about it, so the people that need to take their rose-tinted glasses off are the ones that are sitting on that side of the House.

We know Kiwis are doing it tough. When they’re walking through our offices, they’re doing it tough, but instead, all we see from this Government is continual name-calling, a lowest common denominator approach. What do you expect from a Government that doesn’t want to lead?

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I’d like to begin by acknowledging the Prime Minister’s address and his focus on economic growth. It is under his stewardship that we have seen a focused drive not only towards economic growth but also towards enhancement of the services that a modern-day society demands, from healthcare—and, yes, this will include delivering Dunedin Hospital, which services not only Dunedin but a much wider area including the Waitaki electorate—to education, infrastructure, and digital connectivity.

This Government’s commitment to bolstering these essential services underpins the foundation of our progress. This Government is saying yes to fostering economic growth and stability for all New Zealanders. Over the past year, we have witnessed remarkable progress driven by thoughtful and strategic measures aimed at enhancing our economic landscape. Not only have we delivered legislation that will play a crucial role in progress, like the fast-track consenting Act and the Resource Management Act reforms, we are also ensuring that we have a Budget that will allow economic recovery to occur. These measures and others paved the way for substantial investment in various areas, including our primary industries, mining, and the renewable sector.

The Government’s commitment to creating a robust economic framework is evident in the positive outcomes we are now experiencing, and we have been crying out for this as a country.

A bit like child poverty.

Hold your horses. In the Waitaki electorate, our primary industries have always been the backbone of our local economy and also the regional and national economy, as well. At this stage, I’d just like to give a shout-out to the Totora Estate, which will be celebrating National Lamb Day on Saturday and is the birthplace of New Zealand’s frozen meat industry.

I’ll be there.

I hear Minister Patterson saying he’s going to be there. However, agriculture, pastoral and arable farming, fisheries, forestry, and horticulture are not just economic activities; they’re a way of life for many of our residents, and this is something that our Government supports. Mining is another critical sector in our electorate, and I want to highlight OceanaGold at Macraes and the Oamaru stone quarries in North Otago that provide world famous Oamaru stone all around New Zealand and across the world.

The mining sector’s also benefiting from the Government’s forward-thinking policies. This Government has facilitated exploration and responsible extraction of mineral resources, which will contribute significantly to local employment and economic activity. Moreover, the Government’s focus on renewable energy opportunities is particularly relevant to the Waitaki electorate. Our region is blessed with abundant natural resources that make it ideal for renewable energy projects. The Government’s push to electrify New Zealand has provided the necessary framework and incentives for the development of wind, solar, geothermal, and hydroelectric power. These initiatives will not only contribute to our national energy security but also offer local communities a pathway to sustainable economic growth, and it will create much-needed jobs.

I’d like to highlight the success of several renewable energy projects in our electorate, all based on the Waitaki Hydro Scheme—for instance, that is a shining example of how we can harness natural resources to generate clean, green energy. This project has not only created jobs but it also positions the Waitaki electorate as a leader in renewable energy creation. Government support is crucial for driving such projects, ensuring that they receive the funding and regulatory backing needed to come to fruition, and this Government is offering that support.

In conclusion, I extend my gratitude to this Government, our Government, for their unwavering commitment to economic growth. With that, I take my leave.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s my pleasure to take a call in support of the Prime Minister’s statement. It’s going to be a great year. We are excited. We have turned the dial from no to go; from woe to let’s go. Before we talk about 2025, I just wanted to take a moment to talk about what we’ve done already. Let’s just bear in mind: 2025, the year of the growth mind-set.

So far, we’ve done fast track, 149 projects on the list; inflation’s down; interest rates are down; we have stopped wasteful spending because taxpayers expect better outcomes for their money; we’ve done the Resource Management Act (RMA) reform first tranche, more of that coming, cutting the red and green tape; and we’ve dealt with ram raids, reducing those down significantly. We’ve done new trade deals; we’ve opened New Zealand’s trade gateways across the globe, an incredible legacy being carved out by our Minister; we are backing farmers. this Government has done more for farmers than any Government in decades; we’ve banned cellphones in classes, and we know the benefits of that in our education system; and we’ve put together FamilyBoost—millions of dollars paid out to young families to help with childcare, to get people back into work. We have focused on foreign investment, making that easier, because we want to welcome their money into our country; and we focused councils back on the basics: get the roads fixed, make the pipes work, and get the rubbish picked up—it’s not that hard.

What are we planning on doing next? We’re planning on attracting investors to New Zealand, very clearly a key focus because we have to lift that offshore investment from $70 million back up into the billions where it used to be. We’re ramping up our tourism with better settings. If you listened to the Opposition going on and on about how bad it is in New Zealand, why would anybody want to come here? We can still deliver the services that we want, that we need, by being positive about our story, and welcoming to our country. We are reforming the science sector for the first time in 30 years and we’re giving our best brains a reason to stay in New Zealand for a rewarding career in research and innovation. There’s more RMA reform to come. We’re continuing to support our agricultural sector because we are the best in the world and we want to support that and continue with that legacy. We’re working hard to increase productivity and economic return so we can invest in health, education, infrastructure, and housing.

I want to take a moment to talk about the green shoots of growth already popping up in the beautiful part of New Zealand that we know as the East Coast. How good was it yesterday to see the news with the announcement of the reopening of the Juken sawmill, where an investor has stepped in, bought the mill, and is looking to put back 500 jobs into the Tairāwhiti community. That is a significant change and a turn-around for us. Gisborne has long been the port that exports whole logs and has struggled to find investors. This is a massive boost to our community at a time when we absolutely need to embrace growth.

What about in Kawerau, where next month a large processor will celebrate a $20 million investment into switching a massive manufacturing and processing entity from natural gas to geothermal steam. It’s a great demonstration of how innovation boosts the region’s economy and provides sustainable industry for generations to come.

Then the emails just keep coming from the likes of Forester NZ, working on exciting developments in the Eastern Bay, reducing carbon emissions, exporting, and growing jobs. Mātai research in Gisborne is delivering world-leading research, helping dozens of future medical specialists in their research. Then there’s HUTEC, a wonderful company in Whakatāne employing 90 staff, with 14 apprentices, delivering international engineering projects and heading into 2025 with an ambitious growth plan. These organisations, among others, are confident to grow. They can see that the economic tide is turning and they know that the future of our country, for the services everybody wants, lies in economic growth—not in handing out money. It takes hard decisions, fortitude, and 2025 is the year of a growth mind-set, bold approaches, and getting the work done. You don’t get growth by giving away money; you get it by providing opportunities for everybody.

We live in the first country in the world to see the sun. We get up first every single day in the world—we’re the first to get up. This Government intends to make that count. We are not going to sit back and wait.

I just want to mention, in closing, that this week it’s two years since Cyclone Gabrielle ravaged our region and large tracts of the East Coast. We are grateful for the support of the Government, and the previous Government as well, for getting us back on our feet, but now we need to change it up. We need to think growth—

The member’s time has expired.

Point of order. Thank you, Madam Speaker. I seek leave to make a personal explanation to correct an answer to an oral question today.

Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is none.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. In my answer to oral question No. 5 today in the House, I was so excited about the 33,000 people that exited the jobseeker benefit into jobs that I said it was 29 percent more than the same period in 2023. It was actually 22 percent.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I too am in the auspicious position of feeling honoured to also submit my commentary on our Prime Minister’s statement that he gave in this House two weeks and one day ago, but before I do that, if I may, I’d like to say “Happy Pongal” to our Tamil community, and I’d also like to say “Happy New Year” to our Chinese communities, our Asian communities. If you’re around Takanini, come to Manukau Sports Bowl this weekend—starting on Thursday—we’ve got the Auckland Lantern Festival. That’s going to be absolutely amazing.

As I reflected on the Prime Minister’s speech—and I reflected on it a lot, for a number of reasons—it’s setting the tone for what our absolute focus is this year, and as we’ve heard, in almost every speech, whether it’s from this side of the House or on the other side, we’re acknowledging that we’re saying we are focused on economic growth. Part of my reflections on the Prime Minister’s speech went back to when I was door-knocking, and I speak about door-knocking a lot because I think that’s one of the strongest ways to keep in touch with one’s community—my beautiful community in Takanini.

During the election campaign, what’s tattooed in my memory is a couple whose door I knocked on in Addison, Takanini. This was a young couple with a little bubba, a little child, and this couple told me that they both had full-time jobs, and that the home they were in was a house they purchased just before COVID. Then COVID struck, and they told me that, for two weeks, they had not had any meat because the finances were quite stretched; the budget was tight. I’ll never forget that they said thank goodness for their parents and their grandparents—who are part of our beautiful Indian whānau in Takanini—who taught them how to cook with grains, with pulses, so that they could get that kind of nutrition without the meat because they couldn’t afford meat.

Then they said to me, “We’ve never voted before, but we are planning to vote this year. Please will you promise us that what your party is saying that you will do, you will indeed do.” One of the things they asked for: “Please, bring in that FamilyBoost”—they had their little bubba—“Please adjust the tax brackets like you’re saying you will. Please get rid of the Auckland fuel tax.” And I said, “I promise you: what I know is that we will be doing this.” I’m so happy, and relieved for them, that those are just a few of the changes that we’ve managed to make that we know are improving the cost of living for those neighbours of mine that are in Takanini.

I reflected on how our Prime Minister commented on this notion of “no”—and the “No-alition” on the other side. I reflected on how if there was a university degree in saying no, the other side of the House would have PhDs in saying no. When we went through a number of the suite of changes—and there’s a lot more to come—what did the “Doctors of No” say on the other side? No to banning gang patches in public—the “Doctors of No” on the other side said that; no to making sure that repeat offenders are not given more than three chances to smash up shops; no to adjusting tax brackets—that’s what the “Doctors of No” said—and no to removing the Auckland regional fuel tax.

I love the fact that in Takanini when I went door-knocking, in Addison again, on the weekend just past, there were a number of people on the street that I door knocked at who said, “Yep, it’s really hard for us. It’s very hard for us.” and they said, no word of a lie, “But please keep going.” There were two people who said, “Keep going and go harder.”, because they know we’re making the difficult decisions we have to make for economic growth, to make life better and easier for all New Zealanders across Aotearoa. We’re saying yes—yes to FamilyBoost, which we have said; yes to a new school for 600 students in Flat Bush; and, in particular, the crème de la crème of yesses on this side of the House is yes to Mill Road—yes, that’s going to happen. I am, as I said, honoured to give my reflections on the Prime Minister’s statement. We’re going for growth.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Growth, growth, growth. That’s what this Government is about. I’ll say it again: growth, growth, growth. Something that’s unusual to the other side of the House, but that’s OK.

If ever there was a region that desperately needs growth, it’s Northland, right? You just have to look at—we’ve underperformed for years. Why? I’ll give you the number one reason why, and that’s called roads, right? It comes as no surprise to our members of the House, particularly on this side. In the last election campaign, the number one issue in Northland was roads, well above cost of living. The irony being that, in 2017, we recognised that and we announced that we were going to put a four-lane highway all the way up to Whangārei, but guess what! Guess what happened when the other lot got in! They cancelled it. But guess what! We had started one bit, and the “Minister of No” at the time—who criticised it for a long time—and who is now the leader of the Opposition, the Hon Chris Hipkins, then actually said, “Well, actually, we’re opening a road. I’ll go and open it, even though I opposed it all the way through.” Feel free to check the Hansard records.

He turned up. He used to call it a “holiday highway”. Actually, it’s now open. It’s making a massive difference to our economy, and we are committed to building the next stage all the way to Whangārei. It is under way. That is all part of our fast-track proposals—

Which bit’s under way?

I’d like to welcome the former member for Northland—who I wish had actually done her job last time and stood up for that road. It would have been great if she had, but never mind.

Oh, true. I saw you opening the Mangamuka Gorge, proudly smiling—

Well, that woke it up.

—cutting that ribbon.

I think—

Got the hundred million. Kia ora, you’re welcome.

I think—listen, listen, the truth hurts, doesn’t it? Boy, the truth hurts.

Order! Order! We don’t need the commentary across the House, please.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Right, and just to put in context the cost of poor roading. When the Brynderwyns—yes, that important piece of road that is just not far from where I live—was shut, it was $2 million a day at least that it cost our economy. That is why we recognise the importance of roads.

Now, there’s another thing that’s quite important in Northland. It’s called power. We’ve had some experience with power—

Keep the bolts done up.

Nuts and bolts.

—and power outages. One of the things that—yes, there happened to be a pylon that fell over, and we dealt with that, and all the issues around that are well known. But we have now focused on actually building renewable generation in Northland and exporting it to the south into Auckland to do our people and our cousins in Auckland a favour. Renewable generation. Remember that. We are very focused under our policy that we want lots of solar farms. We’re going to speed up the whole process of consenting. It’s all about fast track.

Now, another thing we are very focused on doing in Northland is irrigation, because we understand the importance of having dams and water to grow things. In fact, you would just have to look back over history to see the benefit of that. You look at Kerikeri today. Its growth derives from a couple of dams built in the 1980s. That is where that growth comes from. Now, there are a couple of new dams being built, one about to be opened and filled up in a moment, another one in the process of, and that will make a massive difference. We are going to continue to back those sorts of projects because that is how you get growth in the North.

The biggest sector in Northland is the agriculture sector, the primary sector, which I’m proud to be a member of. I might like to educate the members opposite, because on 15 January last month, we had into the New Zealand economy from Fonterra, the dairy farmers who work their butts off every day of the year—$2.4 billion was paid in one day. One day. Rumour has it that in the electorate of Rangitata in Ashburton, they ran out of utes. There were so many farmers going in there to buy things. That’s economic benefit. There was no ute tax either, which was quite helpful. I’d just like to make a real big shout-out to the agriculture community of New Zealand. Thank you for your hard work. Keep it up.

That is how we’re going to grow this economy. It’s by supporting those that actually get out there and are productive and create export goods. Then through the use of trade deals, we’ll get maximum value. It’s great to be able to get up and back our Prime Minister and back this great Government. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Well, I found it extraordinary that that member stood up and spoke about growth under this Government. This Government has had no growth. There is more growth on my face than this Government has had, and that’s a fact! The fact of the matter is that we handed over an economy that was growing—an economy that had 2.4 percent growth per annum. How much growth has this Government had? None. They have gone backwards for every single quarter. The economy under this Government is in recession. They’ve been there for 18 months. No more excuses. It’s your turn. Do your job.

It’s no good just using your corporate speak and saying there’s going to be growth—having a growth summit. Summits don’t create growth. What we’ve got is massive unemployment. We have got 30,000 people more unemployed than when you took your job. That is enough people to fill Sky Stadium. I do not believe Nicola Willis—her crocodile tears—when she says she feels for New Zealanders, because do you know what? She’s doing it on purpose. She means what she’s doing and she said today in this House that she knows that jobless numbers are going to go up. The only thing that that Government can grow is the unemployment queue.

What are they going to do about it? What are they going to do? What’s their answer to this so-called crisis they find themselves in? Asset sales. They’re going to sell our prized assets, but they’re cagey. They’re not going to tell us what they’re going to sell. “We’ll talk about that later.” What are you going to do? Sell our rail again? How did that work out last time? We had to buy it back and fix it up. Talk to your coalition partners before you go out talking about asset sales. Some of your coalition partners do believe in putting New Zealand first, of course. Or are you going to sell our schools and hospitals? Are you going to call up the pension fund and say, “Do you want a slice of this?”

Do you know what? The numbers don’t add up, Christopher Luxon—the maths doesn’t work. They want a return on their investment. That’s just borrowing by another name. That means that our kids will be paying for the decisions that you make. You’ll be putting our kids into—

I’ll just remind the member—while the member is in full flight, I’m sorry to interrupt, but please don’t bring the Speaker so much into your debate.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. The fact, though, is that Nicola Willis is not in control of this economy and New Zealand knows that. And who have we got in charge? Who’s the CEO? Is he in charge at all? It doesn’t look like it.

Christopher Luxon is watching on with his corporate speak, but while he tells us what he can say about benchmarking, kids are going hungry. While he operationalises some core competency, people are losing their jobs, and while he drones on about a value chain and being results-driven, Dunedin Hospital’s waiting to be built. If he wants to talk about deliverables, deliver some ferries. If he wants a key performance indicator, talk about the performance of the man who’s soon to be Deputy Prime Minister, who, in utter contempt of this place, drove a Land Rover on to the steps of Parliament. If he wants a laser focus on results, how about focusing on David Seymour’s behaviour when he interfered with a police prosecution and tried to get the police to stop investigating someone who was ultimately charged with murder. Or perhaps he should think about a focus—

Point of order. I believe that that was a misleading comment because the person in question wasn’t actually charged under that investigation. He was not interfering with any criminal proceedings that were yet actually happening. He wasn’t arrested, and I think that what you were saying was—if you could clarify, please, I would appreciate that.

Speaking to the point of order.

It’s not actually a point of order, but your views are noted. Thank you.

Well, Philip Polkinghorne was charged with murder, if I recall correctly. Perhaps he’s talking about someone else who was charged with sexual assault, who David Seymour sent the victim’s wife to an ACT Party lawyer instead of to the police. So whilst Christopher Luxon’s talking about action plans, David Seymour seems to be running the country—running the country into the ground with his divisive and racist Treaty principles bill, with his surreptitious Regulatory Standards Bill, with the legislation that puts the Treaty second and puts himself first. This Government is a disgrace.

Thank you, Madam Speaker, and unlike the negative Nellies on the other side, I’m delighted to speak in favour of the Prime Minister’s statement because actually I’m proud to be part of a Government—

Point of order, Madam Speaker. That was a split call. The other half of the call was to go to the Labour Party.

My apologies. Sorry, I was distracted. Thank you.

Tēnā koe e te Māngai o te Whare. Tuatahi māku, ka tika te mihi ki ngā mate o tēnei wā. Kua whakahuangia ngā ingoa ki roto i te Whare nei, nō reira ki a koutou mā kua wehe atu, haere, haere, haere atu rā koutou katoa. Hoki mai rā ki a tātou, te hunga ora, tihei mauri ora.

[Thank you, Madam Speaker. Firstly, for me, it is appropriate to acknowledge the many recently deceased. Their names have been mentioned in this House, and so to you all who have departed, rest in peace all of you. I return to us, the living, vitality to us all.]

This is my first opportunity to address the House this year and I should be excited, but so underwhelming was the Prime Minister’s statement it almost isn’t worth rebutting. They say it’s about “growth”. You don’t have to go far in Ikaroa-Rāwhiti—not you, Madam Speaker; people in general don’t have to go far in Ikaroa-Rāwhiti to find out how off the track indeed this Government is.

On this side of the House, we understand that growth starts at the roots. If it’s all about growth, and economic growth means to this Government abusing the aroha of locally grown grassroots-based businesses, then this Government is indeed on track. Businesses like Kai Aio in Ruatōria, who will continue to deliver 500 school lunches between Tokomaru Bay and Wharekāhika, a 90-kilometre one-way trip, and inland 37 kilometres to Mata School, at a loss, subsidising it with other areas of this business. They are going to do it at a loss because they understand that growth starts at the roots and our tamariki are more than just the bottom line. Anyone who thinks you can make a lunch and deliver it 90 kilometres for $3 really shouldn’t be purporting to be the economic geniuses that this Government are.

When this Government says “growth”, I think what they actually mean is, “Let’s stunt the growth and development of workers by cutting initiatives like progressive procurement.”, an initiative that has been directly credited with opening and then keeping open roads in Tairāwhiti during and after Cyclone Gabrielle, mainly on State Highway 35; a road members opposite, other than Dana, probably aren’t familiar with because it is not a road of national significance according to this Government despite the significant amount of product that traverses that highway making a significant impact to our GDP and, you guessed it, the growth of this country.

