TUESDAY, 3 MARCH 2020
The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.
Karakia.
MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS
COVID-19 Outbreak—New Zealand's First Confirmed Case
Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Health): I wish to make a ministerial statement about the first confirmed case of COVID-19 in New Zealand.
On Friday, 28 February, New Zealand recorded its first case of the COVID-19 coronavirus, becoming the 48th country to have a confirmed case. The individual had entered the country two days earlier after spending some weeks in Iran, which is currently experiencing a sizable outbreak of the disease. I can report to the House that they are currently in a stable and improving condition at Auckland Hospital. The good news in this instance is that the individual had limited contact with people upon their return to the country, and their family took all the appropriate measures when presenting at the emergency department.
As you would expect, our public health service is working hard to contain this first case and limit the risk of any spread of the disease. Contact tracing began immediately and has gone to plan. All 15 people who were seated nearby the individual on their flight into New Zealand have been traced and are being told to self-isolate. Public health staff will remain in touch with individuals to monitor the situation and give ongoing advice. All but 10 of the remaining passengers on the flight, who are not considered to be close contacts, have also been contacted to provide reassurance and answer any questions they might have; those 10 that haven't been contacted did not provide accurate contact information. I'm advised that as a result of our decisive response, the chance of an outbreak from our first case is low.
Internationally, the situation with COVID-19 continues to develop at pace. However, the Director-General of the World Health Organization said, this morning, "containment … is feasible and must remain the top priority for all countries." This is exactly the approach that New Zealand is taking, using three main tools: border controls; self-isolation; and good public health practices, including highlighting the importance of basic hygiene.
At every step, the Government has taken decisions in the interests of health and safety of the wider public, and so far we have been among the best at keeping COVID-19 at bay. Just yesterday, Cabinet decided to extend for another week the travel restrictions that have been in place for China since 3 February and for Iran since last Friday. These restrictions have played a key role in keeping COVID-19 out of New Zealand for so long and have given us time to better understand the disease and ramp up our preparations.
Of course, members will be aware that there are outbreaks in other regions as well. So, as a further precaution, we have decided that anyone arriving in New Zealand who has been in northern Italy or South Korea who has been there in the last 14 days will be registered for self-isolation. This is based on an expert assessment of risk. It recognises that while there are outbreaks in both countries, they also have well-developed health systems and the outbreaks are largely located in specific regions.
We know self-isolation works. It is a longstanding and successful approach to managing infectious diseases and has proven its worth again in recent weeks. We have also stepped up the health presence at our airports. All airlines flying into New Zealand have been requested to read a health message upon landing, and all arrivals into New Zealand will receive health information cards alongside the standard customs declaration form.
As a result of decisions taken on Friday, health staff are meeting all direct international flights landing in New Zealand airports from Hong Kong, Japan, South Korea, Singapore, and Thailand. Our border response is further ramping up to have health staff available for all international flights into New Zealand. All these decisions and actions are designed to limit the spread of any sporadic COVID-19 cases that might arrive in New Zealand.
At the same time, our health system continues its preparations in line with our comprehensive pandemic plan. I want to thank our DHBs, public health staff, and primary care and health officials for the work they are doing to protect the public. I have high confidence in our medical professionals. We have a strong public health system. We continue to work to keep COVID-19 out, but we are ready if it arrives in our community.





Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I want to begin by joining the Minister of Health in thanking our health professionals, public health staff, primary care officials, and health officials for the work that they are doing. I think what was said by the Minister is well enough known. The issues he raised have been well canvassed in the media.
What's not been well canvassed is what the Government is doing in another area, and that is on the economic management front. The Minister is also the Associate Minister of Finance, and I would have expected some kind of update on the Government's response to the economic impact, which is both immediate and severe. There is no plan to respond with support for those families who have been affected by this downturn. We are getting reports of upwards of 25 percent reductions in turnover in tourism and hospitality. Whole industries are having their trade goods suspended into affected countries, and this is no doubt having an immediate impact. How long that economic impact lasts—
Hon Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I have a question for you regarding the use of ministerial statements, or the responses to ministerial statements, where those responses veer into the territory that is the responsibility of other Ministers. A ministerial statement is designed to be, in this case, a statement by the Minister of Health. A response to that can question the Minister of Health, because the Minister of Health has the opportunity to respond to that, but, where a member of the Opposition uses a ministerial statement to raise a whole host of issues that don't relate to the portfolio of the Minister that made the ministerial statement, it does seem to fall very wide of the very notion of a ministerial statement.
Hon Gerry Brownlee: Speaking to the point of order—
SPEAKER: This is an interesting one. Members will have seen that I was reaching for my Standing Orders.
Hon Gerry Brownlee: Yes, it's an unusual occasion. I think—
SPEAKER: I've got most of them in my head, Mr Brownlee.
Hon Gerry Brownlee: That is absolutely my point—my point entirely.
SPEAKER: Thank you for your support.
Hon Gerry Brownlee: And, if it's not in your head, it's arguable. If I can also say, if you were to listen to the ministerial statement made by the Hon David Clark, he did, at least by inference, on a number of occasions, stray into areas that would be the responsibility for other Ministers—border control, for example; transport regulations. You could list quite a number, let alone issues that would relate to the relations between the New Zealand Government and other Governments. I think for Mr Hipkins to be alarmed by the traversing of those, sort of, other portfolios by Michael Woods—Michael Woodhouse, my apologies; I caught him out of the side of my eye—would be a little churlish.
This is a very, very important issue, and I think New Zealanders should hear views from all parts of the Parliament on all matters that relate to attempts to contain and ultimately, if it's necessary, treat this particular disease.
Rt Hon Jacinda Ardern: Obviously, when the Minister of Health was speaking around the border restrictions, that is, of course, all part of the wider public health response that has been deemed necessary as part of the "keep it out" phase one of the pandemic plan that New Zealand is operating under. I want to reiterate: on this side of the House, we have absolutely no qualms and agree with Mr Brownlee around the importance of this issue. We have no qualms with answering questions around the economic response. Simply, the procedural issue that's being raised at this was a direct statement from the Minister of Health. Question time is a very good place for us to debate other elements of the response; we just ask that the Standing Orders be upheld in the ministerial statement.
SPEAKER: I have had time to review Standing Order 357, which relates to comments on ministerial statements. It is very clear that the leader of a party with six members or a member authorised by the leader may comment on a ministerial statement. My view is that a very limited comment on what's not in the statement would be OK, but I think we've got to the point now where the substance of the comment has been in that direction. I would also say that if members had regarded this as an important issue, given the changes that have occurred since the House last sat—I was expecting an urgent debate on it, and I can now say that I have not received an application.
Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: Thank you, Mr Speaker. The duration of that impact will be very strongly correlated with the Government's response on the health issues, and it is on that that I perhaps want to note that the Minister referred to the family taking all the appropriate measures, but I do question whether or not appropriate measures were taken at the border when a clearly unwell passenger from an affected country that had to be escorted through the border control in a wheelchair was not approached at all by officials. If that is the extent of the health checks that are taking place at our airports, I think it's appropriate to be concerned. I agree with the Minister: we need to be alert but not alarmed. But we have to be alert.
Now, on that flight, which was half empty, I have had reports from passengers on that flight describing what actually went on, and it clearly wasn't the case that in a nearly eight-hour time in that plane, people were sitting at their seats and not moving around. The Minister and the Director-General of Health talk about close contact being face to face for 15 minutes. Other jurisdictions also extend that definition to include being in a closed space for at least two hours, and I would suggest that the definition that they're using should also be appropriate for New Zealand because there are passengers who have been unwell, having come off that flight, who did move around—who moved to spare seats close to where the affected passenger was—who have presented at health authorities and been told, because of the strict criteria for testing, that they themselves would not be tested. Now, if it's true that this isn't an issue of cost and that the goal of the Government is to provide reassurance, then I would have thought that a speedy and timely testing of those passengers—if only to ease their anxiety—would be appropriate. That was certainly the issue that was being raised by senior doctors from Wellington Hospital this morning.
The reality is the conditions that are being described to us in this House are not the reality in these situations. That, I think, leads to what I believe was a panicked response by some parts of the country in terms of the supermarket shopping that took place over the weekend—not appropriate, but probably understandable in the way that New Zealanders are feeling, and they're not feeling as well-informed and as reassured as the Minister would have us portray.
Now, the World Health Organization (WHO) released a report on Friday, following the joint mission into China, which highlighted some very interesting aspects of the way the outbreak is being managed over there. There were two very important points. One is that one in every eight of the confirmed cases from China had no fever whatsoever, and yet we are saying that a fever needs to be present before a test takes place. That is not the lived experience of the people being affected by this in China.
The second thing is the WHO, in its major recommendations—and I commend this report to the Minister—says that for countries with imported cases, they should "Immediately activate the highest level of national Response Management [to] Prioritize active, exhaustive case finding [to] Fully educate the general public [and to test] all patients with atypical pneumonias,". That is the advice that the Minister says he is relying on from the World Health Organization, and I encourage him and his Government to be more energetic and more active in reassuring the public that they're on top of this. 





Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Health): I'll address a couple of the points raised by the member. Firstly, on the economic management front, since he veered into that territory, I have to comment that already the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance have met with the Council of Trade Unions, Business New Zealand, and sector groups, and I heard, certainly, Kirk Hope praising the Government's response on the radio this morning, acknowledging the immediate—
SPEAKER: Order! Order! There was a complaint earlier about people diverting away. The fact that someone else diverted away does not give the Minister permission. He's covered that point off. 
Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: Thank you, Mr Speaker. In respect of the person with COVID-19 who arrived in New Zealand, I think the member opposite needs to be very careful about the assumptions that he is making. That person had mobility issues that were clearly signalled in advance, and that is the reason that they were escorted. He just needs to be a little bit careful about the assumptions he's making around that. 
In respect of close contact and the definition, the member will note that there are well-established international practices around that, and, despite those, this Government has chosen to reach out and contact all passengers on the plane to provide reassurance and any health advice that they want. So we have gone above and beyond and actively got on with reaching out to anybody with any anxiety beyond that, and I think that that was the right thing to do. 
In respect of testing asymptomatic people, it is against health advice to be testing people who do not have symptoms who do not meet the case definition. Doctors and clinical experts are the best-placed people to make those decisions about who should be tested, and I would note that in the Wellington region alone, there is capacity to test 200 people per day. We're only around 200 for the last month in terms of clinical decisions, and we've only yet had one that has tested positive. So I'm confident in our public health experts, in the scientific advice, and in the decisions being made by the doctors in this country, and I suggest that the member is better to take medical and health advice on this issue to get in behind the response of those health experts. 





ORAL QUESTIONS
QUESTIONS TO MINISTERSQuestion No. 1—Finance
1. TAMATI COFFEY (Labour—Waiariki) to the Minister of Finance: He aha ngā rīpoata hou kua kitea e ia mō te ōhanga o Aotearoa?
[What recent reports has he seen on the New Zealand economy?]
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): We know that COVID-19 will have a significant impact on New Zealand's economy, particularly in the short term. There are, however, a range of reports that demonstrate the solid momentum behind the economy going into this situation. Yesterday, Statistics New Zealand released overseas trade data for the December 2019 quarter showing New Zealand's terms of trade reached an all-time high at the end of last year—up 2.6 percent on the back of higher meat and wood prices. Last week, Statistics New Zealand also released overseas merchandise trade data for January, showing exports had continued to rise at the start of the year—up 8.8 percent on January 2019. And on Friday, Treasury released the latest Crown accounts for the seven months to the end of January, showing a surplus of $1.4 billion and net debt below forecast at 19.5 percent of GDP. While the coronavirus will continue to have an impact on the New Zealand economy, these reports show that we are in a strong position to respond to the impacts.
Tamati Coffey: What reports has he seen on the impact of the coronavirus on the economy?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: This is a rapidly changing situation and the economic context is constantly evolving, but we are starting to see the first data come through. Yesterday, Statistics New Zealand released projections of the likely merchandise trade between 27 January and 23 February. The data shows that New Zealand's total merchandise trade was down 1.9 percent over the period compared with the year before, with exports to China down 9 percent. It is important to note that exports to the rest of the world held up around the same levels as last year. The Government continues to work closely with the business community on the impacts of coronavirus; this includes the support we've already given to the tourism sector and the boost to regional business advice services, along with the ongoing work on the ground of Government agencies, including the Ministry of Social Development, the Inland Revenue Department, and the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment. It is important to note that the New Zealand economy is robust and we will get through this situation. I encourage all players in the economy to work together. In particular, I urge banks and their clients to develop a plan to see them through this period.
Tamati Coffey: What reports has he seen on the international context for the New Zealand economy? 
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Just this morning the OECD released its latest interim economic outlook, highlighting that global growth prospects remain highly uncertain as a result of the COVID-19 outbreak. The OECD has downgraded its forecast for global growth this year by half a percentage point to 2.4 percent. In its downside scenario, in which the outbreak lasts longer and is more intensive, the OECD suggests global growth could fall as low as 1.5 percent in 2020. Similar to the OECD, the Government has been planning for three scenarios. As I mentioned last week several times, we are moving more towards the second scenario now, which is based on a longer-lasting shock with global impact feeding through to the economy for the rest of 2020. Planning for this scenario and, indeed, further scenarios continues so that we can act swiftly and decisively as the impacts of the coronavirus are felt on the global and domestic economy. These responses will include sector- and regional-specific ones.




Question No. 2—Prime Minister
2. Hon SIMON BRIDGES (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Does she stand by all her Government's statements and actions?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN (Prime Minister): Yes, especially the proactive work we are undertaking in response to COVID-19, including border measures, requirements around self-isolation as part of our pandemic plan, and public health messaging. They are just some of the measures that we are undertaking to ensure New Zealanders are kept healthy and well. 
Hon Simon Bridges: Is she worried the Reserve Bank estimates GDP growth was just 1.6 percent in 2019, the lowest since 2011?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: As the member will well know, looking globally at the moment, we are seeing estimates from the likes of the OECD and others around the likely impact of COVID-19 on the global economy, and, of course, the impact for New Zealand will be no different in that regard. The New Zealand economy, though, is well placed to weather what we are about to experience and what we are experiencing. For instance, we obviously have low debt—lower than what we inherited—our unemployment rates are low, and we have run Budget surpluses. We are ready for what is in front of us and that's exactly what we've always prepared for.
Hon Simon Bridges: Why was GDP growth just 1.6 percent in 2019 when our terms of trade were at record highs and coronavirus hadn't in any way affected the economy by that stage?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: The member is raising estimates and I would rather talk about the facts. Of course, to date, New Zealand has, relative to other countries, fared very well. At 2.7 percent growth relative to some of those that we compare ourselves to—Australia, Japan, the UK—New Zealand has performed well. We are obviously moving into a different phase, where there is going to be a period of global impact on the global economy, and time will tell what that will look like in New Zealand. But as I said, we are well prepared for what is coming our way.
Hon Simon Bridges: Does she dispute the Reserve Bank's latest figure of 1.6 percent growth in the 2019 calendar year, and if she does, what's the correct figure?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I'd merely point out it's an estimate.
Hon Simon Bridges: Does she accept—[Interruption] 
SPEAKER: Order!
Hon Simon Bridges: Does she accept that the decline in GDP growth to the lowest level since 2011 means New Zealand is not as resilient as we should be to manage the economic impact of coronavirus?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I absolutely reject that. In fact, I look to some of the statements that have been made in recent times about New Zealand's current position, particularly as we look to weather the global storm of the impact of coronavirus, and as Cameron Bagrie said last week, the good news is New Zealand has good momentum into turbulence. You want good momentum into challenging times; it helps ride them out. As I've said, we have been well placed: net debt at 19.5 percent. We inherited it at 22.9 percent. Unemployment at 4 percent; it was over 4 percent when we inherited this economy. And of course, we have run Budget surpluses, which also we've consistently said were for precisely these moments in time. We are well prepared and we are well placed.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can I ask the Prime Minister: if one is to use an estimate from one year by comparison with an actual report on a percentage from a prior year, what's the conclusion likely to be from that sort of calculation?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Very likely—
SPEAKER: I'm struggling to find responsibility—
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: —the wrong one.
SPEAKER: —but OK.
Hon Simon Bridges: Does she accept if New Zealand was growing at 3 to 4 percent a year as we were before she became Prime Minister, then the economy would be better positioned to handle the economic effect of coronavirus?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: If the member is trying to assert that we would be in a better position under National, they don't need to make an estimate; they just need to look at the facts. The facts were that debt was sitting at 22.9 percent, that unemployment was over 4 percent, that wage growth was lower than it is now, which has reached some of the highest levels we've seen in the last 10 years at 3.6 percent. No matter what measure you use, we are better placed now under this Government than we were under the last one, and that means we are well prepared to deal with what we are now heading into, which is a global impact from COVID-19. I would also want to reflect to this member that this is a time when New Zealand is about to run into a turbulent storm and it would be helpful, I think, for the member not to talk down New Zealand's situation right now.
Hon Simon Bridges: Does she accept that New Zealand would be in a better position to manage coronavirus if the Government hadn't plunged the books back into deficit within just two years?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: We have run surpluses in the order of $13 billion. We are projected to run surpluses in the order of $12 billion. That is exactly why we are prepared to weather this storm we are now facing off the back of COVID-19. The facts for the economy speak for themselves and the economists are reflecting that we are well placed because of decisions made by this Government.
Hon Simon Bridges: Does she accept that if her Government hadn't spent billions of taxpayers' dollars on policies like fees-free, KiwiBuild, and Shane Jones' fund, New Zealand would now have greater capacity to deliver for New Zealanders without racking up much more debt?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Debt is lower now under this Government than on his watch. The facts speak for themselves.
Hon Simon Bridges: Is it the case that neither GDP growth, the unemployed on the dole, or debt is in a better position now than under the last five years of the Key Government—in fact, much, much worse?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Again, I stand by every statement I have made in this House. We are better placed now and New Zealanders are better off under this Government.
Hon Simon Bridges: Does she accept that if her Government hadn't cancelled tax relief and piled on higher fuel taxes and landlord regulations, then New Zealand households would have much more money in their pockets to deal with the economic impact of coronavirus that's on them now and coming hard?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: No, because under that Government, he would've given himself a tax cut; under ours, we gave low and middle income earners on average $75 a week. I totally reject his statement.
Hon Simon Bridges: Does she accept that if her Government hadn't broken New Zealand's infrastructure pipeline by delaying 12 major roading projects, then the construction sector would have more work in place now and the economy would be much more resilient to economic shocks like coronavirus?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I am very pleased, as the Prime Minister for the Government of infrastructure, to respond to that question. Time and time again, we have demonstrated that that last Government sometimes invested nothing in capital infrastructure and capital for the health system—in one year, a mere $150 million. We have invested in roads with actual funding and transport projects with actual funding, as opposed to that Government, who announced ghost projects with press statements and not a cent behind them. We are the ones that brought in the Infrastructure Commission. We are the ones with the $12 billion infrastructure upgrade. We're the ones that have lifted the confidence of the construction sector as a result.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: Of the so-called 12 road projects mentioned by the Leader of the Opposition, how much money had been set aside with respect to the road to Ōmokoroa or, for example, from Whangārei to Marsden Point or, for that matter, the 10 bridges?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: None.
Hon Simon Bridges: Can she name one single major transport project that will be started before the election?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Manawatū Gorge. [Interruption]
SPEAKER: Order!
Darroch Ball: Own goal.
SPEAKER: Who said that? Stand, withdraw, and apologise.
Darroch Ball: I withdraw and apologise.




Question No. 3—Finance
3. Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National) to the Minister of Finance: What changes to the Government's economic policies, if any, has he made since the spread of COVID-19?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): First and foremost, our response to coronavirus has been led by our responsibility to protect the health and wellbeing of New Zealanders. That is why our first response is a public health response. The Government's economic plan and policies have put us in a strong position to respond to COVID-19. Our plan and policies have delivered the underlying stability and resilience that will be critical in the coming months. We need to continue to implement those policies in this period of uncertainty. We're working closely with affected businesses, employers, and workers. We're focused on protecting jobs and supporting businesses and affected industries—for instance, the tourism sector and through the Regional Business Partner programme. Detailed plans and policies for the potential scenarios I've already laid out are being developed as we speak to respond as the situation develops.
Hon Paul Goldsmith: Does he agree that there are many businesses under real pressure at the moment from falling demand and rising costs?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The effects on the New Zealand economy and individual businesses within it vary. The conversations we had yesterday and in previous days with the business sector indicate that the tourism sector and the hospitality sector are obviously particularly exposed at the moment, some export sectors, and, obviously, some import sectors. That's why we're working on developing a comprehensive plan alongside them while providing immediate assistance where it's needed.
Hon Paul Goldsmith: What message has he got for small-business owners in the hospitality, forestry, and tourism sectors in particular, who are wondering right now how they're going to make the next payroll?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Well, I was able to deliver those messages directly to the hospitality industry yesterday. What they sought from us was an assurance that Government agencies were there on the ground with them, which we were able to give them, with the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) and IRD working closely with individual businesses down to the level of provisional tax payments, working with them on how to manage other tax obligations that they have. The industry also floated with us wanting further information about leave and leave provisions, which we are working on providing for them now. Today, Minister Twyford is on the East Coast talking to businesses directly about what they need. Employees who have found themselves in a position where they've been without work are able to access MSD support, and that is happening. All of the Government agencies are on the ground doing their job. In terms of the medium- and long-term impacts, we're working with those sectors on them.
Hon Paul Goldsmith: Does he acknowledge that the Government's economic policies prior to the spread of coronavirus resulted in a projected growth rate of 1.6 percent in 2019 and a projected Budget deficit for this year?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: What I do acknowledge is that the Government's economic policies have put us in a position to be able to respond well. We have net debt at a level where we are therefore able to borrow more if we need to in response to this, just as the previous National Government did in response to issues that it had to deal with. The New Zealand economy is in a strong position.
Hon Paul Goldsmith: How does he argue that 1.6 percent growth in 2019 represented solid momentum?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The member is using an estimate of growth for 2019. When we compare ourselves to the rest of the world, and when, indeed, international organisations like the OECD and the IMF compare us to the rest of the world, they say that we're doing well, that our current growth rates and our projected growth rates will be greater than most of our trading partners. I take their advice on this matter, but I'm also happy to listen to the advice of others. The Prime Minister has already quoted Cameron Bagrie; there was also Tim Hunter from ANZ, who said New Zealand is better placed than many countries to weather this shock, and I was grateful for the Leader of the Opposition retweeting that comment.
Hon Paul Goldsmith: Does he agree it's important now more than ever to have better growth policies and better control over wasteful spending so that we can get through the difficult months ahead?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: What's important is that we have stability and resilience in our economy, that we have the partners in our economy working closely together, and that we have public services that are in a position to respond to an outbreak such as this, not the run-down health system, the run-down education system, the poorly funded police force, and all of the other public services run down in the nine years of the National Government. We've been rebuilding them, which means we're now in a position to respond well.




Question No. 4—Regional Economic Development
4. MARK PATTERSON (NZ First) to the Minister for Regional Economic Development: What recent Provincial Growth Fund announcements have been made?
FLETCHER TABUTEAU (Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister for Regional Economic Development) on behalf of the Minister for Regional Economic Development: The coalition Government is committed to the provinces. We know that this Government is doing more to build homes in our communities, and one of the announcements I made was recently in Tokoroa. It came in two parts. The first part was about working with Waikato-Tainui. It was about working with the Building and Construction Industry Training Organisation in which we will be tailoring a 10-week programme to ensure that young people of Tokoroa and south Waikato have a pathway into a construction apprenticeship or, quite simply, a lifelong career in building. At the same time, at that same announcement, we were able to make an announcement on a hundred workers working on modular homes in the Tokoroa community. That means people are in that community working on building modular homes and earning while they learn. It's a great outcome.
Mark Patterson: What other Provincial Growth Fund (PGF) announcements have been made recently?
FLETCHER TABUTEAU: Good question. On behalf of the Minister, I think everyone saw Kaikōura as one of the town centres or one of the places that was at the heart of one of the most destructive earthquakes this country has ever seen. I have to acknowledge the work that was done by the previous Government and the continuing work of the coalition Government that has seen the Kaikōura community get to reset. Kaikōura came to the PGF and said "We need your help. This community could actually be doing more than standing still if this Government invested through the PGF.", and we did that. We did that through $11 million into tourism and business infrastructure, and we did it through basic infrastructure on the coast itself, enabling more people to go out on those amazing tours that they do.
Mark Patterson: How have these announcements been received in the regions?
FLETCHER TABUTEAU: It goes without saying that there's been a lot of feedback for both the Minister and myself in the regions—or the under-secretary and myself, speaking on his behalf. The fact is that at Kaikōura, for example, one of the community leaders stood up and said this was the first time that the Government had been in and heard their pleas for their economic potential and their community and their ability to grow. The Mayor of South Waikato, Jenny Shattock, said, "We're thrilled about the announcement, and I know it's going to make a big difference, particularly the Emergent Skills project based in and around Tokoroa." Thank you, Mr Speaker.
Mark Patterson: Why have the provinces and regional New Zealand so strongly communicated their support for the PGF announcements that have been made to the Minister?
FLETCHER TABUTEAU: On behalf of the Minister, the point to be made in the House today is a simple one. The people of the provinces and our rural and regional communities have said one of the greatest aspects of the Provincial Growth Fund programme is that this programme is not only designed for the regions but the regions themselves have come to the PGF and told the PGF what they wanted, what they needed, and so this is what we have been working to. The businesses themselves, the communities themselves, have for the first time in a long time had a voice, and it has been a loud one, sir. Thank you.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: At Provincial Growth Fund announcements, how many times has he personally been crushed by National Party colleagues trying to get there for the announcement?
FLETCHER TABUTEAU: I have the privilege of working in both the Hawke's Bay and the West Coast, and in every single announcement that I have made as the under-secretary, I have had the pleasure and the company of the National electorate MP, and they have been proud to be there to take photos and support such great work.
SPEAKER: Well, Mr O'Connor might disagree with you, but we'll continue anyway.




Question No. 5—Health
5. Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National) to the Minister of Health: Does he agree with the Prime Minister's statement on the COVID-19 coronavirus outbreak that New Zealand's response has been "textbook"?
Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Health): Yes, noting the full context of those comments, which were in relation to the first confirmed case of COVID-19. As the Prime Minister said on Saturday, New Zealand has one confirmed case. It is contained and it is being dealt with in a textbook fashion.
Hon Michael Woodhouse: Was it a textbook response when a passenger arriving from Iran, visibly ill with virus symptoms, was able to leave Auckland Airport without health staff questioning the passenger?
Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: The member needs to be very careful with the assumptions that he is making. If he's referring to the confirmed case, I can confirm that that passenger was in a wheelchair. We were aware they had mobility issues, and I can confirm that the passenger was wearing a face mask. I'm advised that due to public announcements in the airport, the passenger's family knew to ring Healthline, which they did. As that member is aware, health officials are working closely with airport staff. Airport processes are being reviewed, of course, in relation to the incident. We are planning for a case to come to New Zealand. We have been planning for some time. Our plans were well advanced. We were well prepared when one arrived. This case shows the processes we have in place are working.
Hon Michael Woodhouse: Did the passenger, who is now confirmed with COVID-19, get contact from health officials at Auckland Airport?
Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: As I said, the case is being reviewed. The person certainly was manually processed—[Interruption]—
Hon Dr Nick Smith: Answer the question.
Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: —by customs staff, who were—
SPEAKER: Order! Order! Some of us would like to hear the answer, and Mr Bennett and Dr Smith yelling doesn't help.
Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: The person certainly received health information. We know that that is why they phoned the helpline.
Hon Michael Woodhouse: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I realise I can't be given a yes or no answer to the question, but I don't even think the question was addressed.
SPEAKER: No, that was almost certainly addressed, and I would've said "certainly" if it wasn't rudely interrupted by his colleagues.
Hon Michael Woodhouse: Is it in the textbook that senior doctors at Wellington Hospital should complain that people with coronavirus-type symptoms are being refused tests for the virus?
Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: At every stage, our response has been driven by science and by health experts and doctors. There is a clear case definition, developed by experts, that clinicians are using when considering who should be tested. Last week, that definition was widened to include travel to several more countries. I will leave it to doctors to decide who should be tested rather than take advice from the Opposition on that.
Hon Michael Woodhouse: Why does the textbook response involve having health advice cards at airports that are six years old and list symptoms that are not consistent with those of COVID-19?
Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: I reject the member's assertion.
Hon Tim Macindoe: Does he believe that it's a textbook response for his Government and DHBs to fail to respond to requests from the Retirement Villages Association and the New Zealand Aged Care Association for urgent meetings around a coordinated response and the supply of critical medical supplies and safety equipment when elderly New Zealanders—
SPEAKER: Order! Order! How many questions?
Hon Tim Macindoe: This is one question, sir.
SPEAKER: Well, I've got three so far I think. The member will wind up.
Hon Tim Macindoe: —I can only see one question here—in premises represented by those organisations are most vulnerable to the spread of COVID-19 coronavirus outbreak?
Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: Health professionals across New Zealand have been working very well together. They are following the New Zealand influenza pandemic plan. I note that was updated in August 2017 and has been tested by officials under this Government's watch. The coordination, I think, in the circumstances, has been helped by the Government's preparedness. From acting early to restrict our border access, we have kept COVID-19 out of New Zealand for longer than 48 other countries, and that has given us more time to be more prepared. I would argue that the coordination happening across the country is something that we ought to thank our health officials for.
Kieran McAnulty: Given he agrees with the Prime Minister that this was a textbook response, does he also agree with Professor Michael Baker of the Department of Public Health at Otago University that the response and management was exemplary at all stages?
Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: Yes.




Question No. 6—Housing
6. Hon JUDITH COLLINS (National—Papakura) to the Minister of Housing: Does she stand by her statement on 7 September 2019 with regard to a $400 million progressive home ownership scheme, "So what I've said is I'll take the details around that to Cabinet by the end of the year, and we're looking to have that up and running next year"; if so, exactly when this year will it be up and running?
Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister of Housing): Yes, and, as I outlined to the member in answer to written questions, Cabinet confirmed high-level design features of the progressive homeownership scheme in December last year, and good progress continues to be made on the detailed design. The member will be pleased to know that I will be making further announcements in the next couple of months. Finally, as I've also outlined to her in answer to written questions, I will be reporting back to Cabinet in May on progress we have made.
Hon Judith Collins: Does she agree with the Green Party co-leader who said on 4 September 2019 that the Green Party had secured a progressive homeownership scheme and "that it is what we are announcing today"?
Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: All three parties that make up our Government—both the coalition and the confidence and supply agreement—are all supportive of progressive homeownership schemes. We are a Government that has committed $400 million to progressive homeownership, the scale of which we have never seen in this country, and all three parties that form up this side of the House are immensely proud of that.
Hon Judith Collins: In which month will she deliver on her promise to have a $400 million progressive homeownership scheme not just announced but up and running this year?
Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: As I outlined to the member in answer to my primary question, we will be making announcements on that in the next couple of months, and she will know all the details in the fullness of time.
Hon Judith Collins: In what way is she working "very closely with organisations like Habitat for Humanity and the Housing Foundation" to get the scheme up and running when she has neither met nor corresponded with these housing suppliers since September last year?
Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: Since September last year, we have had a full day of workshops with the community housing sector—
SPEAKER: Order! Order!
Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: I'll start the answer again, if I can.
SPEAKER: The member will start again, and she's going to be able to answer this supplementary with the Opposition in silence, and the Government members.
Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: I am pleased to tell the member that since I met with the community housing providers in August last year, officials have been working constructively and productively with the community housing sector. For the member's benefit, that has included a series of full-day workshops with the community housing sector, a series of workshops on specific issues, weekly teleconferences, and a number of individual engagements. I am pleased to report to that member that when I do meet with members of the community housing sector at other events, they tell me how delighted they are with the engagement and the progress we are making and how good it is to have a Government that is finally committed to progressive homeownership, because the previous Government certainly wasn't.




Question No. 7—Health
7. ANGIE WARREN-CLARK (Labour) to the Minister of Health: How is New Zealand's public health service responding to the COVID-19 coronavirus?
Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Health): New Zealand has taken strong precautionary actions that prioritise the safety of the New Zealand public. We make no apology for this. Last month, the Director-General of the World Health Organization asked countries to be as aggressive as possible in their containment efforts. Dr Tedros asked us not to squander the opportunity to prevent local transmission. We have responded to that call. By introducing travel restrictions early, we kept COVID-19 at bay for far longer than many other countries. That has given our health service more time to plan and to understand the virus. We are well prepared.
Angie Warren-Clark: What actions have our health service taken since the confirmation of the arrival of the first COVID-19 case in New Zealand on 28 February?
Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: On Saturday I visited Auckland Hospital and met with health professionals who are caring for this patient and testing for the virus. I'm pleased to report that, under their care, the patient continues to improve. Contact tracing for those who travelled in close proximity with this individual began immediately and has gone to plan. In line with the Government's decisions this week, our health services have ramped up their presence at our airports. Health services have also stepped up their public information campaign, underlining the requirement for self-isolation, where appropriate, and the importance of basic hygiene.
Angie Warren-Clark: Is our response to COVID-19 consistent with the approach taken by other countries?
Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: Internationally the situation with COVID-19 continues to develop apace. The Director-General of the World Health Organization said this morning that containment is feasible and must remain the top priority for all countries. This is exactly the approach New Zealand is taking, using three main tools: border controls, voluntary isolation, and good public health practices including highlighting the importance of basic hygiene. At every step, the Government has taken decisions in the interests of public safety, and so far we have been among the best at keeping COVID-19 at bay. Just yesterday, Cabinet decided to extend for another week the travel restrictions that have been in place for China since 3 February and for Iran since last Friday. These restrictions have played a role in keeping COVID-19 out of New Zealand for so long and have given us time to better understand the disease and ramp up our preparedness.




Question No. 8—Foreign Affairs
8. Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) to the Minister of Foreign Affairs: Does he stand by his statement in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade's India strategy document titled India–New Zealand 2025: Investing in the Relationship, "Indian immigrants and students contribute skills and diversity to New Zealand's economy and our communities"?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Minister of Foreign Affairs): Yes. Unlike the Leader of the Opposition, we consider Indian people to be worth as much as anyone else. Unlike him, we don't think "two Chinese are more valuable than two Indians".
Hon Gerry Brownlee: Is the Minister saying that a person of Indian ethnicity who wishes to undertake tertiary study in New Zealand is as a valuable in delivering skills and diversity to New Zealand's economy and communities as other nationalities?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Well, the answer of course is yes.
Hon Gerry Brownlee: Then can the Minister explain why India would trust New Zealand's commitment to Goal 1 of the strategy that says—and I quote—"A relationship based on mutual trust that advances our shared interest.", when his Cabinet colleague Shane Jones thought it appropriate to say, "I think the number of students that have come [to New Zealand] from India have ruined many … institutions."?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Mr Jones made it very clear this morning that he was expressing the views of some in the local Indian community—and I'll recite them shortly—and that he was referring to fraud in the education system and exploitation of students. Can I just say this is a report that says, "young Indian migrant workers [are] easy targets for exploitation. Many are in breach of their visa conditions, fear deportation, and have large loans at high interest rates [in] service on top of the high cost of living here. In addition, they face discrimination, isolation, and exploitation, and are exploited within their own ethnic groups. Replication of the caste system further limits opportunities and progression for many while fear of the establishment and the perception of corruption stops migrants speaking out."—that from the Indian Weekender. That's an Indian paper, the Indian Weekender; are they racist too?
Hon Gerry Brownlee: If the Minister is publicly now supporting the comments of Mr Jones, was the Prime Minister incorrect to say that he was wrong?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Mr Jones made it very clear what he was referring to. I've just recited the Indian weekend newspaper as an authority. But let me go further: these issues were highlighted by the Migrant Workers Association and the Indian Workers' Association on a number of occasions when the previous administration was in Government. That's precisely what we're cleaning up.
Hon Gerry Brownlee: If the Minister of Foreign Affairs, the Deputy Prime Minister, is now supporting Mr Jones in his statements, was the Prime Minister incorrect to call him wrong?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Let me make it very clear that Mr Jones has these authorities: the New Zealand Herald on 5 December 2016—here it is: " 'We need to blow the whole thing apart and start being honest about what's happening' … who the Herald has agreed not to name. 'Because it's not about education at all.' " This is from The New Zealand Herald. RNZ, again, 12 September 2016: "Indian community leaders have warned [them] of … backlash because Indian students are increasingly running into problems including prostitution, crime, … exploitation by employers." We've got page after page after page of Indians saying this was happening under the previous administration—and we're fixing it up, and that's how we're going to build trust.
Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Any review of the answer to that question would find that it had very little to do in answer to the question.
SPEAKER: It may be that the material was somewhat supplemented, and it could have been cut off earlier, but it was certainly addressed early on.
Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The right honourable gentleman said he wished to make it clear; then, he proceeded to read out his list of newspaper articles, which presumably means that he does support the Hon Shane Jones and his interesting comments.
SPEAKER: Is that a point of order? 
Hon Member: Yes it is. 
SPEAKER: No, it's an expression of opinion, and normally you want a ruling.
Hon Gerry Brownlee: The point is that there was no answer to the question as to whether the Prime Minister was incorrect and inappropriate in telling Mr Jones that he was wrong.
SPEAKER: I think the member was asking a question where it was slightly more nuanced than that. If the member wants a further supplementary, he can have another go.
Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. That is not correct. The Hansard record will show exactly what my question was. My question simply was to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, the Deputy Prime Minister, the Rt Hon Winston Peters: was his support for Shane Jones indicating that the Prime Minister was incorrect in saying that Shane Jones was wrong. I got no answer to that.
SPEAKER: I've ruled that it was addressed. [Interruption] No one's got the floor at the moment, so is the member finished? [Interruption] Order! That's not helpful.
Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.
SPEAKER: I'm not sure what this is going to be, either.
Hon Gerry Brownlee: Well, you asked me a question, so I'd like to answer it. You asked me was I finished. What I would reply is that I'm not finished, but I think he is. Ha, ha!
SPEAKER: The member will now stand, withdraw, and apologise. Mr Brownlee, before you tweet what you are saying, you will withdraw and apologise.
Hon Gerry Brownlee: All right. I withdraw and apologise.




Question No. 9—Police
9. Hon MARK MITCHELL (National—Rodney) to the Minister of Police: Is he satisfied his policies are getting ahead of incidences of organised crime and gang activity in New Zealand?
Hon STUART NASH (Minister of Police): Yes, particularly our plans to bring in tougher penalties for gun crime under the Arms Legislation Bill, which the National Party is trying to block. The changes will prevent a gang member from ever holding a firearms licence, which they could under the previous Government. I agree with Gun Control NZ, which today have said that National is trying to "make it easier for crims, gangs, and extremists to get their hands on firearms".
Hon Mark Mitchell: Can he confirm new figures released this morning that show a 32 percent increase in gang numbers under his watch, with over 7,000 people now recorded on the National Gang List?
Hon STUART NASH: What I can confirm is 2,000 new police under our watch. That is over double what the previous Government promised to deliver. Thanks to the coalition Government, there are 2,000 more police in our communities fighting gang harm and keeping us safe.
SPEAKER: I'm going to rule that the member must address the question.
Hon STUART NASH: Gang numbers have increased, but if that member believes they've increased under our Government, he is wrong. It is widely acknowledged that when Australian gangs became established here in 2011, the next year police numbers fell by 150. In fact, under the previous term of that Government, police numbers fell. Under our Government so far: 2,000 new police out in our communities.
Hon Mark Mitchell: Can he say his policies are working if gangs recruited almost 100 new members in 30 days in December of last year?
Hon STUART NASH: Let me tell you about another policy in my area. It's called the gang focus unit, set up, according to the District Commander, because of the new numbers. The gang focus unit in Hawke's Bay has made over 100 arrests, over 250 convictions, and the only reason that gang focus unit is there is because of 2,000 more police into our communities, and that is over double the number promised under that Government.
Hon Mark Mitchell: If the Minister keeps telling us that there's over 2,000 more police on the street, why are gang members going up daily?
Hon STUART NASH: Let me give you another example. I was in Warkworth, that member's electorate, where there are now over 100 percent more police than there were under his Government, and for the first time ever, the Warkworth police station is open 24/7, under this coalition Government. Fantastic.
Hon Mark Mitchell: How is the Minister going to stop the Comanchero gangs from moving into my electorate of Warkworth?
Hon STUART NASH: Well, that's interesting, because I remember when the Hon Judith Collins, when she was Minister of Police, said she was going to crush the Australian gangs, and she did nothing. What we have done is, of the 2,000 more police—of the 2,000 more police—a whole chunk of these are going into organised crime, and I could give numerous examples of where we have in fact made significant—
SPEAKER: Order! Order! Order!
Hon Judith Collins: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.
SPEAKER: I hope it's not going to be to dispute an answer, because the member knows that she can't do that by point of order.
Hon Judith Collins: Well, no. I'll have to take a privileges complaint, I suppose. That would be a shame, wouldn't it?




Question No. 10—Small Business
10. Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour—New Lynn) to the Minister for Small Business: What recent announcements has he made about making it easier for small businesses to get paid on time?
Hon STUART NASH (Minister for Small Business): New Zealand is fortunate to be ranked number one in the world for ease of doing business, but we are not complacent. We continue to look for ways to keep up the momentum in the economy and to enhance the business climate. Research by Xero shows that at any given time, more than half of small businesses are owed at least $7,000, and on the average invoices, are paid up to one week late. I have announced that I am prepared to legislate if payment terms and payment times for small businesses do not improve. I have asked affected groups to comment on the idea, and look forward to hearing that feedback after public consultation closes next month. This Government remains focused on protecting jobs and supporting workers and businesses.
Dr Deborah Russell: What are the key elements he is proposing in the consultation document?
Hon STUART NASH: As a former sole trader myself, I understand when businesses, sole traders, and chambers of commerce tell me that cash flow is king. Late payments from large organisations to small suppliers can be crippling for these businesses. The discussion document seeks the public views on legislation that would require a maximum payment term of 20 days to ensure small businesses are reimbursed for their services more quickly, and the right for small businesses to charge interest on overdue invoices, and debt recovery fees for late payment. I am prepared to legislate if necessary, to set minimum standards for payment terms.
Dr Deborah Russell: What reports has he seen in response to announcements around legislating for prompt payment times for small businesses?
Hon STUART NASH: Craig Hudson from Xero: "Time for [small and medium businesses] not to be [the] bank offering interest free loans! Great commitment … Stuart Nash". From Andy Hamilton, The Icehouse: "This is good to potentially great for SMEs—well done … Stuart Nash … and let's hope it can change behaviour and payments to SMEs". Jeremy Lorne, a builder: "Late payments are a common thing in the building industry." During the Christmas break, he had a client with an emergency in their roof, who called in all sorts of favours to get it fixed. Jeremy is still waiting to be paid, even though he had to pay for all services and supplies to do the job in the first place.




Question No. 11—Police
11. DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT) to the Minister of Police: Does he have confidence in the ability of the Police to carry out search warrants appropriately when searching for prohibited firearms?
Hon STUART NASH (Minister of Police): Yes.
David Seymour: How can the Minister have that confidence when four heavily armed police recently raided a family home, with children in it, looking for firearms their own records showed had already been handed in?
Hon STUART NASH: I have confidence in the Commissioner of Police, and it's always been my expectation that the police will operate within the law.
David Seymour: When the Minister does learn of that failing, will it dent his confidence in police to undertake other matters, such as registering a million firearms, when they couldn't keep track of four?
Hon STUART NASH: In terms of a search warrant, let me just advise the member on the process of obtaining such. In the vast majority of cases, the police first have to present evidence of a requirement to a judge, who will then sign off on a search warrant only if he or she believes it is justified.




Question No. 12—Regional Economic Development
CHRIS BISHOP (National—Hutt South): I seek leave to revise the wording of the oral question to correct the name of the individual named in the question.
SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that? There is. Can I just say, we had some problems—I think on the last sitting day—with regard to very late changes to questions. In this particular case, I was informed about a quarter of an hour before the House sat of the reliance on a television report for the spelling of an individual's name, which, as it turned out, was incorrect. I thought, rather than have a very late change again and cause consternation, I would recommend to the member that he seek the leave of the House in order to change it to the man's correct name rather than the name that was incorrectly spelt in a Television New Zealand website report.
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Deputy Prime Minister): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The problem with that is that it's my belief—and the research that we've done on behalf of Shane Jones in this respect—that the whole story's incorrect, and that's our point. That's why we're not going to grant him leave.
SPEAKER: In that particular case, the member will ask the question as it is on the order paper.
12. CHRIS BISHOP (National—Hutt South) to the Minister for Regional Economic Development: Has he seen the comments of Southland business owner Colin Hitchell in relation to the Provincial Growth Fund officials, "They said they'd come to Southland because they'd overspent in Northland and they were down here to even the score", and is it correct that there is a desire by officials to spend more in Southland in comparison with Northland?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Deputy Prime Minister) on behalf of the Minister for Regional Economic Development: Yes. I have seen the comments, and, like the question, they are utterly incorrect.
Chris Bishop: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Just in relation to the second part of the question, I don't believe the Minister answering on behalf of the Minister addressed the second part of that question.
SPEAKER: He said it's completely incorrect. If half the answers were as straight and direct as that one, the place would be a lot happier.
Chris Bishop: Why did provincial development unit staff reportedly say to Mr Hitchen, after he told them he was interested in buying $480,000 of new equipment, "That's not enough. You must be able to do better than that."?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Well, first of all, it is usual for the Provincial Growth Fund staff to go through an application, look at the fiscals, and sometimes say, "You have not applied for enough to make this stand up." That's happened all over this country by independent and neutral assessors, and that's how it happened. But, as for the rest of the story, referring to Southland and Northland, that is a fiction.
Chris Bishop: Why did provincial development unit staff reportedly say to Mr Hitchen "We need you to ask for at least this amount now, if not more.", and ask "why were we being so cagey as when they were in Northland, no one worried about paying this back. We may not revisit this place and see how you are going."?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Again, this is a very good commentary on the New Zealand media. This story is run by TVNZ without any evidence or substance whatsoever, which probably suggests and gives you the reason why RNZ and TVNZ are having a row right now.
Chris Bishop: Is it correct provincial development unit staff offered to fill out the Provincial Growth Fund application form for Mr Hitchen on the basis that time was of the essence and the money had to be drawn down as soon as possible?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Again, officials have always completed the application for many, many applicants. [Interruption] Yes, they have. [Interruption] Well, we don't deny people the right to make an application simply because they can't complete the form. That's the difference between this Government and that group over there. But here's the point—here's the point—this was from a feasibility study two years prior to that, and yet it failed. Again, here's a full-scale investigation into a failed application. That's a new one in Western democracy.
Chris Bishop: Is he saying to the Parliament that in the hundreds, probably thousands, of applications to the Provincial Growth Fund so far, all of those application forms have always been filled out by officials, not the people actually seeking the money?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Again, that's not what was said here. What was said here—[Interruption]
SPEAKER: Order! Order! The member will resume his seat. This is an important issue, and I want the answer to be heard. When people—probably about 15 members on that occasion—start yelling, even with the not gentle voice of the Deputy Prime Minister, I'm having trouble hearing him. The Deputy Prime Minister will answer, and the rest of the House will be silent.
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: The reality is that in hundreds of cases, the applications are worked through with the applicants and the Provincial Growth Fund staff, and frequently they assist in the completion of the application form. That's normal with any law office, accounting office, and any other assessing office but not with respect to the National Party, clearly.
Chris Bishop: Mr Speaker.
SPEAKER: No. The questions for the Opposition have been used.





DEBATE ON PRIME MINISTER'S STATEMENT
Debate resumed from 20 February. 
Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Justice): I am very proud to stand here as a member of the Jacinda Ardern - led Government, a Government that is at long last facing up to the longstanding, serious challenges that this country has had facing it. That makes this Government a Government of tomorrow. Tomorrow happens to be March 4th, which is what this Government is doing—marching this country forward to the sunlit uplands of a bright new future. 
But the reality is, of course, we are also a Government of today, and right now, this country, like every country in the world, is facing one of the most significant, serious challenges, with the outbreak of the COVID-19 virus. I want to acknowledge for a moment the leadership of my colleague the Minister of Health, the Hon Dr David Clark, and the work he is doing in leading his ministry and the health sector to respond effectively to that insidious disease. 
It is one of the biggest challenges facing us because of the impact not only on people and their health and on their going about their daily lives but also on small-business owners and big-business owners and the impact on them and the ability of people to travel. The reality is that the measures taken by this Government in the last five weeks have been effective, they have been responsible, they've been measured, they've been proportionate, and they are achieving what is intended, which is to do the best to shut down the possibility of the disease coming here and an outbreak in New Zealand. We should be very pleased with the measures that are being taken. 
It is causing inconvenience to many sectors, not the least of which is the education sector and many overseas students, and we are reliant in many respects on those students coming here. It is causing the institutions inconvenience and the students inconvenience, it's causing many businesses inconvenience, and there is no question that this little economy will take a hit. But the reality is it's the work of this Government in the last two years to steadfastly stick with fundamental orthodox economics that has put this economy and has put this country in the right place to weather this very important event. 
There is another challenge that we need to rise to too, and it's the challenge for us as elected representatives, because we will hear many—
DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Order! I'm sorry to interrupt the member on his feet, but there is a lot of noise from his own colleagues making it difficult. 
Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I'm obliged, Madam Speaker. If my colleagues could just listen to me for a moment and resume their conversations when the members opposite are speaking, I think they'll find it much more educational. 
I just did want to acknowledge that as elected representatives, like representatives of all sorts, we will be getting the expressions of anxiety and concern and sometimes panic from members of the public, and it is important that we do our job to make sure that we are getting the messages out there that there are measures in place, they are responsible, and they are based on science and medicine. Not everybody who falls sick at the moment will be a victim of the COVID-19 virus. Not everybody who is unwell will need the same level of attention. The health professionals have to assess the person's full background and not just the symptoms they're exhibiting, and have to ask whether they have been in close contact with travellers from those areas where the disease is most concentrated or whether they haven't, because if they haven't, then they are unlikely to be affected. 
But I take my hat off to the work that the health professionals are doing. They're doing a great job and, of course, once again, I want to acknowledge my colleague the Minister of Health. 
I want to talk about some of the very important developments and changes and improvements that this Government is making across the board, not only in the economic sphere but in the social sphere as well. It's relevant to my job as the Minister of Justice, and I'm going to come to that very shortly. 
This is a Government that has not only committed itself to sound economic management—the economic management that has delivered a total of $13 billion in surpluses over the last two years alone and that is also allowing us to do the important social infrastructure of restoring our hospitals and the health system, restoring our schools and the rest of the education system, and making sure that we're dealing with those rundown social services—but it also means that we can start to seriously address some of the challenging social issues as well, not the least of which is family violence and sexual violence. I know that members across the House take that issue very seriously and they have been supportive of the measures that have been taken. I want to particularly acknowledge my colleague the Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister of Justice, Jan Logie, and the work that she is doing in that area, and I want to come back to that as well. 
But this is a Government that is dealing with those issues like climate change, which is exercising whole generations of New Zealanders and people around the world. We're dealing with child poverty, because we know that that creates for the people and families who suffer that the most insidious of starts. We're dealing, as I say, with what's happening under the health services. We're picking up and restoring a rundown police force—you know, this is the stunning thing for members opposite, who pose questions about what is happening to the police force. Now, that was the Government that ran down our police force. It went from a ratio of one police officer to 500 in the population, to nearly one to 525. That is a serious deterioration of our police force, and this is a Government committed to restoring the front line of our police, and, of course, the housing crisis, hard as that may be—and maybe we underestimated just the difficulty of that task. But we've started restoring confidence for those who have been homeless for far too long, to make sure that they can get their own home. 
The rebuild has begun. The restoration has begun. These were challenging issues that we were facing, but we made a start, and it's been a good one. 
Let's have a look: higher incomes. Last year, average income growth was 3.6 percent—never heard of for the last 20 years, and yet we've seen that. The minimum wage is up. 
A massive investment in infrastructure: $12 billion committed at the end of last year. Roads and rail but also hospitals and, importantly, in schools as well—$12 billion. 
We are restoring quality health, and seriously addressing mental health and addiction, because that's an insidious factor in our communities as well, and we saw in the last election just how responsive the community were. They were saying "We need help. This is an important problem and we need help.", and they are getting it. 
We're building more homes. We are seeing great things in education—fantastic work by my colleague the Minister of Education, the Hon Chris Hipkins—not just in the schools but in vocational education as well, because that was run down. If you really want to build a strong future economy, you actually need to have good vocational education. People are going into the apprenticeships. People are going to polytechs that they know are going to financially survive, and they know that they're going to be there in three years' time to continue to deliver their courses, and, of course, I totally welcome and support the learning support coordinators that are now being rolled out through our schools. It is absolutely vital that we pick up those kids who have learning difficulties and who have problems that are getting in the way of their learning, because if they're not starting to learn and be comfortable in school in those first couple or three years, that's going to have serious implications further down the track if they drop out and they cause other problems. 
I want to come and reserve my concluding remarks to the issue of justice, because what we are seeing in that sector now calls for long-term thinking and a very positive start. But the starting point isn't just what we do in our prisons—and I acknowledge the work that the Hon Kelvin Davis is doing there—and not just what we're doing with the police and the work that my colleague the Hon Stuart Nash is doing, and, indeed, what we're doing with courts. It actually starts with those foundation things like making sure that people have a stable, warm, dry home to live in, because people who are constantly changing houses and taking their kids out of one school and putting them in another—they are giving those kids a rough start, and they are the kids that fall out of school. If we're not investing in our education system and things like the learning support coordinators, the kids with problems don't get picked up, and they become a problem further down the track. 
If we're not dealing with mental health and addiction then we are creating problems further down the track. Let's just accept, once and for all, the huge proportion of our prison population and offender population who have been victims of poor housing policy and a failure of housing policy for the last nine years: people who have fallen through the cracks in our education system because they can't learn because they don't get picked up; people who've had serious mental health and addiction issues that never get picked up until they are in the criminal justice system. If we want to improve the performance of our criminal justice system we'd do a lot more by investing in property and housing and education and health, particularly mental health and addiction. 
Then there are the things we do in the system itself. That's why we've committed to making Alcohol and Other Drug Treatment Courts a permanent feature of our justice system, not the continual recycling and rolling out of pilots year after year after year but actually making them permanent and starting to expand them as well. The same thing we're doing with the specialist courts that we're setting up as well: the Matariki Court and the New Beginning Court—even the Sexual Violence Pilot Court that's in pilot stage and under review at the moment. These courts are making a difference and they're helping people get off the offending track and live decent, fulfilling lives, and making sure we have far fewer victims in our community. 
But the most important thing is that the biggest deterrent to criminal offending is of course the probability you're going to be caught. That's where the work we're doing with our police force is so vital: adding more front-line police, creating a special gang unit that is there to address that very insidious problem. That problem started years ago and it started because members opposite when they were in Government totally failed to deal with the massive rise in deportations from Australia and those people coming from a gang background there. The difference between this side of the House and that side of the House is they are very good at puffing their chest out and beating their chest when it suits them on law and order, but they are all talk. They did nothing. They have no new ideas. They're a disgrace.





Hon TODD McCLAY (National—Rotorua): Madam Speaker, thank you very much. It is an important year. It must be election year because the last speaker, Andrew Little, didn't mention a number of things straight off the bat. And I'm going to come to those because this is a Government of announcements and a Government of promises. Of course, the Government talked a lot about KiwiBuild over two elections, and what do we hear now? Actually, they don't want to talk about those things anymore, because they have become the Government of non-delivery. It's really easy to make a promise, and it's very easy to make an announcement, but actually delivering is what takes hard, hard work when it comes to a Government. 
We didn't hear anything from Mr Little about Pike River. That surprises me because he's made huge commitments there to families. We actually didn't hear any reason why gang numbers are increasing as quickly as they are, except they say they're all being sent here from Australia. But if you talk to the police and you get information from them, there are about 27 gang members that have been sent from Australia, not the thousands and thousands that actually have joined gangs in New Zealand; a mere 27. You didn't hear anything about the unemployment numbers—the dole numbers—going up by 27,000 over the last two years to be close to the level they were under the GFC in New Zealand. We didn't hear him mention that there are now 20,000 more children in poverty in New Zealand than there were two years ago, but we did hear him talk about all the things that are important when you're in Government. The one thing he didn't mention, which is the one thing New Zealanders continue to ask every single day, is when is this Government going to deliver. 
Well, today we are 200 days away from the election, and if you can't build a few houses, you're not going to see them build any roads. And if they can't build any houses under KiwiBuild, the electorate is not going to see them deliver on the very, very many worthwhile yet lofty promises that they have spoken of day after day after day since Winston Peters chose them to form this Government.
The things they haven't spoken about are what are most important to New Zealanders. You know, we have an economy that's slowing and we're going to hear speaker after speaker from the Government get up and talk about coronavirus and international headwinds and try and blame the things that have slowed and gone wrong with our economy on international events. That's actually just not good enough, because they inherited a very strong economy that was growing on the back of extremely hard work of New Zealanders: mums and dads who get out of bed every day and go to work—who take pride in raising their families—on businesses where they actually had to dig deep and work so very hard during the global financial crisis. In a mere two and a half years, this is a Government of three parties that has taken that hard work of New Zealanders and turned it into not an economic success story but one of missed opportunity. 
The average GDP growth rate in New Zealand is about 2.8 percent over the last 10 or 15 years. In the last few years of the Key-English Government, we were averaging or hitting around 4 percent per year. What does GDP growth mean? GDP growth means when an economy is growing, businesses have confidence, there is money flowing through the system, and they're able to invest, to employ more, and to pay more. What have we seen over two and a half years? That's fallen to 1.6 percent GDP growth—long before anything happened to our economy because of coronavirus's effect upon New Zealand and other parts of the world. But more important than that is per capita GDP: actually how much has been done or how much is available to each individual in New Zealand? We were towards the top of the OECD for GDP per capita rates—I think in the top seven. Guess what? We've fallen to the bottom half—in fact, close to the bottom seven. We went from 1.8 percent per person in New Zealand GDP growth over two years to just 0.6 percent. Now, I don't think that this is a Government that had a plan to do that, because they haven't delivered on a single other plan that they've had; I think it has been close to incompetence that has done that, or perhaps it's just that they haven't paid attention to the things that are most important when it comes to the economy. 
Now, when on this side of the House we talk about GDP growth, it's not about the big companies. It's not about what a 1 percent or a 2 percent or a 3 percent GDP growth actually means to the large companies in New Zealand; it's about every single everyday New Zealander who works so very, very hard, and those Kiwis that are running small businesses or are working hard every single day who are finding that they're not going ahead, that they have uncertainty in the workplace, that their wages have not been going up but costs all around them have been. The cost on businesses today is much greater than it has been any other time, and actually, what we're seeing is decisions made by this Government that they are ideologically wedded to—have always stood in favour of—and they're just not thinking of the consequences of those and the effect it has upon small businesses. 
I say again: small businesses in New Zealand are hard-working New Zealanders—they're Kiwis. They're not people that are actually out there doing wonderful, huge things on the world stage. We need them too—these are just hard-working Kiwis that are finding it much harder than they should because this is a Government that hasn't got its eye on the ball. 
And let me just tackle one thing. One of the challenges that actually much of our economy has had for a period of time is finding an active and willing workforce—workers, both skilled and unskilled, to fill the jobs as they become available. They've said day after day that they can't find people to fill jobs in the horticulture and agriculture sector, in factories, and almost every single part of our economy. Yet we have a Government that continues to talk about what they need to do or should do about foreigners coming here and blaming foreigners for many of these challenges. 
Well, here's the problem that we have. As businesses over two years have said, "We can't find workers."—part of the reason why the economy will be slowing: they can't find workers. We've seen the unemployment rate go up by 27,000 people. And that's counterintuitive. If there are businesses out there saying, "We need employees, skilled and unskilled.", yet at the same time the Government is happy for 27,000 extra people to be on the unemployment benefit, it means, actually, that they don't know how to grow an economy, they don't know how to support workers, and they're happy to let people languish on the unemployment benefit and not actually find ways to get them to the workforce. 
You know, over the last term that we were in Government, 10,000 jobs a month were being created—10,000 jobs a month were being created by our economy coming out of the global financial crisis. You've got to remember, actually, we were a Government that didn't have a single surplus because of the great challenges that the world and New Zealand had faced. Well, now we're up to, in some months, only 1,000 jobs being created, and even less. And that's not the sign of a healthy economy. That's long—long—before any effect that the coronavirus has had upon the New Zealand economy.
Our economy should be doing much better than it is. It should be doing much better than it is. There should be many more opportunities for New Zealanders. This is a Government that should be investing in productive New Zealand. They should be investing in things that are going to get New Zealand moving, not throwing money around at projects that they like or they've always thought are good or, as we now see, so close to an election, anything where they can put a spade in the ground and they can cut a ribbon on to say it's being launched, they will apply money to. And the hard-working taxpayer, the hard-working Kiwi who every day is battling, whose costs are going up but their salaries are not, who are finding it harder to get to work because of congestion on our roads, deserve better than a Government that's just going to merely go out and throw money around so that they hope that the electorate won't notice and they can be re-elected. 
There are two points I want to touch on about that cost of living on New Zealand families, and they are fuel and fuel tax. We saw last week an announcement from the Prime Minister saying that the cost of fuel in parts of New Zealand may go down by 30c a litre. Well, good and well if that happens. But a study is not going to achieve that. Actually, extra tax piled on when Kiwis are doing it so hard, so difficult—three taxes from a Government around fuel and then an extra fuel tax in Auckland—is what has made it so much more difficult for them. Rents are up by $50 a week on average for Kiwis who rent and at the same time—at the same time—hard-working Kiwis are going backwards; they're not earning more. Yet this is a Government that won't support those who are in work. They're willing to give much more to those who are not working. They need an economic plan. 
National has one. And we're going to outline that and talk about it as we go forward to the election. We're going to make sure that we keep taxes low. We're going to keep debt low by being responsible managers of the economy and responsible when it comes to spending taxes—something this Government has never been accused of. We're going to grow incomes and lower the cost of living by looking at regulations. We're making it easier for people to do business and freeing up the workforce to be able to do the things that we need them to. We will invest in more core public services and infrastructure. 
The last speaker, Mr Little, said that they'd announced a $12 billion infrastructure project. Well, I say to Mr Little, and I say to the Prime Minister, you can't get to work faster on their announcement. The kids are still going to get wet walking on the sides of the road under their announcements. Actually, what the country needed to see was them having a plan to build infrastructure over the last two years, not merely do nothing at all and wait for a working group to tell them what to do. And we'll continue to create jobs and opportunities for all New Zealanders. We are ambitious for all New Zealanders—every single New Zealander. We want them to do better. The economy should have been doing better over the last two years. 
What I want to say to you and the public who are listening is that the coronavirus will be a big challenge for our economy. But it was slowing long before that and we should be in a much better position to deal with it. It's the ineptitude of this Government and that they haven't done their job properly, delivered on their promises over the last two years, that will make it so much more difficult for Kiwis.