I’ve said growth starts at the roots, and on a recent trip home to Rangitukia—and I didn’t just want to say Rangitukia, this happens to be where it happened—I was able to visit another home, land which just recently landed for a whānau with six children, one of many homes initiated and actually delivered by Labour. We understand that, when you have a roof over your head, the world is your oyster. Growth starts at the roots.

In spite of this Government’s attempts to dim the light, it shines bright in Ikaroa-Rāwhiti. Though times are harder, people can see the light; they have the power to change this Government in just over a year and they’re just waiting.

In the meantime, I’m very proud to represent Ikaroa-Rāwhiti in this House, a region with, incidentally, the highest proportion of reo Māori speakers, a region where, in Tairāwhiti, Māori collectives hold 73 percent of the food and fibre sector asset base—growth starts at the roots. In Kahungunu, 61 percent and in Wairarapa, a whopping 87 percent—growth starts at the roots.

I love the feedback I get from my constituents, and a message I got today was: “Go hard girl, give them the huss.” That’s what Ikaroa-Rāwhiti is going to keep doing and that’s what Aotearoa whānui are going to keep doing: we’re going to keep giving it the huss until Labour’s back in Government and people can finally have hope again, because we know about growth, we know it starts at the roots and we know we have to grow together. Tēnā koe, Madam Speaker.

Mark 2—here we go! It’s really interesting, because some of the things that that member spoke about was absolutely at the heart of why growth is important. She spoke with passion about the people she represents, because what she wants to see is an improvement in the quality of their lives, of whānau, of hapū, of iwi—their ability to live in warm homes, to have stable jobs, and to put great kai on the table. There’s only one way you get there, though, and you can’t sit back and wish or hope for growth. You must be deliberate. You must be intentional. You must take actions every single day to grow opportunities. That’s what this side of the House understands. If I think of an expression that represents the coalition Government in 2025, it’s that we thrive in 2025, because that’s what we want for the people we represent.

I’m really proud to be part of a Government that is making things happen. If I think about our first year—man alive!—those things in those 90-day action plans that were just absolutely pumped out, because the New Zealand public needed to know and have trust and confidence in a Government who would actually deliver what they said they would, because they’d had six years of the opposite.

Now, unfortunately, we see an Opposition that is really kind of struggling. They’ve got no plans, no policies, no ambition, and definitely no positivity. It is very clear why going for growth is important, and it’s not because we want fancy stats or fancy figures; it’s about what does growth provide. I enunciated it before and, actually, I think, secretly, members on the other side, they know we’re right. They know we’re right, particularly those who are electorate MPs, who hear it and see it from their constituents day in and day out. The coalition Government talks about growth, will focus on growth, and will deliver on growth because we know that New Zealanders want and need to share in the benefits of that growth.

Often, the Opposition will kind of criticise me and my or our Government’s ambition to reduce the number of people on the jobseeker benefit by 50,000 by 2030. So, yes, the numbers have gone up and that is, unfortunately, the reality of a low-growth environment. I could sit here and complain about all of the circumstances that we inherited, but, actually, we’re just getting on and doing the job, and doing the job because we know how much better off people are in work, whether it’s creating their own income, forging their own way in life, creating opportunities, providing for themselves and their children, being part of a community and contributing.

That’s why, despite knowing unemployment was due to go up—the same forecasts the previous Minister of Finance had; we had the same levels. We had the same forecast projection in terms of the unemployment rate getting to 5.1 percent. It has still projected to go further. I’m acutely aware those aren’t just statistics; they are people who have lost their jobs, who have lost their employment, and who are doing it tough, which is why our side of the House is unwilling to sit back and allow that to continue. Our approach with a very active system in terms of welfare—I’m enormously proud of the work that the front-line staff at the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) have been doing: intensive case management, working with 70,000 of those people on the jobseeker benefit, because they are unwilling to tolerate that that’s as good as it gets.

With that figure that I gave before—33,000 job seekers in the six months to December who exited into a job in this challenging labour market—is an extraordinary result. It didn’t come by accident; it came by very deliberate, targeted, integrated work to get an outcome—22 percent increase on the same period a year ago. The reality is, for every one of those people that are now in a job when they weren’t, we know the difference it makes to them and their communities.

Members opposite were like, “Oh, well, you know, you’ll never achieve that, so you should never have a target.” Probably that’s why they took all the health targets away, by the way. If you don’t measure anything, then you can’t be held accountable for the outcomes. Well, New Zealanders aren’t stupid—New Zealanders aren’t stupid. They know what the coalition Government arrived to in 2023, and we know that fewer people on welfare means fewer children in benefit-dependent households and fewer children in poverty, which is why we have set one of our priorities to reduce the number of children in material hardship. It was interesting, there have been comments today on the State of the Nation 2025 report by the Salvation Army and the increases in child poverty. That was the 2023 data—June 2023. We just say it’s not good enough, which is why we are taking actions.

What are some of the things we’ve done to support employment in addition to what we’ve done in the welfare space? Making sure that job seekers know what their obligations are, know the steps they need to take to find employment and consequences if they don’t. And do you know what? One percent—only 1 percent of our job seekers—aren’t complying with their obligations and under a sanction, which is a remarkable result, because those on the jobseeker benefit actually know. They take steps. It improves their chance to get a job. That’s tricky.

One of the things that has obviously also been a change for me this year is taking on the responsibility as a Minister for Tourism and Hospitality. What do our tourism and hospitality businesses need? They need customers. Who are those customers? International visitors. It is absolutely appalling that we are sitting at 84 percent of the international visitor numbers that we had in 2019. We absolutely have to unleash and make sure that international visitors know that New Zealand is open for business and we welcome them with open arms. Whether it is to Ikaroa-Rāwhiti, whether it is to Papakura in South Auckland, whether it is to other parts of the East Coast, we welcome visitors anytime, anywhere, anyone, instead of putting restrictions on who should come, where they should go to.

In addition to visitors and an increase in visitor numbers, I’m very clear that the second part of the priority in going for growth in tourism is ensuring that more New Zealanders get jobs in tourism and hospitality. When that side of the House talks about unemployment and talks about people going on the jobseeker benefit, since 2019, 30,000 jobs were lost in tourism and hospitality—30,000. Thirty thousand people and their families were impacted in that period. That’s what I’m at work on. I want to make sure that we have visitors back so businesses all over New Zealand have more customers. Yes, it’s directly affecting the tourism and hospitality businesses, but it’s the bookstore, it’s the petrol station, it is the supermarket, it is the dairy. It is far more in terms of spend and investment and value that tourism provides.

One small example: the digital nomads absolutely went off. That’s when you realise—oh, we know; we live in a very, very special part of the world. We live in an amazing country, and so to give more visitors the opportunity to have a workcation here on our shores, as well as spending money in our businesses, is of course a great opportunity. I am so proud to be part of a Government that is going for growth, improving the lives and the lifestyles of New Zealand and New Zealanders, and that is why we are positive, we are optimistic, we are not resting on our laurels each and every day. This is a coalition Government, and all our MPs are working hard in their electorates, making a difference in the lives of New Zealanders.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s a pleasure to stand on behalf of New Zealand First in reply to the Prime Minister’s statement, which we absolutely support.

I’d just like to acknowledge the Hon Louise Upston, who’s just resumed her seat—about the positivity on this side of the House, because I think that’s a really important focus for the Government. It is one of our purposes, which is to ensure that we have absolute focus, we have a definiteness of purpose, in terms of achieving economic prosperity, not just for those who have a business but for everyone in our society.

Why is it so important that we do have economic prosperity across New Zealand? Well, we live in a really abundant country, and we really should be focusing on how we manage those resources that can turn into pūtea, so that when we need to invest socially we have the money, as a country, in order to do that, whether it’s into housing, whether it’s into hospitals, to education, or other social needs. But we have to have money in the bank to do that. Our purpose, of course, is to focus on our economic prosperity, and we have a burning desire on this side of the House to achieve that.

We will do that by removing the red and the green tape, because those are the blocks that are stopping a lot of the growth around the country in various sectors. I liken it to this: the roots don’t cause the growth; it is the creation of a fertile soil in which you plant the seed to germinate, to grow, and to multiply itself again and again and again, so that what was originally one small seed becomes countless millions. That’s having that fertile soil. Creating that opportunity for that seed to flourish is all about removing the blocks that stop. We have, on this side of the House, what I’d like to term as an abundance consciousness.

In an earlier contribution from the other side of the House, during this debate, the Green leader said no one is entitled to make a profit. Now, that’s an outrageous statement, and that is a statement which shows absolute poverty of consciousness—it’s conditioned thinking; it’s negative, constrictive thinking. When you have thinking like that, the economy will definitely not grow.

We are focused, in New Zealand First, on very practical, pragmatic solutions to the problem the country faces, and we come up with great ideas. We have been able, through our coalition negotiations, to develop the Regional Infrastructure Fund—also known as the RIF, which was formerly known as the PGF, the Provincial Growth Fund. We are able to, through Matua Jones, spread out that $1.2 billion across the regions.

The Matua preaches the gospel of growth, and he’s been doing that all of last year with his regional summits. Many of you have been in attendance, as electorate MPs, to some of those regional summits around the country. I’ve been privileged to attend those in Whakatāne, Southland, up in the North, and in Manawatū as well. Rebuilding a more dynamic, productive economy, increasing prosperity, and boosting opportunities for all New Zealanders—we need strong local industries that are vital for our regional communities to become economically resilient. That $1.2 billion over three years—the RIF is extremely well run and it is delivering concrete opportunities already.

We’re also putting money through the RIF, in collaboration with Minister Potaka as well, into Rātana. Money has been spent there for structural upgrades of the Rātana Pā. In Waitangi, the Treaty grounds have received $10.2 million. Now, not only is it the location of the first signing of the Treaty of Waitangi but also it’s our number one tourism destination: 160,000 people visited the Treaty grounds over the last year. It’s a really important place that we put some pūtea into. Just noting today is 12 February, actually the anniversary of the signing of the Treaty 185 years ago by the largest group of Ngāpuhi chiefs, who did the signing on the 12 February at Mangungu in Hokianga. Today they’re commemorating that, so I thought it was worthwhile mentioning that as well.

The RIF is also providing some really amazing small community energy projects to ensure those small communities, like those up in the North where they experience power poverty—Te Kao Community Microgrid project will be receiving money so they can construct a solar- and wind-powered microgrid which will be connected to a community battery for all those in Te Kao village. A low-cost energy supply to the community—that is an absolutely important piece of infrastructure that is currently missing in that community. That will ensure they’ve got power security. Waimamaku Community Solar Resilience Programme, also about solar power connecting up to battery to ensure that the community and businesses there have a supply of power.

Flood resilience has been a really important part of the RIF, and $200 million has been set aside for various projects. New Zealand First believe that climate response is about adaptation, enabling communities to have security with these adverse weather events that we’re seeing more often. So $200 million has been put aside, and 42 projects have been identified, $101 million there, and they’ll be co-partnered alongside their relevant local authorities, co-investing the balance of those. Stopbanks, pumping stations, groynes, and culverts—that is the really sensible, practical, and pragmatic solution New Zealand First has been providing.

I have some time left and I really want to talk about the blue economy, as the Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister for Oceans and Fisheries. Our blue economy is an economy that can grow, and we can increase the sector to $3 billion by 2035. That’s going to be done in a number of ways.

Mussels.

Seafood production—and talking about mussels, it’s really important because to grow mussels you need spat. That’s the little itty bitty babies. The wild-caught spat has a very limited ability to survive when it’s been transferred on to the mussel farms. Only about 5 percent of the wild-caught spat actually survive, so there is a project under way—alongside the University of Auckland, the Coromandel Marine Farmers’ Association, the Marine Farming Association, Aquaculture New Zealand, Greenshell Spat Co., and Sanford—to develop an innovative nursery culture system so that we provide some certainty, stability, and sustainability to the mussel-growing sector.

Ocean Beach. If anyone’s had the opportunity, I do recommend every member of Parliament heads to Ocean Beach—it’s the old meatworks down in Bluff. It looks pretty grotty; it’s an old factory. It looks dilapidated, but go inside the doors and what you’ll see is the most amazing amount of marine farming under way. Thousands of baby pāua being grown. Lots and lots of little whitebait—Manāki Whitebait are there growing their whitebait; they make excellent fritters. Also, Asparagopsis, which is the red native seaweed, which has, potentially, marine inhibiting properties—that is being grown in that factory as well. But while you’re there, wait, there’s more. You must check out the Bluff gin distillery, which is also on the site. Multiple reasons to go there; I do recommend it.

Aquaculture permits are really important to ensure that our marine farmers are able to work into the future—$6 million has been saved by four marine-farm owners—around 200 of them, because the Minister has extended the permits out to 2050. That’s been a really important piece of work that has been done to give that industry some certainty.

Just very briefly, I’d like to also talk about sustainability being a bottom line for our fishing industry, which is an absolute success story in New Zealand. It generates about $1.6 billion in exports each year—we should be pleased about that. It employs 9,000 people directly. But wait, there’s more we can do to improve productivity and efficiency, rather than just increasing our catch volumes, and that is a focus of the Minister.

The blue economy has so much more room to grow. It’ll enable the productivity and the certainty for those that work in the industry. We have a great product that the world wants, because we have—

Tell us about shipping.

—the most amazing, clean protein. Lots of noise coming from the other side of the House—clearly doesn’t eat fish. I’m really pleased that we have a focus, in this Government, on the abundance, and harvesting that abundance, that New Zealand produces. Thank you very much, Mr Speaker.

The next call is a split call from the National Party.

I’d like to begin my contribution today by acknowledging the recent terrifying events in my community in Birkenhead, namely the stabbing last week and an armed robbery that happened just outside my parliamentary office, in fact, yesterday. This will be very upsetting for many in my community. I’ve spoken with the police and there will be an increased presence. I’m confident that police will apprehend the offenders of both instances, and I’m equally confident that when they do, they will face a tougher justice system with the sentencing reform laws that are going through Parliament right now. That is a part of our plan to restore law and order and make our communities safer.

We know it’s tough times out there. We know that people are struggling in a cost of living crisis. We know that people are losing their jobs and that the impacts of profligate spending from the last six years is coming to fruition. The harsh reality we face as a country is this: we have public debt in the order of $175 billion—that is equivalent to 42 percent of New Zealand’s gross domestic product.

In our view, there are two ways out of this mess: we can tax our way out of it, like the other side will want to do; or we can grow our way of it. That is what this side believes we should follow. It is all about growth. As my colleague Cameron Brewer said, there is a famous quote: “It’s all about the economy, stupid.” Not that you are stupid, Mr Speaker; it is, in fact, part of the quote. We are serious about going for growth, because it is through a better, brighter future and through a growing economy that we can build ourselves up, get out of the mess we’re in, and build a better, brighter future for our kids and grandkids right here in New Zealand.

I want to speak about our growth agenda, because, as an economist, it comes down to, really, three big aspects of growth: the first is capital accumulation, the second is skills, and the third is innovation, and the mixing of those three together. Let me refer to those one by one and tell the House and the public what we are doing in those areas.

First, on capital accumulation, I am really proud of the fact that we are taking foreign direct investment seriously, that we will be welcoming foreign investors from around the world here in March, and pitching to them why they should be investing in New Zealand businesses. I’m equally proud of the fact that we are taking up the ambitious programme to reform our Overseas Investment Act to make it easier to invest in this country, because it’s all about saying “yes” and not about saying “no”. “Invest in New Zealand”—that’s what the Prime Minister said in his statement. We’re going to set up an organisation devoted to promoting investment around the world, encouraging investment in our communities. So that is the first area, it’s around capital accumulation.

The second is around skills. We’ve got a great Minister in Erica Stanford, who is ensuring that we are getting the basics right in our education system. Up and down in my community of Northcote, educators and parents are saying the same thing: they love what we’re doing. We’re getting back to basics: mathematics, literacy, numeracy, and making sure we’re giving the kids the core skills so that they can get better jobs, and better incomes as a result.

The third area is in innovation. I’m really encouraged by the announcements in our science sector to amalgamate a lot of the core Crown research institutes so that we are getting more outcomes and focused on economic growth—focused on economic growth.

We know there’s a lot to do to turn around six years of wasted opportunity. We know that, actually, there’s a lot to do to turn around decades of underperformance in our economy, but we’re up for that challenge; we’re going for growth. Thank you very much.

It is my pleasure to speak in the House today in support of the Prime Minister’s statement; 2025 is going to be a great year for Mt Roskill. This year is going to be a great year for New Zealand. Why? Because 2025 is the year of economic growth for this Government, because we want growth, growth, and growth. No more saying “no”; we want “yes, yes, yes.”

The previous Government was a Government of no. They loved to say no; no to everything. And guess what! Under them, what did we learn from them? The cost of living goes up, rents are going up, inflation going up, interest rates going up, food prices going up. They hold a few records; let’s see what record they’re holding: record number of ram raids, a record amount of wasteful spending, a record number of gang members, a record number of people and children living in emergency housing. And what’s happened to that Government of note?

Mt Roskill and New Zealand people say no to them. People in Takanini say no to them. People in Northcote say no to them. They will say yes to our plan because we will get New Zealand back on track. Economic growth is important and it’s time for us to say yes to economic growth, yes to more overseas investment, yes for more trade, yes for more science and innovation, yes for more business opportunity, yes to more job opportunity, yes to rewarding our hard-working Kiwis, and yes to more money in our Kiwi bank accounts—and, most of all, yes to getting New Zealand back on track.

What does economic growth pay for? This means we can say yes to our better transport network, we can say yes to fixing our roads, we can say yes for a better healthcare system, we can say yes to better education, and we can say yes for better investment.

What does saying yes and economic growth mean for people in Mt Roskill? It means we can say yes to more housing being built in Mt Roskill, we can say yes for more tax relief for people in Mt Roskill, we can say yes for more opportunity for Mt Roskill residents, we can say yes for better and more education and opportunity for children, we can say yes for high income, we can say yes to spend more time with our family and our loved ones, we can say yes to a better public service, and we can say yes to a better future for the next generation. Also, it can mean yes to more resources to go into Mt Roskill schools, parks, roads, and services, because this is what the people of New Zealand, what the people of Mt Roskill want.

We want to focus on economic growth because this is what the people of New Zealand want. This is how we can help our people of New Zealand have a better lifestyle. We are doing it because we are a Government of people; we work for the people, we listen to the people, we are the people of people. Always say that: it’s all about the people, the people, and the people. But doing this, we need to have economic growth. We need to be growth, growth, growth, and more yes, yes, yes.

The next call is a split call for the Labour Party. I call the Hon Rachel Brooking.

Thank you, Mr Speaker, for this opportunity to talk on the Prime Minister’s statement and all this growth that we’ve been hearing about this afternoon. Now, I want to talk about some growth: the growth in pollution, the growth of broken promises, the growth of cynical political moves, the growth of undermining our conventional safeguards, the growth of economic policy via text message, and the growth of a radical departure from previous conservative National Governments that we are seeing from this Government. I only have five minutes, so we’ll see how we go.

On pollution and undermining safeguards, I have to, of course, talk about fast track, which almost every Government MP has spoken about as if somehow it has safeguards—and this is a word used by one of the Ministers in question time today—for the environment. It does not. The purpose of that Act is to facilitate projects, full stop. There is no mention in that purpose of sustainable management or the environment.

Then we have 149 projects that will benefit directly from being listed and named individually in a Government bill. That benefit is because some of those projects would not otherwise be consentable. Some of them have already gone through a process and they have been rejected. There is no protection of the environment and it is a way to pollute. Shame on everyone in that party—particularly the National Party—because this is not something any National Party has done before. You can speed up a process, you can have a fast track—Labour had that. You can have a one-stop shop—that’s a new innovation. But this fast track is a way to pollute and it is a way for specific businesses to get a private benefit from a Government project, and it is shameful.

We’ve also seen the cutting of what this Government likes to call “green tape” and the defunding of conservation. This will lead to pollution. It will ruin New Zealand’s clean, green image. That is our competitive advantage. I’m interested in growth that leads to more money being in this economy and a better life for all New Zealanders. That means having exports that are high value. We need that clean and green reputation, and this Government just wants that gone.

It’s also important for tourism, which this Government seems to be relying on for growth. I would remind them that tourism jobs are normally low wage and that in areas like Queenstown, they do not want more volume of tourists because that comes with a lot of costs. We want tourists to stay in the country for longer periods of time and learn about our wonderful country.

We’re undermining our safeguards against corruption, and this Government’s been doing things for lobby groups that are in their ear. This decreases trust and stability in our system. It’s that “trust and stability [of our system] … that makes economic growth and prosperity possible in the first place.” That is a quote from Justin Tipa that he said on Waitangi Day in a very powerful speech that I would urge all members of this House to read.

Then we have growth in broken promises. We have growth in cynical political moves. We’ve seen that with the Dunedin Hospital, where the Government announced, to some relief for many people in Dunedin, that there will be a hospital built on the site that had long been planned for, but it will have fewer beds and fewer theatres than what Labour promised and many fewer than what National promised. What a cynical move this is that the expectations are set so low that the promise before the election was changed from building a grand new hospital to perhaps retrofitting a hospital that is in no way fit for purpose that then it feels like a win because that is how they set their expectations. This Government is terrible.

Then, in the context of economic policies by text message, we’ve seen messages to the Korean Government to say, “Oh, those rail-enabled ferries that are so important to the productivity of the South Island and our economy—no. No thanks. We won’t have those.” “Oh, maybe, Bill English, can you do an independent review of Kāinga Ora which will lead to no more public houses?”

The member’s time has expired.

Talofa, Mr Speaker. This is my first opportunity to speak in the House, and I wanted to acknowledge you and thank you for your support, and well done with the Samoan citizenship bill. I also would like to thank the Rt Hon Gerry Brownlee for his support as well.

Welcome back.

Can I also thank the Rt Hon Chris Hipkins and my Labour colleagues, who had to pick up all my duties, and I want to thank them for their aroha and their support. Lastly, I thank my Māngere local community and my family, because they have helped me get back to the House. I’m really pleased to give a contribution to the Prime Minister’s statement, and I just wanted to acknowledge tuahine the Hon Marama Davidson for her return. Fa‘afetai.

What a shambles this Government is. I want to cover off a few points that are really important in my local Māngere community in South Auckland. This Government is failing the New Zealand economy. It is pulling out billions of dollars of financial support that had been supporting New Zealanders through this tough time; reducing financial support, that used to cover so many services across Aotearoa, for Kiwis who were in programmes, who were receiving really good financial assistance, support—they no longer have it. The loss of jobs, the extensive programmes for Pasifika, for iwi, hapū, Māori children, young people—many of those programmes have been cut by that mean-spirited Government. Allowing Kiwis to go without the basics—what kind of country are you creating?

An absolute U-turn on vital services that were helping many whānau across Aotearoa. It’s my job as the representative in Māngere, South Auckland, to bring those issues up to that Government—so mean-spirited, deliberate, targeted. Jobs have been lost throughout many sectors of the country, and we’ve heard many of the speakers on this side of the House talking about all those Kiwis that have gone offshore—what a shame.

Today in oral question time, the Prime Minister—I just wanted to quote how he talked about the encouraging signs in the economy. Where? Sure, landlords: $2.9 billion. What about the tenants of those landlords? Who’s helping them? Who’s caring about them? Ministers on that side of the House have specifically told officials to cut vital services—jobs desperately needed: 33,000 people who were working last year, the year before, are no longer. Those jobs have gone. A deliberate, targeted, mean-spirited Government.

What about the local communities? In Māngere, we had an outstanding budgeting service. Gone. That was a service that provided language and culture for over 600 families—

Someone else has got the contract.

I know the Minister is commenting, but, Minister, that service is gone. Just lastly, what I want to comment on—

Someone else has got the contract.

You’ve had your contribution, Minister. What I want to comment on is school lunches. There seems to be a lot of messages and phone calls from principals who are advising—and I know Minister Seymour, there was a question in the House today of conduct. Minister David Seymour, your programme of school lunches, a reduced lunch programme, is not working in my local community. The lunches have not turned up; the lunches have turned up at 10 minutes to 3 p.m. What is the point? Those school lunches—our tamariki are saying, “Who’s going to eat that crap?” I am only quoting the words of our tamariki. You cannot grow our tamariki’s brains and knowledge and education if we do not have good support so they can get nutrition. That Government is arrogant, is mean-spirited, and is a shambles. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

The Prime Minister stood in this House and delivered his Prime Minister’s statement, which outlined his Government’s vision: economic growth, personal responsibility, and getting New Zealand back on track. What I heard was a vision steeped in ableism, a broken vision, one that actively leaves behind disabled people. Ableism is insidious, and it takes effort from all of us to learn about it and do better. Ableism operates by determining whose lives and contributions are valued and whose are dismissed.

Under this current Government, it’s crystal clear that those born poor, marginalised, disabled, and without access to stable housing are not prioritised—out of sight, out of mind. Under this Government, the worth of individuals is measured by their economic contribution, instead of their innate value as a person—their innate value as a person who is part of a community—and a person who is part of a modern society.

This statement didn’t include how this very Government has treated our disabled communities over the last 14 months, but we have heard every day from people who don’t know what their futures look like. We know that 1.1 million New Zealanders have a disability, and we’ve all got enough life experience to know that at any time, any one of us may face access barriers due to an accident or an injury. Knowing that this Government has made decisions that have profoundly harmed our disabled communities is distressing, and it is not moving our country towards a vision of an equitable and a fair future.

The last 14 months included restrictions to disability support funding and access to equipment like wheelchairs; the scrapping of the minimum wage exemption which ensured that 900 disabled workers were treated with respect and dignity; and the transfer of disability support services from Whaikaha to the Ministry of Social Development without, again, consultation with the communities that it affects. It has also stopped Enabling Good Lives. This current Government is clear and it has prioritised cost cutting over human rights.

I’ve talked to families who are uncertain about their futures because of this Government’s decisions. When we boil it down, all we really want is stability, safety, and love, and we can have that when we prioritise access for everybody in our society.

The PM spoke about responsibility, and we all, as lawmakers, have a responsibility to listen to and work with our disabled communities. Under this Government, ableism isn’t just an attitude; it’s embedded in the policies that govern our lives. We have to do better and we have to listen to our disabled communities. The systemic barriers, the lack of access, the withholding of dignity—it’s a deeply entrenched form of discrimination that continues to make life harder for disabled people.

The Green Party has a vision, too—one that includes disabled people at every step along the way. This is what true partnership is: listening and learning from the people who actually have lived experience. It is a vision that is designed by and for disabled people, one that truly enables good lives.

Thank you, Mr Speaker, for the opportunity to take a call on the Prime Minister’s statement.

Now, we have heard a lot from the other side about “growth”, which is a bit new from them. Last year, we were hearing about the cost of living, and I was wondering why we’re suddenly hearing about growth when cost of living is currently still the main concern for most New Zealanders and hasn’t really been fixed. I wonder if it’s because there are 33,000 more people unemployed under this Government because the unemployment rate is so high, because for Māori workers, it’s 9.7 percent, and for Pasifika workers, it’s a shocking 10.5 percent. One in 10 Māori unemployed; I wonder if that’s why. We know that the best way to address the cost of living is through having people in work—creating the type of economy that keeps people in work and lets people do meaningful work and have meaningful jobs. This Government has failed on that, so now they’re talking about growth, but as we’ve heard, there isn’t much of that either, sadly for them.

I do have a warning for New Zealanders, because we have heard very clearly in some of these headline statements that the Prime Minister has made at the beginning of this year that if New Zealanders do not chuck this Government out, as they should do at the next election, this Government is going to privatise New Zealand’s assets. It is going to sell the very things that our ancestors and our parents and our grandparents worked so hard to hold in New Zealand ownership. We don’t know exactly what they will sell, so we call on the Government to rule out these changes and these asset sales but, even better, we call on New Zealanders to chuck this Government out and not risk their privatising agenda.

The main thing that I want to talk about today in my short contribution is jobs and health and safety, which are really linked to my portfolio as workplace relations spokesperson. Now, this Government does not care about keeping people in work, as I’ve already said; they don’t care about workers. They listed all of the things that they’re doing and that they think will be good for New Zealanders, but what about those workers at Kinleith Mill, those 230 workers who lost their jobs? What about the 75 people at Oji Fibre Solutions? What about the 170 people at SolarZero? What about the 230 workers at Winstone Pulp? What about the Karioi Pulp Mill workers—230 of them lost their jobs. Thousands of public sector workers sacked under this Government—what about them? What about their cost of living? What about the growth of their family and their bank accounts? All ignored under this Government.

Also, we can talk about construction: 12,000 fewer in construction, so good luck building and growing without construction—shocking. This Government has failed to protect communities, it’s failed to support workers, it’s failed to protect jobs, and it’s failed to support industry. Where is your industry plan, I say to the Government—where is it? Crickets—crickets from the other side.

Quickly, before I run out of time, I also want to talk about health and safety. Now, I heard it quoted that the Prime Minister in his state of the nation speech had mentioned something about health and safety, and I read the quote, and I couldn’t quite believe it. I couldn’t quite believe that someone who used to run an airline which, fundamentally, is about keeping people safe above all else, would actually say these words. Did he read the draft before he actually said this? This does not sound like someone who used to believe that health and safety was the top priority. Now, what did he say in his speech? He said, “Next, we have to fix our broken health and safety rules” and made a joke about it. He made a joke: he said, “They’re everywhere.”—they’re the fastest-growing industry. I bet that got a few laughs from the dads in the room.

Health and safety is not a joke; health and safety is incredibly serious. It’s estimated that New Zealand loses $4.9 million in productivity from not having good health and safety rules. And what should we do for health and safety? The Prime Minister says, “This year [we’re going to] crack on and make big changes.” Well, he is out of touch with business. I have a letter here signed by Business New Zealand, signed by the Employers and Manufacturers Association saying that John Key’s rules, which are the rules that Christopher Luxon is talking about, are fit for purpose.

Now, I didn’t expect to be defending John Key in this House, but I have to say this Government is out of touch with business, with workers, with health and safety professionals, and with unions on health and safety. They say they want to tear up health and safety; they call it “red tape”, they call it “green tape”. Let me tell you, it’s keeping workers safe and there are going to be terrible consequences if you go down this path.

The next call is a split call from the National Party. I call Nancy Lu.

I rise to take the opportunity to speak on a topic that is of great significance for our nation’s economy, but also for every fabric of our society, including our vibrant and colourful and diversified ethnic and migrant communities around New Zealand.

On that note, I have to use a little bit of my very precious time to take this opportunity to wish everyone who celebrates the Lantern Festival a very happy Lantern Festival, 元宵节快乐.Today is the day of the Lantern Festival, and it’s celebrated by billions of people around the world and hundreds and thousands of Kiwis in New Zealand, particularly with our vibrant ethnic communities.

The Prime Minister’s statement talked a lot about one word: growth. It is about economic growth, because economic growth—making New Zealanders richer and live better—is a matter for our country immediately, significantly, and urgently in front of us. It is the commitment for the welfare and prosperity of all New Zealanders, including our migrant and ethnic communities. It is about creating opportunities to expand—for the opportunities for people to grow and have better workforce skills, better job skills, better outcomes, a better future, better education, and better healthcare for their children and for their family. They’ve chosen New Zealand because they believed in New Zealand, they have hope for New Zealand, and we are a country that many of them came together in 2023 to get us in so we could fix the problem that the last Government left behind so that we could actually deliver economic growth and get our country back on track.

This is what I hear from the ethnic communities when I travel around the country. This is what they’re telling me: we need growth, we need to see our country back in shape, we love this country, and we will do everything to get behind this Government to help this Government to get our economy back on track. For that, I am very proud to be part of the team supporting the Prime Minister to get New Zealand back on track.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I would begin by acknowledging the Prime Minister’s inspirational address to the House. The statement was about economic growth and becoming a nation that says yes. For too long, we’ve made a habit of saying no. We used to be a country of can do. We used to be a country that did stuff, made stuff, innovated, and built stuff. We’ve become all too quickly in my working life a nation where it’s too difficult to do things, too easy to say no, and we need to flip that. Lift our aspirations and our ambitions out of the cesspit of negativity and focus on doing, on saying yes, on developing a pipeline of work that contributes to our economy, grows jobs and opportunities, creates export income so all New Zealanders have an opportunity to succeed. A large part of our success will depend on our primary sector.

I’d take a moment to reflect on some of the work that trade Minister Todd McClay’s been doing. The United Arab Emirates deal—$1.3 billion. The fastest ever trade deal; the Gulf Cooperation Council $3 billion trade deal. There’s huge opportunities for our exporters to capitalise on: 24 memorandums of understanding, $340 million export revenue over the next three years. It doesn’t stop there. The Minister visiting India multiple times, and they’ve been here, and if there’s any chance of getting a deal with India or any other country, Todd McClay will do it.

“Trade McClay”!

“Trade McClay”. If anyone can, Todd can. Todd McClay, take a bow.

To the 70,000 businesses associated with the food and fibre sector—they’re in every town and every city across this country—to the 360,000 people that work in it, I thank you. The latest Situation and Outlook for Primary Industries report shows $56.9 billion from the sector.

Take a bow.

Take a bow. Our future is bright. We need to stay focused.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Look, over summer, there was much dissatisfaction around the Government when we were at the barbecue and at the beach. Why? Because, basically, families in this country continue to do it tough around the place. And why might that be the case, sir? Well, simply because this Government is failing on the economy. That has become extremely clear—that this is a Government that is failing on the economy. Nicola Willis seems to talk up her credentials all the time. She talks up a big game, but she is simply not delivering. And all of the indicators clearly do show that.

To assist with this decline, of course, the Government are looking to sell off, hock off, assets and open the door to privatisation. That is very clear that they are looking to open the door to privatisation. It seems that they have already started that particular journey in Palmerston North.

Now, I see that the health Minister, Simeon Brown, is here today. He has no record in health and safety. Let’s just look at his track record in transport and increasing, by a blanket approach, actually, speed limits around the country, concerns that have been expressed by some communities around there. This is a Minister who has taken on one of the most important and vital portfolios in this country, with a track record not concerned about wellbeing, not concerned about health, not concerned about safety.

I say to him: what is he going to do about the children’s emergency department—ED—in Palmerston North? What is he going to do? His predecessor, Shane Reti, who this Prime Minister basically threw under the bus and passed this particular job over to Mr Brown, announced $6 million towards the end of last year to staff the children’s ED in Palmerston North. We have families, Mr Brown, who go to Palmerston North, and that very unit is closed. Why? Because there’s no staff. I say to the Minister: what is he going to do about it? What is he going to do to reflect the hard work that the community who fund-raised for that particular facility is going to do so that tamariki, children, can participate in terms of when it comes to their healthcare?

I also say to the new health Minister: what’s he going to do about the surveillance colonoscopies in my particular rohe? What is he going to do? Last night, there was a public meeting in Palmerston North organised by Patient Voice Aotearoa—great turn out—

Tell us about it.

—and these are some of the figures. I am going to tell the House; in particular, I’m going to tell the new health Minister about this. There are 852 people in the MidCentral area who have had their surveillance colonoscopies paused. There is more than an additional 1,600 who have had to have—

Not good enough.

Yes, it is not good enough. So what are you going to do about it?

I’ve got clinics starting on Saturday.

Oh, you’ve got clinics starting on Saturday. That’s going to have about 45 people. What are you going to do about the 1,600 that have yet to be assessed? There were people at that public meeting, Minister Brown, last night, who’ve been on the waiting list for 12, 18 months. The recommendation for clinicians’ advice is that it should be a six-week waiting opportunity. In case the Minister doesn’t know maths, it is far too long around that. We need action.

Privatisation; this is exactly where it’s going to have—he sits there. I look forward to hearing from him. What is he going to do for the constituents of Palmerston North? At the moment, he has done nothing. He has done absolutely nothing. This is the Minister who’s riding on the white horse to save you for the National Party, doing absolutely nothing for my constituents of Palmerston North, who are waiting to have a colonoscopy, and your Government, Minister Brown, is failing to deliver.

Then, of course, we know that, when it comes to the cost of living, this has dropped off their agenda for the National Party, hasn’t it? It’s dropped off their agenda. Now, there was some hope, but what did they deliver? Oh, tax cuts—that’s right—but, at the same time, they scrap subsidies for public transport. They scrap subsidies when it comes to prescriptions. They increase rates; they increase insurance—all of these opportunities. The cost of living has dropped off their radar because they do not care about jobs for people. They don’t. When the building and construction industry is losing thousands of jobs, well, it’s no wonder that they’re not really interested in this particular space as unemployment continues to rise.

Recently, Kāinga Ora opened—we had a new development opening in Palmerston North of 50 units. Fantastic. The Government cannot take any credit for that, because they didn’t actually allocate a single cent to it. In actual fact, they have erected bollards in Palmerston North. Sir, you’ll be aware of this, because there is land that’s available for development, had been tagged for development, that this Government are not going to proceed on. I challenge any member of the Government to front up at places like Church Street, other places in Palmerston North, and show us the development that is going to take place to create warm, safe, healthy homes for constituents. It’s not there. Why? Because this is a National Party and a Government that simply does not care for the health or wellbeing of New Zealanders.

Point of order, Mr Chair. There seems to be some confusion over timing. The clock should, I suggest to you, read another five minutes for Tangi Utikere to continue with his speech, given that there are 19 more minutes in the debate, and the final speaker for the National Party is only owed another 10-minute call.

There’s 14 minutes left in the debate, but let me just take some advice on that, because we’re going backwards and forwards here as well. The member sat down, he could have taken the call, but because he sat down—

No, it was a point of order, sir. Mr Speaker, the earlier time I rose was a point of order, but I will seek a call now for five minutes.

Arena Williams.

The Prime Minister’s statement is meant to give New Zealanders a sniff of where this Government is going—some semblance of a vision for not only New Zealand’s economy but our children; our future; honouring the Treaty of Waitangi, our foundational document; and making things better for ordinary people in this country. But what did we get? We got a fast-paced hurtling towards investors being able to buy up our properties if they clear a $5 million landmark; they will be able to purchase State-owned assets later because the Government is working towards an agenda of privatisation. This is cut, cut, cut Government services, and bring on sales to their mates. This is such a disappointing agenda for the Government. It is the most hard-right, neo-liberal Government that New Zealand has had in a generation.

Yet the irony is that members on that side of the House might expect, for that pain, for the pain borne by working people, and for unemployment rates skyrocketing, that they might be getting the economy under control, but they’re failing on the economy. The Prime Minister is nowhere to be seen. Outside of COVID-19, we’re in the steepest downturn in the economy since 1991. When Labour left office, we had annual GDP growth of 2.4 percent; it has declined every quarter since National came to office. That will be the legacy of this one-term Government.

The legacy of this one-term Government will be: saying no to school lunches. It will be saying no to the 2,200 nurses that we need in our health system right now, when they are asking for jobs. This Government did the good work of training them up; that Government sent them packing. It is saying no to more doctors. We have an 8.5 percent doctor shortage in our health system, and a health Minister who released that health plan in late-2024 with no fanfare and no media and then was sacked because he was honest about the crisis that the health system is in and is being presided over by those Ministers. These Ministers are saying no to the health system; they’re grinding it into the ground until it is worth nothing, and then they will introduce more and more privatisation into a system that will mean people who cannot afford it cannot get healthcare.