FLETCHER TABUTEAU (Deputy Leader—NZ First): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It's a privilege to stand up on behalf of this Government and speak to the Prime Minister's statement. I think I could contribute my entire 10 minutes by correcting just about every line offered by the Hon Todd McClay in his contribution to the House.
Hon Gerry Brownlee: I don't think so.
FLETCHER TABUTEAU: I know so, Mr Brownlee. I know so and I will. 
But the first thing I want to point out, and it was noted on this side of the House, and I'm sure the other side of the House knew it wasn't coming—they knew it wasn't coming—but there was no mention of the great Opposition leader, Simon Bridges: not a murmur, not a mutter, not a single utterance of the name "Simon Bridges". Now, that's got to tell a story to New Zealanders, does it not?—a story of National probably hedging their bets on what the leadership might look like as they go into Opposition. 
But I will now spend my time replying to the previous speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: Well, hopefully talking to the Prime Minister's—
FLETCHER TABUTEAU: Yes, I am, and, thankfully, he was also. So what the previous speaker talked about was immigration and how hard it was to find. So, actually, what we've done as a Government is made it easier for Pacific peoples to come in to New Zealand, to come in to industries. Primarily, it is about getting out into our orchards and things like that. But actually, as the Minister behind me, Aupito William Sio, will know, what we're trying to do is expand that category so that more Pacific peoples can come in—and not just pick fruit; but can they work in leadership roles in the pack houses, or actually, where else have we got issues in terms of labour shortages? And we've said that perhaps in building homes, it might be a great idea to bring in more Pacific peoples to help build our homes. 
The previous speaker complained about immigration. What I would complain about that previous Government, the National Government, was that they used wanton, unfettered immigration as a way of growing the economy. In fact, again, Mr McClay mentioned GDP per capita. And I would contest his contribution strongly, because the average GDP per capita under the National Government in their nine years was less than 0.4 percent for the entire time. The claims that Mr McClay made did not ring with me in the House. He used a convenient statistic about 25,000 people out of work or something like that. But he forgets to add up the ongoing commitment this Government has made to work in supporting small businesses and large ones to employ more people. Just last quarter, there were 3,000 more people employed in our economy. And actually, according to Statistics New Zealand, actually all of them, all of the additional ones were women—quite an amazing statistic. 
So he then spoke about income and earnings and the cost of living. Well, actually, the cost of living has gone up, but wages have gone up faster than that cost.
Hon David Bennett: Oh!
FLETCHER TABUTEAU: Mr Bennett doesn't like to hear that good news, but our incomes, our disposable incomes, which are income after cost—for the benefit of those opposite—have gone up faster than the cost. Well, our disposable incomes have gone up.
It's interesting that Mr McClay would use fuel tax as an example of burden on the average New Zealander, because in Rotorua the price of petrol is lower than I've seen in years. It's under $2 per litre. So, yes, this Government did what the Opposition would have done had they been here, and we implemented and continued with the fuel tax regime, the road-user charges regime, but actually what we've since discovered is that the price of petrol has remained constant, and in my hometown of Rotorua, it's actually dropped.
He accused us of being a Government that hasn't done anything, but we've done more—and perhaps I'll use my own example to illustrate that—than the Opposition did in their nine years in Government. I like to think of them as a Government by public relations. All they did was release public PR statements to the media and told their support base and they told the media what they intended to do—what they intended to do. Judge them by their actions, I say. Judge them by their actions, because if we do that, then they will not pass and they have failed the people of New Zealand. On this side of the House, this Government, as was so clearly put forth by the Prime Minister in her statement to this House, we are doing more, simply just to catch up.
Can I use the example of housing, for example. In her contribution, the Prime Minister spoke about blue smoke. I like to think of it as a blue haze of denial. Over the last nine years, there were no houses built by the Opposition, no State houses built—oh, there were a few; I have to qualify that. There were a few State houses built by the Opposition in their time—
Hon Gerry Brownlee: Yeah, quite a few.
FLETCHER TABUTEAU: Yeah, quite a few, but there were more torn down, Mr Brownlee. There were more literally torn down by the National Government in their time, and so New Zealanders now are struggling. As has been pointed out on this side of the House numerous times, if those people on the Opposition benches there had built houses at the rate that this Government is doing right now, there would be no housing crisis in this country today. So what are we doing? We're cleaning up their mess. We're cleaning up the mess. They either find it funny or uncomfortable, but either way, thankfully, it's the truth.
They spoke about rents going up—well, Mr McClay spoke about rates going up by $50 a week. Well, actually, under the tenure of the previous Government, rents, funnily enough, went up. They went up by a similar amount. The line of regression shows the cost of renting rental properties has gone up at a steady and consistent rate.
Hon Gerry Brownlee: That's not right.
FLETCHER TABUTEAU: No, it is right, Mr Brownlee. It's very, very right. I'll tell you what a line of regression is later. So what the other member said was that National's economic promise to this country was that they would keep debt low. That's what the member said, but then he'd said we'd be spending more. He said there'd be less taxes but then there'd be more spending, and then he said we'd be investing more. These are the inconsistencies of the Opposition's argument to the people of New Zealand.
Thankfully, those New Zealanders have seen exactly what those empty promises and those empty words mean. They have seen it first-hand in the previous nine years of that previous Government. They saw first-hand the fact that they were underfunding our customs agency, for example.
Hon David Bennett: Can't even fill 10 minutes.
FLETCHER TABUTEAU: So a completely porous border, Mr Bennett. Mr Bennett, in his own hometown, was dealing with border incursions, viruses—was it red velvet? There were numerous incursions of viruses and diseases, and they sat on the other side there and said, "No, we've got it covered." Yet Minister Salesa just recently announced—correct me if I'm wrong, Minister—a more than $6 million increase in funding to New Zealand Customs so that they could protect our borders with more people, better protocols, and better systems so that New Zealand farmers, Mr Bennett—your mates, New Zealand farmers—could actually work and do their job without fear of infestation or their livelihoods being ruined because that Opposition party wasn't doing their job.
I finish just by using Rotorua as an example. I'm proud to say, for example, that Rotomā No. 1, a Māori trust in Rotorua, has committed to invest $80 million in the local business community. Why have they said that? They said that because this Government is investing more in our provinces and our regions and, of course, particularly more in Rotorua than ever before. They have the confidence and the belief to invest their people's money for future income and returns, and I'm proud to say that I have been part of that work. Thank you, Madam Speaker.





Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam): Who would believe that that speech has just been delivered by a former professor of economics? Very few, I think—not that there'll be many people listening to it, poring over it, or trying to understand what it said.
I rise to support the amendment by the Hon Simon Bridges to the Prime Minister's motion, and I am surprised, but actually not particularly thrown, by the fact that so many of the Labour Party speakers have stood up talking their hollow rhetoric. They remind me largely of the emperor with no clothes, and I say that because they're absolutely brilliant at making announcements not just once, not just twice, but three or four times over and never actually doing anything.
In my hometown of Christchurch: a big fanfare two years ago with the $300 million capital sum for Christchurch to get on with the business of recovery. How much of that's been spent? How much of that's been committed? Not one dollar. What about a new project that might've got the city moving? Not one—nothing that wasn't done by the previous Government.
Then you come to the issue of things like homelessness. Homelessness was going to be their big call—"We're going to fix it." What have we got? More people homeless, and why? Because they've dramatically reduced the rental pool by putting the boot into landlords from one end of the country to the other, not recognising that most are just mom and pop investors who are terrified of these new arrangements.
Then we get the economics professor saying there before that the Government's never built more State houses. That programme was all started under a National Government, and guess where the houses are being built? They're being built on land that was cleared of 60- and 70-year-old State house dungers that were no longer fit for people to live in. But this Government says, "No, they should still be there and they should be able to put people into them." They have absolutely no idea.
Consequence of all this: rents on average up $50 across the country, in some parts of the country much more—Queenstown and Auckland, for example, $70-75. That's over $2,500 a year. Then on top of that, let's add in the petrol costs. Now, Fletcher might like to say that petrol's cheap in Rotorua—
DEPUTY SPEAKER: Use his full name.
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: —but my constituents in the South Island don't live in Rotorua. They pay more than people are paying in Auckland, even though there's an Auckland regional fuel tax. So tell me how that works for the betterment of ordinary New Zealanders. That's an extra $700 a year. So we're climbing now to almost $3,500 worth of Government expenses thrown on to average New Zealand families because of their policies. So no wonder that child poverty is on the rise. No wonder that homelessness is growing.
Then we have today in the House the Minister of Housing standing up saying that they've really got on top of the shared equity scheme to get more people into their own homes. What do we hear from her? They've had 18 months of workshops, 18 months of sitting round looking at each other, thumb twiddling, wondering how they're going to spend the $400 million, which, by the way, they've announced for a third time. These people have no idea how to make things work, and that is the problem. The Prime Minister's statement was very, very much a ringing example of that.
Then we come to the Green Party. Tell me one thing the Green Party have achieved for the environment in the time that they've been in Government so far—just one. Absolute silence across the House. Their biggest achievement so far has been a referendum on personal use of marijuana. That's what they'll go out to the electorate with and say, "Look what we did. We've been a total doormat as far as the environment's concerned for the entire term, but, by the way, we got you a referendum on marijuana use." Fantastic!
Then, of course, if we look at other aspects of the environment, why is it that when there is an overwhelming majority in the House to pass the Kermadec legislation, it's not ever brought forward? It can only be that I'm wrong, that the National Party wants to support it but the Green Party doesn't, because if they did, it would be on the floor of the House any day of the week. I can see them over there in the Green Party all sort of waving their heads about and saying, "Oh no, but we're supporting the coalition." They're being walked all over by New Zealand First every day of the week. What happened to the "freebate" scheme? Well, we'll get the Official Information Act request eventually. Someone will release it—probably have to go to the Ombudsman to get anything these days off the most open and transparent Government New Zealand's ever seen! Then we'll find out, and what it will be, effectively, is that Mr Peters and his mob didn't think it was a good idea, so they gave the Greens the "Don't come Monday" on that particular one.
We've heard about the 12 infrastructure projects that were committed under a National Government—they keep on saying they weren't funded; well, they're funded Budget by Budget, and the last two Budgets have been theirs, and it's them who didn't fund them because they cancelled them. Now they turn up and say, "We've got a $12 billion infrastructure programme." Ask one question: what's on the list? Total silence, because there isn't one. It's just an announcement. Nothing to go with it; just an announcement. Unbelievable. And guess what? Between now and 19 September, we'll hear that announced over and over, and the Prime Minister will say, "We are the infrastructure Government, let's do this." Well, "let's do this" means just talk about it and not actually do it, and I think New Zealanders are starting to see through that.
We've seen the debacle over KiwiBuild. I can't stress enough how bad that is. How bad is it that a Government can set up a programme to build houses with huge targets, spend hundreds of millions trying to put it together, end up only building under that scheme 300 houses, then end up with many of those unsold, and have a State housing organisation turn around and say, "Don't give them to us because their specification isn't high enough."? I asked the Minister about this, and she said, "Oh, it's small things, like the benches aren't wide enough, the showers aren't big enough, there's no garages, the access ways aren't good enough." Well, what is good in them? And why were they so good for New Zealanders? Let me tell you, the market always speaks and it's spoken here with a ringing endorsement of the previous Government's policies because, last year, 25,000 houses were sold to first-home buyers using the scheme put in place by the previous Government. Megan Woods claims those as if they're all hers. Unbelievable.
And you keep on going through all of these things and finding the difficulties that people face all the time. What I think is really interesting is just how fascinated the Government is with themselves—absolutely fascinated. Now, when "the Professor" was speaking before, he was talking about all the wonderful things that he sees happening. The reality is he doesn't see them happening; he just hears about them. Just hears about them from his colleagues, hears about what we're going to do—what we're going to do. 
So I'm sure that the Labour Party going into the next election round will be not saying "Let's do this"; they should be saying, "Let's talk about doing this"—because that's been very successful for them: just talking about it, just announcing, never doing. There's no fear that that'll affect the New Zealand First Party in the next Parliament, by the way, no fear at all. I don't mean to be unkind, but I suspect that it's all over.
I want to make my final comments about the claim that they're going to reduce the cost of petrol and diesel at the pump. Well, here's the deal: in every $2.10 average per litre fuel price in New Zealand for petrol, there is $1.10 in tax—$1.10 in tax. And then there is—and this is the bit that moves all the time—the 70c cost of that fuel per litre. Now, as your exchange rate goes up or down, that moves. Everyone knows that these people have had some advantage from that. The final margin inside that, at best, is 30c—30c on a litre to land it, to distribute it, and to sell it; 30c. And so you have to say good luck to Megan Woods. She told me on Friday that they're going to bring in a regime somewhat like the electricity arrangements. Well, we know what those prices have done under this Government in their complete inability to get on top of regulatory arrangements in this country. This is, no doubt, a speech from the Prime Minister that is nothing more than the emperor in his new clothes strutting about, fascinated by himself.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: I understand this is a split call, so I call Jan Logie.





JAN LOGIE (Green): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It's with a sense of gratitude, really, that I stand to speak in response to the Prime Minister's speech about this Government's commitment to wellbeing and dealing with the really enduring underlying problems in this country that have not been given the attention that they desperately need for so many years. In my contribution I would like to focus on our work around family and sexual violence, because that is something that, from outside in the community many years ago, I spent many years working for reform on, and it is such a privilege to be part of bringing those changes into reality in the community. We do know, in this Government, and acknowledge that addressing family and sexual violence is one of our best chances we have as a country to improve wellbeing, and we're dealing with it. We've put it right up front on our agenda, and this has benefits to all of us in this country. 
I just want to take a moment to make this real for everyone in the House and people who may be listening, as I go through some of the news headlines that we've had just in two months this year in this area, where a former scout leader was convicted of sexually abusing five boys, over 40 years. A disgraced Rātana Church minister was jailed for predatory repeated child abuse. A judge threw out the appeal of an Otago man who savagely beat his partner and revived her to continue the abuse. Two were dead in a firearms incident in Castle Point. Family violence charges were dropped against a prominent medical professional, when he was given diversion. A Christchurch man drove into oncoming traffic, and admitted a raft of charges, including abuse of his partner. In Papatoetoe—an Auckland family tragedy where there was a slain mother, who had a protection order in place, and her violent estranged husband is now facing jail. A man spent hours in a car with a woman's body after he had murdered her. One of the most controlling men a judge had seen was sentenced to home detention in Balclutha. And sleep with one eye open—jail for a man who threatened a former girlfriend. A man shot at a school because he was angry when his daughter wouldn't go with him. A four-year-old child is in Starship Hospital from a family harm event. A sexual groomer told an undercover cop that age is only a number. A young autistic man was a victim of repeated sexual assaults under a disability support service. A high-profile sports star is currently in court for intimate partner violence. A New Zealander was jailed in Singapore for an attack on their girlfriend. A Rotorua father was charged with the murder of a five-year-old son. A Tauranga woman is dead as a result of a domestic incident. A woman was convicted of manslaughter after years of experiencing domestic violence. A man was sentenced for kicking his partner's dog to death. And a man was jailed for chasing his girlfriend with a chainsaw. 
In just two months, these are the stories that made it through into headlines in our media, and yet the research tells us that police are called out to incidents of family harm every four minutes in this country. These headlines are just the tip of the iceberg of the trauma being experienced on a daily basis in our country. We have to act, and if we act we can change this. 
That is why within just such a short period in this Government we have created a whole-of-Government response to bring Police, Courts, Health, Education, and other agencies together. We've passed three pieces of legislation, including world-first legislation for leave. We've introduced sexual violence legislation to reduce retraumatisation, committed unprecedented funding in our Budget towards front-line services, we're looking at prevention and rehabilitation properly for the first time ever, we've taken sexual harassment seriously as a workplace and safety issue, and building the data and reviewing the destructive Family Court reforms that prioritised saving money over the safety of women and children in this country. This is work for all of us, and if we are to take wellbeing seriously, this work is at the heart of our future.





Hon EUGENIE SAGE (Minister of Conservation): E Te Māngai o Te Whare, tēnā koe. Last weekend, we had National's Bluegreens conference, and we were promised a big announcement. What was that announcement? A $5 million fund for community groups for conservation work and beach clean-ups. That epitomises the National Party and nature—what a retread. The National Party seem to have forgotten that there was already a community conservation fund. In fact, it opened for applications last week. Rehashing existing policy, no new ideas—that is National.
New Zealanders need to be able to enjoy nature. We need to restore the dawn chorus in our forests. We need to be able to have healthy oceans where whales, dolphins, fish, and seabirds flourish. But the previous National Government slashed conservation funding. It ignored the fact that our most essential infrastructure is nature itself. It gutted several hundred rangers from the Department of Conservation (DOC), while allowing the seas to be plundered by fishing interests. National failed to act to strengthen the Resource Management Act, to have a strong national policy statement to protect our rivers and streams—instead, they got dirtier with dairy intensification. But with this Government, in just over two years, we have set out to right that neglect with a series of ambitious programmes to address the challenges that National, in its blue-smoke era, failed to do.
So under this Government, we have seen really good progress. The key is passing the zero carbon Act, to ensure that we have a framework to enable us to reduce our carbon emissions and protect our climate. We have seen a record investment in conservation not just in Budget 2018, with an extra $180 million, but again in Budget 2019, thanks to the international tourism and conservation levy. That means that visitors can contribute to protecting nature in Aotearoa, to protecting the landscapes that they come to enjoy.
What has the result of this been? A real investment in dealing to predators. In the current financial year, Te Papa Atawhai—the Department of Conservation—has organised the biggest ever aerial predator control operation: over more than 800,000 hectares, to deal with possums, rats, and stoats, to ensure that birds like the kākāriki and the kea are protected from those mammalian predators. We have ensured that there's been support for kākāpō. The mast year has meant more pests, but it's also meant the best breeding season ever for kākāpō, and there are now 211 birds—and really honour the work of Auckland Zoo, the Dunedin wildlife hospital, and all of those volunteers who have supported the DOC staff in ensuring that the aspergillosis outbreak was treated and contained.
Under this Government, we've had the biggest ever addition to a national park, with 640,000 hectares added to Kahurangi National Park in the Mōkihinui catchment. We have named the 11th great walk—Hump Ridge Track, in Southland—and we've had a huge effort by the Department of Conservation and the Defence Force to clean up the Fox River landfill. There is so much more to do. We have a global biodiversity crisis. We have a crisis in New Zealand, but working alongside mana whenua, with community organisations—[Interruption]
DEPUTY SPEAKER: Excuse me. Order! Order! In fairness to the person speaking. Thank you.
Hon EUGENIE SAGE: Thank you, Madam Speaker. We are tackling that crisis.
It's rich to hear Mr Brownlee talk about the environment, because over and over again, I have been congratulated for the action that this Government is undertaking on waste, doing more in the last two years than the National Government did in nine.
We're setting up the design criteria for a container return scheme, because New Zealanders use about 188 plastic bottles each year, and the bulk of those end up going to landfill. So we need to have a container return scheme. We're designing waste out of our system, encouraging resource recovery, with criteria for mandatory product stewardship—again, the first time that a Government has proposed that.
We've got a major resource recovery programme under way to improve and better coordinate kerbside recycling, so we get more resources being recovered and reprocessed rather than going to landfills, and we're expanding the landfill levy so we have more revenue to recycle back into waste minimisation—all issues that the National Party failed to tackle. This Government has got an ambitious programme. It's well under way. We need more time to go further and faster.





Hon DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East): Thank you, Madam Speaker. When this Government was first elected, I did a speech around socialism and what socialists tend to do. Unfortunately, everything I've said has come true. We are in the midst of a social experiment that hasn't worked: a social experiment of the socialism that the left has brought to this House, trying to make everybody equal, of those beliefs that there's no competition in this world, and that the 60 people on that side of the House, who are the intellectual elite of the Labour Party, can determine the future of a country without having to let anybody work or do anything. It's like things just happen under their utopia, where the Government just decides what to do and can save the world by being helpful, kind, caring, and loving, in times when we actually need leadership and we actually need people that do their job.
What we've seen from this Government is a Government that has ruined New Zealand. Within two years, they have taken this country into deficit and, effectively, taken this country into negative growth. That is the legacy of the Labour - New Zealand First - Greens Government. And why has that happened? Well, we've got a leader that has no detail. It's all just general stuff. You know, "I can swan around the world and be on a magazine post, and that's enough, and that's all that you need to do."—don't need to be able to understand economics, don't need to be able to actually invest in an economy, don't need to be able to do any of those things. Now, that's what we've got in the Labour leader.
Then the New Zealand First leader—what have we got? Some economic guru that has never made a dollar in his life, never been involved in business, and yet understands everything that needs to be done, knows exactly what needs to be done for the New Zealand economy, when the man has lived off the teat of this building for the last 40 years and has never actually done a job. He is actually determining the leadership of this country by defining what the Prime Minister does. Winston Peters is the true economic genius across that side of the House. Don't listen to Grant Robertson. Grant knows what his job is. Grant's job is just to make sure—
DEPUTY SPEAKER: Use his full name.
Hon DAVID BENNETT: —that his caucus are placid and do nothing behind the scenes. He knows that the number one thing is just keeping that coalition together. That's all it's about. Jacinda's going to be out there—
DEPUTY SPEAKER: Would the member use the full names, please.
Hon DAVID BENNETT: —swanning around the world, and Grant Robertson is going to be there, just supporting the Winston Peters that is the economic guru that we've all been waiting for.
Then there's the Green Party. The Green Party doesn't really care at all. Anything that will enable the Green Party to have a left-wing Government is all they want, and the result of that is that this country has been ruined. We have seen that in what has happened in this country.
Julie Anne Genter is there, and I'll come on to transport soon, but we'll just talk about the wider economic base. That's so important, because the point of Government in New Zealand is to maintain the security and support of our people going forward. This Government has not done that. They have put us at risk, and we are seeing that now with two major effects coming into this economy: the drought and the coronavirus—things that weren't seen in November last year but now are coming into this country. They have been let in by that Government, the coronavirus and the drought. Those two things will have an immediate impact on our economic potential, and we will be in deficit at this next Budget, and we will be in negative economic growth after this next Budget, all because of this mismanagement of the current Government. That is all it is, because if they had continued on the path that National had done, they would have been able to withstand those kind of shocks.
We would have been able to continue on as a strong right-wing country. Now, if we look at a great example of that, it's the Waikato. We'll look at the Waikato as an example. We had our mayors here today, all coming down to meet with these leaders, these great economic leaders, and talk to them, and what do they get? Two years in, they get a roundabout. That's all we got out of this Government—was a roundabout, after two years. That's all that they can give to the population of over 500,000 people through that area, and what do we get? A roundabout. We don't even get the Provincial Growth Fund because we don't meet the criteria in Hamilton for the Provincial Growth Fund, because—[Interruption] Oh no, we did. No, I am wrong. We got some money for a theatre. That's going to really turn the economy around in the Waikato.
But where is the Provincial Growth Fund in Hamilton? Where is the Labour Party in Hamilton? The Labour Party have done one thing in Hamilton—one thing, they've done. They've built—or are going to build—a train from Hamilton to Auckland. It's a diesel train—a diesel train—which is actually going to be less environmentally friendly than if you had the cars on the road that are all going to be electric cars in the future. It's got a maximum of 160 people that can go on it, and it takes you two hours to get to Papakura. That's a great idea! And what did they cancel? They cancelled a road that has 20,000 people going on it a day from Cambridge to Piarere. They cancelled that road. If you talk to the Labour Party, they'll say, "Oh, but it was never funded. That road was never funded." That is incorrect. The Government policy statement (GPS) for the next three years had that road in it. The Labour Party took it out of the GPS, which is funded in the Government books. So the Labour Party has deliberately gone out there and cancelled the one project that they could have given to the Waikato, and given us nothing of any consequence in return.
You may say, "Well, they don't get any votes out of the Waikato. They don't win any seats there, so why would you expect them to look after that area?" Well, that may be the case, but what it does is show their economic mismanagement. That kind of economic mismanagement has been replicated around the country. If you go to the Hawke's Bay, the infrastructure there has not been done. Go to Southland; the infrastructure there has not been done. If you go to the Bay of Plenty, the infrastructure there has not been done. Once we get a situation where there is a Government that sits in Wellington and is a pack of people that are academic elite for the Labour Party—
Fletcher Tabuteau: You've got two degrees.
Hon DAVID BENNETT: —well, I'm not a professor—that are sitting there and think they can justify their actions, what they do is they make incompetent decisions, as we've seen from that side, and the result of those incompetent decisions is that we do not have growth in the regions. If there's not growth in the regions, there's not growth in New Zealand. 
So the economic failure New Zealand will face at this election can be sheeted home to that Government, and it can be sheeted home to the way that that Government is formed. It is a Government that is formed by a leadership that is all show, whether it is the showmanship of our Prime Minister or it's the showmanship of our Deputy Prime Minister. There's no detail there. They do not understand how to make a dollar. They do not understand our regions, they do not understand the New Zealand economy, and they do not understand the risk that we put New Zealanders in every day in this House if we get it wrong. They have got it wrong, and New Zealanders now face the pain of a Labour - Greens - New Zealand First Government—the pain of having poor economic growth, the pain of having Budget deficits. That will come through in the next few years, and New Zealanders will lose jobs. New Zealanders will pay more for the things they need, and New Zealanders' standard of living will all reduce, and it cannot be sheeted home to international factors; it is a direct result of the incompetence of the current Government, the competence of the management, and the incompetence of the personnel that lead the New Zealand First and Labour parties.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: I call the Hon Jenny Salesa, and before I do, can I just remind members they use the full name—use the full name, even when you interject.