When we have a Prime Minister who agrees with the premise that failing fast is the right thing to do in our health system, then we will have a health system where sick people get sicker, where people lose their lives from preventable diseases. Where we have a health system that is not like any other in the First World, where people who are sick can get the help that they need. That is a shame and that is not something I would want to be known for, and it’s that side of the House which has brought it in.

Instead of saying yes to economic growth, they are saying yes to donors. Only a few developers around the country are enjoying any of the development benefits that fast track ensures, while all other developers, all other house builders, mums and dads who want to put more properties into a property in the city that they could have built on, they’re not getting any of the benefits of that. They’re saying yes to more fines and fees.

Under that Government, if you drive an electric vehicle, you are paying more. You are paying more if you’re a taxi driver working hard in Wellington City and you are paying more if you’re a taxi driver working in Auckland—exactly the communities that that Government said it would be delivering for with the cost of living promises that it made. Carlos Cheung sits there and he knows that people in his community are hurting now. Rima Nakhle knows that the people in Takanini are hurting because of the fees and charges that this Government has put in place. Tax cuts mean nothing if you’re paying more to drive your car for work.

They’re saying yes to sanctions, yes to new crimes, but not for people who are their mates. They will write letters of support for rich people to avoid criminal sanctions while they bring in more punishments for young Māori, more punishments for young Pasifika, more punishments for young people.

This is a Government that is saying yes to all of the wrong things. This is a Government that will be remembered for doing huge economic damage in our country. It is a shame to sit on that side of the House.

Members, the time has come for me to leave the Chair for the dinner break. The House will resume at 7.30 p.m.

Good evening. We are on the debate on the Prime Minister’s statement, and we have a National Party call of nine minutes and 17 seconds.

Point of order.

I’m sorry, my apologies—I may be misinformed. Were you expecting to have the call?

Point of order.

Oh, point of order. My apologies.

Tēnā koe e te Pīka. Ēnei kōrero ki te reo Māori. Ki tā ngā kōrero nāku i roto i te tautohetohe whānui i te 18 o Hepetema i te tau kua taha ake nei. Nāku ētahi kōrero whakapōrearea i te Whare. Nā ka tangohia aua kōrero. Ka whakapāha atu ki te Whare, tēnā tātou.

[Thank you, Mr Speaker. I’d like to speak in te reo Māori. In regards to what I had said in the general debate on 18 September last year, I had expressed words that had upset the House. I withdraw what was said and apologise to the House. Thank you.]

Well, Mr Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to speak on the Prime Minister’s statement to Parliament and, as the last speaker here tonight in support of this statement, this Government is on the side of economic growth and productivity and backing New Zealanders to succeed. What a great statement that was. It talked about where we have got our country to in only 14 short months, and where we are going as a country, and setting a very clear direction and a very clear agenda: that we need to grow our economy.

We just look back over what this Government inherited when we came to office in late 2023: inflation—inflation out of control, left behind by those people on the other side who, as the Prime Minister describes, are like arsonists who’ve just lit the house on fire and there they are criticising the people, the firefighters, trying to put the fire out. Well, that’s what they’ve been doing every single day for the last 14 months. They lit this country alight with inflation, with their reckless spending, and we are getting it under control. We’ve got inflation back into the band. We’ve got Government expenditure back under control.

We are seeing the benefits of that for New Zealanders, with interest rate relief coming through and flowing through into people’s back pockets. As, I think, Infometrics put it earlier this week, up to $45 million per week should be expected in lower interest rates by the end of this year, for people with mortgages up and down their country. That is good news for the people of Northcote. It’s good news for the people of Coromandel—it’s the good people of the South Island and Waimakariri; it’s the good people of my electorate, in Pakuranga. That is good news. Right across this land, people are celebrating as they see those interest rates are coming down, but, of course, there’s a few of them on the other side who are there still, the arsonists—the arsonists watching as we are putting out that fire.

We know how important economic growth is on this side of the House, and it’s not just a term that we talk about; it is the benefits that it provides for New Zealanders. It’s more jobs. It’s more opportunities. It’s the ability for people to start a business, to be able to get ahead. It’s also the ability for the Government to have choices about what we invest taxpayers’ hard-earned money in. It’s about being able to invest more and more in healthcare, in education, in the roads that the Green Party hate but New Zealanders love. It’s about investing in more hospitals, in our schools, and investing in law and order, which was left in such a terrible state by the people on the other side. I’m so proud of the work that the Hon Mark Mitchell has done—

Oi, oi, oi.

—getting gangs under control. And the Hon Paul Goldsmith; he’s right here. He’s been working very closely with the Hon Mark Mitchell and leading the way on justice reforms while the police are, of course, getting law and order under control.

Of course, at the heart of the statement it was about saying yes; yes to things like more tourism—more tourism into the country. What did they say?

No.

Yes to more farming and backing our farmers. What did they say?

No.

Yes to more mining. What did they say?

No.

Yes to more solar, wind, and geothermal through our fast-track legislation. What did they say?

No.

Yes to fast-tracking housing developments up and down our country so Kiwis—young Kiwis—can get into their first home, and what did they say?

No.

Yes to more concerts at Eden Park. And of course we all know what the patron saint of the Labour Party—Helen Clark—says to that. What does she say?

No.

That’s what she says. Yes to more international investment, attracting investment to our country. And what do they say?

No.

Of course, because they are the party of no. They lit the house on fire. They then turned up complaining that the firefighters are putting it out and now we’re trying to build that house back better, and now they’re sitting on the sidelines saying, “No, you can’t do that, no you can’t do this, no, you can’t do that.”

They’ve got the sign above the door.

Well, they’ve got “Noes” above the door; they’ve even got their “Noes” sign here. They are the party of no, no, no. As I said, because we’re saying yes, we are able to then invest in more of the things that New Zealanders rely on and the things that they deserve.

One of my new roles as Minister of Health is to make sure that our health system is delivering for New Zealanders, and I’m proud of the record investment this Government has made in our healthcare system. But, as everybody knows, there is always going to be a demand for more money into healthcare. There’s always new technologies, there’s always new investments required, but what we also need to do is make sure the money that is being spent is delivering the results that New Zealanders rely on and the results that they expect.

I think it’s an absolute shame what that last Government did to our healthcare system. It is one of the crying shames that they have left behind after their six years in office—what they left behind for New Zealanders. When National left office in 2017, the vast majority—almost 90 percent of New Zealanders—were able to get seen and discharged through their emergency departments within six hours. That had dropped back around 20 percent. The number of Kiwis who were being able to get an elective surgery and the number waiting beyond four months was just over 1,000.

Over the six years, that number had increased into the tens of thousands. In fact, when we left office in 2017, only 1,037 Kiwis were waiting more than four months for an elective surgery. When they left office, that was 27,497. That is a 2,551 percent increase in the number of people waiting more than four months. Shame on them. When it comes to people wanting their first specialist assessment—those people wanting to get their first specialist assessment—918 Kiwis in 2017 were waiting more than four months to get their first specialist assessment. When they left office, that number had increased to 59,818—

COVID-19?

—a 6,400 percentage point. Fail and shame on them; shame on them.

Stop rewriting history, Mr Brown.

And what was their big idea; what was their big idea? I hear the excuses coming out from the Opposition—the excuses. What was their big idea to sort that out? Focus on making sure we did the right number of doctors and nurses, making sure we’re focusing on delivering for Kiwis, making sure we’ve got targets in place? No, they got rid of the targets. What were they focused on? Restructuring the entire health system in the middle of a pandemic. Shame on them. They’re more focused on the bureaucracy, the back-office functions, the number of people on the senior leadership team; that’s what they were doing, sitting around the Cabinet table working out how many people we can have on the senior leadership team rather than focusing on the outcomes for patients.

On this side of the House, we make no apology that we are on the side of patients. That’s why we brought back those targets. We’re going to focus the system on delivering against those targets. That is what we’re focusing on, and it will be a patients-first policy from this Government, and that’s what we’re going to deliver on. I have no doubt there are significant challenges facing our health system, left behind because when you don’t measure something, you can’t manage it, and that’s what they did. The first thing they did was to stop the measuring so that Kiwis were left in the dark as to the performance of their health system. We have shone a light on that; we’ve shone a light on the challenge that New Zealanders face, and we are focusing the system back on delivering against that.

In conclusion, this Government has a huge agenda ahead of us this year. We are focused on the issues that matter to New Zealanders. We’re focused on growing our economy, because, with a strong economy, we can have better jobs. We can have better-paid jobs, more jobs, the incomes that we deserve. It means that we can invest in the healthcare, the education, the law and order that New Zealanders rely upon, and we will deliver that because that is what Kiwis voted for us to do, and we are not going to stand by like those people on the sidelines complaining. We’re going to get on and make the decisions that get New Zealand back on track.

Thank you, Mr Speaker, for the opportunity to speak on the Māori Purposes Bill, a technical bill, one that looks to make adjustments across a number of pieces of legislation. That old adage that the devil is in the detail is true, and it’s important not to arbitrarily push it to the side and think that it’s only changing a few words here and there; we need to look more substantively at some of the changes. I know some of the more sort of straightforward technical changes are around simple things like putting the word “Māori” in instead of “Maoris” because there’s no such thing as “Māoris” with an “s”, and something like putting—what do you call it?—a macron on the “a” for Māori—simple things like that. Those are really straightforward, and we support all of those.

However, if you look a little bit deeper into some of the more substantive parts of this bill, they are around Te Ture Whenua Maori Act. Now, we know right across the country that Te Ture Whenua Maori Act has both been a protection mechanism for Māori land but also a significant hindrance in so far as it’s put a fence around a lot of the aspiration, a lot of the development aspiration and the economic aspirations that Māori have with respect to the utilisation of their land. Te Ture Whenua Māori Act is something that needs close inspection; I appreciate that some of the changes that are proposed in this bill are technical in nature, they talk about the kinds of representation and the percentage of people that must be in attendance at a meeting, etc., but we know that, like we said, the devil is in the detail.

The Government of the Key administration tried to change Te Ture Whenua Māori Act substantively. It came up against some resistance and some support. Regardless, what we don’t want to happen with this particular bill is that substantive changes to Te Ture Whenua Māori Act are pushed through without the kind of consultation, without the kind of work alongside Māori communities and those who are impacted by legislation such as Te Ture Whenua Maori Act—aren’t involved in the conversation around the table with respect to the law that governs Māori land here in this country.

We support this bill. We want to be up front about that, but we want to let the Minister know and the House know and indicate to the House that when this particular bill progresses to the next stage, we will look to interrogate some of those smaller parts in legislation that we believe will have a significant impact, and I’ve already spoken about Te Ture Whenua Maori Act and why it’s important that we get that right. It is important to get it right because, of course, aspirations—economic aspirations for the utilisation of Māori land, economic aspirations in order to allow Māori to build papa kāinga on their land; all these things—are really important and I’m sure members right across the House will make sure that we get that right.

Other parts are technical in nature; they bring and modernise many of the bits of legislation—for example, the ability to meet online. I know it sounds rather novel in this particular bill, but it’s something that’s been able to be done in this country for some time now. COVID taught us that we can move a heck of a lot of our operations into Zoom meetings, into online meetings, and it’s important that legislation keeps up with the time. You’ll see, Mr Speaker, there are a number of bills here that make simple adjustments like that, which are ones, of course, that we support and are reasonably straightforward.

The bill also proposes a minor change to the way that Te Mātāwai and the Māori Language Act of 2016, if I recall the date correctly, will make a minor adjustment with respect to the way that it works alongside Te Mātāwai with Māori Television, and I think that’s going to be really important. The bill, it says here, is set out to encourage and grow te reo Māori, if you will, but what we’ve seen from this Government hasn’t been exactly huge support for te reo Māori. In fact, in its first 100 days, it did its very best to get rid of te reo Māori in public spaces and other places. We want to make sure that while the bill proposes something technical and small like that, it actually delivers what it is intended to deliver, and the only way to do that is not only to look at the Māori Television legislation, but also to have a closer inspection of Te Mātāwai and the legislation there and Te Whare o te Reo Mauri Ora which was actually ushered in by the National-led Government of the Key administration.

I thought I had 10 minutes but, sadly, I’ve only got five, so for the next 10 seconds, we will say that we will support this bill; we will continue to interrogate to make sure that we dive into the detail.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s a pleasure to rise in support of the Māori Purposes Bill. It’s also a pleasure to know that it’s coming to another select committee that I have the privilege of being part of—the Māori Affairs Committee. That’s also alongside my commitments on the Justice Committee, the busiest committee at this stage in Parliament.

Just by way of a brief synopsis, the main objective of this bill—as has been perused so far throughout the speeches with respect to the Māori Purposes Bill—is that, essentially, we’re proposing some minor technical and, if I may be so straightforward to say, non-controversial amendments to a suite of Māori affairs legislation. Indeed, we’re amending eight Acts, five regulations, and we’re repealing three Māori Purposes Acts because they are from back in the 1930s and early 1940s. They’re no longer fit for purpose. They’re out of date.

With the changes that we’re proposing with this Māori Purposes Bill that will include, as I said, repealing those three Acts as well from 1937, 1939, and 1945, what I would like to highlight, if I may, is that one of the Acts that will be amended is the Maori Community Development Act 1962. For those of our listeners beyond these walls, this is the Act that, essentially, established the Māori wardens community officers, and the New Zealand Māori Council.

In this situation, I’d like to acknowledge the New Zealand Māori Council, and my beautiful dear friend, the co-chair Whaea Anne Kendall, who I love so much, and who has over the years that I’ve been here in New Zealand had the warmth and the generosity of taking me around with her to different kaupapa Māori events so my eyes could be opened up to the beauty of our Māori world. I’d also like to tautoko and send a shout-out to our Māori wardens. Thank you for all the care that you give in making sure we’re always safe in different events. With that, I would love to commend this bill to the House.

Tēnā koe e te Māngai o te Whare, heoi anō tēnā anō tātou katoa. Hika, kāore he kōrero i tua atu i ngā kōrero a taku tuakana a Peeni Henare i tēnei pō, heoi anō rā ka tū au ki te whakaputa i ētahi atu whakaaro mō tēnei pire.

[Greetings to the Speaker of the House, and to all. There is not much more to add to my older relation Peeni Henare’s words tonight, but I will stand to voice other thoughts about this bill.]

Oh, as soon as you put your earpiece in, Mr Speaker, I’m turning to English. What I was going to say: kia ora anō, everybody. There’s not much more to say, other than what the Hon Peeni Henare has said, but I will make a further contribution.

The price of living in paradise is sometimes only 150 of you live there and that’s across a vast expanse. When you’re on the committee of the rugby team, the committee of the marae, the committee of everything else, it doesn’t always work, but you do have whānau who live in Te Whanganui-a-Tara, who live in Te Wai Pounamu, who still feel the strong pull to contribute at home. While it could be perceived as a minor bill, we here on this side are happy to tautoko this bill because of the practical applications it can have, such as mine currently, as a trustee of Putaanga Marae being developed in Tikitiki.

I’m especially intrigued too, as Peeni Henare did discuss, about the opportunities for our reo and enhancing its understanding and respect throughout Aotearoa. Obviously, Te Ture Whenua Maori Act will be scrutinised, as will every other part of this bill, though Labour support it, but whenua is something that is still controversial in Aotearoa today. I don’t need to explain that in this House. Any amendments to that in particular and not just—I mean, obviously in Aotearoa whānui, but specifically in Ikaroa-Rāwhiti and Te Tairāwhiti. That will be scrutinised.

While this may be perceived, as I’ve said, as a minor bill, it is something we’re pleased to say to the Government opposite that’s something we support. On behalf of te Pāti Reipa, e tautoko ana wau i tēnei pire. [I support this bill.]

Nōku te maringa nui ki te tautoko i tēnei pire ki te Whare. Ka poto tāku kōrero nā te mea he māmā tēnei pire. Heoi he nui tāna awenga ki ngā pire e kōrero ai ngā taipitopito o tēnei pire.

[It is my great fortune to commend this bill to the House. My speech will be short because this bill is simple. However, it has a great influence on bills that address the details of this bill.]

All I’m going to add is that I love bills that are focused on bringing greater efficiency to the way that we do things. I love legislation like this that increases the rangatiratanga and the mana motuhake of the organisations and the groups and the hapū that will access the systems of this House through this bill. I particularly love legislation that has in mind the increased flourishing of te reo taketake nā te mea koirā te tino taonga o Aotearoa katoa. [the indigenous language because it is a true treasure of all of Aotearoa.] Nā reira, I am delighted to commend this bill to the House.

The question is, That the Māori Purposes Bill be considered by the Māori Affairs Committee.

I move, That the District Court (District Court Judges) Amendment Bill be now read a second time.

The bill will amend the District Court Act 2016 to increase the statutory maximum number of District Court judges by one, an increase from 182 to 183 fulltime-equivalent judges. It updates the figure in an example relating to the aggregate number of judges. The statutory cap on District Court judges includes Youth Court judges, Family Court judges, Youth Court and Family Court divisions of the District Court. It was last amended in 2019. Since then, additional judges have been appointed on an exceptional basis, through COVID-19 and other reforms, and these appointments have brought the total of full-time numbers to at near or near the statutory maximum.

Now, why do we need to do this, people might be asking as they are listening in, tuning in to the debates tonight? Why do we need to expand the cap? Well, the primary reason is to ensure that the District Court is equipped to implement the Sentencing (Reform) Amendment Bill, which is currently being considered by this House, and, indeed, we hope to pass it very soon. Having an extra District Court judge will help alleviate that.

It’s worth reminding the House, just briefly, what we’re seeking to achieve with the sentencing amendment bill. Primarily that is around limiting the discretion of the judiciary to have a whole lot of discounts to sentencing that cumulatively have added up to a very significant proportion—some cases at 60 or 70 percent—so we’re going to limit that to 40 percent, and in order to restore real consequences for crime, because I think too many people are irritated by people being convicted of serious violent crimes—and through a process of many, many discounts, such as multiple times coming back in, getting a discount for pleading guilty or for being young or for a bunch of other things, lead to these discounted sentences. The idea there is to send a strong message that there aren’t.

Yes, it’s important that the courts always understand the background of offenders, but that cannot lead to—

Mr Goldsmith, can I just remind you which bill we’re on here.

Yes—yes.

Context is good, but not the whole speech.

Yes, thank you, Mr Speaker. I am familiar with the bill that we’re on. We’re on the District Court (District Court Judges) Amendment Bill, which increases the number of District Court judges, and I was simply making the point that we’re doing this primarily because we’re also about to pass the sentencing reform bill now, which is around restoring consequences for crime. But I don’t want to trespass on the goodwill of the Speaker, so I’ll carry on.

Alongside this change, the Government and the judiciary are also working to roll out several initiatives to improve timeliness and that will enable the cases to progress and resolve more quickly, because, ultimately, we’ve inherited extreme challenge in the justice system of long delays in the court processes. They were certainly exacerbated by COVID, but the trend was getting worse before and after. If people are waiting for years to get their disputes resolved or to have a conclusion to criminal acts and having to, three years after the event, relive it all and go through a court process and wait that time for justice, we think that’s a real problem. We’re very focused, as a Government, on reducing the delays in the court system, which is a very detailed and complicated situation.

One little element of that, of course, is increasing the number of judges; but much broader is the better use of technology; also looking at the many aspects of the legislation that it provides; and also ensuring modern, efficient case management systems are in place; changes to improve the duty law system and bail scheduling; and a whole heap of things that we’re working through consistently.

This bill is one part of that process. It’s being reported back to the House from the Justice Committee. I would like to thank the Justice Committee for their careful consideration of this bill, across the House, and particularly my learned colleague Dr Duncan Webb, and people from all sides of the House who work together to listen to the submitters who shared their views. It’s not a complicated bill, I have to say, and the Justice Committee recommended the bill proceed without any changes and that the goal is that the bill will come into force the day after Royal assent. On that basis, I commend this bill to the House.

The question is the motion be agreed.

We’ll be supporting this bill. This bill was, in fact, originally intended to be associated with the Sentencing (Reform) Amendment Bill so it could be snuck in alongside without too much notice. I mean, it is a very simple bill in many ways.

As the Minister of Justice alluded to, this bill is needed for two reasons. First of all, there is a very significant backlog in the District Courts and elsewhere that the Government’s made no progress on. They’ve flailed around a little bit, they’ve changed some AVL rules—audiovisual link rules—and the judiciary have set some targets, but they have made no significant progress at all. The other reason this bill is needed, as was also alluded to by the Minister, is because the solution of this Government to the problems which afflict our society is to arrest people and throw them in jail. That’s the fact of the matter.

Now, he noted—and I wouldn’t usually raise it, but because he extensively went over the Sentencing (Reform) Amendment Bill, I think it’s only appropriate that I note that that bill was not supported by a very significant number of submitters, including the Law Society—and if I remember rightly—the Bar Association, and the Criminal Bar Association. Indeed, his own department noted it had serious concerns with the Sentencing (Reform) Amendment Bill, saying it was going to lead to increases in legal challenges. The reason we need another judge is because the Sentencing Act, as amended, will be an absolute dog’s breakfast. In fact, for a Government that says they’re trying to save money—this judge might cost around a million dollars—but that reform, the Sentencing Act reform, is estimated to cost $150 million. That’s the kind of Government we’ve got.

Now, look, we’re not going to be churlish. One of the things we don’t want is people languishing in jail on remand. Incidentally, around 55 percent of people who are on remand and then go to trial are released on the day that the decision is given, whether it’s for time served or because they’re found not guilty. That’s a real problem for this Government as well, but they don’t seem to mind filling up jails; they seem to quite like it.

What we have is a Government whose justice policy is, essentially, a “lock ’em up” policy. It’s a problematic policy, and the fact of the matter is that they are diverting resources—$150 million in the case of the Sentencing Act reforms—from places where it could be much more useful, like schools, school lunches, hospitals, and so on. But, no, this Government is determined to do it.

We think that the courts need to move smoothly and quickly, and they do need good, skilled people on them. It’s right that we have a legislative cap. I note that at the Justice Committee a number of submitters were, essentially, saying, “Get away, get rid of the cap, just let the Minister appoint as many judges as is needed.” That’s actually quite a bad idea because the difficulty would be, essentially, an ability for the executive to have too much influence over the judiciary by increasing or lowering the amount of judges at a whim, and that’s clearly not a good thing. The parliamentary intervention into the judiciary and the number of judges—even though they’re appointed, ultimately, in the case of the District Court, by the Minister of Justice—is appropriate, with the usual checks. The fact that the number of them is set by legislation is appropriate.

Look, in terms of another judge, we want to see justice handed out speedily, effectively, and appropriately, and that’s why we support this bill. In terms of why we’ve got here—the Sentencing (Reform) Amendment Bill—we’ll be debating that at length further, but it’s an absolute dog’s breakfast of a bill which anyone who knows anything about sentencing doesn’t support.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. The Green Party also supports the District Court (District Court Judges) Amendment Bill, because we believe that it is true that we have seen, as the previous two speakers mentioned, a backlog in terms of the current cases and the court system. Although this bill is not the most, I guess, progressive or visionary, it is a good step towards reducing some of that backlog.

I would like to first address what the Minister has raised as part of his speech, which is that this bill sends a stronger message and a stronger response to crime. I find that almost laughable, because that is not the intention of this particular bill. I think that increasing the number of judges certainly does not, in any way, send such a strong message. I have no idea why the Minister chose to mention that when discussing this particular bill.

In terms of the context of this bill, like the previous speaker, the Hon Dr Duncan Webb, has mentioned, it was introduced into the House in conjunction with the Sentencing (Reform) Amendment Bill, which will be discussed separately, but I think if one is the precursor of another, it does raise the issue in terms of the legislative intent of this particular bill in response to the potentially increasing burden to the court system as a result of the Sentencing (Reform) Amendment Bill.

In terms of my particular contribution, I want to first thank the submitters and also the Justice Committee for going through this particular bill and also the select committee process. I want to mention some of the submissions as part of that process, and the number of things that the submitters have raised. One of the things that the submitters have raised which is really, really important is the unambitious nature of this particular bill in terms of the number of judges that it increases. The Minister has mentioned that the last time we saw an increase in the number of District Court judges was in 2019, when the number of judges was increased from 160 to 182.

Now, considering the ambitious nature of the Sentencing (Reform) Amendment Bill, which this bill has been introduced in conjunction with, it does beg discussion and it does bring thoughts for the submitters on why the increase was only one fulltime-equivalent (FTE) and not more than that, like it was in 2019. One of the submitters has asked why we are increasing the number of fulltime-equivalents for judges from 182 to 183 when we could be looking at an increase to maybe 187—and one of the submitters mentioned 200. Again, it comes to the fact that, you know, if we really want to address some of these backlogs, we should be more ambitious in terms of increasing the number of judges.

I do understand that in many ways, the number of judges and the judges’ remuneration is done independently by the Remuneration Authority. For judges, they do have the security of tenure. However, I do think that the bill could have gone further, by the feedback we received from submitters that the number could be increased by a lot more than just one FTE.

One other alternative that a submitter has mentioned in terms of this is around, rather than locking it into primary legislation, the exact number of judges could be in proportion to the number of cases that we have in front of us. A number of submitters have mentioned, in terms of the resource that has gone into both the select committee process and the resource that has gone into our having this discussion, if this particular number isn’t set as part of the primary legislation—if we were able to remove that and use other ways of benchmarking it—it would alleviate a lot of the legislative burden of us having to relitigate it every time we are looking at an increase or a decrease; well, in this case, mostly an increase, or a decrease by attrition of the number of judges.

Those are some of the key points that have been touched on by submitters, and I think in this case the argument and, I guess, the rationale that we have seen on why this was part of the primary legislation is around the fact that the long-term financial implications of the number of judges and the fact that we have seen that protections can be put in place to ensure judicial independence—but the statutory limit on the number of District Court judges provides Parliament with a degree of control over spending on the judges.

Like the previous speaker, the Hon Dr Duncan Webb, has mentioned, while we are seeing potentially a $150 million blowout in the projected cost of the Sentencing (Reform) Amendment Bill, for us to so prudishly restrict the number of judges, and having that in the primary legislation, seems to defeat the purpose, and, in fact, may also impede on the judicial independence and the principle of comity that we do have within our constitutional arrangement. I think that is a really important aspect when we are looking at this bill in terms of the increase of the number of District Court judges.

The next point I would like to come to comes down to the process itself. The bulk of this bill, in terms of clause 4 of this bill, is an amendment to section 12 of the District Court Act 2016, but as part of that, I think it’s important to mention section 11 of that particular Act, and particularly around appointment process. This is something I would like to ask for clarification on from the Minister during the committee stage, around that appointment process.

A couple of things that did pique my interest as part of the selection stage is, number one, the appointment time of the District Court judge. I think, in section 11, “The Governor-General may, on the advice of the Attorney-General, appoint [the] Judge.”, but it is not specified when that needs to be done. Although the Act would be enacted, it would be really good to get clarification from the Minister on when that appointment will be made.

The second part of the clarification I’m looking for during the committee stage is around the location and the determination of where is the most appropriate appointment for that judge. Understandably, we’re looking at fulltime-equivalents, and if we’re appointing part-time judges, they are divisible by the fraction of hours that they do have. We are potentially, then, able to look at appointing multiple judges in multiple locations, but how are they being determined and where those judges would go is going to be something we’re going to be really interested in getting some clarification from the Minister on during the committee stage.

Finally, we really want to talk about the fact that the judges themselves are not the be-all and end-all of why we’re seeing a backlog in terms of our court system. We’re seeing a backlog because of the long-term underfunding and under-resourcing of our court system. We’re seeing that because of the other factors that are associated with it, not just simply in terms of judges but other staff and background staff that contribute and support our court and justice system overall.

I think, again, if the main intention—the legislative intention—of this bill is to streamline and to progress cases in a way where things go faster, it is simply one small part of it, and we would have liked to see other factors and other funding being contributed or being increased to the court system as a result of this. Again, surely this is something that the Minister would have considered as well.

Overall, the Green Party is supportive of this bill, of increasing the number of District Court Judges from 182 fulltime-equivalents to 183 FTEs. However, there are a couple of additional things that we would like to question the Minister on during the committee stage, and I think we would also like to, again, thank the submitters, because, again, although this is a small bill, it does have ongoing and more widespread implications. With that, the Green Party supports this bill.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of ACT to speak in support of the District Court (District Court Judges) Amendment Bill. It’s great to see that both the Labour Party and the Greens are supporting this bill at the second reading. That actually doesn’t surprise me, because the Justice Committee actually has all the parties represented on it, and I note that they all took part in the deliberations and the consideration of this bill. In fact, the recommendation for the bill is that “The Justice Committee has examined the District Court (District Court Judges) Amendment Bill and recommends that [it] proceed without amendment.” That was by the whole committee.

I also just want to address some of the points that the Green member Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan referred to. Yes, there were some submissions on this—not lots of submissions. We’re actually used to dealing with lots of submissions in the Justice Committee—the most ever, on one particular bill. They did talk about this maximum number of judges, linking it to court backlog, etc. I do note that the committee actually made this statement: “We note that it would be difficult to forecast the possible effects of recent changes in the justice system. However, we”—that’s the whole committee—“consider that one additional judge would be sufficient to account for recent policy changes affecting the courts.” Again, the whole committee came to that conclusion, which was great.

I want to say that we have a great Minister for Courts, Minister McKee, who’s focused on dealing with the backlogs and some of the issues that have been raised. That is why the Government has put forward this bill: to get this extra single judge. I know it doesn’t sound like a lot, but that will add sufficient capacity to deal with some of these issues. Some of it is to do with case complexity, and some of it is going to be around the changes that have already been mentioned around the Sentencing Act.

I just do want to address a couple of other things that did come up. There’s been a bit of talk about some of the costs around our law and order policies. Well, actually, yes, some of these policies are going to cost additional money, but that’s what New Zealand taxpayers want their money spent on. It’s not that we’re into cutting money everywhere; what we’re into is spending money on the things that Kiwis say are actually important to them and delivering results. Law and order is one of them, and it’s great.

I really want to thank the Opposition. They have cottoned on to what our policy is: it’s real consequences if you commit criminal acts. It’s pretty straightforward, and we are very excited about that.

I noted there were some other comments about cutting costs in school lunches and hospitals. Well, you can actually cut costs in school lunches and deliver more of them. It’s amazing, I know, if you take a view of actually carefully looking at taxpayer-spending money and how you deliver it. That’s what we’re doing here with this bill: we’re going to put another judge on the bench, which will cost some money, but we think it’s money well worth spending and we also think it’s what New Zealand taxpayers want. They want to be safe. They want to have law and order issues addressed.

I’m going to end it there, because it is a fairly simple bill. We are just literally adding one judge, to make 183 fulltime-equivalent judges. I do have some concerns about some of the questions that the Greens may ask the Minister, because they actually appear to want to interfere with judicial independence by asking where judges will actually be sitting and how they’ll be appointed and distributed, but I think that’s probably best left to the Chief District Court Judge to decide those issues.

Look, this is a bill that we’re very happy to support. It fits in with our law and order agenda, some other pieces of legislation which will be coming, and I think it’ll be great to have an extra District Court judge on the bench. I will be commending it to the House.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to support the District Court (District Court Judges) Amendment Bill, which addresses an obvious need in our judicial system. I’m one of the members of the Justice Committee. This bill did not have many submissions to it, so there has not been, as we just heard from the detailed—

And lengthy.

—lengthy last discussion by Todd Stephenson. There wasn’t a lot of change, if not any change to the first reading through the Justice Committee. I’m pretty sure the chair, James Meager, will shortly detail the amount of submissions that we did receive. It’s obvious we’re only raising the number from one extra District Court judge, from 182 to 183. It’s a sensible and pragmatic response to the challenges that the District Court is facing.

New Zealand First also recognises the importance of ensuring that our courts are properly resourced to handle the case load in a timely and effective manner. The one thing we don’t want are delays in our court proceedings. We’ve also heard from the Minister in charge, Paul Goldsmith, that the reforms in the Sentencing (Reform) Amendment Bill will place additional demands on the District Court, and that that’s the major need for this additional judge. Appointment of the additional judge is essential to ensure that these reforms are implemented smoothly, and without unnecessary delays. On those notes, New Zealand First supports this practical measure. Thank you.

Tēnā koe e te Pīka. Aku kōrero ki te reo Māori. Tū ana ahau ki te wāhi i ngā kōrero a Te Pāti Māori mō tēnei o ngā Pire, me tāna e whakapae nei, mā roto i a ia ka whakapikihia ake, ka whakapakari ake i te taha whakahaere o ngā Kōti ā-Rohe o te motu. E tautoko ana i tērā whakahau me te īnoi kia pērā. Kia whai wāhi te Māori e noho nei i roto i ōna rohe ki te whakatinanatanga o tēnei mea te ture. Nō reira ko tā mātou he tautoko i te pire, engari tērā anō ētahi kupu whakatūpato, kei puta he āhuatanga kāore pea i āta kitea, kāore pea i āta whakaaro iho. Nō reira ēnei kōrero kua puta i ētahi o ngā rangatira o te iwi Māori, o ngā rōpū whakakao mai i ngā tikanga ā-ture o te iwi Māori, kei iti haere te wāhi ki te whakamahinga o te reo Māori i roto i ngā kōti, nā runga anō i te tangonga o ngā pūtea whakatere i ngā mahi a ngā kōti. Ko tō tātou reo Māori kei te tohe kia whai wāhi tonu i roto i ngā mahi ture o te motu. Nō reira koia tonu tētahi o ngā kupu whakatūpato, kei mimiti haere, kei mimiti haere, kei mimiti haere.

Ki te kore te tangata Māori e rangona te reo Māori i roto i ngā kōti, e kitea rānei te kanohi Māori i roto i ngā kōti, tēnā ko te whai wāhi a te Māori i roto i ngā kōti, ka iti haere. Nō reira, kupu whakatūpato tuatahi tērā, ko te reo Māori me whai wāhi. Ko ngā tikanga Māori anō hoki. Kua roa te iwi Māori, tahi me te kāwana e tohe kia whai wāhi ngā tikanga Māori ki roto i ngā mahi ture o te motu. Kāore anō kia eke ki te tauritetanga i roto i tērā āhuatanga. Me tō mātou e kī nei, nō mua mai i te hainatanga o Te Tiriti o Waitangi, ko te tikanga Māori koia te whare o te ture o te Māori. Tērā wā i noho ko ngā Pākeha i noho nei i roto o Aotearoa, i raro i tērā ture a te iwi Māori, engari kei te tohe tonu tātou. Ana, ko te kupu whakatūpato o te iwi Māori, kei iti haere te whakamahinga o te tikanga.

Ka mutu ko te mea whakamutunga, ko te whai ōritetanga a te iwi Māori i roto i ngā kawenga ture o te motu. Tāku i roto i ngā uiuitanga i ngā mātanga o Te Tāhū o te Ture, arā te taha ki ngā Pirihimana, te taha ki ngā Whare Herehere, me te taha - kei te mōhio te tangata ki aku kōrero - me te taha ki Te Tāhua Ture, ko te Māori te hunga ka aupēhia nuitia whānui te katoa, tokotoru nei.

Nō reira kia kaua rā ērā āhuatanga e piki ake, kei te kī atu ngā mātanga o te iwi Māori kia āta haere i roto i ngā mahi whakatikatika i ngā whakahaeretanga kei ngaro te reo, kei heke iho te whakamahi o te tikanga Māori, kei kore, kei whāiti rānei te whai wāhi o te tangata Māori me ngā whānau i roto i te kōti.

Nō reira ahakoa kei te tautoko ake a Te Pāti Māori i te tirohanga whānui me kī o te pire, tērā ētahi whakatūpato a te iwi Māori, nāku kua hora, ana, ka waiho ake ki reira. E tautoko ana i tēnei wā, engari tāria te wā kia hoki mai tātou ki te wānanga.

[I will speak in the Māori language. I will deliver the Māori Party’s opening address about this Bill, and its assertion that it will promote and strengthen the organisational role of District Courts of the country. I reaffirm this assertion and hope that this will be the case. That Māori have a role within their regions to participate with this thing called law. So we support the bill, with a word of caution, to be careful in case something hidden arises that may not have been considered. These are the same warnings mentioned by the Māori leaders and the groups who collated various customary Māori laws, lest we see a drop in the use of the Māori language in the courts, due to the loss of funding that expedites court proceedings. Our Māori language is still fighting for its place within the laws of this country. Therefore, this is one of our warning messages: that it not diminish, that it not lessen, that it not reduce.

If Māori do not hear the Māori language in the courts, or do not see Māori faces in the courts, or see Māori participating in court proceedings, then the language use will diminish. This is our first warning, that the Māori language needs to be present. Secondly is the place of customary law. The Māori people, alongside the Government, have persisted that customary law has a place in the law of the land. It has not yet reached equal status. We also assert that since long before the signing of Te Tiriti o Waitangi, customary law was the citadel of Māori law. At that time, even Pākehā who resided in Aotearoa were governed by the laws of the Māori people, and yet we are still disputing it. Therefore, the warning of the Māori people is that the use of customary law may be reduced.

The last message is that the Māori people should have equal powers within the legal proceedings of this land. When I took part in interviewing the experts of the Ministry of Justice—that is, the Police, Corrections; you all know who I am talking about—it is indeed Māori who are oppressed the most, in these three areas.

Therefore, we do not wish to see an increase in this. The experts of Māori contend that we need to be careful in our corrective measures, lest the Māori voice be lost, lest customary law be used less, or Māori participation be extinguished or lessened in court proceedings.

Although the Māori Party supports the overall aim of the bill, there are also warnings from the Māori people that I have laid out here and leave it here. For now, we are in support, but await the time when we return to deliberate further.]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise in support of the District Court (District Court Judges) Amendment Bill. Like others have said, I commend the work of the Justice Committee in evaluating this bill, and I thank submitters for the contributions that they have made. I particularly thank submitters who have made contributions that helped broaden our holistic analysis of the context, often, that the bill is coming into but just our court systems more broadly. I think that it’s really important to enable submitters to be able to present that deep analysis and feedback, so ngā mihi.

The bill, as many have mentioned before, looks simple on paper, but the context in which this bill is coming is a little bit more complicated. The bill in and of itself will increase the number of District Court judges that can be appointed at any time by one, from 182 to 183 fulltime-equivalents. Other speakers have noted that we have seen larger increases in previous years, and I think those conditions are really valid to repeat because this bill is coming in in the context of other reforms—namely, people have noted, the Sentencing (Reform) Amendment Bill. That, compounded by the fact that there is already a pretty big backlog in our justice system of people actually waiting for some form of justice, and there are questions about whether the current system can generally deliver that. The truth is that, when we look at the explanatory note in and of itself—of the other bill that has been referenced: the Sentencing (Reform) Amendment Bill—it does raise concerns as to why this bill is considering increasing the number of District Court judges by only one. I think that that is a genuine conversation to be held.