Hon JENNY SALESA (Minister for Building and Construction): Thank you so much for this opportunity to discuss what our Government is achieving in response to the Prime Minister the Rt Hon Jacinda Ardern's statement. There is so much going on, so much progress over the last two years, that 10 minutes is actually not long enough for me to cover everything that this Government has delivered. I will, however, try to cover at least three of the portfolios that I'm responsible for, and let me begin with building and construction. 
When we came into office in late 2017, we were facing a housing crisis, one that the previous Government did not even acknowledge existed. We also had so many schools and hospitals that were not funded, had not been maintained, and the capital infrastructure had not been invested in those schools and those hospitals over the last period of nine years during the last Government. We were also facing a shortage of skills in building and construction by at least 30,000 people. But in just two years, we have achieved a lot of important steps to ensuring that we address these issues, these long-term issues. 
I've got to say that one of those things that I'm really proud of is the fact that we in this Government, we acknowledge that addressing long-term issues is not something that our Government can do on our own. We reached out to industry. We have now got the Construction Sector Accord. In addition to that, we also have a partnership with local government, because we know that in order to address the long-term issue in building construction, we must work with industry and with local government. I've got to say, when the Prime Minister, the Rt Hon Jacinda Ardern, came to launch the Construction Sector Accord in April of last year in South Auckland, we had 13 leaders from industry. Fast forward to today: we have over 500 leaders in industry and employers who are there partnering with us alongside council. 
Let me say one of the areas we have begun this delivery: procurement guidelines is one of those areas. Instead of just continuing to procure in the way of the past, what we've done from October of last year is we've said as Government, and Cabinet has signed off, that from 1 October last year, we will ensure that the $41 billion we procure—we will ensure that the folks, the employers, that we actually have contracts with are taking on people to train and to ensure that we have apprentices.
In order for us to train as much as we have to to fill up the gap of 30,000—and the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) tells me that because of such a demand in building and construction, we're going to be short by about 80,000 people in this area. So in order for us to ensure that we train up—and I've asked MBIE this question: how many do we have in building and construction? The answer is about 275,000 workers. But when you look at how many of those people are coming from overseas, there's only about less than 7 percent of those people coming from overseas. 
So one of the areas that our Government has actually come through with loud and clear is the investment in fees-free. Now, people on the other side of the aisle, you know, they say that is not a good investment. But can I say one of the ways of ensuring we have the trained, skilled workers that we need is investing in fees-free. When you choose to go to university, it is one year fees-free, but when you choose to go to a trade or polytechnic, it's two years fees-free. In order for us to train as many workers as we need to build the houses, the hospitals, the schools that we need, and the railroads that we need, we need skilled people. We need to train up our own, because when we look at those overall numbers, as I say, there's only about 7 percent of those who are coming from overseas, so the long-term solution—this is another area that we have a differing opinion between this side of the House and the other side of the House. The long-term solution is we train up our own people to build up our own houses. 
When we look at the construction workforce, in the last two years that we've been in Government, we've grown the construction sector workforce by 11,000 people—4,700 new apprentices are learning a construction trade. We're lifting the status of trades in high schools with the Prime Minister's Vocational Excellence Award. Just under 1,000 of our students are actually being awarded that.
But I move now to the second area—customs. We in this Government are delivering in customs. Our coalition Government has achieved some stunning results in customs. I'd like, first of all, though, to thank our customs officers who are at the forefront of our borders right now. But before I discuss the record haul of drugs that customs officers have been able to stop at the border last year, let me first talk about how Customs is making life easier for some of our businesses—our exporters.
We have rolled out the Secure Exports Scheme to air freight. This is an express service that allows exporters of wine, kiwifruit, manufactured parts, and more to get their products to international consumers even faster than before. The Secure Exports Scheme cuts down the processing times with customs from one hour to only 60 seconds per order. It is progress like this that really matters to New Zealand businesses. Our message from Government is clear: we are here to work right alongside you, businesses.
Government is also here to work right alongside our communities, because when it comes to preventing harm from hitting our streets via illegal drugs, Customs has delivered. Our Government invested $58 million over the next four years to disrupt drug smuggling networks, including $3.9 million for capital investment, like technology and surveillance equipment. This investment is paying off.
Now, two weeks ago, I reported to this House how that investment, basically, stopped three tonnes—three tonnes—of illegal drugs from hitting our streets, and according to the drug health report, that is actually the equivalent of $3 billion worth of drugs, in terms of social harm, that has not reached our streets. In terms of methamphetamine, over 1,000 kilograms of meth; meth precursors, over 329 kilograms; MDMA or ecstasy, 739 kilograms have been stopped; and cocaine, 60 kilograms have been stopped at the border. Fifty-eight million dollars of our investment in this Government means smarter investments so that we're working with our offshore law enforcement people in Australia, Canada, and the US to stop these drug smugglers before they even leave some of those offshore places, and it has also meant Customs has been enabled to hire nearly a hundred extra people to assist them with that work.
In the last few minutes, I want to talk about the work that we do in ethnic communities. In the ethnic communities portfolio, this is another area where it's really different from this side of the House compared to the other side. And I can make this contrast like this: when we came into Government, we looked at the ethnic communities portfolio, and we know when the ethnic communities portfolio was created under the last Labour Government, it was with a staff of about 22 full-time staff members. They had a fund—ECDF, Ethnic Communities Development Fund—of about $500,000 and, at the time, the director was a second-tier report, meaning that that person reported directly to the chief executive of the Department of Internal Affairs. Under the last Government, that was actually put down to a third-tier report, and there was only an increase of $20,000 to that fund. What we did in Government—as I announced last year in December—the Ethnic Communities Development Fund is now $4.2 million every year. We've actually expanded the criteria for the Ethnic Communities Development Fund to include not only social inclusion and community development but it now includes education as well as employment initiatives. The other thing that we've done in that sector is, in terms of the Wellbeing Budget of last year, $9.4 million was invested in ethnic communities.
Also, in terms of the Safer Communities Fund, there's an investment of just under $7 million. In terms of what it is that we're doing for ethnic communities, we are looking out for ethnic communities. We do have a lot of consultations that we've done, especially after 15 March. I held the last of the interfaith hui here in Wellington—over a hundred leaders came to attend that particular hui, and I can say that there was a lot of positive comments about just how different Ethnic Communities is today compared to what it was just over two years ago. We are a Government that's delivering. We're delivering in customs, we're delivering in ethnic communities, and we're most definitely delivering in building and construction. Thank you very much, Madam Speaker.





JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth): Thank you, Madam Speaker, for the opportunity to speak in reply to the Prime Minister's statement in February. The Prime Minister has taken great pride in signalling to the world that New Zealand is leading the world in closing down oil and gas exploration. In fact, she devoted four full seconds in her 20-minute speech to say, "[The Government has] ended [new] offshore oil and gas exploration". Four full seconds—quite a momentous sentence in relation to her "nuclear-free moment" policy regarding banning permits for oil and gas exploration. So why four full seconds? Why only that? Well, simply put, like many of her policies, such as KiwiBuild and child poverty reduction, it's backfiring. It's not producing what she promised. It's not even improving outcomes. In fact, it's doing the opposite: it is making matters worse.
It's quite interesting that recently the Minister of Energy and Resources, the Hon Megan Woods, released a Cabinet paper about progressing the Electricity Price Review recommendations, and there is the now famous paragraph 107, which has had multiple articles up and down this country written about it, where in that Cabinet paper it says "Also of interest as a low-impact option is whether policy levers for the Minister of Energy and Resources are warranted on the grounds of market failure."—whatever that may be—"A possible option is the provision of emergency powers to reallocate electricity or gas in situations of acute electricity or gas shortage."
I think what has taken the energy sector by surprise is that, for the first time, the Minister is proposing to introduce powers to reallocate electricity or gas reserves or resources if there was an acute shortage. And here we are; we're looking at a Government who has decided to end exploration for oil and gas, and natural gas, as we know, is actually a quite critical component of our finely balanced energy system for a country that's isolated at the bottom of the world. We're not like a European country, where we can just buy renewable electricity from Norway and they pipe it to us. We are a country miles away from anywhere. The only energy we can actually import is crude oil, and that is what we do.
So what we have is a Government that, basically, is taking a very heavy-handed approach to matters in terms of closures of exploration, and then, to compensate because they are concerned that there could be shortages coming up in that particular area, creating a power to reallocate. Well, I call it a "power to confiscate", to cut across commercial contracts between producers and consumers—mostly they will be industrial consumers—to take what they have contracted to buy and then reallocate it. If you don't see that as a form of nationalism, then what is—where the Crown, the State, can actually confiscate? And I think it's taken everybody by surprise, because it's seen in the context of this exploration ban. No wonder the Prime Minister, in a 20-minute speech, gave only four seconds of cognisance to that particular part of policy, because I actually think that it's quite a significant embarrassment to the Government that they're now putting in mechanisms and regulations—certainly proposing them—to make up for what they perceive to be a lack coming forward. We have said all the time—we have said all the time—that there is a potential gap coming in our energy system, and now the Government is putting this insurance policy and this mechanism in place.
What we found in 2019, in this past year, is that the world continued to support the use of natural gas. In fact, the International Energy Agency reported that, last year, 2019, even though the world economy grew by 2.9 percent, emissions flat-lined. They put that down to the increase of renewables—all credit to that—but they also put it down to the fact that electricity generation was moving away from coal to using natural gas, which has a far lower carbon content in its emissions.
Stuart Smith: Not in New Zealand.
JONATHAN YOUNG: And—yes, but as my colleague Stuart Smith said, "Not in New Zealand." No, in fact the opposite happened here, because in 2019 we used 19 percent less natural gas for electricity generation. But to compensate, to keep the lights on, to keep industry going, and to keep the TVs happening and businesses continuing to have access to electricity, what we had to do, because we had less gas, was we had to burn more coal. In fact, we burnt 115 percent more coal last year. If you go to Genesis reports on Huntly and you look at the gigawatt hours that were generated from coal use from Huntly power station, you will see the increase was 115 percent. If you go to the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment's website, in terms of generation when it comes from natural gas, you'll see that it declined by 90 percent.
So we are the first country in the world that instead of moving from coal to natural gas, we've gone from natural gas to coal, and all because we have shortages. What I say is that this Government has been reckless by its rash, ideological intervention; instead of consulting with the energy market, they've interrupted it—they think that's a good thing. What's happened is that it's just gone backwards; it's backfired. No wonder it's only four seconds in a 20-minute speech; it's an embarrassment.
What I think is completely surprising is that when the International Energy Agency do an introduction on New Zealand's energy situation, this entity based in Paris—fully au fait with the Paris Accord, fully au fait with energy requirements, demand and supply around the world—makes some great comments about its integrated, well-balanced energy system, but they finish off their comments by saying this: "It's recommended that New Zealand develop access to global liquefied natural gas markets because the country is phasing out oil and gas production offshore." So what they're saying is that because they see this policy position that has been made and put in place by this Government that doesn't have access to indigenous natural gas, we should be accessing international markets for LNG; so we should buy our gas from offshore.
Well, in my last couple of minutes I just want to revert back now to December 2008, to my first parliamentary speech, which was about importing LNG—liquefied natural gas. You know, in order to liquefy natural gas, you bring it down to 162 degrees below zero: minus 162. You ship it from an LNG production plant from different places around the world, with specially designed tankers, you offload it, and re-gasify it through a reheating process. This creates—believe it or not—a carbon footprint significantly higher than domestic or indigenous natural gas. Indigenous natural gas produces 52 kilograms of carbon dioxide equivalent per gigajoule of energy—that's what it creates. But the full fuel cycle analysis done on gas through LNG produces, when you look at it, 73 kilograms of carbon dioxide equivalent per gigajoule of any—a 40 percent increase. So this is what the International Energy Agency is saying that we now ought to do because this Government across here made a stupid decision based on ideological thinking that we needed to ban oil and gas exploration.
We now need to import—because, let me tell you, there are industries that electricity will not cut the mustard for; they need natural gas. We either lose them or, in the end, we have to import with a 40 percent increase in carbon emissions. Just another self-goal. No wonder four seconds in a 20-minute speech; it's an embarrassment.
I think what this Government ought to do instead of, you know, trashing an industry, instead of throwing my electorate and my region under the bus, what they should really do is they really should admit that they've made some mistakes. They should overturn what they have done, because it's only been counter-productive to the environment, counter-productive to our economy, counter-productive to my electorate, to my region, and it has not worked one little iota. It's about time we had a sensible, serious Government.





Hon WILLIE JACKSON (Minister of Employment): Yes, we do have a very sensible and serious Government. That was a sad speech from the member there, who is clearly out of touch. A good man, might I add—a good man—but, sadly, out of touch with his members up there in Taranaki, who want something new, who want something innovative, who don't want to keep going down the same track. Jonathan Young: out of touch with his people up there. I always thought the young whānau were lefties; they were lefties and then they went the wrong way—the right way—and now we have that sort of terrible speech today. A shocking performance there from the member—a shocking exhibition there.
Can I congratulate, first and foremost, this coalition Government. What a fantastic Government this is, you know? The Greens over there who drove being part of that whole turn-around in the Taranaki; we're backing them up absolutely—wonderful, courageous, and creative work from them in that area. We don't want to go down the old track that the Tories have gone down. Can I also congratulate New Zealand First—I think doing a terrific job today—and the leader, again, upending Gerry Brownlee in question time today; clearly too good for the Opposition. This is a strong coalition.
This is the coalition, this is the Government in terms of infrastructure. We've made it very, very clear: this is a Government for infrastructure. A Government in—[Interruption]
Oh he can laugh away—he can laugh away—but the polls are telling us something different. The polls are telling us that National are the "National No-mates Party"—they are the "National No-mates Party"!
We are the Government—
Hon Mark Mitchell: Tell us about the polls. 
Hon WILLIE JACKSON: —in terms of infrastructure—well, our polls have been telling you. I can't share those with you, Mr Mitchell. But our polls tell us that we are comfortably in front at the moment, and the Greens and New Zealand First are cruising along. Despite the desperate, desperate attempts from Mr Bridges to get rid of New Zealand First, they're only getting stronger—they're only getting stronger. It's a shame that Mr Jones isn't here today, too.
But can I say that we are the party in terms of infrastructure. We are the party in terms of education—there's no doubt about that; Nikki Kaye, I'm sure, would agree with that; she gets on so well with our Minister of Education. We are the party in terms of education; sorry, the Government in terms of education—I forget, coalition Government. We are the Government in terms of health—in terms of health—because we picked up after a Government that put minimal investment into the health area. You only have to go to my local hospital, Middlemore Hospital, to see the damage that the previous Government had done. 
We are the Government absolutely for Māori; there is no doubt about that—for Māori. I want to ask the question today, because I totally support—totally support—and endorse the Prime Minister's kōrero when she opened this debate that we are a Government that is looking after everyone but we are most definitely—yes, Mr Mitchell's going because he's a bit embarrassed about this—the Government for Māori. I'm glad he sat down, because I want to ask Mr Mitchell the question today: what did the last Government do for Māori? Absolutely nothing. Minimal investment. They gave us the dirty rotten Te Ture Whenua Maori Bill—that's what they gave us. Mr Finlayson upset so many Māori that they got rid of their own mates: the Māori Party—they got rid of their own mates. How did they do that? By not investing in the people, and forgetting all about Māori. They said, "Māori Party, you look after that." Oh well, they really looked after things, so much so that they're gone—they're gone.
Hon Mark Mitchell: The Māori Party are resurgent.
Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Oh, they're going to come back? What's the strategy for the National Party? The Māori Party will come back—in their dreams. What we know with the Māori Party is, sadly—good people; some of them my relations, some of them my friends, but we'll have to draw the battle-lines soon. But what we know about them is they supported the ture whenua, and then they ended up giving us Ihumātao—we know how much New Zealand First supports us there. They ended up giving us Ihumātao.
Well, we know what's going on there. The National Party, along with the Māori Party, set aside their special housing area and stuffed all the Māori up in Ihumātao. That's what they did. Now, what we're trying to do—good Government that we are, strong Māori caucus—is we're trying to unravel the damage. But I want to say to Māori supporters out there: just remember who stuffed Ihumātao up. It was the National Party and it was the Māori Party, and Simon Bridges' strategy going forward is "Let's hope the Māori Party gets in". Well, they don't have a great chance. They've got Debbie Ngarewa-Packer down there in Taranaki—terrific woman that she is; I work with her very closely—no chance against the Speaker today—
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Order! Don't bring me into this.
Hon WILLIE JACKSON: My apologies, Mr Speaker. You just happened to be there. Rawiri Waititi up against Tamati Coffey. Rawiri Waititi—one of our bros. You know, we love him; great on the guitar. No chance against Tamati Coffey—no chance. The problem with Rawiri is he thinks it's a whaikōrero contest, but Waiariki was won on the streets of Murupara, in Rotorua, in Whakatāne. It wasn't won on the marae, otherwise Te Ururoa Flavell would have won, and as we know, he lost badly. So—
Hon Members: Ha, ha!
Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Don't laugh. We respect him very much, but the reality is we're on track, because we've got a strong Māori caucus and Māori strategy that has delivered. Where have we delivered? In terms of Māori health, record investment in terms of mental health; in terms of the Families Package, $75 extra a week now for Māori families—for all families. In terms of district health boards, 45 new members on district health boards—45 members on district health boards. In terms of the 5G spectrum, Treaty rights now being recognised in terms of Māori rights on the 5G spectrum—well done, Kris Faafoi. In terms of the law courts, Joe Williams couldn't get anywhere with the National Party and the Māori Party—nowhere, gone. We've promoted our mate Joe; he's now running the Supreme Court. Māori are doing so much better in terms of this Government, and with a little hope and a bit more work we might just get there on Ihumātao—who knows? But we're on track now. We're on track in terms of turning things around.
I haven't even mentioned my own portfolio, employment. In employment we've done terrifically well.
Hon Mark Mitchell: You've got two minutes left.
Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Well, you know I could go for another 10 minutes, as you know, Mr Mitchell, but the reality is that in employment, again, we had stuff-all investment from the National Party. What have we done there? Well, through the Regional Development (Provincial Growth) Fund, through He Poutama Rangatahi, we've had record investment in the regions. Well done, us. We've had Shane Jones working with me in terms of getting the nephs off the couch. We enjoyed seeing some of the National MPs at our launches. So Poutama Rangatahi is going well.
Mana in Mahi—that's giving dignity to some of our young people. Our Prime Minister mentioned it in her speech. It's not about working for the dole; it's about working in terms of retaining your mana. We're so proud of Mana in Mahi. The Opposition—Mark Mitchell, in particular, is one of the most negative people in this House. I've watched him sometimes; a sad example of an MP, along with, well, just about all of them. But the reality is Mana in Mahi is giving dignity back to our people, and we have a 70 percent—a 70 percent—success rate, but all they can stand up and do is talk about the dole. That disappeared years ago, and well done to Carmel Sepuloni, who refuses to acknowledge their stupid questions that come through every day with regards to the dole. So we're on track in terms of employment.
The minimum wage is going to go up. That's really good, because the minimum wage is important. We will not work people on slave wages like you will, Mr Mitchell. We won't do that. We will have the minimum wage going up. We've got more Māori in employment now than ever before, less Māori in terms of unemployment. We're on a roll. This is a happy and wonderful Government, and this Māori caucus is just doing so well.
Record investment: over half a billion dollars—over half a billion dollars in the last Budget round. Iwi, they love us. They didn't like us at the start, but they love us now. We had a wonderful meeting with them—
Hon Member: Living the dream.
Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Yeah, we're living the dream. They tell me universally that they can't stand National, and I support that. Kia ora tātou.





MELISSA LEE (National): Thank you, Mr Speaker. That is 10 minutes of my life that I'm never going to get back. I wish I wasn't actually sitting here listening to that, because that was a lesson in what I would call verbal diarrhoea. It is what I call 10 minutes of loud talk with no content. I thought, for a member who used to be a broadcaster on radio—and I used to love him on radio, and I used to think that he was so excellent on radio—here in Parliament, he spoke with utter rubbish content.
He yelled about how the Jacinda Ardern and Winston Peters coalition was delivering for New Zealand, apparently, but he couldn't come up with any proof that they are, in fact, delivering. He spent, I don't know, something like seven minutes talking about "We are a Government of this.", and "We are a Government of that.", but no content. I think he was probably playing the air guitar as well.
So let me remind that member of some of the things that the Prime Minister, in fact, spoke about during the Prime Minister's statement. One of the things that I—you know, it's a little while ago, so I'm trying to actually remember what she said. I think she actually talked about child poverty, how this Government was eradicating child poverty, and that she is, in fact, the Minister responsible for child poverty. Guess what! Seven out of nine indicators for child poverty are worse under this Government than before.
She also talked about how this Government—the coalition Government; the Jacinda Ardern and Winston Peters and Green Party coalition—was going to get rid of people sleeping in cars. Guess what! There are more people sleeping in cars. They were going to have people not housed in motels because they were going to build more houses. They were going to deliver KiwiBuild houses. Guess what! How many were they supposed to deliver? One thousand KiwiBuild homes in the first year, 5,000 KiwiBuild homes in the second year, 10,000 KiwiBuild homes in the third year. I don't think they've even gone as far as their first year target. I think they've only delivered a couple of hundred.
If that is what this Government calls aspirational, I want no bar of that aspiration. I have no dream to share their dream of delivering for New Zealanders, because they're only delivering a couple of hundred homes, when they've actually promised 10,000 homes, 5,000 homes. That's actually 16,000 homes by the end of the first term, and they're only doing a couple of hundred. I say that's a very, very low bar. That is actually not even a target. That is a very, very low bar. I would actually like to ask the gentleman who sat down whether he believes that that is delivering for New Zealand. That is really not delivering for New Zealand.
How about fees-free education? They're spending billions of dollars on fees-free education and everything else, but the thing is that how many more university students did that policy deliver?
Hon Member: Surely thousands—surely.
MELISSA LEE: No, no. There are no—the thing is, university students, you know, there are children who actually want to go and study at university, including my son, who has actually just returned to university in second year after doing a gap year. So there are students who will actually go to uni. The thing is, I believe they should have targeted it, instead of actually making it for free. Today, I discover from my colleagues that there are some people who are actually rorting the system, who should not have got the fees-free, but they got it anyway. So it is actually open for rort. This is failed policy, as far as I'm concerned.
There is so much more—I mean, we talked about coronavirus today. There are a lot of people who are actually concerned about it. I'm not so sure if the Government actually acted quickly enough. There is so much concern out there. Today, I heard from one of my constituents, a Chinese New Zealander, a New Zealand citizen of Chinese descent. Her daughter was going to school and was bullied by a boy walking to school. Guess what: the boy asked her daughter if she has "the Chinese virus". That is sad. I know that members opposite would actually agree with me that that should not happen.
But the thing is, information should go out there. People should be informed as to how the virus is actually transmitted. There should be more happening at the airport. People are not being tested. People are actually asked to self-isolate. They're getting a piece of paper saying "self-isolate". They don't quite know what they're supposed to do. They have nowhere to go. They've got a home. So do they check into a motel to self-isolate? What about their family? I don't think there is actually enough done by the Government. 
Talking about the things that the Government's not doing very well, I just want to talk a little bit about the portfolio that I am responsible for: broadcasting, communications, and digital media. One of the things that has actually happened—over the years on this particular portfolio, they haven't actually done very well. They were going to be the Government that was going to be most transparent. The Minister who was supposed to deliver the transparency, the Hon Clare Curran—we know what happened with Clare Curran and Radio New Zealand, right? There was the issue of not being so transparent. Let's actually not go there.
But the thing is, there were Radio New Zealand and Television New Zealand, which this Government and the current Minister of Broadcasting, Communications and Digital Media were going to merge. He took it to Cabinet. He actually told me before Christmas that he wanted to have a conversation with me about it—I'm still waiting for that phone call. But we find out through the media that he has already taken it to Cabinet. Minister Faafoi is the Minister. He took it to Cabinet. It got rejected—guess why—because they believe that he should have done the business case first.
I would have thought doing a business case—
Hon Mark Mitchell: Willie would never have done that.
MELISSA LEE: Willie would never agree to that. Not doing a business case, actually coming to Cabinet—Willie would have said "Go back, mate, and actually do the business case first. Come back with a really good idea."
So now they're going to be doing a business case. This is so typical of this Government. They don't do the homework, and, when they think that they've actually got the answer, they deliver and they have to think back because now they're going to have to go to a working group to ask the right questions to see if they can actually deliver it for New Zealand.
The thing is, when I mentioned the whole issue about coronavirus, one of the concerns that I had was if this is being managed the same way that measles was actually handled. That is actually a shocking way that they've mishandled the measles epidemic.
Dr Deborah Russell: Repetition.
MELISSA LEE: I haven't actually mentioned measles. With measles, we ended up exporting that disease to a Pacific nation, and I think we should be ashamed of that.
One of the things that I wanted to mention was in relation to the ethnic communities portfolio. Earlier, the Minister for Ethnic Communities talked about how the Office of Ethnic Communities budget has actually gone up. I applaud that. I think it's really fantastic that the Minister feels that the ethnic communities are important enough to actually increase the budget. Having said that, what is that budget delivering for the ethnic communities? She mentioned a couple of huis. More talk, more working groups—what else?
Hon Member: No doing.
MELISSA LEE: Yeah. No doing; just more huis—exactly.
One of the things that happened last year: Language Line was something that the Office of Ethnic Communities and the Minister for Ethnic Communities was responsible for in the previous National Government and also under this Labour Government. But in October last year, the contract for Language Line got changed to a new company, a new deliverer, called ezispeak. Guess what: in October, when it actually switched, only one client out of—I don't know, I think it was like—161 agencies that were supposed to get the service could access that interpreting service—only one out of 161.
That transition, I have to say, it wasn't actually the responsibility of the Minister for Ethnic Communities, because—guess what—even though it is delivering interpretation for 180 languages and should be at the hands of the Office of Ethnic Communities and the Minister for Ethnic Communities, she's lost control of it to the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE). She is no longer responsible. Why is MBIE responsible for the interpretation services that are delivering to the ethnic communities? That was something that worked really well; apparently now, the Office of Ethnic Communities are not even consulted. They have no say in the deliverables for the ethnic communities on this score. 
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): I understand this is a split call. I call Dr Deborah Russell—five minutes.





Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour—New Lynn): I am so proud to be part of a party and supporting a Government that has a proven leader who is leading us with compassion and sense. I am proud to be part of a party and a Government that is providing stable Government. I am proud to be part of a party that is delivering a strong economy that is outstripping most of the OECD. I am proud that I am part of a Government that is making progress on the things that matter. We are making progress on health. We are making progress on education. We are making progress on the environment. We are making progress on infrastructure. We are making progress on the economy.
It's all on the up, because we are working hard to make up for nine years of neglect—nine years when the do-nothing Government did nothing. We are now tackling those big problems. On this side of the House, we are governing for the next 30 years, not just the next three. Why? Because we are working on what actually matters to New Zealanders.
Do you know what matters to New Zealanders? What's happening in their own backyards, what's happening in their own communities, and what's happening in their own daily lives. This Government has delivered for New Zealanders.
I want to especially talk about the schools infrastructure package. As part of our spending on infrastructure that supports our economy, that provides certainty, and that provides the utilities that we need, we have dedicated significant funding to schools. In particular, we have delivered money—cold, hard money—for schools to fix the problems that have accumulated over the years of neglect that came about on that side of the House. 
In my electorate alone—let me tell you what is happening for my schools. Arahoe School has $400,000 extra that they weren't expecting to address some of their problems. Avondale Primary School has $216,000. Blockhouse Bay Intermediate has $400,000. Blockhouse Bay School has $398,000. Chaucer School has $162,000 thousand, and on it goes—Fruitvale Road School: $209,000; Glenavon School: $208,000; Green Bay High School: $400,000; Green Bay Primary School: $400,000; Lynfield College: $400,000; Marshall Laing School: $387,000. That's a large chunk of funding. It's a large and important chunk of funding—about $3.6 million in the New Lynn electorate alone. New Lynn School: $248,000; New Windsor School: $343,000. Just across the road—just across the border—Titirangi School: $316,000; Kaurilands School: $400,000—significant money going into those schools to help those schools fix the problems of neglect.
Here's the important thing: that money is spent in the local communities. It's the local painters, the local plumbers, the local roofers, the local pavers, and the local builders who will be doing the work to repair the neglect brought about by that Government. So all the local communities will benefit.
There's an even more important effect. I was up visiting Blockhouse Bay School yesterday, and I asked the principal there what they were spending that money on. He said, "Actually, we've been brainstorming it. We could spend that money four times over. But what we've been doing—we've been brainstorming it. We've got our final session on it. We will be making decisions in the next few weeks." Then we talked about it some more, and he said, "You know what? It made a big difference to the teaching staff. They felt valued. They knew that their school was important. They knew that they were going to be getting some of the resources they needed. They knew they were going to be teaching in an updated classroom. It was a huge fillip for our teachers." 
So I have a challenge for the negative Nellies on the other side of the House—I have a challenge. I have a challenge for Mr Chris Penk. Mr Penk, go and visit Woodlands Park School—$273,000. Go and visit Laingholm School—$209,000. Try Oratia School—$370,000—or Waitakere School—$344,000. Go and visit them and see what the principals think about this infrastructure spending that they're getting. I'm telling you that those principals have a smile on their faces and a spring in their step because, finally, they are being valued, and by this Government that is delivering for New Zealanders—that is delivering for you, for me, and for ordinary New Zealanders. 
So we've gotten over the management of neglect from the other side, those years of decline, and those negative Nellies from that do-nothing, "management is good enough" type of Government, and we have a Government that does, on this side of the House—a Government that does for New Zealanders because New Zealanders matter—and this is the positive Government that we will be re-electing this year. 
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Order! The member's time has expired. Jan Tinetti—five minutes. 





JAN TINETTI (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It certainly is an honour and I'm really delighted to be able to stand here and speak in the debate on the Prime Minister's statement. Towards the end of last year, I didn't even know that I would be back here at this time of the year due to my health issues, and I'm just so grateful, because I have to say that last week, when we had our recess and I was out visiting people on the ground and was hearing what they had to say about our Government, it reminded me just what a privilege it is to be part of this side of the House, making the real difference for the people on the ground. 
Last week, in those recess visits, I heard an acknowledgment from people that this is a Government that is tackling long-term issues and long-term challenges that have been facing the people in the sectors for quite some time. They talked about proven leadership in this Government, they talked about a stable Government, and I even heard about a strong economy that is facing us, and that they felt safe in what was happening. They know that there were years of neglect and they know that it's going to take time to fix those years of neglect, but they were really, really pleased, when I was on those visits, about the great progress that we are making on this side of the House on what matters to them. 
Last week, I visited businesses, I visited NGOs, I visited schools, and I visited early childhood education centres, and the same messages were being told to me, over and over again. A couple of points that I'd like to really focus on, though, were from a couple of school visits that I went on. One of those school visits talked to me about the positive difference that the school donations scheme has made to them. This Government is increasing funding so that parents don't have to pay NCEA fees, and in the decile 1 to 7 schools, where they are not asking for donations, we are paying $150 per child to those schools. 
The principal of one school that I visited last week who wanted to talk to me specifically about this scheme talked about how last year, the school managed to make just over $300 in donations. This year—they're a smaller school of about 150 students—they're making just over $20,000. They are excited about what that's going to mean for their learners and the difference that that will make to them. They talked about the fact that this would mean more extracurricular activities for their students and they talked about taking the pressure off the teachers to provide those extracurricular activities because now, they have the funding that other schools have been able to provide in order to provide extra people to take those extracurricular activities, and the light in that principal's eyes was amazing to see. 
The other area that I wanted to talk about was the fact that a lot of these schools now—or in the pilot in some of these schools—that I visited last week are really, really appreciative of the fact that we are tackling child poverty. They said to me, "We know that it's a tough issue. We live and breathe this every day, but you are actually taking this on, and we are really, really appreciative for that." 
One of the schools that I visited is in Rotorua. It is now part of the recipient of the healthy lunches in schools programme, and the difference that it was making to that principal's particular students was absolutely tangible. He said that they are coming to school every single day. In the past, they used to worry in that school about the fact that they would have such small attendance due to poverty issues, and now he's seeing a difference in those attendance issues. It's too early to tell that statistics-wise, but in his anecdotal notes on the ground, he is saying that those classrooms are full every day because the children are coming. They're looking forward to the healthy lunches that they're going to be getting, they find them really nutritional, and they are staying in the zone for learning all day. He's really excited by that because it's the first time he can say that that's actually making a big difference for his learners, and he's not having to go and find lunches for those kids that didn't have them in the class. 
So we're making great progress in those areas. We have more mahi to do, but we know that the sector is pleased. 





CHRIS BISHOP (National—Hutt South): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. Well, it's been a few weeks since the Prime Minister's actual statement to Parliament, but there were lots of things, I suppose, to poke fun at in that speech and lots of things to mock, I guess you would say, but the biggest thing that I found most unbelievable, and that actually provoked laughter from this side of the House, was the statement that "This is a Government of infrastructure." I don't know if members remember—
Chris Penk: It's still funny. 
CHRIS BISHOP: —it is still funny, and you're right, Mr Penk—but the Prime Minister said, about five minutes in, "This is a Government of infrastructure.", and we all laughed. She seemed quite surprised and I'm not quite sure why, but it was a comical comment, and in my contribution in this debate I want to explain why. 
Newer members opposite will not remember the past nine years, when the National Government progressed roading projects around the country that the Labour Opposition of the time opposed. For example, the Auckland to Pūhoi road was described as the "Holiday Highway" by members opposite. The Waikato Expressway—
Tim van de Molen: That's right—a great project. 
CHRIS BISHOP: —was criticised, and my good colleague Tim van de Molen has been a strong supporter on it. All of the projects that National advanced in that time of Government—the roads of national significance—were criticised by the Labour Opposition. Of course, now they've had a road to Damascus conversion to four-lane highways, but a lot of these projects were opposed. 
Phil Twyford even said, when he became the Minister of Transport, "We've over-invested in roads and motorways for decades."—OK? We had the description of the road north of Auckland as the "Holiday Highway". We had Phil Twyford criticising all of these roads, in cahoots with Julie Anne Genter, and one of the first things that the Government did when they came into office was to establish a new Government policy statement on transport. Now, you might think that that's what new Governments do, and that's fine. That's absolutely correct—that is what new Governments do. They've got the right to set their own priorities. But alongside that new Government policy statement on transport came a $5 billion reduction in the State highway budget—$5 billion. Not all at once—there was a reduction immediately—but $5 billion over the 10 years, and what was the effect of that? The effect of that slashing of the State highway budget was a delay or, in some cases, actually, an outright cancellation of a score of projects right around the country. 
Firstly, there were 12 re-evaluated projects, 12 projects that were part of the National Land Transport Programme on the New Zealand Transport Agency's books, some of which were actually in the process of being procured and funded—well, they were funded. But they were in the process of being procured and were out for construction tender—for example, the Tauranga Northern Link, which was about to start construction when the Government changed. Included within that are projects like Pētone to Grenada in the Hutt Valley, an important project; the Melling interchange; and the East-West Link, which is still, apparently, being re-evaluated, according to the New Zealand Transport Agency website. All of these projects are delayed and, in some cases, as I say, cancelled. 
Now, things got so bad that the Prime Minister's own advisory council—a group of people around the country that the Prime Minister had pulled together to advise her about business matters—wrote to her and said, "Prime Minister, we are at infrastructure crisis point." That's not my language. That's not me, in Opposition, being political, but that's the language of the Prime Minister's own advisory council, about nine months ago: "We are at crisis point." The cutting of the State highway budget is what they said has destroyed the infrastructure pipeline. 
We started to hear stories come through in the media a few months ago about workers being laid off because the projects that are currently being constructed are coming to an end. Projects like, for example, the Peka Peka to Ōtaki four-lane highway, which, when it opens, will make a big difference to the safety on that road. The intention was, for the workers working on that section of road, to go further up the line and do Ōtaki to north Levin, one of the most dangerous sections of State highway in the country: 145 deaths and serious injuries projected to be saved over five years once that road is four-laned and done properly. What did Phil Twyford say when the Prime Minister's advisory council wrote to him? He wrote back and said, "These projects are of low economic value. We will not be advancing them."—"low economic value. We will not be advancing them." 
Finally, something twigged, and I do have to give Grant Robertson credit for this; something twigged. Grant Robertson decided, towards the back end of last year, "Hang on a minute. Something's gone wrong here. I don't think Phil Twyford's done a very good job here. I think I might have let Phil Twyford and Julie Anne Genter run the transport portfolio a bit too much to themselves." Although to be fair to Julie Anne Genter, she has literally accomplished nothing in transport. Their electric vehicle policy is the same as the outgoing National Government's. The only thing Julie Anne Genter has been able to achieve in transport is to stop the Mount Vic tunnel. So, you know, kudos to her for that, I suppose; that's the only thing she's been able to achieve. 
So Grant Robertson said, "OK, I think we've made a mistake here.", and we had the $6.8 billion transport package which was announced at the start of the year. And lo and behold, what's back on the table? Four-lane highways. All of a sudden, four-lane highways are back, baby. They're back, and all of a sudden the Melling interchange is back—great news for the Hutt Valley. The Tauranga Northern Link's back in action: four-lane highway north of Ōmokoroa. The Ōtaki to north Levin's back: we're going to four-lane it. 
The Greens put out this pathetic press release the day before the announcement because they knew that what was coming was not good for them. The Greens put out this pathetic press release in which they said—I think it was—"Nine schools have been moved from coal boilers to solar power." Nine out of 3,000 schools or something. Well, happy day—I mean, that's a good thing. We support that. Don't want to be too critical. But, you know, they had nine schools that have been moved away from coal burning, and that's, I think, $17 million or something. What did Grant announce? $6.8 billion for largely four-lane highways: a road to Damascus conversion. 
Then we have the Prime Minister turning up, saying, "It's all about safety and we've got to invest in safety and these are economic connectors and they're very important to connect our regions together and drive economic growth." She sounded like Simon Bridges. She sounded like Steven Joyce. She sounded like National Party Prime Ministers of years gone by. But the critical thing is this: the Labour Government do not believe in these roads. They don't believe in these roads, because if they did they wouldn't have cancelled them in the first place. If they truly believed in these projects they wouldn't have cut $5 billion from the State highway budget, Phil Twyford wouldn't have turned up to select committee a year ago and said, "We've over-invested in roads.", and Phil Twyford wouldn't have described these projects as being of low economic value. Let's remember: in August, they were of low economic value; three months later, they're the saviour of all mankind. They're the greatest thing the Government could be spending money on. All of a sudden they're incredibly important and "We've got to get on with them straight away." Grant Robinson said they were "shovel-ready". Well, the Ōtaki to north Levin project doesn't start until 2025. So there's no way they'll be in Government then. I hope that a National Party transport Minister—and I hope at some point of the future it will be me—will get to open that road. It's the road that we've planned, we've funded, and we consented—well, we didn't consent it but we funded it and we planned for it in the first place, and we believe in it. 
My message to New Zealanders and the message of the National Party to New Zealanders, over the next few months is going to be: why would you place your faith in a party, when it comes to transport matters, that doesn't believe in these roads? They don't believe in them. That's why they cancelled them in the first place. Not only that, they have no history of doing them. They have no history of building them. 
I want to close my remarks by talking about the train wreck that is Auckland light rail, because Auckland light rail—a bit like KiwiBuild, actually—I think has become emblematic of this Government's incompetence, their ineptitude, and their failure to deliver on their promises. Let's remember, this was not some pie-in-the-sky idea that was dreamt up on the campaign trail; this was a cast iron commitment from the Prime Minister. One of the first things she announced as Labour leader on the campaign trail was "We will build it to Mount Roskill by 2021." What are we now? March 2020—just started March. Is there a business case? No. Are there any consents? No. Is there a plan? No. Is there a route? Nope. Is there a funder? Nope. Is there even an idea about what the railway line will look like? No. The only thing Phil Twyford could tell us in December is that it will be a railway engine on two tracks going forward. Well, I mean, well done, Phil Twyford! In two years you've managed to define what a railway track is—congratulations! That's literally all that has happened on light rail. It is a train wreck and it is emblematic of this Government's incompetence and ineptitude, and we do, therefore, not believe the Prime Minister's statement is worth what it's written on.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Order! The member's time has expired. I call Jo Luxton—five minutes.





JO LUXTON (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. And wow, that member who just took his seat, Chris Bishop, spent the last 10 minutes talking about roading. And do you know what? That pretty much sums up what that side of the House cares about—it is roading. I didn't hear that speaker mention people, education, or health, unlike this side of the House. I am extremely proud to be part of a Government that prioritises people, health, and education—and yes, we do care about infrastructure, too. I'm proud to be part of a Government, under the leadership of our Prime Minister, Jacinda Ardern, who is tackling the infrastructure deficit that we have been left with after nine years of neglect from that previous Government. 
I feel that that side of the House is just constantly negative for the sake of being negative. They even bagged the Provincial Growth Fund, yet are quite happy to sidle up to the Minister when he's in town making announcements and celebrating what they are getting for their electorates. So, negative for the sake of being negative. 
Well, I want to talk about education. I want to talk about all the good things that have been happening under this Government for education, and it's something I'm especially passionate about. I want to talk about the removal of NCEA fees and what that means to people. Now, the fee is around $75, and people may scoff that that's actually not a lot of money, but when you are a person who is struggling financially—perhaps a sole parent beneficiary—that is a lot of money to come up with. I can recall when I was a single parent, when I cleaned an early childhood centre and I got $20—$20 for doing that. Someone said to me, "Why would you bother? I would never do that for $20." Well, $20 was the difference between having milk and bread, or not. So I say congratulations to the Minister involved in getting the removal of NCEA fees happening for our students, and also the re-issuing of those credits for those students who didn't pay the fees back in the day. They are now going to be acknowledged for that. 
I'm very proud of the fact that we are having a huge spend on infrastructure for our schools, where every State school across New Zealand is receiving up to $400,000. That is outstanding. I recall a school that I visited last year. The principal was really upset with the fact that he had a child at the school who had mobility issues, couldn't walk on their own, required sticks etc., to help them walk, but he couldn't afford to replace the playground surfacing. This child was not able to participate with his peers, with his friends, like he so rightly should have been. What this funding means is that principal can now resurface the playground so that their child can participate with his peers. 
I also visited a school in Waimate last week. This school wants to modernise and has really good projects in mind, which they had decided that they were just going to have to put to the side because the money wasn't there. Well, actually, the money they are going to receive from this funding means that this is back on track. They can start this project, and they've even invited me back to open it once it's complete. They are so happy and so excited. 
I also want to talk about school donations and the fact that schools are receiving more funding from this Government so parents do not have to pay fees, because there is nothing worse, as a parent, the feeling that you cannot afford to pay those fees, and whilst you do not necessarily have the finger pointed at you, as a parent, you feel like teachers are going to know that you didn't pay your fees. And you do feel that. I felt that in the past and I am so excited that parents are not going to have to feel that. They are not going to feel stigmatised by the fact that they have not been able to pay their fees. 
I want to talk about the Provincial Growth Fund for a minute and what that has meant for the neglected regions of New Zealand. In particular, I want to talk about the money that is coming into the electorate where I live for the Ōpuke Thermal Pools and Spa in Methven, which is going to be completed around Christmas 2020, and which I invite everyone here to come along and enjoy. It's going to mean 120 extra jobs and an estimated $162 million for our local economy. We know there's more work to do but we are up for it.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Jamie Strange—five minutes.





JAMIE STRANGE (Labour): Mr Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to take a call on the Prime Minister's statement and follow my colleague Jo Luxton, and I'd like to continue some of the themes that she was talking about—in particular, the themes around infrastructure in the regions. So, if we have a look at the country of New Zealand and we look at the regions in New Zealand, the regions have been struggling for a number of years. However, we have a Government, finally, who are investing in the regions. Let's just pick any sort of, you know—we could pick any sort of random town or city in the regions and see how they're doing. Let's just pick one at random—let's go, Hamilton. Let's just see how Hamilton is doing under this current regime. 
So the first one—this is just the last two years, remember? So let's see how Hamilton's doing. First of all, they received $12 million from the Provincial Growth Fund for a theatre in the heart of the CBD, a $75 million theatre. And what comes with that is a $30 million hotel. So that's a $100 million investment enabled—enabled—by the Provincial Growth Fund. And I can see the member opposite, Tim van de Molen, is just as excited as me because he's from the same region. There is a $50 million sheep milk drier. Now, sheep milk as an emerging dairy industry—and it's fantastic that the Government is supporting that through $18 million from Pāmu, which is the old Landcorp. So $18 million there towards a $50 million sheep milk drier. 
Let's see what else is happening in Hamilton. Oh, $100 million for a mental health facility—a mental health facility upgrade at the Waikato University. Let's have a look at education: $25 million for the schools in Hamilton around property. We've seen $16 million for Rototuna High Schools for an extension of their classrooms. We've seen around $10 million for other capital expenditure and we've heard from previous speakers there is up to $400,000 for most State schools in Hamilton. I've also been visiting those schools, like a number of MPs have been doing across this House, and hearing from them about what they plan to spend that money on. And a lot of them are engaging with their staff and saying to their staff, "What are the key needs?", so basically they're collaborating. We've heard from members opposite. They've been calling out during the speeches around this infrastructure spend in the schools—belittling it and not valuing it. But for those principals and for those learners, this is going to make a huge difference for their learning.
Let's see what else; we're about halfway through. There is $5 million per annum for an alcohol and other drug treatment court. I'd like to acknowledge the previous Government for rolling out two of these in Auckland, and the third one has been rolled out in Hamilton. That's certainly exciting for our region and we welcome that. 
There is $180 million in Hamilton for an interest-free loan for the Peacocke subdivision to develop 8,500 houses—8,500 houses. A number of them will be affordable houses; $180 million in an interest-free loan. And what comes with that is $110 million in New Zealand Transport Agency subsidies. And I can see the road being built at the moment and the bridge across the Waikato River.
Here's another one: $1 billion towards the Waikato Expressway. We just had the opening of the Huntly section recently. So this is a four-lane piece of road between Hamilton and Auckland. It was started in the early 2000s under the previous Labour Government. The National Government continued it and this Government have invested $1 billion since we've been in. So that's around $2 billion over 20 years. But this Government—$1 billion for the Waikato Expressway. 
There is $79 million for passenger rail between Hamilton and Auckland. This is something that people have been calling for for a long time, because at the moment there are a lot of people living in Hamilton and they're working in Auckland. They travel up and they get caught on the southern motorway and this will, basically, give people diversity in their transport options. So $79 million for passenger rail and that's due to start in July this year. There'll be tables with the seats. People can open their laptops. They can be productive. There'll be charging points.
Just last week, we had the announcement that Hamilton will be the headquarters of the Criminal Cases Review Commission. The Hamilton CBD is thriving at the moment. We've got five key projects—five key construction projects—about to take off, ranging between $20 million and $100 million, and they're about to start in the next six months. 
So I just picked Hamilton at random just to see what was happening in that particular region—and a huge amount of investment from this Government. I'm proud to be part of a Government who are investing in the regions of New Zealand. 
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Order! Thank you. Tim van de Molen
Tim van de Molen: This is a split call.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Sorry, this is a split call—five minutes, Tim van de Molen





TIM VAN DE MOLEN (National—Waikato): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Look, it's interesting to have the opportunity to rise and speak at short notice following Mr Strange. Now, I would just like to touch on some of the comments he has made in relation to the Prime Minister's statement, and, in fact, check some of those. One of the most interesting of those he talked about was how this Government has invested $1 billion in the Waikato Expressway. Well, perhaps I've missed that announcement, but we certainly haven't seen any of that come into the Waikato region. In fact, under the most recent $8 billion infrastructure announcement from this Government—$8 billion—the Waikato received only $58 million, and that was for a roundabout: $58 million out of $8 billion. And that's $58 million more than Lawrence Yule had in the Tukituki electorate. So I would question the validity of some of these claims.
Actually, the Waikato region is growing rapidly. We look at this golden triangle between Auckland, Hamilton, Tauranga—massive growth, massive increase in freight movements, vehicle passenger movements through there. We need ongoing infrastructure investment. And that's why the last National Government invested significantly in the Waikato Expressway—a $1.2 billion project over 100 kilometres going down through my electorate from the Bombays down towards Piarere. 
The next stage was to extend it down to Piarere, a busy intersection between State Highways 1 and 29: 20,000 vehicle movements a day, far too many accidents there, every fortnight an unplanned road closure along that corridor. And yet this Government came in and cancelled that project. It's simply not good enough when you've got that massive growth happening in that corridor, not to mention the safety benefits that we're seeing off the back of these four-lane expressways. So it is a real shame to see the Government's sudden, sudden epiphany to shift the prioritisation towards four-lane expressways. And we welcome their change in focus and congratulate the Tauranga area and the advocacy of Todd Muller and Simon Bridges to get the Tauranga Northern Link back on the cards there. But, unfortunately, we've missed out in the Waikato and I had hoped, Mr Strange, that with your strong advocacy, we would have indeed achieved that project. But alas, it was not to be. And so we shall continue on this side of the House to advocate strongly for that project, because it is a crucial next link, and, of course, from there then continuing over towards Tauranga as well. 
So what we're seeing from this Government actually is a consistent track record of failing to deliver; not just not doing things, but actually saying "I'll do it." and then not delivering on it. Again, we heard Mr Strange talk about a whole raft of announcements for Hamilton. And indeed, there are some very nice announcements there, but they're announcements; they're not delivering. They're all intentions and talk and none of them have actually been delivered yet. There is $100 million for a mental health facility. Well, there's no sign of that yet. It's still years away. This Government will never have the opportunity to deliver on all those promises it's making. They know they can go out and splash the cash, promise all they like, without having to deliver. We're seen that in the Waikato, it's simply not good enough, and our constituents deserve better. 
Then we look at the rural space and in the rural Waikato there's a lot of pressure at the moment. I do commend the Minister of Agriculture for just on Friday announcing a medium-scale adverse event in terms of a drought declaration there. It's been incredibly dry and I just want to acknowledge all the farmers going through some pretty tough times there. As if that weren't bad enough, they were already feeling under pressure and we'd already seen confidence levels at historic lows late last year. That was despite, at that stage, still relatively favourable weather conditions, low interest rates, and, indeed, pretty good returns for their products, whether it was milk or beef or whatever it might have been. 
So, really, that was driven by a significant change in policies, and a lot of that is partly the climate change legislation but also the freshwater proposals that have been put forward. There's a massive shift in the expectation from this Government, which has then been pushed out to the public, that rural New Zealand needs to fix all our environmental problems. Now, of course, there is a part to play, but it's not simply a rural issue. You can look at any number of urban centres—Auckland; Hamilton, as Mr Strange just said; down here in Wellington—there are a whole raft of wastewater and water storage issues within those areas as well. So, water is a big area that we need to focus on. Again, it comes back to infrastructure and this Government's recent epiphany that, actually, infrastructure is important. I commend them on finally coming to the table with that, but there needs to be so much more done. It's simply not good enough at this level.
We are committed to that. We are the party of infrastructure, and you can be assured that we will be delivering a suite of infrastructure projects if we're back in Government after September. Thank you.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Chris Penk—five minutes.





CHRIS PENK (National—Helensville): Oh, thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I would like to talk about nothing. I would like to talk about the bits of the Prime Minister's statement that have actually delivered for my area and the bit that the Government has delivered in my portfolio, which, as I say—
Hon Scott Simpson: Nothing.
CHRIS PENK: —is nothing. That's right. So we've heard a lot about the infrastructure spend, or at least the announcement of the infrastructure spend. On this side of the House, there seems almost to be an unhealthy competition to point out how little is actually meaningfully going to happen for our respective areas that we represent. Part of the issue is that the South Island hasn't received very much, not even by way of announcement, let alone delivery, and then you've got parts of the North Island that have been excluded because some other parts, supposedly at least, are going to be benefiting.
One of those is Auckland, and I would almost put Auckland in quote marks, because my area—that is, Helensville—being the rural north-west of Auckland, has also missed out. So it's a bit galling for the good people of the Helensville electorate when we hear how well the area of Auckland is going to be doing out of the Government's infrastructure announcement spend.
I've said before in this House, and I'll continue to say it, that the Government's lack of planning for transport in that area has not only meant that we have not made progress in the last two-and-a-bit years but, in fact, we've effectively gone backwards. That is because of the illusion of light rail—light as in light on detail. I was going to suggest that it was light years away, except that I know that "light year" is actually a measurement of distance rather than time. So let's just say that it is inconceivably far away in terms of time that we will have light rail to the north-west. The problem with that is that every time that I attend a meeting with various transport-related authorities on the subject of needing better transport infrastructure for the area, the elephant in the room is the fact that we've at least nominally got on the table, in the plans—somewhere, somehow—light rail that's going to go to the north-west, and we simply don't. It is behind, in the planning, the other light rail project in Auckland, that which was to have been completed by 2021, which we all know, and it's no secret—in fact, if anything, it's the punchline to a rather well-known joke. It is nothing like realistic, and so it is that the good people of the Helensville electorate have got less than nothing in terms of infrastructure and transport delivery by this Government.
As for the area that I represent in the policy sense—I'm the Opposition spokesperson for courts—I'd like to highlight, again on the subject of nothingness, the fact that reforms that have been promised and consistently highlighted by the current Government, pre-dating even the time that they were the Government and reaching back into the time that the current justice Minister and Minister for Courts was, I think at the time, justice spokesperson—certainly, a senior figure in the Opposition as it then was, decrying the changes to the Family Court that the previous National Government had made. It's acknowledged by many within the sector that further changes are needed, and we can consider any changes that the Government comes up with in good faith, and we will do so.
However, the issue is, again, we can characterise this as a great big nothingness, and, extending the "light years" metaphor, maybe I could say it's fallen into a black hole of working groups. We've had a review, but there's no tangible indication of when we might actually get some legislation introduced to change the law, to reform the law that the Government insists is so broken. If the answer is so easy to the question of what can or should be done, then, for goodness' sakes, why have we not had that answer yet? If it's true, as they claim, that the root of all evils in this space was the reforms of the National Government in the middle of those nine glorious years, then why do they not simply reverse, by way of repealing those, and end up in the utopia that they no doubt would believe would then ensue? So, again, in the courts portfolio, more specifically the Family Court: nothing.
I'll reserve my final period of time on my feet to discussing the situation of drought that's affecting not only Northland but North Auckland down to the Harbour Bridge. That area which I represent within that is really suffering at the moment. I've written to the Minister for primary industries asking for something extra beyond the $80,000 that's been allocated for that massive stretch of land that's currently suffering greatly. We would love some help in the Helensville electorate for that.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): I understand this is a split call. I call Gareth Hughes—five minutes.





GARETH HUGHES (Green): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Kia ora. Ngā mihi nui ki a koutou, kia ora. I don't know if members saw today in the newspaper that the Arctic is predicted to be free of summer sea ice within 15 years. The Arctic is going to be without sea ice within 15 years. I mean, the Antarctic peninsula reached 20 degrees last week. Australia's just come off the back of one of the most catastrophic fire seasons ever in its modern history. I mean, we're having a huge impact. We as a species are literally changing our planet and our atmosphere. Last year, there was an Italian explorer, Victor Vescovo, who got to the deepest point ever reached by a human in the oceans: 10,927 metres, at the bottom of the Mariana Trench. Do you know what he found there? A plastic bag, at the deepest depths of the ocean. We've got hundreds of thousands of pieces of junk orbiting above our heads, plastic at the bottom of the ocean, we're changing our atmosphere.
These are some of the issues this Government's grappling with, and I'm proud to say, as a Green MP, that we are taking action on the greatest issue of our day, which is the existential threat which is climate change. But I'd also put it that it's a strategic and a massive economic opportunity as well, because if New Zealand leads and takes action, we can be selling those solutions to other countries. We could be getting a competitive branding advantage as a country who cares, as a country who's taking action. I think you can contrast that to the Australian Government across the ditch.
How is the Government taking action? Just last week, the Government announced change to default KiwiSaver providers that'll no longer be investing in the very same products which are causing the climate to cook, which are seeing a million species at risk of extinction, which are seeing our neighbours in the Pacific literally having to plan to flee their homelands. I'm incredibly proud of this decision, because what we know is those capital markets are incredibly important for driving change. That's why I'm also incredibly proud this Government has stopped the promotional support for the fossil fuel and the oil industry. They've stopped giving them free seismic data handed out on a platter. They're reviewing the tax credits.
I still remember a few years back when Phil Heatley was the Minister, literally blowing $240,000 on a single weekend hosting just 10 oil executives. Can you imagine that? Nearly a quarter of a million dollars just hosting 10 executives for a weekend. We saw no separation of oil and State under the previous Government. In fact, they were subsidising the oil industry about $78 million a year. So, I'm incredibly proud that this Government is changing direction. They're actually supporting things like replacing coal-fired boilers, which I heard the Opposition actually, I think—I don't know what the word is. I mean, it's incredibly foolhardy. Are they really going to go to the election and say, "We are the party for coal-fired boilers."? How on earth can you criticise that? You know, this is the Government that's setting a goal of 100 percent renewables by 2035, actually setting a clear direction; a Government that's actually been brave enough to draw a line in the sand and say no to new offshore oil exploration permits—
Tim van de Molen: What about mining on conservation land? The member was going to ban it. They've signed off 21 new consents—
Hon Member: 22.
Tim van de Molen: 22—double the last Government.
GARETH HUGHES: —and who's signalling a direction to the clean energy economy.
Now, what we also know, though: the Government is having to clean up the mess from previous Governments. I'm not sure if the member van de Molen has seen the taxpayer liability of the Tūī field: potentially $280 million to clean up a mess because that previous Government was quite happy to change the permit to, quite frankly, I think, a cowboy operation. Now the Government's having to clean up the mess—sadly with taxpayers' money—because that party didn't do its due diligence.
And, of course, you see the zero carbon Act. I'd like to acknowledge the National Party. They did support the zero carbon Act—that was great, it was historic. But why aren't they walking the walk when they talk the talk? How can they support the zero carbon Act, but not support every single initiative which is trying to drive down our emissions? How can they be the party that's for coal-fired boilers? How can they be the party that's for dairy intensification? How can they be the party for more massive motorways with terrible benefit-cost ratios?
I'm glad they supported the Act and I hope they can be more consistent with it. But the Green Party's message is: we still need to go further and faster. As I talked about, the scale of the emergency is such that I think that our country's response should match the scale of the emergency. Our ambition has to match it. That's why I think in this election you're going to see that the Greens want to support more clean electric vehicles, they want to support Kiwis to reduce their emissions, we want to see Kiwis actually get those good public transport, walking, and cycling options. What you're going to see from the Green Party is a clear vision of further and faster climate action to deal with the emergency but also to leverage those business opportunities because this is a crisis; this is an emergency. But we can actually support our whānaus, support our workers, and build a richer, more prosperous New Zealand by doing it. Kia ora koutou.





GOLRIZ GHAHRAMAN (Green): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise proudly to speak to a subject that's close to my heart and had been for a decade before I entered this House, and that's justice. Our justice system should be fair and equally accessible to us all. Justice should not be available only to the wealthy; it should not fail anyone based on their race or their gender, their sexual identity, their disability, or their mental illness. It should not target or persecute anyone in our marginalised communities, and our justice system—if it's here to keep us all safe—must acknowledge that imprisonment, as the driver of all of our justice initiatives, has failed. The evidence shows that it does not keep our communities safe, it does not rehabilitate anybody, and it does not provide a safe and successful pathway for people to reintegrate back into their communities. I am so proud to be a part of a Government that has the courage to look at that evidence and to change what we do when it comes to justice. 
One of the things that I am most proud of as a member of this Government, but also as a Green, is the work of my colleague Jan Logie in leading on prevention and addressing the harm of sexual and domestic violence. She has led, for the first time, an all-of-Government approach that brings together agencies, departments, grassroots organisations, and supports that work in a way that acknowledges that our solutions need to be both sustainable and focused on prevention. That is something that no previous Government has done so far. She's spoken about that work today herself, so I'll focus on some of the other work that we're doing on this side of the House, some of the work that may fall under the radar but for the grave need for it—and it will be noticed and it will be felt by the communities who need it the most. 
One of those things is the extended funding for community law centres. We've funded an extra 24 centres across New Zealand. That's an acknowledgment that legal support, legal representation, and advice on our rights should be available to us all equally, whether or not we can afford to pay for it at the high rate that we would otherwise be paying. Those community law centres do extraordinary work and they'd been starved of funding for far too long. 
We have extended funding to get children out of the adult criminal justice system. We know that the children that come through our Youth Court system suffer all the harms that we also see in the adult population that comes into conflict with our criminal justice system. They suffer predominantly from mental illness, from trauma, from head injury, and from addiction issues. They come from backgrounds of poverty, have experienced victimhood themselves, and a whopping, extraordinary statistic that we've all learnt over the past couple of years, as we look at the evidence, is that 90 percent of young offenders suffer from what is categorised as serious learning disability. 
We're failing these kids elsewhere in our system and our Government wants to focus on preventing them from coming into conflict with the law altogether. We want to invest in housing, in accessible, inclusive education, and making sure that all the kids that we're then sending off to those schools are fed. That's how we stop them from coming into the criminal justice system. 
But the other thing we need to acknowledge, and reports that have been released recently keep confirming this, is that Māori are experiencing the justice system differently and are being targeted disproportionately by it. We've learnt this and we've learnt also that that means that the Crown, if it is to be effective, must allow Māori to lead on justice solutions. We've learnt that with the Rangatahi Courts, with the tikanga-led solutions that we've seen modelled there, and with the incredible results that they're getting. So we do need to go further and we do need to do it faster if we are to transform our justice system into what it should be: an equal system, a just system, an accessible system for us all. Thank you.