I think it’s interesting as well to hear contributions from other parties in relation to the use of resources, particularly when you think about how low-income people are often criminalised. Having just come from the Social Security Amendment Bill select committee process, where people were talking about that, I think it’s important to put it into the context of how some of this backlog includes people who have lived in poverty and who have been criminalised by poverty in and of itself, which has now created the conditions for our Government to be implementing bills that in and of themselves have way higher costs—yes—compared to this one. If you take into account the total cost of this bill and the Sentencing (Reform) Amendment Bill which this bill references, it’s not insignificant, and I do think it raises questions as to whether New Zealanders want to back a Government that is not investing in addressing the root causes of criminalisation—namely, things like poverty, exclusion from people’s culture, etc.—or whether we want a Government that is throwing massive amounts of resourcing into issues that do not address the root causes of crime.

Make no mistake: of course we support having more District Court judges. It’s important for the judiciary to be well resourced. It’s a really important arm of our country, and, at the same time, I note, I guess, the complex contributions and nuances of the fact that the legislative wing still has quite a bit of control over the number of judges and, therefore, the resourcing in and of itself, which is something that was noted in the briefing that the select committee itself received.

I think, to me, the way in which we can avoid this massive backlog which requires more District Court judges—and the way that we can avoid the big price tag that comes with these two bills that we are, basically, referencing and debating in the process not as one, but as part of the debate—is to actually make the necessary investments into adequate housing, into ending poverty, and into Tiriti justice so that then our District Court judges can focus on delivering genuine justice, and not dealing with a Government that is simply going to worsen the huge backlog that exists in the criminal justice system.

With that, we commend this bill, but we do not commend the direction that has prompted this bill to come to the House, in and of itself.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Look, we are a Government which takes a whole-of-system approach to the justice sector from start to finish—a cluster-based approach, a pipeline of justice approach. Whether that is addressing the causes of crime through our Social Investment Agency and the investment that Nicola Willis is making into our most vulnerable or whether that is through the support of victims through the criminal justice process, rehabilitation in the corrections system, and, of course, post-release support for our incarcerated, we are taking a whole-of-system approach. I wholeheartedly welcome members across the House to support that approach by not only supporting this bill but by supporting the Sentencing (Reform) Amendment Bill and other bills that the Government is bringing before the House.

This is a very simple bill. It increases the number of District Court judges by one. The select committee considered this alongside the Sentencing (Reform) Amendment Bill, as Minister Goldsmith referred to earlier on as being the driver of having to account for some of the increased workload on the District Court judges—

At length, Mr Meager.

He did, and there’s no need for me to repeat that all any further.

What I would like to discuss in the short amount of time I’ve got remaining is, of course, just to acknowledge the work of the Justice Committee and the seven submitters who made a written submission. I think, given that it was a relatively small but quality number, it would be decent to just acknowledge those individuals: Andrew Masters, Chris Nicholls, David Hopkins, Gary Durey, Ronnie Amir, Sam Somers, and Rex Landy. It’s interesting that we get a short amount of quality submissions on quite an important bill which is going to form a crucial part of our justice system.

I’d just like to talk about the main theme that came from those submissions that was around submitters who thought that this may be a waste of time or a waste of money. Others thought that the number of judges should be increased by a significant amount more. Of course, Dr Webb has explained at length as to why it’s appropriate for Parliament to maintain some control over the expenditure in the District Court system.

Look, it’s a very, very simple bill. It makes a very, very simple change. I look forward to its unanimous support through the House, and I commend the bill to the House.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. As has previously been noted, Labour will be supporting this bill. It’s a very simple, straightforward, largely pragmatic bill that seeks to offer a solution to a problem.

As we’ve acknowledged tonight, the backlog in the court system is a very real problem. It’s something that influences and impacts on people and whānau in various different ways and there is certainly a lot of work to do to redress that and to make that better. Increasing the District Court judge by one is a very small measure—and I emphasise the “very small” part of that—toward making that a reality, but yet this is the bill before us, so we are happy to support it.

As the previous contributor, James Meager, mentioned, we heard this bill on the Justice Committee, alongside the Sentencing (Reform) Amendment Bill—that bill is a much more problematic partner than this one is. It is full of issues that I think we traversed during the select committee process and that we have certainly discussed as a caucus on this side of the House.

The District Court is New Zealand’s busiest court and it conducts most of the jury trials and, as we’ve said, there is often a backlog and that has a real impact for real people. The cap was last increased in 2019, raising it from 160 to 182, so we find ourselves here in the House tonight because, as of October last year, the number of District Court judges was sitting just below that cap at 181.2.

The long-term financial implications of appointments obviously need to be balanced against the need to adequately resource the court, whether this bill suffices as so far as it just simply increases it by one, or we find ourselves going through what is a relatively expensive process, as all processes in Parliament are, to have to do it again, according to—on one hand, the Government seems very confident about their tough on crime stance and the impact that will have on the criminal justice system; on the other hand, they’ve decided to increase the number of judges by one.

Never mind, the Government laments those long delays in the court processes, and whether or not this is the answer to that solution is yet to be seen, but we do support this bill.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Thanks for the opportunity to speak on this bill this evening. As a newly minted member of the Justice Committee, I’m looking forward to working with my colleagues as we progress bills like this through the select committee.

This bill this evening is focusing on the addition of one District Court judge. I’m sure that additional District Court judge is going to love the opportunity to work in Te Puna Hapori, which is the new justice precinct being built in Whanganui, in my electorate—$100 million invested by the Government into that workplace for this new District Court judge, potentially.

I want to take the opportunity to acknowledge and thank our District Court judges for the work that they do across our country. This bill supports their work and supports our campaign promise to restore law and order to this country.

I hope that this bill’s collegiality that we’ve seen in the House this evening, the support across all parties—I hope that we’re going to have a similar moment when we think about supporting courts and the work that our District Court judges do, and judges in general, when my bill, the Juries (Age of Excusal) Amendment Bill comes to members’ day very, very soon.

This bill is focused on ensuring that we support the fact that judges have had an increased workload and complexity in their workload, and so this bill, combined with the implementation of the Sentencing (Reform) Amendment Bill, will go a long way to ensuring that we practically implement the changes that will enable us to deliver on that election promise of restoring law and order in this country. This bill is short and simplistic, and I commend it to the House.

Helen White—split call.

Thank you. This bill is just going to increase the number of District Court judges by one, and while that is a really good thing, we do have a real problem in the country with delay in the District Court.

The District Court is dealing with all sorts of things, and some of them really do require delays. The greatest delay, I think, is about 176 days, as an average, for a criminal matter. Even under the new protocols, it can be about 15 months before something quite complex goes before a jury.

When people are in that system, they’re not working, they’re not connected with their families, they’re often hanging out with people you wouldn’t want them to hang out with, and they’re a bit at a loose end, so our judges—and getting cases before them—are incredibly important to the movement of people through the justice system and, hopefully, out the other side to something better, whether that be the kind of rehabilitation that we hope people get, or back into the community. We do have to remember that, in some of these cases, these people aren’t going to be imprisoned, either, or they’re not going to be subject to any kind of scrutiny in that period other than through the process at that time.

I’ve got a lot of friends who do this job. It’s a really complicated job, and I’m always impressed by the level of conscientiousness of the judges in the system. There are people who have gone through and been very senior lawyers. They’ve done a lot of work and they’ve had a breadth of work and they go in and they pour their hearts into this work. I think we’re very lucky with the quality of the judges that we have in our system but what we do know—and I know this from my work with other professions, like midwives—is that, if you put too much pressure on a job like this, if you make people work under too much pressure, they tend to leave, and it tends to compound the problem. We have that with midwives, where we really have people just leaving the profession hand over fist because it’s become one of those jobs—it’s just not fun to do anymore. It’s not pleasant to do, and it’s too stressful.

This is a job with a huge amount of, by its nature, judgment, so it is really important that we have a good number of judges in the system. I’m a little bit concerned this is a low number, given the issues in our society and the need to put them before judges. I’d love to see some more work go into supporting our Chief District Court Judge and some of his very interesting schemes for broadening what the judges would do and what the courts will do for people. Those were highly successful, very interesting kinds of schemes, and while we put boot camps to no scrutiny whatsoever, we have put those schemes to the test, apparently, of “You have to prove it works before we’ll even go near trying these things.”

We also have these wonderful courts, which are the drug and alcohol courts. The drug and alcohol courts, if anybody in this Chamber wants to go and visit, will welcome in people to see them in action. Judges in those courts are doing incredible work, and they are getting great results by looking at people very personally; not letting them become, really, part of a factory. They are making sure that they wrap around services. The thing that’s letting them down, those judges, is that there just aren’t enough of those courts at the moment, and they haven’t got the drug and alcohol services supported financially enough, so there are large queues.

There are lots and lots of challenges in the system; I don’t envy the people I know who do this work, but I do admire them. They’re good people, and we probably need a few more if we’re really going to take the issues in our society seriously. They’re skilled, they come from the right place, and they do, for the most part, an absolutely wonderful job. I commend this bill to the House.

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. As a relatively new member of the Justice Committee, I didn’t have the privilege of being a part of the work the committee did through this piece of legislation, but it’s a pleasure to pick it up and talk about it here at the second reading.

I was just reflecting on the upgrades we’ve got taking place at the moment at Tauranga District Court, and credit to the previous Government, who allocated the funding and initiated that progress to happen to our court—credit where credit is due. The $208 million redevelopment will enable Tauranga to increase the amount of courtrooms that we have from 10, to 13, and enable us to have the provision to have High Court cases. For the fifth-largest city in the country not to have a High Court operating in it—this is a step in the right direction for us, as one of the fastest-growing cities in the country as well, so it is a really good step.

This relatively simple bill could have been brought in alongside the other pieces of legislation at the same time, around what the Justice Committee did on capping discounts for offenders—the Sentencing reforms they’ve had there. There was the opportunity for this to be done at the same time as that piece of legislation, so let’s just set the record straight: there was an opportunity for that to be done at the same time. It could have saved the House the opportunity to have to debate this bill in the first place, but the members opposite said no.

Not the noes!

Yep, the “no” team, sitting on that side, said no—the “no” police. They said, “Absolutely not going to do that. There’s no fun in doing so. We’re not going to allow you to make the pragmatic decision and have two bills run side by side in that space.” They said no.

For those watching at home, thinking, “Oh, this is a rather technical piece of legislation that’s just adding an extra District Court Judge. Why do we need to go through this process and have it completely debated as a separate bill?” The reason is those on the other side said no to allowing it to be debated alongside the sentencing reforms that we’re bringing in—capping discounts for those that commit heinous crimes here in New Zealand, so that if they commit the crime, they serve the time. This is a great decision, well led by the Minister of Justice, and I commend it to the House.

Mr Speaker, thank you very much for the opportunity to speak on the District Court (District Court Judges) Amendment Bill, which is going to give us one more judge.

We support this bill because we think we need one more judge. We look forward to the other piece of legislation, and while that member who’s just resumed his seat, Tom Rutherford, might be new, you also need to know about parliamentary procedure in this place. Technically, when you’re amending legislation, if you’re doing more than one thing, you need more than one bill, and so that’s why it’s not correct process if they’re in two different areas. That’s why this was separated out. It’s interestingly a point that with a majority on the Justice Committee, if they were right by the rules, why didn’t they use their parliamentary majority on that select committee to simply vote it down? The reason is that there are good technical reasons advised by the Clerk, and highlighted by us, why this was separated into two separate bills.

I do wonder with the legislation coming whether one judge will be enough. There’s going to be a suite of changes that will impede upon the independence of the judiciary that we’re having to see in that secondary bill. That’s going to take quite a bit more time in the courts as well. We know we have a significant backlog in the courts. We know that programmes, like audiovisual links (AVL), and also the work under way under the previous Government for Te Ao Mārama, which was using different ways of using our court system to work with communities, that’s been paused as well under this Government. Those initiatives that I guess are slightly more ambitious or illuminating than just appointing one judge were in place, and so it’ll be interesting to see the debate when we get to that second piece of legislation, that curtails the ability of judges to weigh up the facts in front of them and rule accordingly.

The reason why we do support this bill is we know that the District Court in particular has been seeing increased delays and pressure to resolve the high number of cases we’re still seeing, and the high number of serious cases. A backlog of cases we know was exacerbated through the COVID pandemic, and also some of the extreme weather events we saw around the country, where we saw big backlogs coming. We did some work on this in terms of enabling police prosecutions to be able to work longer, to do some extra work, and there was funding under the previous Labour Government to enable that to happen. That work has been doing well, but we still need to be able to clear that backlog, and it will take more than one judge.

The District Court is the busiest court, and it conducts most of our jury trials. The heavy workload and backlog places far more stress upon victims. I think this is an important point that we haven’t really had highlighted in the debate to date. While it’s great to have one more judge, we also need to be reminding ourselves that, when there is a backlog, it’s actually the victims of crime that are the ones who have to wait, who have their lives put on hold, who have a far more negative experience of our justice system by the fact that they have to continually wait. I would also encourage those in Government, as well as just having one more judge, we could further increase the use of modernising our courtroom so victims don’t need to come into contact with the accused or their family—modernising our courtroom so we can have increased use of AVL, and so people can deliver the evidence in a way that doesn’t further re-traumatise victims of crime. It also enables people, if they did have an experience through the court process, to be more likely to report a crime.

That’s the key we really want in New Zealand. We know that a significant amount of violent crime and sexual violence crime remains unreported. All the research demonstrates that a key reason that victims do not report crime is that they’ve either had a previous experience with our justice system, or they know someone who’s had experience with the justice system, and that’s been a negative one. If we are really serious about increasing reporting of crime, about having cases that have good, strong victim statements, and good, strong evidence that’s able to be prosecuted and get a conviction, more investment and more time needs to be placed in understanding how the current justice system does not serve victims of crime, and does not serve us getting good outcomes, and providing safer communities. When those things are in place and we do have a stronger justice system, it provides for people to feel safe in their communities, and for people to understand that our justice system is working effectively.

The Government’s timely justice plan and reduced violent crime delivery plan is there, but whether one additional judge is able to deliver on these is actually quite questionable. The three-strike sentencing and the additional funding in the last Budget by this Government provided more funding specifically for court time for gang patch prosecutions and time in court. It’s interesting to note that there is no additional funding, really, for victim advocacy, or victim voice, or an ability to change the courtroom structure, or the courtroom processes to enable victims to be better supported in time—but there is additional funding for those things. I would question whether the choices this Government is making are the right choices to make our community safe, and whether those choices are actually giving New Zealanders the outcome that they’re wanting.

Nicole McKee stated that, “We suspect there’s going to be an anticipated rise in the section 27 reports, and we’ll be interested to see how it has an effect on court timelines as well. But at the end of the day, we have assured our communities that we do respect them and their safety, and we do want to put victims at the heart of the criminal justice system, and our approach that we put will be taking I suspect an influx of court proceedings, but we think that we have budgeted to manage for this appropriately.” She has stated that in the past. I still don’t think that one judge is going to meet those expectations. This Government has promised quite a big game in terms of being able to deliver that, and I think that if people are tuning in tonight—if they are—and see that a bill is delivering one judge, how is that really going to meet the expectations that were given to people in New Zealand at the last election?

I’d just like to finish off by talking a little bit about Te Ao Mārama. The chief judge who was in that space said it was a fundamental part of reforming our justice system so it’s functional and it gets good outcomes for our communities and makes our communities safer. That has been frozen and delayed. There has been no additional work done on that programme. I think it’s being reviewed, and all funding has been stopped while that review is still under way. Some of the evaluations done for Te Ao Mārama demonstrated that some of the most positive outcomes we’ve seen in reforming our court system in New Zealand—it really enabled communities to engage, and for far better and durable outcomes to be seen within those communities. While that’s been shelved, we’ve got a judge, so we’ll take it, and we’ll support your bill.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise as the final speaker in the second reading of this bill, the District Court (District Court Judges) Amendment Bill. It’s a bill that reinforces the kōrero that we talk about a lot when we’re canvassing the subject of law and order and this Government’s approach to that, and that’s that we are victim-centric. Yes, it’s one District Court judge that this bill, when it passes, will increase the total number of District Court judges, but one effective District Court judge can help a lot of victims get through the pain and the suffering and the grief that they’re going through as they’re waiting for their case to be heard.

I had the pleasure and, rightfully, the privilege to accompany our justice Minister—the excellent justice Minister—Mr Paul Goldsmith when he visited Manukau District Court. Manukau is indeed in South Auckland, in my patch—not in the Takanini electorate; in the Manurewa electorate—but a lot of my neighbours in Takanini, if they find themselves in the unfortunate situation of having to go to court, are sent to the Manukau District Court. What I really appreciated about the justice Minister during that visit is that I saw, even more, how important it is to him that we address the very real problem—as has been mentioned a number of times tonight—of court backlog.

We and he took the time to converse with various people that work in those different departments in the District Court over there, from a District Court judge, duty lawyers, bail support services, and other staff as well, and really probed into what the issues are that are leading to backlog. I saw it very clearly that that was his main focus for that visit: addressing backlog. What I realised is that, yes, we’ve got a real problem with delay, and the Minister has acted without delay. I commend this bill to the House.

All right, call No. 6—Te Pāti Māori, five minutes.

Tēnā koe e te Pīka. Tēnā tātou katoa e te Whare. I have a five-minute window here, where the coalition Government must listen to me, even if they can’t hear me, and it’s to say this: to object profusely to the shockingly flawed, ignorant, trauma-informed, sanctimonious piece of legislation—it’s a nonsense. Our job, Te Pāti Māori, is to stand and make the points that only we can make, as our job. We relish the responsibility to bring the voice, the aspirations, and the solutions of our whānau mokopuna to this House.

When Dame Whina Cooper said, “Not one more acre.” back in 1975, we saw our people rise to the occasion. We need only reflect on the change her words incited to understand what it means for our people, when, in today’s climate, I say “Not one more mokopuna.” This was the phrase plastered on to posters of all New Zealanders—Māori, Pākehā, tangata Tiriti—held when they ascended from Te Hiku o te Ika, i Te Rerenga Wairua, tae mai ki tēnei pito [the Far North, from Cape Reinga, all the way to this end] on to Parliament grounds in a very peaceful hīkoi. This poster sits on the wall in my office, and next to it another poster, which reads “One third of mokopuna in State care whakapapa to Ngāpuhi.” This reality means that mokopuna nō Te Tai Tokerau are left trying to fight alone in a system that denies the very essence of who they are and who they come from.

This threat is aggravated knowing that without section 7AA, our tamariki will have their Māoritanga severed, despite the Minister saying that there will be cultural components, that there will be cultural elements, as if culture is something you carve up and you compartmentalise, and then you expect that that might be enough culture and custom for the day. This severed line will last generations. What the Minister ignores, or is ignorant to the fact, is that culture is a protective factor. I wish that she knew that and would repeat it and think about that.

This House already knows what severed lines and broken generations look like, because the abuse in care report told us so, really clearly, that when you systematically divest and deprive mokopuna Māori of their culture, you make fodder and victims of our children, of families, of whānau. Dare I say this: the apology made by the Minister of Education that day is already falling short of its promise to never do it again.

For noting, the original intent of section 7AA was to hold Oranga Tamariki, a tragically failing care system—because 14 failed reports told them so—accountable. It demanded that they finally reduce disparities by setting measurable outcomes for tamariki Māori. It was designed to assist and help.

In the removal of section 7AA, the Government sought to persist in the abuse and harm of mokopuna in State care, the theft of generations—an experience that many other indigenous peoples across the globe have endured. Nevertheless, this theft has sparked a new wave of Māori activism. Removing our rights has only united our people. It is our job to serve and to do what is best by our tamariki and mokopuna Māori. Mokopuna Māori are our lifeline. They hold the key for our future as tangata whenua, and while State care continues to threaten their undeniable potential, we know that the return to us will be the right thing to do.

Ngāpuhi paepae at Waitangi turned their back on David Seymour, his party, and everything he stands for. We too, Te Pāti Māori, turn our back on David Seymour, the Minister, and insist that they do the right thing and tear the bill up. Kia ora tātou.