Hon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): Well, if ever there was an example of the adage that was made famous by Kermit the Frog, that "It's not easy being green.", it's those last two contributions from Green Party members—Green Party members who came into this Parliament ambitious, hungry for Government, hungry for change, and wanting to make good some of the policy ideas that they had. And here we are, two and a half years later, in a position where those two members have to stand up and basically present a humiliating apology for the lack of action, the lack of progress that they have been able to achieve in Government—completely made irrelevant by their senior Government partner, the New Zealand First Party, who block their moves at every single turn. As Kermit the Frog said, "It's not easy being green."
A couple of weeks ago, I had the opportunity to attend the funeral of the late Prime Minister Mike Moore. It was Mike Moore who first sparked my interest in politics as a schoolkid. My parents were living in the marginal seat of Eden in Auckland, and Mike Moore was the sitting MP. He'd been elected in 1972 and he was ousted in 1975 by Aussie Malcolm and was a victim of the great Muldoon routing of the Labour Government in those days. And as I attended Mike Moore's funeral, I was able to reflect on the similarities between that one-term Labour Government and the current Government. There were a lot of similarities, particularly in that they had a leadership that was kind and generous and well-meaning but utterly ineffectual, utterly unable to make progress on their policy initiatives, and completely inept in terms of handling both a downturn in the domestic economy of the time, and then also unable to respond at all in any effective way to the uncertainties of the then international situation that was caused by the oil crisis of the time. 
So the similarities between that Government that was turfed out after one term and this Government are uncanny: similar backdrops, a similar well-meaning but ineffectual approach to policy implementation, and a difficulty of actually achieving anything—a failure to deliver, if you want to put it that way. And it's in my electorate of the Coromandel that we see the actual nothing that has come from this Government. My colleague Chris Penk spoke about nothing, and he thought that nothing had happened in his electorate since this Government came to office. Well, I can assure you that nothing this Government has done has helped in any remote way the good people of the Coromandel. In fact, arguably, the good people of the Coromandel, who are struggling valiantly against the extra costs, the extra taxes, the extra regulations, the extra red tape that inhibit and hinder their every move in terms of business and entrepreneurial initiative—those people are suffering more than they ever were before. 
If you ever want an example of how poorly this Government has been achieving for regions like mine in the Coromandel, think of our rescue helicopter taken away at the whim—a policy decision to take away a rescue helicopter that for 12 summers has been based in the Coromandel, and this summer was the first time it wasn't there. A community facility, built and funded by the community, somewhere north of $1 million funding, sat empty this summer because of a policy decision—not a funding decision; a policy decision—taken by David Clark, the Minister of Health, and also his ACC Minister.
It was a decision to prioritise Auckland's needs ahead of those of the people of the Coromandel, but what they neglected to think about, of course, is that most of Auckland was holidaying in the Coromandel over that period of time. There are never more people in the Coromandel than there are over the summer. That's why a rescue helicopter has been based there in the past. So this year, the people of the Coromandel and our hundreds of thousands of visitors have been, sadly, neglected and let down. We were promised by the Minister of Health that there would be no reduction in service, and the good people of Coromandel took him at his word, only to find out, a week before Christmas, that no rescue helicopter would this year be based in the Coromandel. That's an appalling indictment on the priorities of this Government and their policy-making decisions as it affects folk in my part of the world.
Currently, it's very dry in the Coromandel. This Government has been incredibly slow to respond to the drought conditions across the entire Waikato, the Hauraki Plains, and, indeed, the Coromandel Peninsula. Only in the last few days has an adverse weather event been declared, and some of my farmers, who have been farming in the region for a long period of time, are describing this summer's dry period as the worst since the summer of 1945-46. That's saying something, because what it means is that the dairy production from the most productive part of the country in terms of dairy production is going to be down and diminished, and it will further slow an already weak and turning economy. That's not going to be good over the next couple of years.
So, roading. My colleagues have been talking about roading. Roading has been totally neglected by this Government in my electorate. The last Government funded, consented, and had ready to go a piece of road—much needed—from Pōkeno, at the bottom of the Bombay Hills, through to what's known as the Mangatarata roundabout. It was funded, consented, and ready to go—shovel-ready—and this Government came along and cancelled it. Cancelled it. It's not even on their list of announcements that they've made now.
So we suffer on what is, effectively, the driveway to the Coromandel. We continue to suffer a substandard piece of roadway that was consented, funded, and ready to go, and this Government's dislike of cars and roads has put that at further disadvantage. That's to say nothing of the new highway that's needed so desperately between Ōmokoroa and Tauranga—nothing. There's no mention of the Katikati bypass. Winston Peters came to Katikati last election and said, "Vote for me and you'll get your Katikati bypass." Gone silent—gone silent he has. So he's completely forgotten about it. The people of Katikati and the people of Coromandel won't forget that. They won't forget how they have been let down and dismissed and forgotten by this Government.
Then we come to matters relating to the environment. They said from the Speech from the Throne, "No mining on the conservation estate." Now, they didn't campaign on that, but that's what they said—a surprise in the Speech from the Throne. No mining on the conservation estate. What do we find after 2½ years? Fourteen new mines on the conservation estate—14 new mines on the conservation estate under this Government. That's more than were ever granted during the term of the last National Government.
The Greens campaigned along with us on this side on the establishment of the Kermadec Ocean Sanctuary. What progress have we had? Nil. Zero. Zip. Nada. Nothing. A potential for New Zealand's exclusive economic zone to have—it depends how you calculate it—somewhere between the third- and the fourth-largest marine no-take reserve on the globe, and this Government, which speaks so highly of their environmental credentials but delivers nothing, haven't been able to achieve it. They promised us a royalty on bottled water exports. Well, that's been quietly dropped, quietly forgotten, quietly put aside because the campaigning promise that they made they've simply found too hard to keep.
I've been driving a 100 percent electric vehicle (EV) for more than 12 months now—clocked up 40-something thousand kilometres—and I've watched with interest the lack of progress that this Government has been able to make in terms of transitioning our fleet of light transport vehicles into EVs and away from carbon fossil fuels. They put forward this bizarre "feebate" scheme, and, actually, now that's been stopped. The perverse outcome of all that has been that, bizarrely, EV sales have slowed as a result, because people who were thinking about buying an electric vehicle have decided, "Well, maybe we'll just wait. We'll put off putting that decision, because this Labour Government's promised us something like $8,000 worth of subsidy.", which would have been funded by people who were buying petrol cars and couldn't afford EVs. They put off that decision, and so for 2½ years, people have been putting off a decision to buy EVs. That is utterly hopeless, and it is a sign of the lack of ability of this Government to deliver at all.
So I conclude my comments in this debate on the Prime Minister's statement by, again, referring to the last one-term Labour Government—the Labour Government that was turfed out after one term because they couldn't deliver on their promises, they couldn't manage the economy, and they weren't capable of delivering one little bit. I think, come 19 September—in just 200 short days—the same will occur again.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): This is a split call. I call the Hon Clare Curran—five minutes.





Hon CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. It might come as a surprise to the North Islanders in the House, but it's still summer temperatures in Dunedin. But as those days get shorter and the nights get colder and that winter energy payment kicks in on 1 May, it will again make a huge difference to the quality of life for the people who, under nine long years of the National Government, spent their winters in cold homes, with a higher likelihood of getting sick. Of course, if someone in your family does get sick, it's now easier and cheaper to go to the doctor, and it's getting easier to see a mental health specialist, thanks to the Wellbeing Budget of 2019.
This Government has boosted funding in education, in warm, dry homes, in healthcare, in community safety, and in infrastructure. It's increased parental leave for new parents, put free lunches in schools, and cut fees.
I wanted to give a human face, a concrete example, to the key difference between this coalition Government, led by Jacinda Ardern, and the National Government of nine long years of neglect. This comes from my electorate office. When I was in Opposition, a man with an intellectual disability missed out on paying his rent for several months, and he was facing eviction. He came into my office, asking for help. By asking the right questions, we discovered that he hadn't received a benefit for six months. So he hadn't paid his rent, as he hadn't received an income by receiving the right assistance under the previous Government. But receiving that assistance required a beneficiary knowing what they were entitled to and then asking for it. This man had an intellectual disability, and he was without any income for six months.
My office now reports that constituents are now asked what the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) can do for them to help them. This has resulted in better communication, less MSD benefit cases coming through the door, and that winter energy payment has assisted many people—many young mums and many seniors—to afford better heating.
In Dunedin, since 17 September: 3 percent unemployment; 6,500 new jobs; a new hospital; $20 million to re-establish the Hillside workshops; $20 million for the Dunedin waterfront project; more than $10 million for new funding for school properties, helping 60 schools across Dunedin; nearly $8 million towards engineering and manufacturing projects throughout the region; $10 million for a centre of digital excellence; more than $4 million funding boost for Predator Free Dunedin; and 17 new classrooms. Nine years of neglect and negativity takes time to fix.
We've got more to do. We know that, but we are making progress—a damn sight more progress than ever was done under that Government. In my patch, the biggest priority remains getting that new hospital built; more social housing; a workable long-term plan for South Dunedin, which is one of our most vulnerable and vibrant communities, which sits on flat reclaimed land, just above the water table; and, of course, a further investment in Hillside to ensure a sustainable engineering workshop, which is—
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Sorry to interrupt the member, but it's come time for me to leave the Chair for the dinner break.
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.





Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Thank you, Mr Speaker. This, the Prime Minister's statement, really reinforced that the Labour Party is the party of infrastructure. Goodness knows there has been a lot of catching up to do.
I must say, Christchurch is very pleased with what's been going on and the direction of travel of the Prime Minister's statement. Only the other day I was down at KiwiRail, and you know what? Those workers down there at KiwiRail for the first time in a decade could puff their chests out, be proud about the work they're doing, and know that they had a real future, because we are putting billions of dollars into rail, and not only into the rolling stock but also into the maintenance of those lines, which has simply fallen away. We know that KiwiRail, the rail framework, is a much better way to move goods, but not only that, to get freight off our roads and ease congestion. Because we don't need to spend billions of dollars in the South Island on multi-lane highways when we can get those trucks off the road on to rail so we can have real low-carbon infrastructure that moves freight efficiently.
Not only that, we know in Christchurch that we've got a lot of rebuilding around our schools to do. The 10-year programme for the rebuilding and rejuvenation of our schools is absolutely fantastic; another great piece of infrastructure that Christchurch is really enjoying. I was at Christchurch East School, one of the schools in the inner city that struggles a little bit. They've just knocked over one of their buildings and the $400 million that went into each and every school, their portion of that, is going to be used to enhance that rebuild; to make it more livable and more effective for those students. Speaking to the headmaster there was that sense of relief that whereas previously it was going to be a tight build—they didn't know whether they were going to manage, or quite what they'd get for their money—all of a sudden they can make real choices. That's a school full of many immigrant children and children with English as a second language. That's a school that doesn't take donations off of their students, because they simply can't recover it. 
Again, it's about not only putting it into the buildings but putting it into our kids—putting money into our kids so that they can get a better education. Those parents don't have to struggle to find a donation and pinch pennies elsewhere. They know that the school can pay for school trips and can pay for swimming lessons. All of those things which otherwise would be coming out of the parents' pockets one way or another can now be funded by the school across the board. No child has to come to school ashamed because their parents can't pay for their swimming lessons. They can join in with all the other kids, as indeed they should.
Of course, the hospital rebuild is another huge project there. There is a lot of money coming in to not only repair that earthquake damage but also to upgrade the hospital: the biggest DHB in the South Island, serving hundreds of thousands of people. Only recently, the Minister Megan Woods has made good, has pushed the go button on the stadium—another great piece of Christchurch infrastructure in the inner city. The council's come to the table with a good plan and we're starting work right now on a stadium that those Crusaders will be able to play on, but not only that, Elton John can play there, too. It's going to be a multi-use arena, a fantastic piece of infrastructure. "Come into the inner city.", I say to those people who live in the Waimakariri and in the Selwyn districts. Come down to downtown Christchurch. See what great work is being done by this Government.
Infrastructure isn't all about hard infrastructure. The other day I was taken for a guided tour along the Avon River, where Ōtākaro Ltd has done huge amounts of work, not only in making the pathways great but also in protecting the river itself. I'm really proud to say that that river has had the greatest improvement in water quality of any urban river in the country. Why? Because money has been spent, and spent well, in protecting what's going on there. There's been a huge amount to catch up, but with this Government—a Government that is prepared, a Government that is stable, a Government that is well led with a stronger economy behind us, that's well managed—we have got the money to spend on infrastructure and the things that we really need; the things that really matter. I'm so proud to be part of this Jacinda Ardern - led Government here in New Zealand today.





Hon JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I want to thank the conservation Minister, Eugenie Sage, very much for mentioning in her speech earlier this evening the Bluegreen's forum, the very successful forum that was held in Nelson over the weekend. So successful was it that the room was full of very enthusiastic, practical environmentalists belonging to the National Party.
I also want to acknowledge her congratulations to our leader for his announcement around beach clean-ups. That initiative provides $5 million extra funding for community groups under an enhanced Keep New Zealand Beautiful programme. Now, not only is that a practical conservatism approach, which is what the Bluegreens are renowned for, but it also values and recognises the input that volunteers and community groups put into conservation efforts all around New Zealand. That is a conversation that is dwindling very quickly under this Government, where it seems to be that partnerships, community groups, and valuing volunteers seems to be a dwindling force under this Minister and under this Labour - New Zealand First - Green Government.
So according to the Minister in her speech—which was exactly like last year's speech, which was exactly like the year before's speech, and on and on into the distant past, because it's always the same—all is sunny in the conservation portfolio. Her speech, funnily enough, on the one hand largely referencing projects commenced under the previous National Government—and I will go through some of those—but at the same time having the interesting position of saying that we had nothing new to offer. Well, I ask the Minister, possibly to answer in a different forum, what has this Government done in the conservation portfolio that wasn't commenced under the previous National Government? 
I'll just go through a few of those projects—interesting always to read a financial review and to hear Director-General of the Department of Conservation (DOC), Lou Sanson, who, as it turns out, appears to be the greatest cheerleader for the initiatives that were commenced and undertaken and now picked up by Eugenie Sage in her portfolio but commenced under National. I'm going through the first one, and here's Lou Sanson, and I'm saying "So predator free?" He says, "It was launched by Prime Minister Key four years ago." Well, thank you, Lou Sanson, for acknowledging that Predator Free 2050 was, in fact, a National initiative commenced with the Hon Maggie Barry back in 2014-15.
The next reference in this document is Battle for our Birds: "We've ramped that up."—well, congratulations, that's really good news that you've done that. But once again, this is an initiative which was commenced under National. It's just a shame that the Minister has quietly let the name go and has subsumed it into the Predator Free 2050 work space.
Now, good stuff, all good stuff, but "predator free" and Battle for our Birds certainly had a good ring to it and was a rallying point for all those volunteers who are now beginning to feel a little neglected. So here's the next glowing reference to the previous Government by the director-general Lou Sanson: the Ministry for Culture and Heritage's Tohu Whenua, the landmarks that Minister Barry introduced three years ago, is on a roll. Well, that's also great news, I suppose, and also great news that Maggie Barry and the previous National Government have been credited with that initiative.
Then we get back and Lou Sanson carries on with his narrative: "I started at DOC in 2014", then he starts talking about the number of huts, and then he says, "we set up the Backcountry Trust"—thanks again to the previous National Government. So I guess, without really labouring the point far too much, I think it would be fair to say that I haven't heard anything so far in Lou Sanson's glowing summary of the conservation estate—anything new, except for maybe one name change: getting rid of Battle for our Birds and subsuming it into another project.
However, Lou Sanson was not so flattering about life under this Minister and this Government. I go back to the written word and the first question I have—obviously to be answered in another forum, although anyone is welcome to answer these questions—is Lou Sanson mentioned how excited he was at the international visitor levy of $42 million, potentially, to come. So the question is "Where is that international visitor levy?" and as a relatively new Environment Committee member, three weeks as of today, I will be asking some questions around that international visitor levy.
Then the second mention by Mr Lou Sanson, Director-General of DOC, where things maybe aren't going quite as much as the Minister would purport, is, of course, the Supreme Court decision which said that the Treaty partner trumps all legislation to do with national parks. And so DOC are now reviewing the national park legislation and the conservation park general policy—that is fine; that is the way it should be. But what seems to have been forgotten through all of this is the concessionaires who are waiting, waiting, waiting for that legislative review to happen to give them some security when they go to the bank—because they have a concession to operate hunting or fishing or rafting or guiding or boating within a national park. They need to go to the bank to refinance—what do they say? "We have no tenure, I'm sorry, bank manager, because there's a review under way." This is something that is impacting hundreds and hundreds of concessionaires all around New Zealand. For a Government which says it's the Government of infrastructure, well, DOC and concessions are part of that infrastructure. Well, they'd better get a wriggle on, because there are people hurting out there in the regions, and it's at the hands of this Minister, who needs to get on with that work.
The next mention where Lou Sanson is glowing is in an area where DOC had a very difficult relationship, he says, with farmers formerly—and he's referencing the Mackenzie Basin in the South Island—and he says it is remarkable how this project has coalesced now since the Department of Conservation and the local councils and iwi have all got together. Well, they forgot to ask the farmers what they thought, because those very high country farmers who either have tenure on the land, or land and free title—which is highly contested—they're not being asked. They're not being asked what's going on, they are not being included, and that is not a good way to treat stakeholders out in the world.
Māui dolphin protection gets the next grand mention, and that is interesting because, with the Māui dolphins, they're saying, in regards to cameras on fishing boats, "Yep, absolutely. We think cameras on fishing boats are the way to do it." Well, how about those cameras on fishing boats, Minister? Where are they? Approximately a quarter of fishing boats have got cameras. We all thought that the policy was in the bag, but it got torpedoed by somebody in that Government. So maybe not quite as glowing as perhaps they might have thought it was going to be. 
Then the conversation turned, as it does, to Predator Free 2050, and the question really comes now: Predator Free 2050, in order to really have an impact on predator control in New Zealand, has got to use—and relies on—new technologies, and part of that new technology is, of course, gene editing. So where is this Government on gene editing? Well, it was all go. Lou Sanson, Director-General of DOC, last financial year, was quietly optimistic and excited about the prospect of gene editing; this year, gone—dead in the water. Why? Because of this coalition Government, who has three different views and none of them can agree. None of the Green Party's agenda ever gets under way, just like the Kermadec sanctuary and just like a number of initiatives that the Green Party and the Green Minister have put up that have been absolutely torpedoed by one or other of their coalition partners. So for the Ministers to stand up and say all is rosy within the conservation estate—I respectfully disagree. It is not rosy in the conservation estate. Who are the losers? New Zealand's wildlife. Those—
SPEAKER: Order! The member's time has expired.





Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister of Energy and Resources): I move, That the debate be now adjourned.





A party vote was called for on the question, That the debate be now adjourned.
Ayes 64
New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8; ACT New Zealand 1.
Noes 56
New Zealand National 55; Ross.
Motion agreed to.





ABORTION LEGISLATION BILL
Second Reading
Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Justice): I move, That the Abortion Legislation Bill be now read a second time.
This bill was introduced on 5 August last year and was referred to the Abortion Legislation Committee, a special committee set up specifically for consideration of this bill. The committee was established by the House precisely for that purpose. I want to thank members of the committee, in particular the chair, the Hon Ruth Dyson, and the deputy chair, the Hon Amy Adams, for the work they did. They received more than 25,000 submissions. They heard from more than 130 people during 30 hours of oral evidence.
This bill and this topic are a very sensitive topic. It's a very difficult topic for many citizens and many, many members of this House to discuss and debate, but debate it we must, because this legislation that we're now considering—the changes to which we are considering—are more than 40 years old and it is timely and appropriate to consider it.
I want to thank members of the committee for conducting their work in a thoughtful and respectful way, and I want to thank the many members of the public too, whose submissions were thoughtful; those who have written to myself and, I know, many other Ministers and MPs who've done so in a respectful way. That is the way we should conduct a debate on matters such as this.
Many members of the public who wrote to the committee and made submissions to the committee made some very important points, and I think it is reflected in the changes that the committee has agreed to in the bill. Those who submitted to the committee also included those with expertise in the area, with daily practice in the area. That includes the Abortion Supervisory Committee, regulatory bodies such as the Medical Council of New Zealand, abortion providers, and many women who shared their personal experiences. For many of them, that was a difficult thing to do.
I have previously spoken about the reasons why I believe the law governing abortion needs to be changed, not the least of which is that the legislation is so old, but also the fact that the framework for abortion in New Zealand right now is set out in both the Crimes Act 1961 and the Contraception, Sterilisation, and Abortion Act 1977, and a woman seeking an abortion should not have her actions stigmatised as if she were committing a criminal act—she is not; she is making a decision about herself and her body.
The law as it is at the moment is complex and bureaucratic and is difficult for women seeking an abortion. A pregnant woman has to go through multiple steps to obtain an abortion and that delay—and we have to remember, too, that for New Zealand, compared to the rest of the world, the time or duration within the pregnancy by which a New Zealand woman gets an abortion is one of the longest in the world, and that adds to their stress. It's not good for them. It's not good for health practitioners. It's not good for New Zealand. The proposals in the bill will enable earlier access to services and will support the best health and wellbeing outcomes for women. The bill reflects the fact that women can and should be trusted to make an important health decision in consultation with their doctor.
Following the select committee process, the Abortion Legislation Committee has recommended changes to improve access to abortion services which it considers are in the best interests of women. I want to now just go through some of the changes that the committee has recommended, because I think they are good changes and reflect the sentiment, on average, that has been expressed by the many New Zealanders who contacted the committee during that phase.
In relation to abortion after 20 weeks, in response to submissions received, the revised bill changes the test that a qualified health practitioner must follow if providing abortion services to a woman who is more than 20 weeks pregnant. The test in the bill as introduced required a qualified health practitioner to determine whether the abortion is appropriate in the circumstances with regard to the woman's physical and mental health and wellbeing. The revised test expands some of the wording from the original bill. In fact, the requirements now include a requirement that the health practitioner regards the abortion as clinically appropriate, the health practitioner has to consult another health practitioner—so it's not just one but two—and, of course, that reflects current practice anyway. We have to remember that for women seeking an abortion at 20 weeks, generally speaking that is a wanted pregnancy but there is something seriously wrong either with the fetus or with the woman's health. This is a very difficult point at which to make this decision, and I hope that people embarking on this debate will recognise that. That is now reflected in the changes that the committee has proposed.
They add in a requirement that the medical professional has to have regard to his or her relevant legal, professional and ethical standards to which they are subject, and also consider the woman's physical health, mental health, and overall wellbeing, and, of course, the gestational age of the fetus. I go back to the point that I just made: women at 20 weeks into the pregnancy do not make a decision on a whim. In the end, this is about having a legal framework within which women can make these decisions and are, and should be, trusted to make these decisions, as you would expect any human being who is confronted with a situation to do so. I note that the committee intended to reflect in legislation the process that already occurs when women are considering abortion at this stage of the pregnancy.
I want to turn briefly to sex selection because this was an issue that the committee considered and it was raised in submissions. The committee was concerned about submissions made that some might consider an abortion on the grounds of gender biased sex selection, and they point to evidence overseas. The committee concluded that there was no evidence of this happening in New Zealand but they wanted a statement in the bill that reflected the, generally, New Zealand view on this, which is that we don't tolerate sex selection as a reason for an abortion.
I turn briefly to safe areas because I know this is an area to test those who are vigilant about and are champions of freedom of speech in this country, and that's very important and we need those voices—they're absolutely vital. The truth is that there are women who are seeking abortions and going to facilities where they are prevailed upon in an unseemly and entirely inappropriate way, and they should not be subject to that sort of behaviour. Now, the changes that the committee have recommended in this regard are to shift the offence from a reckless sort of standard to an objective test; it's now expressed as an ordinary reasonable person test. That is, it's an offence to intimidate, interfere, or obstruct a person in a safe area in a manner that the ordinary reasonable person would know would cause emotional distress to a protected person. Protected person is defined as either a medical practitioner going to a facility from which an abortion might be carried out, or a person who is seeking an abortion. The committee has also inserted a requirement that each safe area is reviewed within five years of the area's establishment. There is a process to go through to establish a safe area, it's done by the Minister of Health in consultation with the Minister of Justice, there has to be good reasons for it, it has to be done by Order in Council, and it is reviewed on a periodic basis.
Let me turn to conscientious objection, because this is another sensitive area too, particularly for health practitioners who do not support the idea of an abortion. For contraception and sterilisation services, the person with an objection to dispensing advice to a patient had to tell the patient how to access the contact details of another provider of the services; for abortion services, the person objecting would have to tell the patient how to access a list of service providers. The committee has simplified this process for someone with a conscientious objection to ensure timely access for the person seeking services. The revised process is that the conscientious objector must tell the person seeking an abortion or sterilisation or contraception services how to access the contact details of another person who is a provider of the service requested.
The committee also picked up on an existing provision in the current Contraception, Sterilisation, and Abortion Act related to conscientious objection that had not been amended in the bill as it was introduced. This section regards supply of contraception to victims of sexual violation. The committee has aligned the requirements for practitioners with conscientious objections in these instances to the process set out in the bill.
There are also revised provisions in relation to conscientious objection and employment. The aim is that for bigger services where staff who have a conscientious objection can be redeployed, they are deployed. Where that is not possible because of the size of the business, then that is a matter which the business has to ensure that they can continue to provide their service, and that may bear upon the employment of a person with a conscientious objection. There is a provision in the bill that requires the Director-General of Health to ensure that abortion services are provided equitably across the country.
We need a law where a pregnant woman can and should be trusted to make the decision for themselves about an abortion in consultation with their health practitioner. This bill does that, and on that basis I commend this bill to the House.





AGNES LOHENI (National): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Can I acknowledge first the over 25,000 New Zealanders who took the time to make a submission on this bill. Of those, an overwhelming 91.6 percent opposed this bill. I'd also particularly like to acknowledge the many brave women who came forward to share their abortion stories with the Abortion Legislation Committee, either in writing or in person. Women from both sides of this debate came forward. This is an issue that dredges up a lot of pain and hurt, and, clearly, still a lot of healing is required for many of them.
Leading up to the introduction of this bill, Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern stated that she wanted abortion decriminalised. I don't agree with her. This has always been a solution looking for a problem. No woman has ever been criminalised in New Zealand for having an abortion. Not one. So not only do we have a solution looking for a problem to solve but this bill stretches itself to the furthest reaches of abortion liberalisation.
This bill seeks to strip unborn babies of what little recognition and protection they had left in the law. In decriminalising women who seek an abortion, the sad reality of this bill is that it dehumanises the unborn baby by framing abortion via termination as a health issue. Further, this bill not only infringes on a health professional's right to conscientious objection, it also seeks to stamp out New Zealanders' democratic right to freedom of speech and expression, which includes the right to peaceful protest. Most harrowing for me, this bill frees up post - 20 week abortions to the point that any measured reading of the bill can only conclude that it will allow abortion on demand up to birth.
As a member of the Abortion Legislation Committee, I was not able to effect any meaningful change to this bill despite an overwhelming number of submissions against it. As a consequence, I wrote a minority view to ensure those views that opposed were heard.
In replacement section 11, inserted by clause 7 of this bill, it gives full effect to abortions post - 20 weeks gestation. This stands in stark contrast to the hollow assurances that the Hon Andrew Little gave when he stood before the House to present this bill at the first reading. There is nothing in section 11 that the Minister of Justice can point to that defines when an abortion can proceed, and more importantly, when it cannot. These are vague generalisations that use loose and broad criteria for post - 20 week abortions. As the Minister has also defined, I do not agree that these are better criteria: "Clinically appropriate", having regard to the physical and mental health of the woman, and, the most nebulous of all, "overall well-being"—terms so broad as to be legally meaningless. The current law is clear that abortion after 20 weeks is only available to save the life of the woman, or to prevent severe, permanent injury to her physical or mental health. These are robust terms that include the awful situation when a mum is carrying a baby that is simply not viable outside the womb.
The current law also requires a sign-off by two certifying consultants. In oral submissions, Dr Aimee Kettoola, a general paediatrician, spoke about the undue burden this loose criteria, wellbeing, will place on doctors. In her words, "As a doctor, I don't even know what that means." She also argues that the broad and loose criteria will make late-term abortions easier as it significantly lowers the threshold for eligibility. It would be difficult to see any instances where abortion could reasonably be refused by any medical practitioner, given the terminology of criteria in this bill before us today. This leaves health practitioners dangerously exposed should they deem that an abortion for that woman post - 20 weeks is not appropriate.
I do not support the amendments in section 11, as they have added nothing. They do not strengthen the criteria at all. For example, we now also have in section 11 that the qualified health practitioner must consult at least one other qualified health practitioner. The bill does not define what that consultation should look like. That is not two doctors taking responsibility and oversight over this serious decision. What happens if the second qualified health practitioner does not agree with the first and does not agree that abortion is warranted? We don't know. The bill is silent on that. It is not unreasonable to think that two doctors may not agree on the wellbeing criteria.
Further, in section 11, it also says that the health practitioner must have regard to the gestational age of the fetus. Again, this criteria is meaningless because it is silent on how that regard should be taken account for. So these are words that are utterly meaningless in practice.
The New Zealand Medical Association recommended that the statutory test for the period post - 20 weeks needed to be narrower. They recommended a point of distinction in the legislation, a statutory test at, say, 21 weeks and 38 weeks. There is no distinction or upper limit in this bill. Some in the House will say that I am scaremongering. I urge those members who take this view to look closely at the meaning of section 11 and tell me how a different conclusion could possibly be drawn. How can one doctor deny a woman an abortion under these criteria?
I turn now to sections 19 and 20, in clause 7. There are provisions around conscientious objection—except that there are no provisions for conscientious objection. The employer can discriminate against an employee if they deem that their conscientious objection would unreasonably disrupt provision of health services. The bill does not define "unreasonable disruption". It is vague. A submission by a legal organisation told the committee that the phrase was too subjective, and it doesn't require an employer to prove that the objection would disrupt their business.
I have outlined a lot to be alarmed about in this bill. I am deeply saddened at this bill's blatant attack on the right to life and recognition for our unborn babies. If we can discard the life of an unborn baby—if we can diminish their value and their humanity to the point that we no longer call them babies, then we have lost our own humanity, because they are the smallest versions of us. Late-term surgical abortions are nothing short of barbaric; there is nothing kind in it. A truly progressive society protects the rights of all its members down to the smallest and most vulnerable—the unborn child. I take a stand for that unborn child. I oppose this bill. Thank you. [Applause in gallery]
SPEAKER: Order! Order! I just make it very clear to people in the gallery that there are to be no interventions. Anyone who intervenes again will leave.





Hon AMY ADAMS (National—Selwyn): Mr Speaker, thank you. I want to begin by stating very clearly in the debate on this bill—which is a conscience issue—where I start from, and my fundamental views in this regard. I have an absolute belief that women have the inalienable right to control their own reproductive systems and to determine, ultimately, whether or not they have a child.
Secondly, I think there is no place for a Parliament to be specifying and legislating what the appropriate medical treatment is in any given case. We are not medical professionals; we are lawmakers, and we have to respect that. I trust women and doctors to make these decisions carefully, gravely, and appropriately. It's time for New Zealand to go from being one of the most restrictive and outdated in the way our legislation is framed around abortion to move to having a sensible and balanced framework that doesn't make women feel like they've got to create a fiction of being mentally unbalanced to access the care and the treatment that they want. 
Some countries have no abortion law at all. Now, that might seem strange in a New Zealand context, but when you think about it, we don't have laws for any of our medical treatments, even those that have the most intense ethical considerations and the most significant impacts on those involved. I do want to acknowledge that there are widespread and very genuine, deeply held views across the House and across society, and all of those views are valid. Everyone is certainly entitled to their view, and I respect those who have them, who represent them, and who advocate for them. But I am disappointed that so few opponents appear to have taken the time to understand even the current realities of abortion care in New Zealand or even the factual reality of this proposal.
This is not abortion on demand; that is simply untrue. In every situation that the bill provides for, the doctor is always the decision maker, not the woman. The woman can certainly request the service, but the doctor is the decision maker, and the doctor is never compelled to carry out a termination where he or she doesn't believe that that is the appropriate treatment in any given case. It is not, despite what is being said, abortion up to birth. Those of us who sat on the select committee—and I was privileged to be in that role—heard the providers being very clear on this point. It is fatuous and misleading to suggest otherwise.
The evidence is also clear that it won't increase the number of abortions in New Zealand. In fact, the number of abortions has been falling for many years, and that's a good thing. All members of the committee were very clear that we wanted to see a society where every pregnancy was a wanted and loved pregnancy, but we do know that the delays because of the current framework are negatively impacting women significantly, and this bill is about making sure that when termination services are sought, they can be the product of an open and honest conversation, and they can be accessed as early in the pregnancy as that can be obtained.
You will hear a lot in this debate of the arguments of the specific provisions, and, of course, that's what we do as a Parliament. But let me be really clear: what's driving the opposition to the bill is not concern about the way it's framed; it is a deep and underlying opposition to there being abortions. Now, as I said, that's a valid view to hold, but let's be really clear: that's what's driving the opposition in this House—people who fundamentally don't believe there should be abortion. Well, abortion has been a reality in New Zealand legally for many years, and it will continue to be so. It is our job as lawmakers to address whether that law is correct.
I want to commend the chair of the Abortion Legislation Committee, the Hon Ruth Dyson, and all of my fellow committee members. It is not an easy issue. It is an emotional issue. It is a fraught issue. Those who submitted came with, as I said, deeply held and very strident beliefs. I want to put on record that I think the committee, a bipartisan committee, acted respectfully and professionally, irrespective of their views on the matter, and I think other committees who have dealt with contentious conscience issues could certainly learn from that approach.
I also want to put on record—and this is going to stray into the more contentious areas—I'm quite comfortable that not every submission was heard. I know a lot of people have tried to make a lot about that. There is no automatic right to be heard at a select committee, and a select committee is not a forum by which the volume of people heard determines the outcome. Your submission—every submission made on the bill—is read, is analysed, and is a part of the consideration. But no one should assume that if you make a submission, you have an automatic right to be heard. This committee heard 30 hours—in fact, more than 30 hours—of evidence, and, because of the decisions we made, we were able to ensure that those who came along had adequate time to recount, as I said, what were often difficult scenarios that they wanted to talk about.
I'm quite happy to admit that I learnt a lot going through this process about the current situation, and there's no question that what will be right in each case and for each woman will be very different and very specific to them, and every woman must be supported to understand their options and to make the decision that is best for them.
Now, you'll hear a lot of selective quoting from submissions that might enable the House or people listening to misunderstand the level of support and opposition. The reality is that we've had many doctors, many nurses, many midwives, and organisations like social workers and even the Mental Health Foundation make it clear that they supported the changes in this bill as being ultimately the right thing for the women of New Zealand.
I want to come now just to a couple of the specifics in the bill, and the first is addressing the suggestion that this is a solution looking for a problem. I utterly reject that. We heard evidence—harrowing evidence—from women in New Zealand who have faced incredible inequities because of where they live and their ability to access service. We heard from a woman who had to drive from Queenstown to Invercargill at her own cost, take the day off work, and spend a night in a hotel and then had to drive home while the pills that she had taken for the medical abortion were taking effect on her body—and she was, effectively, miscarrying—because she couldn't access services where she lived and she couldn't afford to spend more nights in a motel that wasn't funded by the health system. That sort of inequity and overly rigorous process is not good for women, and it is time for it to come to an end. The delays that women are forced to endure and the lies that they are forced to tell to access healthcare are not acceptable in modern New Zealand.
I want to talk too about what is probably the most contentious issue of the bill, if my reading of the House in discussions with others is right, and that is the post - 20 week framework. The first thing I want to make very clear is that abortions post - 20 weeks are always of wanted pregnancies. Women are not fickle, inconsistent, hare-brained people who suddenly wake up one morning and decide they no longer want to be pregnant. When abortions are sought post - 20 weeks, it is very rare and it is because of the most tragic situations and it is heartbreaking for everyone involved. It is offensive to suggest otherwise. To hear of women who have been told their fetus is incompatible with life outside the womb but to be left with no options but to continue that pregnancy, knowing that that is the case for months, is inhuman, and this bill will allow for other options to be offered to that woman.
I want to simply end by saying that I came to this House to stand for freedom, to stand for individual choice, and to stand for less State involvement in the parts of our lives that it has no place being. That is what this bill does. Women must be in charge of their bodies, not this Parliament. I commend the bill to the House.
SPEAKER: Greg O'Connor—a five-minute call.





GREG O'CONNOR (Labour—Ōhāriu): I stand in opposition to this bill. I voted for it at the first reading because I felt that the bill needed to go through a select committee to see if it could be made palatable. I've read the Abortion Legislation Committee report. I've read the bill.
For those who are watching tonight, those who believe this is an abortion debate, it is not an abortion debate. As the previous speaker pointed out, that debate was had several years ago and abortion is now part of the New Zealand landscape. Whether or not it's abortion on demand is debatable. I believe, from what I have learnt, it is abortion on demand. However, I do not agree with those who believe we should go back to a day where all abortions were illegal, because you will end up putting it back where it was—in the hands of criminals. If you think it's bad—anything now to do with abortion—wait until you end up back in those days. Most abortionists were caught because they had butchered a job or butchered a woman—butchered a victim. That was how they were caught. So I would implore those who believe that this is a re-debate of abortion to think again.
What this is is about post - 20 weeks. I've read the report, and I've looked for anything that would assure me that the situation we have now would not become the post - 20 week situation—where you have the consultants, where you have to have the reasons; but that is what you have now. There will be those who'll disagree, but, from my own experience, it is not difficult to get an abortion in New Zealand today. That is where—there will be those who are in favour of full rights; they will say no—this debate really belongs.
I'm the father of an intellectually handicapped son who's now 27 years old, and what this post - 20 week legislation will mean is that for parents who do find out that they have a child who may not be "normal", who isn't what they had hoped the child would be, all of a sudden a whole new set of pressures are going to go on as a result of this legislation. While we have the same consultative process, pretty much, we have now pre - 20 weeks which will be imposed post - 20 weeks, I look at the committee's report where they say, "We have confidence that doctors base their decisions on these legal and ethical guidelines. However, we note the bill does not explicitly state the legal and ethical frameworks a doctor would use." This is the essence of the debate. There is going to be a considerable amount of discretion able to be used by those doctors.
I note—as I researched that—there have been a number of abortions over the last 10 years that have been refused. But, actually, the statistics don't tell us whether those abortions actually carried on—whether the women went to another person or another physician.
So, again, I stand here looking. I've examined this legislation. I've examined the report, and I don't believe that anyone can look at this and believe that there's not a whole new set of pressures going to go on to parents—those who are now going to be forced to make a decision around whether they will abort their child. I fear that post - 20 weeks—this part of this legislation I simply cannot vote for. 
Taking the legislation out of the Crimes Act, as I said, I agree with. That is something that I think there are sufficient safeguards in there now to keep it outside the Crimes Act. It does belong as a health issue, as some of the other speakers mentioned. But post - 20 weeks, there is just simply not enough safeguard to ensure that those—
SPEAKER: Order! The member's time has expired. 





PAULO GARCIA (National): Thank you, Mr Speaker, for this opportunity to speak about the Abortion Legislation Bill and the committee report that is now before us. I stand with sadness, with a heart filled with tribulation and pain because, once again, I stand to argue against a bill that seeks to enable the ending—the taking—of a human life by another human being. I remind myself and this House and all those watching these proceedings that I do not stand alone. There are many who hear and understand and support the position of not voting this legislation through—people who feel the same pain that I feel, people that I stand and speak for now. 
We have heard many statements focused on the details of the bill and that women who undertake abortions should not be stigmatised as criminals—this despite no woman having been charged with unlawful abortion in the history of this Act. We have heard that the bill is not intended to liberalise abortion up until birth—this despite the bill allowing abortion beyond the current legislation limit of 20 weeks, without an upper limit. 
The bill opens the door for the abortion of babies with not just severe abnormalities but also moderate ones, making disabled unborn children very vulnerable under the proposed law. The current law explicitly prevents abortions on the basis of fetal abnormality up to 20 weeks, but that the proposed law does not do the same represents a major step backwards in terms of disability rights. 
We've heard that safe zones are necessary to prevent intimidation and unseemly conduct, despite all activity near abortion centres being perceived to be peaceful and non-intimidating and non-threatening, and that many nurses and health professionals are in support of this bill when, to my personal knowledge, many, many, many nurses and health professionals do not support this bill. 
I would like to specifically point out that this great effort for the current legislation to be amended to allow for abortion beyond 20 weeks, including making standards more available, setting standards, and ensuring that there are competent staff—all of these cost time and effort and resources, yet the committee acknowledges that they have heard from women who might not have chosen abortion if they had received more support. There are no mandatory provisions in the bill for ensuring women are given information about the consequences or risks of having an abortion, are made aware of all their options, or are enabled to receive the practical support needed to help them make a different choice. There are no mandatory provisions proposed for ensuring women receive emotional and psychological support after an abortion, should an abortion have been gone through. Neither the bill nor the committee report seeks to ensure that assistance is to be provided to the many women and their partners who often have to deal with the coercive realities that surround many abortions. 
As the father of four daughters, an uncle to many, and a friend to many families, and as a husband who loves his wife dearly, I believe that for a woman to remain undecided and unsure of whether to continue her pregnancy to the full term, and to have her baby actually born, in her arms, cuddled, squeezed, hugged, and kissed and cared for, it is because she does not have the support she needs from her partner and/or the whānau around her, and the lack of support makes sharing a life with another human being so fearful and inconceivable as to make her consider terminating it. I believe that this is where time and resources should be spent. 
I finish with a quote from the New York Times, quoting a Harvard medical professor who said that we pass through different stages as we grow, and that a "baby of five weeks in the womb differs from the newborn, but so does the toddler differ from the teen. … but we don't pass from person to non-person, or vice versa." 





Hon NIKKI KAYE (National—Auckland Central): I am pleased to support the Abortion Legislation Bill to this House. Can I take a moment to acknowledge all of the members of the special committee: Jan, David, Agnes, Amy, Ruth—
SPEAKER: Order! Order! 
Hon NIKKI KAYE: —just to acknowledge all of your work. 
I do want to acknowledge that there are some very strongly held views in this Chamber. I don't want to diminish those views. I have extraordinary respect for freedom of speech and freedom of religion. But I support this bill for a few very fundamental and simple reasons. The first is I believe that every woman in New Zealand has the right to control her body. It's very simple. It's very simple; in fact, it's so simple that we are one of the most archaic countries in the world—even Catholic Ireland has more liberal abortion laws than New Zealand. That's right, we were the first country to give women the vote and we've had extraordinary female leaders that have come over generations on different sides of the House, but we are less liberal on abortion laws than Ireland. 
I want to take a moment to acknowledge Dame Margaret Sparrow. You are an extraordinary New Zealander. For half of your life—more than 40 years—you have fought for abortion reform, and I want to acknowledge how hard that has been at times. I do acknowledge there have been 25,000 submissions in this House, of which a majority are opposed. But we cannot consider those submissions without considering the many silent voices: the many women who email me, who come up to me in airports, and who come up to us in constituency clinics who are too afraid to speak up publicly, for which the leading lights like Dame Margaret Sparrow have put their bodies literally on the line to fight for what I consider are basic equality and women's rights. 
I want to acknowledge what the committee has said in terms of many members in this House supporting the basic view that we want to see less unwanted pregnancies in New Zealand and less abortions in this country. We support this view. 
Fundamentally, there are a couple of other reasons why it is crucial, in my view, that we have this law change. Again, I want to quote Dame Margaret Sparrow, who really, effectively, said a number of years ago that it is an absolute farce in this country that 98 percent—I think it was at the time—of the abortions were on the grounds of mental health. That is a farce, that is wrong, that is archaic, and it is time that, as a country, we changed that and we faced up to the fact that it is archaic and outdated and wrong to have a law on the books that, effectively, says that. 
I also want to stand up and acknowledge our Minister of Justice, Andrew Little. It is wrong to have this law reform under the framework of the Crimes Act, and I want to put on record that I think that that is unacceptable, and that is why I am supporting this bill to the House. 
I do want to acknowledge the real concerns that we have had from across New Zealand around this issue of post - 20 weeks, which we've just heard some of our parliamentary colleagues talk about. But look, I am supporting this law because I've looked at the facts. I've actually looked at the reality of the practice in New Zealand. The reality of the practice in New Zealand is that of the 13,000 abortions in New Zealand each year, there was a small number—it was tiny—that were post - 20 weeks. Why? Because any member in this House who has sat next to someone who has had to go through an abortion and held their hand, who has hugged their partner, who has gone and been with someone through this process, knows that for pretty much all of the women in New Zealand, and the men who go through this alongside their partners, it is the hardest process that anyone could go through.
So I do not buy the arguments of some of the people in this House who have suddenly said that this will lead to a whole lot more women deciding that they are not going to go through what is a carefully considered, traumatic process for them. In fact, this bill is about strengthening and improving the support for those women and those families, with a right to counselling. I want to acknowledge the committee for the real issues that the committee has covered around inequity in terms of access to services. We cannot just pass this legislation without ensuring that, actually, we have decent access to services right across New Zealand.
I want to cover a couple of other issues. I want to acknowledge conscientious objection, which is covered in this bill. The Minister of Justice also outlined the amendment, which I see as an improvement, around ensuring that where there is a conscientious objection, women know of other services available. I also want to acknowledge the issue that people have raised around sex selection, and I want to put on the record, as many other members of this House have, that I am completely opposed to this; and that the select committee overwhelmingly heard that there is no evidence of this happening, but there are amendments in the bill to improve the law in this area.
Finally, I want to say to all members of this House—and it really reiterates what my colleague, the Hon Amy Adams, has said—I completely respect all members of this House in terms of their religious freedom. I completely respect all members of this House who may have a view that they don't want any abortions. But what I will not accept in this House is what I consider a lack of factual analysis about what happens in New Zealand—the numbers of abortions, the process that most women go through, the horrific experiences that they have had, the delays that they are experiencing, which is clearly articulated in the report. I think there was a 2010 study which indicated that many women were experiencing a delay of over 25 days. I will not accept arguments put up by members that are not factually accurate, and I would ask members in this House to be open and honest about their lens and the view that they are coming from—if it is religious, if it is about the fact that they just don't want any abortions—because I do believe that New Zealanders have a right to know.
I do believe, as well, that many women in New Zealand, basically, fundamentally, want equality. They want the ability to have control over their body. They don't want to have to be in these situations, but, if they are, they, ultimately, want respect and equality. I believe that this bill is timely. It's progressive. It's important. It will lead to less suffering. I commend this bill to the House.





ANAHILA KANONGATA'A-SUISUIKI (Labour): E Te Mana Whakawā, thank you for the opportunity to be able to contribute to the Abortion Legislation Bill. I acknowledge all the 25,776 submissions from interested groups and individuals. I would also like to acknowledge the submitters who came to the Abortion Legislation Committee and gave us their oral evidence. I want to acknowledge the leadership of the chair, the Hon Ruth Dyson—Ruth Dyson and her leadership of this select committee—because, as a person who opposes this bill, I was given every opportunity to express my views. So in the chairwomanship, leadership, of the Hon Ruth Dyson—I want to acknowledge her in this process. I also would like to acknowledge the leadership and insightful critique, or questioning, of the Hon Amy Adams. She was able to ask questions that were insightful and helped our deliberation through the process. As we've heard from other speakers, we sat through 30 hours of oral submissions, and I want to acknowledge all the people that attended and all the stories shared by the women, by the people who work in these professions, who gave us their insightful experiences, whether they supported or opposed this bill.
I today stand alongside the over about 91 percent of submitters that are opposed to this bill. I am acknowledging that 17 percent of submitters are for the bill. My views in opposition to this bill are derived from Tongan culture and as a Christian Tongan. That's where I formed my view. And I need to say it in this House—that I am a Christian and I was raised a Tongan Christian. And I don't stand here to say that I represent all Christians or all Pasifika. I am representing my views as a Tongan and all the people that have actually spoken to me about those views.
The word for "placenta" in the Tongan culture and the word for "land" is one word; it means the same. It's "fonua". So "placenta" in the Tongan language means "fonua" and "land" means "fonua". In my upbringing, the most sacred kinds of rituals conducted by Tongans are through birth and death. We give the language that we use in these incidences the same status that we use for royalty. In my limited knowledge in Te Reo, "whenua" is also the same meaning for "placenta" and the same meaning for "land".
I've heard speakers on the other side, and I need to respond to a few of those speeches. The last speaker, Nikki Kaye, talked about trusting a woman to control her own body. The age of consent in this country is 16. This bill does not differentiate between a child under 14, a young person under 19, an adult over 25. It does not differentiate. During the select committee, my main concern was about informed consent. If a woman is pregnant at 13, how informed is her consent? If my 14-year-old daughter chooses to have sex and is pregnant, and she makes an informed decision to have an abortion—for me, I disagree with "informed decision". There was an example from the previous speaker, who spoke about a young woman from Queenstown who, through this current legislation, took a long journey to get to have an abortion. That young woman took that journey twice, to have an abortion.
In New Zealand, in Aotearoa New Zealand, it is legal to have an abortion through the current system. In the current system in New Zealand, performing an unlawful abortion and supplying the method of obtaining an abortion are criminal offences under sections 183 and 186 of the Crimes Act 1961. An abortion is considered unlawful unless certain legal grounds are met. It talks about, in the commentary, "The bill would insert a new criminal offence as section 183 of the Crimes Act. The offence would be for a person who is not a health practitioner performing an abortion or attempting to perform one, or procuring an abortion, or attempting to procure one."
So, actually, it says the same thing. It says the same thing—that the woman is not criminalised for choosing to have an abortion. And in choosing to have an abortion, the decision lies with the health practitioner. The woman may choose to self-refer, as this bill intends. The woman may choose to self-refer, but, at the end of the day, it is the health practitioner that provides the means for the abortion to happen. It is not the woman's choice at the end of the day; it is the health practitioner's. We are lawmakers, and through the public and through whatever means what we are saying is that we are setting a process to change the current system for abortion, which is actually legal in our land.
I want to touch on the offence of killing an unborn child. The commentary states, "Section 182 of the Crimes Act contains an offence of killing an unborn child, and provides … a prison term of up to 14 years. The offence applies if a person causes the death of [a] fetus in such a way that they would be guilty if it had become human. Clause 11 of the bill as introduced would amend section 182(2) to make it clear that the offence does not relate to abortions in accordance with [this bill]." So with abortion it is not killing an unborn child; it is aborting a fetus. So that's the differentiation.
I want to tell the story of a woman that came to the select committee. In the room she had two 10-year-old twins and it was her third pregnancy but her first live births. So the woman was in a boarding school—I won't mention the boarding school. She was in the boarding school and twice she had an abortion and was supported by the staff for her to be able to have an abortion. She was at high school, so she was in her teenage years. In her last intended abortion, there was a trainee doctor in the room, and that person had asked while she was in training if she could take a scan—oh gosh, I can't remember what that is, even though I've had four children—
Hon Member: Ultrasound.
ANAHILA KANONGATA'A-SUISUIKI: —ultrasound of the child, and there were two heartbeats in this pregnant woman. She was pregnant with twins, about to go and have an abortion, and at that moment she decided, "No, I will not go to an abortion." She spoke to me afterwards and she said to me the guidance provided to her by the school was about a thing that's growing inside of her, and it was one way, and had she been given other guidance, then maybe—maybe—her decision would be different.
This is the second most emails I've received or communications I received, apart from the End of Life Choice Bill by the member David Seymour. This is the second most communications made to me by the public. I want to thank everybody that has communicated with me because I know that my name is not easy to spell, but you managed to do it—you managed to do it. I want to acknowledge the Papakura Baptist Church who—I attended church a couple of weeks ago—asked to pray for me in terms of when I stand here to speak in the House.
Like I said in my introduction of my speech, I don't stand here to represent all Tongans. I don't stand here to represent all Christians. I stand here to represent what I've heard through the select committee and my definition of what this bill does. I accept that it's trying to reform the legislation, but we must also remember that abortion is legal in New Zealand, but there is an opportunity to differentiate between a child and an adult. And I disagree with the fact that it is an informed decision by a woman who is pregnant at 14 to have an abortion. I disagree with that—that it is informed. And I also disagree with the fact that it's the woman's choice, because, at the end of the day, it is the health practitioner that makes the decision for the woman to have an abortion. And in that tone, I oppose this bill to the House.





DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise in support of the Abortion Legislation Bill, a piece of legislation whose time has come—decades ago—a piece of legislation that will take abortion out of the Crimes Act because it should never have been a crime. As earlier speakers have made a point of saying, there is no other medical procedure that is legislated the way abortion is. 
I should start by acknowledging and thanking the Minister of Justice for bringing this bill to the floor of the House—good on Andrew Little. And I should also thank and acknowledge my fellow members of the Abortion Legislation Committee, a specially formed committee with members from every party in this House to consider this bill. It was deftly chaired by Ruth Dyson and supporting her was Amy Adams, with her legal skills. It was a very constructive committee that worked through some very different, difficult issues extremely efficiently. And I have to say, as the only bloke in the room for most of the time, I developed a strange new empathy for Elizabeth McCombs, who must have often felt exactly the same.
I most of all want to acknowledge the submitters. I can only imagine how difficult it must have been for people to come forward and tell such heartfelt stories about such harrowing experiences in their life and do it not only in public, but in front of a group of politicians, often in the full glare of the media's TV cameras as well. I think those New Zealanders who came to the select committee deserve our admiration. They deserve our admiration because one of the things that they did was they absolutely gave the lie to the claim we've heard that there is no problem to be solved here. Actually, the submitters showed us that in the real world of New Zealand, there are serious problems with our current abortion law and I would name three of them. 
One of them is that the overwhelming majority of New Zealanders believe it is important to follow the law. One of the most stigmatising things that can happen to most New Zealanders is that they are labelled as a criminal. We heard from one woman in particular, Jacqueline Cavanagh, who told us some of the most horrendous stories about the grotesque, evil bullying that she has suffered because she had had to have a late-term abortion, and one could only think that when this Parliament tells New Zealand society that having an abortion is a crime, of course, some of those odious comments and bullying are going to come forth. 
But I want to put on record what Jacqueline Cavanagh bravely told the committee, because I think it deserves to be recorded in the Hansard of this House. And I also think that she said it much better than perhaps any of us will be able to. She says "a person does not wake up at this gestation of pregnancy and decide that they simply no longer want a child. These are crisis pregnancies."—she refers to those ending in late-term abortions—"These are heart-wrenching and soul-destroying decisions. Names [have been] picked out, nurseries decorated, birth plans thought through, baby clothes washed and at the ready. We carry shattered dreams inside us. To travel the road of abortion at this stage of gestation is an altruistic decision made from a place of love and despair." She had an abortion because it was the only way that she could stay alive and be with her already born child and her husband. That's why she did it. And she doesn't deserve the stigma that criminalisation has placed around abortion. 
But another problem, the submitters told us, is inequity. We had somebody who had had two abortions in their life. This woman had had one whilst living in a smaller provincial centre in her late teens and another later in life in a larger metropolitan city in her late 20s. The difficulty and the rigmarole and the trauma that she went through were like night and day. Doing it in provincial New Zealand; having to travel, as we've had so well described by Amy Adams in her excellent speech; being able to make it work and get through a second certifying consultant with all the rigmarole that our current law requires was incredibly difficult. Doing it in a large, metropolitan city in her late 20s was somewhat easier but still needlessly difficult.
Now, in any sane world, for which of those two people, at those two stages of life, would it have been easier to access abortion services? Of course it would be the younger, more vulnerable, more geographically isolated woman in that story who would've been able to get more support. Under our current law, it's the opposite. I say to those people who are the doyens of the regions, who want to do things for regional New Zealand, one of the things you could costlessly do is vote for this bill, because those people would be not only helping all women but disproportionately helping those in rural New Zealand.
Finally, the problem that is related to the first two is the subterfuge, the idea that women have to invent a fiction that they are somehow mentally unstable in order to access healthcare. It's actually completely crazy, and until you say it, you don't realise how crazy it is.
I realise there are people who have moral objections. I admire the speaker who spoke before me, Anahila Kanongata'a-Suisuiki, who said, "I'm a Christian; this is my view." That was refreshing honesty. I think we should have more of that, because an earlier speech by Agnes Loheni said there was no problem, criminalisation wasn't happening, and yet, somehow, decriminalising it is going to change the world. I think that gives the lie and the illogic of the opposition to this bill.
The Abortion Legislation Committee did not choose model A, a model that would have no statutory framework, much like, say, Canada, a country with lower abortion rates than New Zealand. The select committee has gone with option B, which has a statutory test after 20 weeks. I want to put on record that I think that's a mistake. The select committee chose to continue including these protest zones, these restrictions on freedom of expression. Now, in my view, abortion protesters in New Zealand are not like American ones. They're not scary, they're not dangerous; they're people to feel sorry for. They are not a threat in the way that American abortion protesters are. However, these protest zones in this legislation are an impairment of freedom of speech so arbitrary and so ad hoc that those particular impairments of freedom of speech could be used as a precedent for any other restriction. I intend to put up a Supplementary Order Paper that will remove that section and allow other parts of our law, such as the Summary Offences Act, to deal with harassment as it should, and I'd invite members who are in favour of this cause and in favour of freedom of speech to join together and support that amendment, which is already prepared.
Finally, I want to talk about the moral case behind this bill. I get messages saying, "Do you support abortion?" Of course I don't. Nobody does. Nobody wakes up one day and thinks, "That's what I'll do today." It is a difficult and harrowing experience to go through. But that's not the question. The question before this House tonight is: what should be the role of this Parliament and what should be the role of the State when it comes to abortion law reform? If any member thinks that it is somehow helpful for the State apparatus, for this Parliament, to ask the police and corrections and the courts in this country to run around and try and compel women to take unwanted pregnancies to term against their will, then I don't know how else to argue with those people, but I hope they're in the minority tonight. Thank you, Mr Speaker.