Tēnā koe e te Pīka, he taonga tō tātou nei reo, he taonga ō tātou nei tamariki mokopuna, nō reira taku kauhau i te pō nei, he reo Māori. Kei te tāpiri atu āku nei whakaaro, aku nei kōrero, ki tā tōku tuahine o te Nōta e mea atu, whakanuia ana ōna whakaaro i a Whina Cooper. Kei te mihi tonu ana mātou ki tērā o ngā tauira o te mana motuhake, o te tino rangatiratanga. He mihi anō hoki, me tāpiri atu nei aku mihi ki te maunga e kore e neke, kia whakaaronui tonutia ki a Kōkā Iritana Tāwhiwhirangi, tērā momo i tiaki i a tātou nei tamariki mokopuna, tērā momo i whakapau werawera i whakapau kaha i roto i ngā tau ki te whakarite ngā āhuatanga ki te tiaki i ō tātou tamariki mokopuna. Tērā ngā tau i ngaro noa ana, i ngaro katoa ana i roto i tēnei pire 7AA e takahi ana i runga i Te Tiriti o Waitangi.

Ki a mātou ngā Kākāriki, e ū ana ki te whakaaro he taonga ō tātou nei tamariki mokopuna. He taonga mai i te wā i whānau mai rātou, he taonga anō rātou i te wā i tipu ana rātou. Nō reira ko tēnei mea te whakapapa he taonga. Ko tēnei mea te whanaungatanga he taonga. Me pēnei tātou e tiaki ana i te whakapapa me te whanaungatanga ki roto i ngā momo whare pēnei ana te hanga. Ki roto i ngā āhuatanga o te ture, ki roto i ngā āhuatanga o ngā waeture me ngā kaupapahere e puta ana i ngā Kāwanatanga. Ko te Tiriti o Waitangi anō te take.

I a mātou ngā Kākāriki e whakarongo ana ki ngā kōrero i tau ana ki te komiti whiringa take mō tēnei o ngā pire, i kaha rangona mātou i ngā auē o te iwi, ngā auē o te hapori, ngā auē o te whānau. I kite anō mātou i tērā o ngā wairua ki Waitangi, ki roto i ngā rā kua taha atu. I kite ana te mana nui o Ngāpuhi i a rātou anō i tahuri ō rātou nei tuara ki te Karauna. Me te tūmanako anō, nā te tahuri o ngā tuara ka areare ngā taringa o te Kāwanatanga ki ngā auē o tō tātou nei ao Māori.

I a Kahurangi Carter, tō mātou nei tangata e huri haere ana i te motu, i pērā rawa te āhuatanga o te karere, i pērā rawa te āhuatanga o te wairua. Tē taea te mea atu ko tēnei mea te whakapapa he mea ahurea noa, he mea nā te Māori noa, heoi anō he mea kei reira te hōhonutanga o te Māori. Kei reira te orokohanga o te Māori, tēnei mea te whanaungatanga me te whakapapa. Tērā te take e kaha ana ō tātou hapori ki te wero atu ki tēnei Kāwanatanga, ki te mea atu, nā runga i te mau tonu o Te Tiriti o Waitangi ki roto i ngā pire pēnei ana te āhuatanga, ki roto tonu i tēnei pire, kia noho tonu ai te mana i tāpaehia ki roto i te wāhanga o te ture o te 7AA, ka taea te titiro ki te āhuatanga o te kuhuna o Te Tiriti o Waitangi ki roto i te ngākau o tēnei o ngā ture. Nā te wetewete, nā te tangohia o Te Tiriti o Waitangi mai i tēnei ture, mai i ngā ture pēnei ana te hanga, ka kite ana tātou te ao Māori e kore ana tēnei Kāwanatanga e paku whakarongo, e paku aroha ana ki a tātou anō te Māori. He wero nui tēnā ki te Kāwantanga. He wero nui tēnei ki ngā pātū o tēnei Pāremata.

Nō reira, e mātou hoki e whakarongo ana ki ngā pahupahu a te Minita, kāore mātou e paku whakapono, kāore mātou i te paku whakaaetia, kāore ngā mātanga i paku whakaaetia anō ki a ia hoki, i te mea me mutu ana taku nei kauhau, e pēnei ana te āhuatanga, toitū te taiao, toitū te taiohi, toitū te Tiriti. Tēnā koe e te Pīka.

[Greetings, Mr Speaker. Our language is a treasure, our children and grandchildren are treasures, so my speech tonight will be in the Māori language. I add my thoughts to those of my sister from the North and this is to acknowledge Whina Cooper. We still acknowledge that beacon of self-determination and autonomy. I would also like to add my acknowledgments to the mountain that never moves, and to extend my great respect to Dame Iritana Tāwhiwhirangi, a person of that ilk who cared for our grandchildren, of that ilk who worked tirelessly over many years to ensure the care of our grandchildren. These are the years that I cannot see in this bill on 7AA, that also tramples Te Tiriti o Waitangi.

The Green Party is committed to the idea that our grandchildren are treasures. From the time they were born and on to their upbringing, they are treasures. Genealogy is a treasure, as is kinship. We need to be committed to ensure genealogy and kinship is protected in these types of institutions—in the law, and in the regulations and policies that come out of Government. Again, the Tiriti o Waitangi is important.

As the Greens listened to the discussions that took place in the select committee about this bill, we clearly heard the discontentment of the people, of the communities, and of the families. We also witnessed this same feeling in Waitangi in the last few days. We witnessed the authority of Ngāpuhi when they turned their backs on the Crown. And it is our hope that as a consequence of this act, the Government will heed the pleas of the Māori world.

When our member Kahurangi Carter travelled around the country, that was also the message she received and the mood she felt. We can no longer separate out genealogy as merely a cultural thing, or merely a Māori thing; rather, it is the essence and depth of our being. It is the genesis of Māori—that is, these two things: genealogy and kinship. That is why our communities continue to challenge this Government, to remind them that embedding Te Tiriti o Waitangi in bills such as this, in this bill in particular, ensures that the authority that was granted remains in section 7AA of this law. We can clearly see Te Tiriti o Waitangi in the core of this law. Due to the unbinding and the removal of Te Tiriti o Waitangi from this law and others like it, the Māori world can clearly see that this Government pays no heed and shows no concern to us, the Māori. This is a major issue to this Government. It is a major issue within the walls of this Parliament.

Therefore, and with all of us listening to the ramblings of the Minister, we do not believe at all, we do not agree at all; not even the experts agree. So to end my speech, I would like to say this: uphold the environment, uphold the youth, uphold the Treaty. Thank you, Mr Speaker.]

Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. I rise to speak on the Oranga Tamariki (Repeal of Section 7AA) Amendment Bill. I have chaired the Social Services and Community Committee, which has heard submissions on this bill. I want to acknowledge that we received 3,748 written submissions and heard from 117 submitters in person. I thank all of those submitters for making themselves heard to the committee. Our committee listened carefully to those submitters, and we have recommended by majority a change to the repeal of section 7AA. I want to acknowledge the Minister, who has also listened to those submitters and has indicated there will be a change to the repeal of section 7AA to incorporate a component of it.

Fundamentally, this bill is about making sure that Oranga Tamariki focuses on its primary duties, which is the care and protection of young people—making sure they are safe from harm. I would hope everyone in this House and in this country agrees with that objective. Fundamentally, as a country, I don’t think we should want any of our children to have to come into State care. Ultimately, we want our children to be safe with their families, safe in their communities, but, unfortunately, that is not always the case, and the State does have to step in and help on occasion. That is why we have Oranga Tamariki.

This bill is to just make sure that Oranga Tamariki focuses on that core primary duty: the care and protection of young people. However, we did hear many submitters who expressed concerns about one component in particular, and that was this repeal, removing the obligation on the chief executive to have strategic partnerships with iwi. I note that the bill did not prevent Oranga Tamariki from retaining its current strategic partnerships or from entering into new ones. However, there was concern expressed from a number of submitters that they were concerned it wouldn’t continue without an obligation. The committee heard that, the Minister has clearly heard that, and we have recommended that there be a change to this bill to make sure that this obligation remains in the Act. That is going to happen. Submitters have been heard, and that change is going to happen.

I should note that it was the committee as a majority. The Government members agreed to that change to listen to the submitters, to listen to the request that the obligation remain, and to keep it in the bill. I note that the Opposition members did not recommend that back and did not agree with that. That, I think, needs to be put on the record in this House. That, I think, reflects too the unfortunate weaponisation of this bill to stir up fear in the Māori community across New Zealand about this Government—to create, frankly, misinformation about the objectives of this Government. This is a Government that cares about Māori deeply, that cares about our Māori children deeply, that cares about the future of children. Unfortunately, there has been a lot of misinformation about this. The fundamental core things about this are staying, and yet we’re still hearing speeches telling New Zealand that this is taking away the rights and removing Te Tiriti obligations, etc. Strategic partnerships—the main thing that was raised as a concern, the obligation on the chief executive to maintain strategic partnerships—are going to remain. I really ask: what are the Opposition talking about?

I should mention one other point. There were some concerns raised about reporting obligations. I’ll just run through the reporting obligations that there currently are. There is an annual report, pursuant to the Public Finance Act 1989, which measures performance against standards agreed as part of annual appropriations. Secondly, there is a quarterly report. Thirdly, there’s a Safety of Children in Care annual report. Fourthly, there is a Minister for Children’s report every three years to Parliament in section 44(8)(b) of the Oranga Tamariki Act on whether existing legislation, Government policy, and other accountability documents are meeting the needs of children and young people, particularly tamariki and rangatahi Māori. In addition, there’s an Independent Children’s Monitor, which produces the following reports: (1) a state of Oranga Tamariki system report at least once every three years; (2) an annual report and compliance with national care standards regulations; and (3) an annual report on outcomes for Māori children and young people and their whānau.

It’s not just that. If we look at section 4, there’s no changes to section 4 of the Oranga Tamariki Act—no changes. I note that in subsection (1)(g), this recognises “mana tamaiti (tamariki), whakapapa, and the practice of whanaungatanga for children and young persons who come to the attention of the department:”. Subsection (1)(h) says “maintaining and strengthening the relationship between children and young persons who come to the attention of the department and their—(i) family, whānau, hapū, iwi, and family group; and (ii) siblings:”. That’s still there. That is never going to change. That is not changing.

Again, I ask the Opposition members: what on earth are they telling the people of New Zealand? What on earth are they telling Māori communities across New Zealand? They need to be responsible and be honest about what is happening. This is simply about ensuring that Oranga Tamariki focuses on its primary duties to ensure the safety of children in its care. It is not changing everything else about the importance of connection to their whakapapa, the importance of connection to their family, the importance of connection to their iwi, the importance of connection to their hapū, the importance of strategic partnerships with Oranga Tamariki; so be honest—be honest. I would urge them be honest and don’t strike fear unnecessarily into communities across New Zealand. Be honest with this country. Be honest about what is happening and what we’re doing here.

So, with that, I would say I commend this bill with the amendments that we have recommended by majority—by Government majority—to retain the strategic partnerships as an obligation with iwi. The Government majority has recommended that, and I would commend the bill, on that basis, to the House.

It was very difficult to listen to that last speaker, Joseph Mooney, calling out the Opposition and asking us to be honest. That side of the House and that chair of the Social Services and Community Committee need to be honest, because we sat through over 3,000 submissions, with the vast majority opposing this bill, with Māori organisation, after iwi organisation, after Christian Social Service, after Children’s Commissioner, and many, many credible submitters, telling us that this was the wrong thing to do.

Actually, I think that chair of the committee knew the whole way along that this was the wrong thing to do and felt deeply uncomfortable with the fact that he was forced to do this because of the weak leadership of his Prime Minister and the fact that they signed up to this in a coalition agreement with the ACT Party. Perhaps the chair of the Social Services and Community Committee is the person who needs to be honest about how he feels about this legislation, what we heard from the submitters, the evidence that was put in front of us, and the fact that we were all overwhelmingly presented with a strong case against getting rid of section 7AA.

It is another sad example of the Minister for Children ignoring advice and evidence. That Minister has said on a number of occasions that her primary consideration is the safety and the wellbeing of children in care. No one would argue with that being the primary consideration. I agree with the chair of our select committee that we should—and I believe all do—care about our children and want them to be safe, but, in this particular instance, ideology is overriding the evidence base, and we’re in a position where a decision has been made and we are confronted with legislation that, sadly, does not put the wellbeing of our children first, front, and foremost.

There was an opportunity to actually take some of the “more”, take the components of 7AA and actually put them throughout the legislation in a different way, to ensure that all of that was still included in the legislation. But that wasn’t enough and that certainly wasn’t what the Minister wanted. I think she has a different agenda from her leader of her party. I believe the leader of her party just refuses to acknowledge that anything Māori-specific, anything Māori-informed, anything that Māori say is good for Māori—he refuses to accept that that is true. And where does that get us? Well, that doesn’t take us any further. In fact, it takes us backwards because, for far too long, Māori voices have been ignored when it comes to the wellbeing and welfare of Māori children.

Only at the end of last year were we sitting in this House, all looking and feeling very forlorn and regretful, disgusted in so many ways, about the abuse in State care that has occurred under the watch of consecutive Governments. Then, as Bernie O’Donnell, a submitter, said today in select committee, it’s like Groundhog Day. Here we are again, after an apology’s been made by Government, implementing policies that actually replicate the mistakes that have led to the endangerment, that have led to intergenerational harm and trauma, predominantly for Māori. And here we are doing that again and it actually makes me sad.

We listened to the submissions that came through. It wasn’t just organisations, iwi health providers, social service providers; we had many survivors of abuse speaking to this bill, talking about their experience in State care, talking about the fact that not only had they, in many instances, experienced physical, verbal, psychological, sexual abuse but they had been denied access to what they should have had the right to access their whole lives—that being their whānau, their whakapapa, their reo, and their culture. Here we are, again, taking that away from another generation of children.

Well, how did that serve us, Aotearoa? How did that serve us, every politician in this House, when it was continually done over the course of decades, under the watch and under the approval and sanctioning of this particular Whare? I think that the members that are supporting this bill should be ashamed of themselves—

You’re ashamed of not voting for strategic partnerships. You voted against it.

—for perpetuating the harm that we have only so clearly been informed about—

Who voted against retaining strategic partnerships?

—that we have been clearly told about, that we clearly know about, that was brought about by actions like we are seeing today.

I want to remind that member Joseph Mooney, who continues to interject on my speech, that section 7AA was something that was introduced by a former National Party Minister. It was Anne Tolley that introduced section 7AA. Speaking to my colleague the Hon Willie Jackson, he spoke to me about the fact that Minister Anne Tolley at the time took seriously the insights and experience and intelligence of people like Tariana Turia. She took seriously the evidence that was put in front of her. She paid attention and she included that specific section in the legislation because she was open-minded, because she had the common sense to understand that, actually, it was something that was integral to ensuring the safety of our children moving forward. It made me reflect that, actually, there were a few Ministers under that Key-led Government who weren’t entirely wrong. They did do some good things.

It makes me feel very disappointed with the current Government, particularly the National members, because that legacy of at times working with Māori, honouring Te Tiriti, seems to be something that has been lost under the leadership of Christopher Luxon, because he simply has not been able to stand up to his coalition partners. We oppose this bill—

Oh, you’re surprising us.

—and it doesn’t matter how many times the chairperson of the Social Services and Community Committee yells out that they kept strategic relationships in here as something important. It does not encompass or ensure the full breadth of what was enabled through section 7AA, and that member knows it really well. It is limited. What we will see as a result is our children disadvantaged and our children’s safety and wellbeing put at risk as a result.

We oppose this bill. To the members of the public that may be watching this House, please listen to the speeches but also read the submissions. See the overwhelming evidence for yourselves, see the overwhelming number of people that actually oppose this bill, and the intelligent and informed arguments that they put forward. Don’t just believe us; look at what we were presented with, and then know that the Government members chose to ignore each and every one of those submissions that clearly outlined why the bill should not be supported. We oppose this bill.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I note from the select committee report that there were a large number of submitters. I note, also, that the committee thanked everyone who submitted for their time and care that they put into their written and oral submissions. They also acknowledged the many submitters who spoke to them from their own personal experience within the care system and thanked them for sharing their stories. I know it would have been a harrowing experience for many. I would also acknowledge all who contributed from both sides of the table.

The safety of our children should always be paramount. As a father of four, my wife and I have strived to provide a loving, nurturing, and safe environment for them. I know that there wouldn’t be a person in the House who doesn’t want the same for their children and for all children in this country—for them to be safe, to be loved, to be cared for, to be nurtured, and ultimately to have opportunities in life. This bill seeks to make sure that those criteria are first and foremost the absolute priority; to enable Oranga Tamariki—the Ministry for Children—to renew its focus on the safety and wellbeing of children in care arrangements.

Every child deserves the same level of care and support based on their individual needs, and their safety and wellbeing put first before other considerations. While this bill repeals references to cultural considerations in section 7AA, it does not remove existing provisions in other parts of the Act that require decision makers to consider cultural factors in care decisions. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I just wanted to congratulate our deputy leader, Carmel Sepuloni. This is a terrible bill for Māori. I’m listening to Joseph Mooney and it goes against what the National Party believed some years ago. This was a kōrero that was a very deep kōrero with people like Anne Tolley and Bill English, who worked with the Māori Party in terms of getting this up. They got this up because they heard all the horror stories.

Our deputy leader talked about Bernie O’Donnell, for instance, who submitted. Bernie’s one of my closest friends in life. He’s an example of what went wrong in terms of the system. He was moved from family to family to family when he was a kid and then found out his Māori side later on—Tamati was the whānau. But it wasn’t until he found out about his taha Māori side that his life changed.

He comes to the committee knowing that there’s been a history in terms of the National Party having supported what he went through. The sad thing about this is that this is something that the ACT Party have put in place and it’s part of their agenda. That’s what I find particularly sad here, because I know there are very good members on the other side who, at another time, would not support this—they would not support this; they would have supported the John Key strategy.

I have to say—I want to be clear on this, having been at the coalface, having gone in and taken babies from abusive whānau, that te ao Māori used to debate this all the time, too, because in the end, all we want is for those kids to be safe. We’re all agreed on that. But what we realised from everyone we talked to—with all our providers, with all our Māori Party crew, with all our National Party crew, with all our Labour Party crew—was that if we instilled that whakapapa, if we entrenched it in terms of legislation, it would make a difference—it would make a difference. Making it an absolute priority that these babies go to where their whakapapa is, that would make a major change in their lives.

These abused people, these poor souls, one by one—in fact, then we got into the hundreds—told us that, if they only knew where their whakapapa was, if they only knew who their family was, it would have been a huge change in life. But then we get this ACT Party coming in with all these stupid ideas that go against everything that the National Party believed in, and all of a sudden the National Party changes. It is a sad day.

It’s not changing, Willie.

You’re changing it, all right, because all our groups are saying that now these kids will get lost in the system. That’s what Carmel Sepuloni is saying. That’s what we’re saying. The dangers are that these kids won’t go to the whakapapa, won’t go to the whānau who they should be with, and they will have a whole loss of identity. That’s what our people are saying, Joseph Mooney. Why don’t you listen to what Māori groups are saying? Why don’t you listen to what iwi are saying? Why don’t you listen to what John Key, Bill English, and Anne Tolley said, that this was exactly the right type of legislation to get in place so that we could turn things around.

I’m proud of what they did in those days. I’m proud of the bipartisan approach that was taken by National, the Māori Party, and Labour at the time. Then all of a sudden it was thrown out because of these idiots on the other side who are attacking Māori things, Māori kaupapa every day, every week. That’s why our former Minister—Willow-Jean Prime—is so offended with what this Minister is doing.