NICOLA WILLIS (National): I want to start by congratulating the members of the Abortion Legislation Committee who've reported this bill back to the House. They've responded to a piece of legislation that arouses strong emotion on both sides of the debate. They have heard harrowing personal stories. They have managed their way through complex legal, health, and ethical issues. Many will have been subjected to gruesome images. They have, by majority, amended this bill in ways that I believe largely improve it, and they have worked constructively together despite their divergent views.
I support this reform of our abortion laws. Many people I deeply respect and admire do not share my views on this issue. I feel moved to express why I support it. I have carefully studied this bill. I have spoken with medical practitioners, those who perform abortions, those who have had abortions, those who've supported those who have had abortions, and my conclusion is that this bill advances the rights of women. It will improve women's access to health services. It will enhance our legal autonomy over our own bodies and our own fertility. It brings our law into line with good medical practice. It reduces unnecessary and potentially harmful delays in access to abortions, and it improves reporting on important issues such as equity and timeliness of access, availability of counselling services, and the spectre of gender selection. This bill will reduce harm. Fundamentally, it improves choice for all of us and, crucially, requires that choice from none of us.
The majority report on this bill is commendable for its dispassionate analysis of the issues. Those who've been hearing frightening claims about what will change if this bill is passed should go and read the report, because it treats abortion like other health issues. It trusts that highly trained and specialised medical professionals will, as in all medical procedures, exercise good judgment, good practice, and be bound by good ethics. We should uphold that principle of trust in our medical professionals in this House. It trusts that existing laws, including the Code of Health and Disability Services Consumers' Rights, made under the Health and Disability Commissioner Act, extends to abortion services. It trusts that women, as my colleague Amy Adams said, are not fickle, selfish actors. We are not incapable of making good decisions about our pregnancies. No; we are capable of making good decisions for ourselves and our own families, and it is wrong to suggest that those in this Parliament are better placed to decide what is best for women seeking abortions.
Some have argued that this bill is unnecessary because the current system works. The truth is that our abortion law is outdated, it creates harm, and it is fundamentally sexist. The Contraception, Sterilisation, and Abortion Act was debated in 1977. At that time, this Parliament had more men in it named William than it had women, and I think it is entirely possible that the men of those Parliaments were not best placed to dictate the arrangements for services that are used exclusively by women.
The select committee process showed abundant evidence of problems with the way the system currently operates. Women do have to lie about their mental health in order to access an abortion. Women have been made to feel criminal, and women, having made a decision for themselves in consultation with a medical professional, are on average waiting an additional 25 days between their first appointment to a referring doctor and actually having the abortion procedure—unnecessary delay.
Others have scaremongered about what this bill will permit. We had the phrase "abortion on demand", and I share the horror of the spectre of medical professionals carrying out abortions on a late-term fetus because a woman wakes up one day and says she doesn't want a baby. That is ridiculous. It demeans women and it demeans medical professionals, because it does not reflect the reality of the circumstances in which a woman with a wanted pregnancy in late term is forced to have an abortion.
Other speakers have done a very good job of detailing the clear statutory tests that this bill has for the limited circumstances in which a woman could access an abortion after 20 weeks. And I note that, unlike the current law, these include medical professionals having regard to the gestational age of a fetus. 
So it's clear, I strongly disagree with some of the arguments put forward by the opponents of this bill. But I want to acknowledge that they are also my colleagues, my friends, my supporters. And I know that their opposition comes from a place of deeply held belief and that they have weighed the issues just as carefully as I have. Opponents are entitled to reject abortion as a medical procedure for themselves. They are entitled to condemn its use by others. And I support the conscientious objection clauses in this bill which uphold those rights. But I cannot stress enough: nothing in this bill will require a person to undergo or undertake an abortion. 
I respect also that some of the opposition to abortion is rooted in faith and I empathise with this. I was christened Presbyterian, I attended Anglican schools, I was married in a church. And faith plays a crucial role in my community, and we should all cherish it and the right to freedom of religious expression that comes with it. To quote page 15 of the select committee report, "All of us want to ensure that the rights of a person to exercise religious freedom and a person's ability to access services are balanced."
Freedom of expression is a crucial tenet of our liberal democracy, and we should guard it carefully. And it is for that reason that I am uncomfortable with the provision in this bill that would allow safe zones around abortion clinics, effectively limiting rights to free speech there. I am not convinced the current law can't do the job this section is trying to do. If people are harassing, assaulting, or verbally assaulting people, then that is potentially criminal and should be policed as such. 
As I said, I come to this debate respectfully. But what I do not respect is the bullying that some outside this Parliament have used, the disgraceful tactics that have been used to try and influence the votes of members of this House. Why do they think that emailing me images of dismembered fetuses will change my views? And why should our staff be subjected to that? Do they understand that gruesome images are available to illustrate any argument? Their shock tactics reflect badly on them and their cause, and, in some cases, may be a breach of existing law. Perversely, it is those images that finalised my decision to speak today. I will not be intimidated by those people, and I will not stand by while they question women's rights to have autonomy over our own bodies. 
I want to say one more thing about the use of the phrase "pro-life", because it's a phrase that's used a lot in this debate and was used a lot during the select committee process. My views on all issues before this House are fundamentally rooted in my belief in the value of life, the dignity of individuals, and their rights and capacity to shape their own lives. I have carried and given birth to four children, and the joy and miracle of their births has been amongst the most, if not the most, profound experiences of my life. I understand the transformational gift of life and I cherish it. So do not tell me I am anti-life. 
But there for the grace of God go I. There but for the grace of God go all of us, because let us in this House make laws that allow for people in all their diversity and all their circumstances at the best of times and at the worst of times. Let us trust women and let us trust medical professionals. I want my children to live in a world that genuinely cherishes the life of every woman, that respects her right to manage her own fertility, her own body, her own future. That is the world I want for my daughters. That is the world I want for my sons. This bill is a step forward, and I commend it to the House.
SPEAKER: Darroch Ball—a five-minute call.





DARROCH BALL (NZ First): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise tonight not on behalf of myself to speak on this bill but on behalf of the party. I don't intend to take a long call, but I think that it's important that I outline very clearly why New Zealand First will be putting its nine votes towards this bill and voting in favour of this bill at the second reading. 
As we promised in the first reading of this bill, we will see this bill through to the committee of the whole House where we will table a Supplementary Order Paper requesting a referendum on this issue.
We believe that this conscience issue, affecting the fabric of human society, should be decided upon by the people of New Zealand, not decided upon by 120 temporarily empowered politicians. We don't believe that individuals in this House—their life experiences, their beliefs, or their family histories—are any more or less important than anyone outside of this House. The fact that this House has decided that this vote is a conscience vote and not a party vote is explicit acknowledgment that every single individual Kiwi in this country will have an individual perspective based on their own conscience, not based on anyone's conscience in this House, and especially not based on temporarily empowered politicians in this House or anything that's based on party politics. 
This is why New Zealand First has had this principle, this founding principle, on these matters of conscience votes since our inception. Not only that, but that principle hasn't changed in its 27 years of existence—the principle that conscience votes of this nature that change the fabric of the society should be decided upon by New Zealanders and not solely us in this House.
Not only that, but we have a firm record of requesting referenda on these issues to ensure that New Zealanders' conscience is counted with equal measure, and the only way that we can do that is if we put this to a referendum. As we did with the previous conscience vote in this House, we will vote for this piece of legislation solely on that reason through to the next stage, to the committee of the whole House, where we can put a referendum clause on the Table to be debated and where we will vote on it at that stage. We did the same with the End of Life Choice Bill, and we do so with this bill. We will support it through this reading through to the next stage. We will be requesting a referendum on this issue. Thank you, Mr Speaker.





CHRIS PENK (National—Helensville): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I refer to the report of the majority of the Abortion Legislation Committee on this, the Abortion Legislation Bill. The majority report is linguistically elusive, ideologically incoherent, and scientifically unsound. The report, like some of the contributors to this debate, characterised abortion services as being "like other health services". The fact of the matter is that unless one is separating conjoined twins, one is not, in fact, operating with two human lives in the power of one's hands as a doctor. This is the elephant in the room that has been, I believe, wilfully ignored by many of the contributors to this debate. 
A colleague earlier said that this bill is not concerned with abortion up to birth. And yet the pre - 20 week regime is followed in the legislation by a post - 20 week regime at which the only natural endpoint is birth, short of, of course, the performance of abortion services. So if those colleagues who believe that this bill does not concern itself with abortion up to birth would like to indicate the point at which it becomes no longer valid, short of birth or another intervention, then I would be very interested to hear it, perhaps in the committee of the whole House stage. 
I note that the select committee majority report said that it was grateful to those submitters who had shared their views and stories. That will be news to the ones who had wished to speak but were denied that opportunity. I do acknowledge the point made by Amy Adams that not all submitters can necessarily be heard, but the skewing of the submitters who were allowed to be heard in favour of those, relatively speaking, in favour of the bill, as distinct from those who were against—some 92 percent of the submissions overall—will leave many to make a conclusion that some members of the select committee will not enjoy being made.
The elephant in the room, as I've described previously, relates to the status of what is variously known as the unborn child or the fetus or, most creatively of all within the Abortion Legislation Bill select committee report, "contents of the uterus". This is a reference in relation to surgical techniques that are used. In fact, the phrase "unborn child" is currently used in the Crimes Act, in section 182, and will remain so. The bill, despite what proponents have sometimes claimed, will not entirely remove, essentially, the practice of abortion from the Crimes Act. Section 182 of the Crimes Act is amended by the proposed bill, but it is not removed from that. So it is—bearing in mind that description of an unborn child, as I say, existing on the statute book that we have at the moment—that phrases such as "choice", "freedom", and "the ability to choose what one does with one's own body" should be viewed in the context of the alternative language to that of "unborn child", dehumanising as it is.
The report—again, I stress, the majority view within that—talks about a desire to modernise the legislation. Well, of course, all changes to legislation are by definition modernising it, but, of course, they wish for the connotation to be of improvement. But it will be for members of this House individually, as well as members of the public, to judge whether improvement is in fact the result of such modernisation. Whether it has a civilising or barbarising effect—that is a decision for us each all to make.
In my remaining time, and it is short now, I wish to also make a note about the select committee majority report claiming that the current legislation contains deeply offensive language in relation to disabled people. The disabled people themselves and the advocacy groups who have contacted me in relation to the bill find much more deeply offensive the notion that their lives will inevitably be deemed to be worth less in many situations, whereby conditions such as, for example, Down syndrome can be effectively screened to an even greater extent than is already the case by the fact that this bill does have a liberalising effect—that is, it makes the regime more liberal both in relation to pre - 20 weeks and post - 20 weeks, until either such time as birth is given or abortion services performed.





JOANNE HAYES (National): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I stand to take a call opposing the Abortion Legislation Bill tonight. I've sat here on purpose to listen to the contributions in the House tonight, and some of the contributions have left me a little bit flummoxed with some of their ideas. I do not support the idea of taking the Abortion Legislation Bill into a referendum. I think this is what our job is here, to make a decision, and I don't think that it should be anything like inside any referendum like New Zealand First did with the End of Life Choice Bill.
This is an important bill. I have heard the discussions around the Crimes Act and having abortion taken out of the Crimes Act, etc. The previous speaker, my colleague Christopher Penk, has eloquently outlined that this bill will not do that. It will not do that. I've also heard in this House tonight that women feel criminalised from having an abortion, and we've heard that nowhere in the history of this country has a woman been criminalised or taken to court over having an abortion. That is absolutely misinformation.
I want to talk a little bit about the fact—you know, I'm a Māori woman. I'm a Christian Māori woman. I come to this House to speak on this bill based on that. I was brought up in a family that loved all children. Mokopuna are our value. They are our future, and when I look at my mokopuna and I see their future ahead of them, glowing through their eyes, I can't think of anything, absolutely anything, to actually end that opportunity for their life.
My family, my parents, were brought up to oppose abortion as a horrible, heinous family crime. They didn't like it. They brought us up the same. They said to us, "Don't ever, ever do that. Come to the whānau. If you fall pregnant and you feel you can't have that baby or look after that baby, you come home and we'll look after that baby." That's what Māori do. We look after our babies, and that's why the current abortion bill should not be altered. This bill does that, and it's wrong.
I too read the report from the Abortion Legislation Committee. I read the report that around 2,800 submitters who wanted to be heard were not allowed to be heard—only 160, as we've heard in this House. Only 160 were allowed to have their say, of 2,800. We've had bills pass through this House where we have had thousands of people, of submitters, be allowed to submit their oral presentations, and yet in this particular bill it was stopped. Why was that? Why was the process made to be like that? Only one dissenting voice in that committee, maybe two: my colleague Agnes Loheni said we should be hearing everybody. But no, it was not the majority decision on the committee.
When I look at the 25,000-plus submitters and then you see that 23,000-plus actually opposed the bill, and yet the select committee ignored the opposition from those submitters—they ignored it. What is going on? This is supposed to be a transparent process, and yet these people, their 23,000-plus opposition to this bill, have not been heard in this whole process and in this House tonight. Is that fair? Is that fair to them? 
My second reason for standing tonight is talking about and defending the rights of the unborn child, because they don't have a voice. They're not given a voice, and in this whole process, people are going to do things to them, and it's not nice. That is absolutely horrible. It should be a black mark on everybody who thinks like that in this House.
I am one of those people that thinks that unborn children need to have their rights heard. That's why I stand here today. I didn't come here to this Parliament to end a baby's life. That's not what I'm here for. I'm here to actually have legislation that advances the wellbeing of people. This bill does not do that.
I think one of the speakers tonight from the Government side of the House spoke about this bill being abortion on demand. That's what this bill is actually working towards. It is about abortion on demand. I don't care how you want to pretty it up or whatever you want to say or how you want to soften it down: it is abortion on demand. If a woman wants to have an abortion, she can go off and have an abortion and not go through the current processes that they have to go through to be approved for an abortion by practitioners. Then we hear from Anahila from the Labour Party, who said that—
SPEAKER: Order!
JOANNE HAYES: —it is the health—sorry—practitioner that makes the final decision on who gets the abortion. Well, I don't know about that. If the legislation is loose enough to allow somebody to get an abortion on demand, then that is what this bill will actually come up with.
I don't want us to, when it comes to fetal abnormality—and as I said, I read the report. In the report—this is the select committee report—it talked in one area around the Denmark example, whereby 98 percent of babies diagnosed with Down syndrome in Denmark are aborted. I also read that in Iceland, there have been no children born in the last five years with Down syndrome. I do not want New Zealand to be part and parcel of all of that history that those countries are actually doing to their babies. I don't want us to be the third country in there, and I think that this bill is a dangerous bill. I think that it has the potential to go that way if there are no checks and balances in place.
I heard tonight that it is a woman's right, it's her body, and she should be trusted. But what about the women and the girls that don't get a right to have informed consent—where that is taken out of their hands by other people, by family members maybe, by people who believe that they do not have the ability to make that decision for themselves, and want to keep their baby? I am worried about those people, those women and girls, that are not afforded the right to be able to say no.
We've talked about, in this House tonight, the post - 20 week abortions, and, to be honest, with this bill, it's a dangerous bill because it will allow post - 20 week abortions right up to birth. I say to everybody in here that says "No, no, she doesn't know what she's talking about.", that it's written in the bill. Read the bill, because that's where it is. To be honest, there is very little appetite for that from where I come from; really no appetite for it whatsoever. Abortion on demand should be illegal. 
There were also issues around the upper limit of the number of abortions that women can get, and there was no upper limit put on this bill. So as I sat and I read this report from the select committee, I noted that those voices, those dissenting voices, the 23,558 that oppose this bill, have not had their voices heard in this bill. It has been trodden all over. I can say that what happens is that we have a current abortion bill—people say we don't have one, we do have one—and there has been no woman that has been criminalised under it.
This abortion bill is a licence to kill the unborn; that's what it is. It's a dangerous piece of legislation. Whilst there will be people in here that are supporting this bill that will say, "No, no, no, that's not what happens.", in reality that is what will happen. That's what concerns me most; the reality of it hitting the ground, hitting the women out there in the community and the families, that this will be a licence to kill unborn children. It ignores absolutely everybody's opposition. I'm really, really sad to be standing here on a day, on an evening like this evening, to be able to say to my colleagues who are supporting this bill, it is the wrong thing to do. I oppose this bill.





Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Can I just begin by acknowledging and thanking the Hon Andrew Little for introducing this long overdue legislation to the House. I've been in this Parliament for 26½ years, and it's been discussed in every caucus I've been in. It's only now that the time has been considered right.
I also want to acknowledge all the members of the Abortion Legislation Committee. We were a select committee of seven, representing every party in this Parliament. We had, fundamentally, three different views about the legislation, which you might think would've been awkward. But, actually, the behaviour of the select committee members should be acknowledged and admired. Despite deeply opposing views, there was, almost without exception, an atmosphere of respect and tolerance of each other's views. I think that's the way that our select committees should model themselves, because we are a Parliament full of different ideas, and on sensitive and contentious issues like this, we should show each other the most respect. So I want to just acknowledge all the members of the select committee.
I want to thank our clerks, who did an extraordinary job trying to piece together the various views and questions and inquiries that we made during our time. I want to, also, acknowledge our officials from Justice and Health. We had officials from both the Ministry of Justice and the Ministry of Health. They did amazing work and research for us. I want to acknowledge the parliamentary counsel, who were quite challenged by some of our requests. I guess that will become obvious as the debate goes on. But we did some things in this bill that were new for New Zealand because we wanted to have conditions placed on parts of the legislation in a way which hadn't been done before. I'm very proud of the work we did in that space.
I want to thank all the submitters, particularly those with medical expertise or social work experience, people who practise in this field, who came and told us what life was really like. For many of us on the select committee, that was new information. I want to thank the submitters who gave their personal experiences. They highlighted for us the fundamental flaws in the current law. The submitters came and told us harrowing and horrific stories of delays, of humiliation, of bullying, of the trauma of having a post - 20 week abortion.
The situation that David Seymour outlined brought nearly all the select committee members to tears because it was just so wrong. To hear some of that debate repeated in the House makes me really sad. One of the submitters that came to our committee told us that post - 20 week abortions would be used as convenience. I find that as offensive as can be.
There is nothing more offensive than being told that a woman would wake up one morning, 30 weeks pregnant and say, "I'm over this. I'm going to have an abortion." Then to layer on top of that the accusation that a doctor would then say, "That meets my professional and ethical standards.", and would go ahead with that termination—I don't know who the people who say that know. Who do you know that would do that? Nobody. It's just a lie. On any topic, I think it's important to tell the truth, but on a topic as important as this, as sensitive and as contentious as this, we should just tell the truth.
Another submitter who should know better said that doctors would be required by law to abort a baby in the birth canal. That is a lie. It is an outrageous thing to say. It totally undermines the quality of debate in this Parliament, and for a former Prime Minister to say it I find deeply disturbing. It is a lie; it just isn't true. Let's all tell each other the truth in this debate. Our democracy deserves it.
The opposition to this bill came not from people who oppose this bill but from people who oppose abortion full stop—people who, if they were being given the contraception, sterilisation, and abortion legislation, would oppose it. The same thing happened in the marriage equality bill. People came and said, "You've got civil unions. Why would you want marriage equality?" They opposed civil unions as well. It's exactly the same frame. They have a right to their view; I don't deny that at all. But they weren't opposing this legislation; they were opposing abortion at all in New Zealand.
I want to endorse the comments from the Hon Amy Adams and Greg O'Connor on that very point. That was why many of the submitters who weren't invited to be heard would not have added to the consideration of this legislation—because they weren't submitting on this legislation. They were submitting in opposition to abortion, start and finish.
I want to talk briefly in the time I've got about some of the more difficult issues. The issue of sex selection was very difficult for us to determine where to go. None of us—and this was one of the rare unanimous views of the committee—want sex selection used as the basis of abortion in New Zealand. It isn't our culture, and we don't want it ever to be.
So we have put in the legislation a process by which the Director-General of Health will monitor sex birth rates, and if it's clear that this terrible practice is being introduced at all into New Zealand, he or she will make recommendations to the Minister of Health to respond to that. But that has to be a very clear message from this Parliament: sex selection should not be used as the basis of abortion.
We were very concerned about the inequities between services that district health boards provide, and I am still concerned that with the generous and fair conscientious objection provisions that we have introduced into the legislation—they're not too dissimilar from the current regime—there will still remain inequities in provision of services. I am particularly concerned about women seeking emergency contraception and not being able to get that contraception within the best time frame, which is 72 hours. So that's something that I'm sure we can debate further down the track. The conscientious objection provisions generally raised some concerns for us in regards to equity of access.
The only issue on which Agnes Loheni and David Seymour agreed was they both opposed safe areas. I'm not sure where that's going to go during the debate, but it was an interesting alliance for quite similar reasons. But again, it's a debate worth having. I agree with David Seymour: we don't have the intensity of opposition that they do in America, but I feel very strongly that everyone in New Zealand has the right to perform and access health services that are delivered legally. It's clear in some parts of the country that that is very difficult for them. We also made a requirement to collect information in the same way as the current regime does, but through the committee—which of course this legislation abolishes.
I want to just conclude by saying that while this debate was respectful, it was also difficult for all of us. We felt we were taking a needed step, but one which we wanted to take very carefully in in a very considered way, and I think the committee did a very good job of that. We want to see a country where there are very, very few abortions. Our numbers are heading in the right directions now; I want to commend Pharmac for introducing long-acting contraception. We need more education, we need better access to contraception, but we will still need abortion services—the fewer the better, but the earlier, more equitable, and safer the better. That's what this legislation seeks to deliver and I commend it to the House.





JAN LOGIE (Green): Thank you, Mr Speaker, and it's a real honour to speak tonight, as a feminist who has been working towards abortion law reform for years and also as a member of the Green Party who committed to decriminalising abortion about six years ago—[Interjection from gallery]
SPEAKER: Order! Order! The member will resume her seat. That man will be removed from the gallery.
JAN LOGIE: This may point to the need for safe areas and the fact that, actually, there is opposition to those of us who support women's reproductive health rights. And that has resulted, or at least been used as an argument, in the assault against my co-leader.
So I would, in this speech, like to acknowledge all the submitters and the very adept chairing of the Hon Ruth Dyson and the really constructive engagement from all of the members of the committee—that we were able, I genuinely believe, to listen to each other and hear our differences and accept them and find where there were points in the legislation that we could improve on—and also to acknowledge all of the advisers and officials and the really hard work that was put in on this, and, too, to acknowledge all of those submitters and the really personal stories. It was tough for a lot of people to share those stories, and part of the reason for that is that there is so much stigma surrounding abortion in this country, which makes people feel really exposed. And that's part of the reason behind the Green Party's support for this legislation: that people will be healthier and their families will be better the more we can remove the stigma from this healthcare.
It's obvious from the submissions that we don't have a consensus in this country on abortion, and there is a very motivated group of people who are deeply opposed to abortion. That was one of the clearest messages that we heard in the submissions—that there is that group of people. We heard and understand those views, and I absolutely support, as others in this House have said tonight, the right of these people to hold, and live according to, those views. But this legislation is not about limiting access to abortion in Aotearoa; that train left the station in the 1970s. This legislation is primarily about updating our law to better reflect the best medical practice and to meet our international obligations to respect women's bodily autonomy and sexual and reproductive health rights.
This law, as has been mentioned, has been a really long time coming. To my knowledge, the Green Party was the first political party to commit to decriminalisation, and it took us until 2014. I think it took that long because some people remembered the intensity of the debate in the 1970s and were worried that, if we opened it up again, we would put at risk the existing framework that we have, and also that there is so much silence around abortion in this country. Who would think that one in four women in this country has had an abortion? You would not think that, because there is so much shame and stigma that we silence it, and that is a problem for people in their real lives. And I think most people not affected thought that it was already decriminalised when we announced our policy. In the vox pop on the news, most people were like, "What? Haven't we done that already?" And those others who weren't having to go through the system thought it was OK. They thought people were able to easily access the abortion here that they needed.
But what we heard through the submissions and what we've been hearing before that was that that is not the truth and that the legislation we have, the framework we have at the moment, is not working well.
The Abortion Supervisory Committee has said that best practice for abortion is that it happen prior to nine weeks. But in New Zealand, only 41 percent of abortions are carried out before nine weeks, and this is a lot less than in comparable countries, where in Sweden, for example, 84 percent of abortion care happens prior to nine weeks because they have a liberalised system and people don't have to jump through all of those hoops that they do here.
In this country, our legislation means that in some areas pregnant people have to see as many as seven healthcare providers before they can access a termination, and that the average time from going to the doctor for a referral is 25 days, and in some areas it's two weeks before you can get that appointment. We heard from almost all submitters a real concern about abortions happening later; that was one of the key things that came through. I just want to say to people in this House who hold that concern: this legislation is your best answer to that concern, this will enable people to access abortions when the pregnancy is at the embryonic stage, before it even gets to being a fetus. That, I think, we have shared understanding of. Even when I ask people opposing the bill, because they have a concern around the development of life, about whether they would want abortions, if they were going to be happening, to happen earlier, they said yes. This legislation is how we do that.
Another point that was often raised that I think is really important for people to understand is that there's a concern that this liberalisation will lead to more people having to seek abortion care, particularly later. There is no international evidence to back that up; in fact, it is the reverse.
Canada has no abortion legislation. It is purely a healthcare issue—that's been the way since 1988, and they don't have more. They haven't seen an increase in terminations happening after 20 weeks, it's remained very stable. Similar to our patterns, they have, I understand, a slightly lower rate than we do. In Queensland, where they do have a threshold at 20 weeks, they have a higher rate of terminations after that point than Canada does with none. The evidence is that the more restrictive the legislation, counterintuitively the more people are accessing terminations and the more maternal fatalities there are.
If you care about women's health, if you want to see these women accessing abortion care, accessing it earlier if it has to happen, this is the legislation to do it. I do think we should get rid of the 20-week threshold altogether, and that came through clearly from those very small numbers of people who are actually involved in providing this care in the country. When we heard, previously, from a speaker talking about a GP asking how they were to interpret wellbeing, they wouldn't know what that would mean. It wouldn't matter if they didn't understand that, because they wouldn't be providing them, because there's only a very small handful of people who are qualified to provide those services. The thing is that it is according to very strict guidelines of care and medical ethics, and it is my belief that the decisions should still remain with the pregnant person.
As we heard from the Cavanaghs, where they found out that—and from their perspective it was a baby at that point, the heart was growing outside of its body, and they knew that the longer the pregnancy continued, the more pain that their child would experience, and they made the decision to terminate. There are people in their Facebook group who have been through that; others made a different decision, chose to continue the pregnancy because they wanted that birth and the funeral. That is not a decision that a health practitioner should make; that should be their decision on their morals and their conscience, and it's certainly not a decision for this House to make. How can we insert ourselves into those times in anybody's life and think that we know better?





The question was put that the amendments recommended by the Abortion Legislation Committee by majority be agreed to.
A personal vote was called for on the question, That the amendments be agreed to.
Ayes 80AdamsGenter (P)McAnultySmith SAllanGhahramanMcKelvie Stanford (P)Andersen (P)Henare (P)Mitchell C (P)Swarbrick (P)Ardern (P)Hipkins (P)Mitchell M (P)TabuteauBallHudsonNash (P)Tinetti (P)BaylyHughes (P)O'Connor D (P)TolleyBennett DHuo (P)O'Connor GTwyford (P)BidoisJackson (P)Parker (P)van de MolenBishopJones (P)PattersonWallCarter (P)Kaye (P)Peters (P)Warren-ClarkClark (P)KurigerPrimeWebb (P)Coffey (P)Lee DRadhakrishnanWilliamsCollins (P)Lees-Galloway (P)Robertson (P)WillisCraig (P)LittleRossWoodCurran (P)LogieRussell (P)Woods (P)DavidsonLubeckSage (P)Yang (P)Davis (P)Luxton (P)Sepuloni (P)DooceyMallardSeymourEagle (P)MarcroftShawFaafoi (P)Mark (P)SimpsonTeller:FalloonMartin (P)Sio (P)Dyson
Noes 28BakshiHipango (P)PenkWhaitiriBarryKanongata'a-SuisuikiPugh (P)WoodhouseBridges (P)Lee MReti (P)Young (P)BrownMacindoeRurawheDean (P)Mahuta (P)Salesa (P)GarciaNgaroSmith NGoldsmithO'Connor SStrange (P)Teller:HayesParmarTirikatene (P)Loheni
Amendments agreed to.
A personal vote was called for on the question, That the Abortion Legislation Bill be now read a second time.
Ayes 81AdamsFalloonMartin (P)Stanford (P)AllanGenter (P)McAnultySwarbrick (P)Andersen (P)Ghahraman (P)McKelvieTabuteauArdern (P)Henare (P)Mitchell C (P)Tinetti (P)BallHipkins (P)Mitchell M (P)TolleyBaylyHudsonNash (P)Twyford (P)Bennett DHughes (P)Parker (P)van de MolenBennett P (P)Huo (P)PattersonWagner (P)BidoisJackson (P)Peters (P)Walker (P)BishopJones (P)PrimeWallCarter (P)Kaye (P)RadhakrishnanWarren-ClarkClark (P)King (P)Robertson (P)Webb (P)Coffey (P)KurigerRossWilliamsCollins (P)Lees-Galloway (P)Russell (P)WillisCraig (P)LittleSage (P)WoodCurran (P)LogieSepuloni (P)Woods (P)Davidson (P)LubeckSeymourYang (P)Davis (P)Luxton (P)ShawDooceyMallardSimpsonEagle (P)MarcroftSio (P)Teller:Faafoi (P)Mark (P)Smith SDyson
Noes 39BakshiHipango (P)O'Connor SUpston (P)BarryKanongata'a-SuisuikiParmarWhaitiriBridges (P)Lee DPenkWoodhouseBrownLee MPugh (P)Young (P)Brownlee (P)MacindoeReti (P)Yule (P)Dean (P)Mahuta (P)RurawheDowie (P)McClay (P)Salesa (P)GarciaMuller (P)Scott (P)GoldsmithNgaroSmith NGuy (P)O'Connor D (P)Strange (P)Teller:HayesO'Connor GTirikatene (P)Loheni
Bill read a second time.
The House adjourned at 10.14 p.m.