This coalition Government is being led around by David Seymour, who is just playing them all the time and we’re seeing the results of that. They’re being played badly. The result of that is that they’re the most unpopular Government in recent times. No one has seen a Government so far behind in the polls, but I’ve got some advice for the Government: keep doing what you’re doing, because you’re already way behind in the polls and it’s only going to get worse. Keep attacking us, because we’re doing well, and Māori and most of New Zealand are sick of you. Kia ora, Madam Speaker.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I’d like to acknowledge and thank Minister Karen Chhour for championing this bill—

She’s a disgrace, like you.

No, we won’t make personal attacks, thank you.

Oh, it’s too late, Madam Speaker.

I know, but don’t do it again.

—under particularly harrowing circumstances sometimes, I might add. Even before she became an MP, Minister Chhour was hearing about the unintended—

Can’t I say “disgrace”, Madam Speaker?

Not about a single person. Sorry, can we start the speaker’s time again. Let me make it very clear that you can make comments about the Government and the parties, but don’t make personal attacks about individuals. Thank you.

Even before she became an MP, Minister Chhour was hearing about the unintended consequences of section 7AA of the Oranga Tamariki Act. She saw that the focus on maintaining Māori children’s whakapapa sometimes put young people at risk, because their placements were based on race and not, first and foremost, on their wellbeing, their care, and their protection.

I’d like to take this opportunity to thank the Social Services and Community Committee for their work on the bill. I also want to extend my thanks to all submitters—their input was critical to us getting it right for New Zealand children. While I wasn’t on the select committee, I’ve reviewed the report and I rise today in support of the repeal of section 7AA. The bill represents a necessary step to refocus Oranga Tamariki on its fundamental responsibility: ensuring the safety, stability, and wellbeing of children in their care.

Section 7AA as it stands has led to unintended consequences which compromise the welfare of children that it is aimed at protecting. By repealing section 7AA, Oranga Tamariki (OT) will be free from any conflict between cultural obligations and child welfare decisions. As my colleague Joseph Mooney clearly articulated, this bill does not eliminate cultural considerations, as Opposition members would have you believe. This bill does not remove existing provisions in other parts of the Act which require decision makers to consider cultural factors in care decisions. The bill also retains obligations on the chief executive of OT to develop and maintain strategic partnerships with iwi and Māori organisations, and encourages those organisations to seek out opportunities for partnership.

This repeal reinforces the paramount responsibility of Oranga Tamariki, which must always be ensuring the safety, stability, wellbeing of all children in their care. I commend this bill to the House.

Rapua te huarahi whānui hei ara whakapiri i ngā iwi e rua i runga i te whakaaro kotahi. [Pursue the wider path as a way of bringing two peoples together in one thought.] Tonight I rise to speak on the Oranga Tamariki (Repeal of Section 7AA) Amendment Bill, and I acknowledge the heaviness, the taumahatanga of the kaupapa [the burden of the topic] that is before this House this evening. Tēnei te mihi ki ngā iwi mōrehu e mihi ana ki a koutou mō tō kaha i te kaupapa nei, kia kaha tonu. [I acknowledge the survivors for your strength in this issue: continue to be strong.]

Along with others in this House, we acknowledged the apology to 250,000 survivors of abuse in State care, not so long ago. That was a heavy afternoon, where everyone in this House acknowledged what had gone on, and the terrible history of Aotearoa New Zealand; nothing that anyone in this House is proud of. But this Government is dark. The darkness that they have cloaked over Māori—

You’re driving out of fear, Shanan. You’re driving fear unnecessarily. It’s wrong. You know it’s wrong.

—over that apology; the day that they supported boot camps, against all the evidence and again today, Joseph Mooney, as you speak in support of this bill.

Let’s be frank, the political landscape has changed; it’s not the same as it was two years ago when these guys instilled fear across the country that Māori were getting too much. The political landscape has changed, and the ACT Party is digging National’s grave. This is another example. For those of us who were at Waitangi—the Prime Minister wasn’t—we heard very clearly that not only just Māori but New Zealand does not support the actions of this country.

Tell us about the bill.

New Zealand doesn’t support 7AA, Joseph Mooney.

Tell us about the bill, Shanan.

He just did; he said 7AA.

You’ve already had a big night, Joseph. You might need to cut it short, my friend.

Back to the bill.

What Government comes into place to create worse outcomes for New Zealanders? What Government does that? The evidence that is before the select committee, no matter who you’re hearing from, says that there’s not enough evidence to support this change. It is politically motivated, but the landscape has changed. The Waitangi Tribunal found clear breaches of Treaty article 2. The whakataukī that I started my kōrero with tonight talked about Treaty partnership; it talked about tino rangatiratanga.

Have you read article 2?

Do you know about tino rangatiratanga?

Yes; have you read article 2?

Because you are not enabling it under this bill, Joseph Mooney.

Have you read article 2 of the Oranga Tamariki Act?

As I said, he’s had a big night. If we look at the regulatory impact statement, it says there’s a lack of robust evidence to support the view that section 7AA causes harmful changes to long-term care arrangements. The question before us today—and those that sat in front of te iwi mōrehu on that day of the apology—why are we doing this? It can only be politically motivated.

My friend Tu Chapman puts it well in a few of her posts. She does a number, but she talks about the connection of being Māori, the protection of that under Te Tiriti and tino rangatiratanga—

And article 2 of the Act.

—but the extension of that to takatāpuitanga—

And strategic partnerships with iwi.

Takatāpuitanga; do you know what takatāpuitanga is? I read the submission from Te Ngākau Kahukura, and I hope that the Government, and Joseph Mooney, the chair, in particular—because he’s not going well—listen to some of the contribution of this particular submission, to the words of Moana Jackson, who talks about the “Experiences of alienation, abuse and mistreatment of takatāpui have been a feature of the state care system since its establishment as an instrument of the colonial government. In 2019, … Moana … presented findings from He Whaipaanga Hou - A New Approach to the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in [State] Care. His statement included an acknowledgement of historical abuse experienced by takatāpui in state care: ‘I would also like to add that among those 600, were 44 who identified as Takatāpui, gay or transgender. Over half of those were also placed in care and all of those Takatāpui were abused in care as children. Their treatment or mistreatment in care was part of their almost inevitable progression into prison. Many of them are still comparatively young and suffered abuse in institutions after 1999.’ ”

That is some serious stuff in front of us. The problem with this—and I heard the chair speak and talk about how this doesn’t eliminate the current arrangements that are in place. The problem is it doesn’t enable them—it doesn’t enable them. That’s exactly the reason why this bill was introduced.

Try reading the report. Maybe that’s the problem. You don’t actually understand what you’re talking about. Try reading it.

You are not able to put a guarantee on the table, Joseph Mooney, that Māori cultural needs of tamariki o takatāpui will be taken care of in the system. You cannot provide that guarantee—you cannot offer that guarantee.

As a lawmaker, you should read the Act.

The ignorance and arrogance of that side and that chair tonight is off the charts. It is unbelievable. Shameful.

I look at the Māori members in this House, including the Minister, and her disgraceful actions, those that sit on—

Just be careful. You did mention “the Minister”, just be careful that this doesn’t get personal, OK? You’re fine so far; I’m just keeping it up there.

Yep, members that sit alongside myself, the chair of our Māori Affairs Committee, he’s going to support that tonight; the Minister for the South Island. There was a member here that used to be our chair on Māori affairs but has bailed. I mention that because it’s important that these people, these members of Parliament, are held accountable for their actions.

This is not good legislation. This is not what New Zealanders are asking for; they’re asking for cost of living respite. They’re asking for you to focus on the things that matter, not on the things that are politically motivated by the ACT Party who is wagging your tail—the tail of this Government.

Have a go at reading the Act.

Joseph Mooney, if I played as many of your terrible speeches in this House across your time, you would be highly embarrassed, so stop heckling across that side. You’re a disgrace. You’re letting us down on behalf of this Government.

No, no. Stop, stop. That was a personal attack. Stick to the bill.

Point of order, Madam Speaker. The point I just want to raise, and I didn’t want to interrupt the speech, is that there is a convention and a rule that interjections need to be rare and reasonable. However—

Ha, ha!

I’m doing a point of order, Madam Speaker.

Yeah, silence during points of order. Thank you.

Madam Speaker, it has been more like a conversation from the other side of the House, at times, and it has been consistent throughout the course of this speech, and, I think, in many ways, that’s probably the reason it led to the unfortunate comment made by the speaker on our side. I do want to make the point that, actually, the level of interjection from one particular member on that side of the House is not fitting within the Standing Orders of this House.

Speaking to the point of order, Madam Speaker. I have certainly, personally, I would suggest, made some rare interjections suggesting that the member read the Act.

Yeah, so, look—just hold on a moment before the member starts speaking again—this has been a very emotional and contentious debate. So far, we’ve been able to keep it up. I agree there have been a lot of interjections from both sides. Yes, we’ve had quite a lot in this recent speech from on my right-hand side. I’ve been very lenient with some of the comments that have gone back and forward between each other but I’m not going to allow personal attacks, saying that a person is a disgrace. Some of the other things that have been going backwards and forwards, it’s just a heightened part of this debate, but can we keep it so that we’re not taking it to a personal level. I accept interjections are one thing, but the member makes a good point—just keep them to interjections and not a barrage.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. My apologies. And apologies to Joseph Mooney. If he wants to peer review each other’s speeches in future, I’m happy to do that!

It’s a kind offer.

Just in my closing remarks tonight, I did want to acknowledge not just te iwi mōrehu but our takatāpui community who will be impacted by the decisions of this Government as this piece of legislation moves forward. We know that Māori are well represented in statistics in State care. We know that Oranga Tamariki doesn’t have the right cultural practices in place; they need to continuously be strengthened, but, alongside that, we need to ensure that it reflects the needs of takatāpui. That’s why I’m standing here tonight in this very heavy and difficult debate. Tēnā tātou.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I just want to acknowledge that, on both sides of the House, this has been very passionate, and, obviously, it’s going to be one of those things that we agree to disagree on. I just want to acknowledge the emotion and the passion, which, ultimately, is for our children, our tamariki.

The purpose of the second reading is to really reflect that of the Social Services and Community Committee—and the important thing, I think, to recognise is that the select committee in this instance has served its purpose. With over 3,000 submissions, there have been some considerations and some amendments made. In particular, the strategic partnership is an obligation, and that’s a key theme. I’ll just read out from the amended bill new section 7(2)(i), in clause 4A, for example: “(i) consider and respond to any invitation from 1 or more iwi or Māori organisations to enter into a strategic partnership in accordance with paragraph (h) and subsection (7).”

This has been a reflection deeply considered and, ultimately, this is child-centric, and although we might disagree on some of the process and some of the implications, we can all agree that we need to look after our children. While this bill repeals the references to cultural considerations contained in section 7AA, it does not remove existing provisions in other parts of the Act that require decision makers to consider cultural factors in care decisions. The wellbeing of children must come first—their immediate safety, stability, and wellbeing—and for those reasons, we will be supporting the bill.

The question is, That the amendments recommended by the Social Services and Community Committee by majority be agreed to.

Now that we resume this bill, we are up to call number five, and it is a New Zealand First call.

I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak in support of the Arms (Shooting Clubs, Shooting Ranges, and Other Matters) Amendment Bill.

It’s probably timely, given the recent discussion in the House, that we talk about the importance of understanding the legislation and reading the legislation, and that the commentary that we have in this House has some bearing to the legislation that we’re actually debating. When this debate adjourned yesterday, there had been a couple of speeches that I think reflected quite openly that there hadn’t been much awareness or appreciation. When the Minister introduced the bill, she sort of cautioned that there was a necessity for people to understand this arms legislation and to be aware of what was being changed and amended in this piece of work that has been brought before the House, and I think it was apparent in the debates that this hadn’t occurred.

I would also like to acknowledge the Justice Committee, which has been incredibly hard-working, and honour the Hon James Meager as the chair and as the last speaker on this bill for making some very true and valid commentary around this.

I think, first of all, we want to acknowledge the fact that this bill is about simplifying registry requirements for clubs and ranges. Public safety remains at its core and it remains critically important to how we manage law in the area of firearms. The important thing is that we are talking about a very law-abiding group of citizens, largely predominantly volunteers, who are working to ensure that we have safe and effective use of firearms ranges and that they understand the importance of those ranges to improving skill, knowledge, safety, and use of firearms.

As we heard just this evening, there is a propensity to lean towards scaremongering, to suggest that there is a whole lot of danger that is going to be created. When you actually look at the legislation, it is a relatively small piece of work that is about ensuring that the ranges can continue to operate effectively and that they aren’t discouraged from an overly onerous regulatory environment. This idea and this innuendo that pops up—that there’s something else at play here, that there’s some kind of inference against the work that was being introduced—is just sad and, again, ill-informed. We have a piece of legislation that has been brought forward by a Minister who has extensive firearm safety experience and knowledge in this space, and therefore, importantly, has incredibly good knowledge and a good track record. Exactly the point: knowing your subject matter is really important. And that’s what I think: if we talk about the truth of the bill and the reality of the bill, the practicality of the amendments that are being brought forward is really important.

I think there were a couple of notices that were really emphasising the idea that the Police Association had made commentary on this bill. I think that’s important. As a former vice president of the Police Association, and I suppose you could call me a lobbyist in that environment as well, it was important that the Police Association make comment, just as they did make comment about the gang patch legislation. They cautioned about the gang patch legislation but they are now celebrating that gang patch legislation for the powers it has given police officers and the effectiveness that legislation has had. We listened to those submissions but, like the Police Association, we listen, we take heed of the advice given, but we still move forward and we work forward to practical solutions. That’s what this legislation is.

There was commentary about this idea that gang members are on unregulated shooting ranges and that would be part of this. That’s exactly the point of this. We want to ensure that our ranges remain open, they remain regulated, they remain certified, and they remain operating, and that we do not end up with an unregulated environment. That is why we are pushing to make sure that these volunteers that work in this space can continue to keep their ranges operating, that we are not treating them as if they are criminals, and that we are respecting the contribution they make to gun safety in this country.

This bill has been enhanced, as the Minister outlined, through the select committee process with key changes to improve that have been thoroughly outlined—again, demonstrating that the process of making good law involves that process of listening to submitters and in taking the opportunity to make it better. That is what this law has done. That is why this piece of legislation we’ve introduced to introduce a better regulatory environment that protects gun safety, that acknowledges that the predominant number of gun users in this country are law-abiding citizens, and the importance of ranges is that they allow for firearms safety and firearms knowledge and security and experience to be developed so that there is a greater level of public safety in this country. New Zealand First commends this bill to the House. Thank you.

The next call is a split call. I call Tākuta Ferris.

Tēnā koe e te Pīka. E tū ana ahau ki te tuku i ngā kōrero a Te Pāti Māori mō te ture e kīia nei ko te Arms Amendment Bill i roto i tēnei pānuitanga.

[Thank you, Madam Speaker. I stand to convey the Māori Party’s comments regarding the legislation known as the Arms Amendment Bill in this reading.]

The date of 15 March 2019 marks a deadly act of white supremacy, taking 51 innocent lives and permanently altering the lives of an entire community that this House promised to protect. The Christchurch terrorist attacks were a part of a global surge in coordinated attacks against marginalised communities and peoples. This is proof that white supremacy violence extends beyond simple ideology and into the lived realities of many in our country, and many others.

Understand this: it’s a real thing. Understand that in the context of these amendments tonight, we will remove critical safety regulations, enabling extremists to access firearms and train in the use of such firearms. This is a fact. The royal commission of inquiry into the Christchurch attacks revealed that the gunman’s ability to train in the use of firearms in an unregulated shooting range was a critical factor leading up to March 15, 2019. To deregulate safety provisions, we actively undermine the safety of all and dishonour the memory of the victims of the Christchurch terror attacks.

This is a dangerous roll-back of protections and it is protection that Te Tiriti o Waitangi guarantees both tangata whenua and tangata Tiriti in Aotearoa. This bill breaches Te Tiriti o Waitangi and the Crown’s duty to safeguard us as its citizens and our people—and all of our people. Our history and lived reality as Māori in this country reveal that our communities are, more often than not, overpoliced and under-protected. Weakening regulations increases the chances that firearms are misused and that Māori are exposed to increased police scrutiny, provided there will be weak rules. This is how systemic racism remains within a system. This is how acts of white supremacy are endorsed by a Government unwilling to address what lies in plain sight.

As Te Pāti Māori, we strongly advise the Government, in maintaining and strengthening the existing regulatory framework under the Arms Act 1983—that all shooting clubs and ranges must be subject to regular inspections and compliance with national safety standards. We also advise that policies are informed by robust data and meaningful consultation with Māori, the principal partner in Te Tiriti o Waitangi—although I know that often falls on deaf ears—ensuring that they align with the tikanga and Te Tiriti o Waitangi.

Finally, Te Pāti Māori opposes and absolutely rejects any legislative proposal that prioritises lobbyists’ interests over the safety of the public and equity. This bill is a step in the wrong direction, undermining the progress made to ensure firearm safety in Aotearoa. Guns capable of rapid fire are tools of terror—they are not tools for kai; they are not tools of sport—and their deregulation compromises the safety of all people in Aotearoa. Te Pāti Māori stands resolute against this legislation, calling on Parliament to reject this dangerous roll-back of protections and to honour the victims of the Christchurch terror attacks by upholding public safety and equity for all. Kia ora tātou.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise today on behalf of the Green Party of Aotearoa in the strongest opposition to the Arms (Shooting Clubs, Shooting Ranges, and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. We do not accept that amending Part 6 of the Arms Act 1983 serves any legitimate need of licensed firearms owners or enhances public safety in any way. Instead, this bill rolls back critical safety measures and increases our risks to community. We must do everything we can to ensure that our communities are safe. I came into Parliament to serve my communities, and that is who I stand with here today, and those are the voices that I am uplifting here today.

Al Noor Mosque is just around the corner, a short walk from my home, and I have been welcomed there with opened arms. Today, I stand with those communities and honour the victims and survivors of the 15 March terrorist attack.

We do acknowledge that shooting clubs play a role in firearms safety and education for some licensed owners. However, reducing the regulation and oversight of these clubs and ranges ignores the voices of the communities that we serve. The Arms Act is to promote the safe possession and use of firearms, and this bill undermines that purpose by limiting police oversight and weakening those safety regulations.

The Green Party is also concerned that this bill is being championed by Associate Minister of Justice McKee, rather than the Minister of Police. Firearms legislation traditionally falls under the police Minister’s remit, and this deviation raises serious questions about the bill’s origins and intent, and the Government side has actually failed to address these adequately. Why was the bill introduced? Whose interests does it serve? And why is Parliament being asked to weaken firearms regulation without clear, evidence-based justification—clear, evidence-based justification?

As I said, Al Noor is a short walk from my home, and I have been welcomed to Al Noor with open arms, and I have talked to victims and victims’ families and survivors. This debate is not a hypothetical one. The Christchurch terror attack on 15 March 2019 was the deadliest act of white supremacist violence in Aotearoa’s history: 51 innocent people were murdered and many more were injured.

This isn’t an isolated incident. Globally, white supremacist terrorism is on the rise, targeting marginalised communities, particularly Muslim, Jewish, and people of colour. The royal commission of inquiry into the Christchurch terrorist attack made it clear that weak oversight of firearms clubs and ranges enabled the shooter to train and prepare for this unimaginable act of violence, and that that day stopped us in our tracks. It stopped our country, it stopped the world, in its tracks, because this is something we saw on TV screens, happening overseas, not here, just around the corner from my home.

That’s why we must stop this bill, and I implore to you to listen to the lessons that we have learnt from the royal commission of inquiry. This bill lacks evidential justification and ignores the clear warnings from experts, including the Police Association. We must do better and stop this law.

This debate is interrupted and is set down for resumption next sitting day. The House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. tomorrow.