Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement

I am very proud to be a member of the Jacinda Ardern - led Government of infrastructure. As the Prime Minister said last week, the claim that our Government is the Government of infrastructure is undeniable. It’s interesting to wonder, colleagues, why, whenever we say that on this side of the House, that side of the House yowl like scalded cats.

Here is the case. We’ve established an infrastructure commission, Te Waihanga—thank you, Shane Jones. We are giving the industry the long-term pipeline of work that they’ve been asking for. The New Zealand Upgrade Programme has delivered a decade-long programme of infrastructure investment. We’ve introduced the Infrastructure Funding and Financing Bill to allow long-term, private debt financing of the three waters and the roads, to enable urban development. We’ve invested $2.5 billion into health, rebuilding mental health wards, child health services at Starship, maternity services, and a new hospital in Dunedin. We’ve put $1.5 billion into schools, and that means 726 new classrooms from one end of this country to the other—

💬 Angie Warren-Clark: How many?

—726 classrooms—and for the first time ever, we have a fully funded plan to keep up school infrastructure with population growth.

We’ve created more than 4,250 public housing places. That is State housing, community-provided housing—an extra 4,250. We currently have 3,480 State and community houses under construction. Our Government is building more housing right now than any Government has since the mid-1970s, and I am proud to be part of a team of housing Ministers who are making that happen.

Now, the icing on the cake was the New Zealand Upgrade Programme, a $12 billion, 10-year programme of infrastructure investments upgrading our roads, our rail, our hospitals, and our schools. Why is it that we can do this? The answer is that Grant Robertson’s careful financial management has put the country in a position where we can make investments in productivity-enhancing infrastructure on a scale that has not been seen in many decades—$6.8 billion of transport infrastructure that will speed up travel times and that will allow people to move around our cities with greater ease. It will help get trucks off the road and move more freight by rail.

Now, contrast this with the record of the previous Government, who put out press releases promising to build a number of roads that they never designated, they never planned properly, and they certainly did not fund.

💬 Hon Member: Ghost roads.

They were ghost roads. National said that they would do it and they could do it, but they didn’t. It’s a case of “woulda, coulda, shoulda”.

For example, take Mill Road in Auckland. National promised that they would build four lanes of highway on Mill Road, but they didn’t do it, and what’s worse is that their planning was faulty. They were planning on just building a road with four lanes of traffic. Everyone knows that those would have filled up with cars, magically, overnight. Cyclists would have been competing in the road corridor with trucks. Public transport would have been caught up in traffic jams with all the cars.

By contrast, our futureproofing approach to transport infrastructure has seen a new style of highways being put in place. There will be in all of the State highway projects that we announced in the New Zealand Upgrade Programme dedicated, separated walking and cycling pathways alongside those State highways, and, even more important than that, the New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) will be putting in place what they call managed lanes in the United States, with dedicated lanes for freight, for high-occupancy vehicles, and for public transport. These are smart changes that will futureproof this hundred-year infrastructure for future generations.

But, unfortunately, the National Party are stuck in the past. [Interruption] Their policy wants to take us back to the 1950s. In fact, the 1950s called the other day, Brett Hudson, and said “We want our transport policy back. Tell the National Party.” Our Government is futureproofing New Zealand for the 21st century.

Under the last Government, they were spending, every year, 40 percent of the transport budget—about $4 billion a year; 40 percent of that—on a handful of hand-picked motorway projects, and the upshot of that was that every other part of the transport system, like road maintenance, was neglected. That’s why we’ve inherited so many potholes on the roads. The councils didn’t have enough central government subsidy for local road improvements. Public transport stood still—and, in fact, it went backwards in many areas—under that Government, and, in KiwiRail’s words, they were left in a state of “managed decline”. The rest of the transport sector was allowed to wither on the vine.

We had to fight for five years to convince them to build the City Rail Link. If we’d been elected five years earlier, the City Rail Link would probably be open now, and it would be transporting up to 54,000 people every hour, in and out of the central business district of Auckland. Imagine what that would have done to the productivity of our country’s biggest city.

Their policy would have led to a 50 percent blowout in deaths and serious injuries between 2013 and 2017-18—a 50 percent increase in deaths and serious injuries—because they poured all the money into a few gold-plated motorways, instead of investing in a balanced way across the transport system, and now they’re saying they want to cancel Auckland light rail. A project that 91 percent of Automobile Association members—91 percent of motorists—in Auckland want to see built, and National are saying that they will cancel it.

In the 2½ years that we’ve been in office, we have added in Auckland $10 billion to the 10-year transport plan for Auckland. We inherited a plan from the National Government, from Simon Bridges, who was the Minister of Transport then. There was a $6 billion hole in it—a $6 billion fiscal hole. We filled that hole and we’ve added another $4 billion—that’s a 50 percent, $10 billion increase into solving Auckland’s transport problems—and because of the extra investment our Government’s made, Auckland reached 3.77 million cycle trips last year. That’s a 6.2 percent increase, year on year, in cycling in our biggest city.

Auckland recently hit 102 million public transport journeys in the last 12 months—102 million. That’s the biggest number of public transport journeys Auckland’s had since the early 1950s, when they tore up the tram tracks. NZTA expects, because of our Government’s investment in public transport in our major cities, to see an 11 percent increase nationwide in public transport journeys. Not only that, we’re investing in safety: $1.4 billion to upgrade 3,300 kilometres of local roads and State highways. It’s projected to save 160 deaths and serious injuries every year. We are upgrading and making safe some of the most dangerous parts of the roading network right across New Zealand.

We’ve got rail back on track. In two years, we’ve made a $4 billion commitment to making our rail network the backbone of a sustainable 21st century transport system. It’s how we’re going to get trucks off the road and move freight more efficiently and sustainably. It’s how we’re going to move people more efficiently, with fewer vehicles in our cities, and it’s how we are going to fight climate change. But the National Party, they just want to take us back to the bad old days. They’ve got no new ideas. In fact, their transport policy was recently just to re-announce the ghost roads that they promised in 2017. That’s their idea of a modern transport policy. They’re just re-announcing ghost roads, and some of them have never even been NZTA projects—they’re just plucked out of the air. They have elevated pork barrel politics to an art form. They have no new ideas. This Government is the Government of infrastructure and we are taking New Zealand forward.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Well, I’ll tell you what, when Phil Twyford stands up—he’s the architect of the single biggest public policy failure in New Zealand in decades: KiwiBuild—and accuses anyone of delivering a ghost thing, that is the richest irony imaginable. But he can actually double down, and he did—he did—because he then told us that delivery, under him as transport Minister and under this Government, is announcing something. Apparently, it’s something like $10 billion over an amount of years if they’re able to hang around and still be Government. “We’ll do something. Done.” I’ll tell you what, what he’s really done is he’s stolen—which is really bad—the brand slogan from UNISYS, and it perfectly captures his Government: “Imagine it. Done.” “Imagine it. Done.”—that is this Government in a nutshell. We’re going to announce something—“Imagine it. Done. Imagine it. Done.”

I took the time to read through the Prime Minister’s statement, and I just want to make it clear I’m not angry; I’m just very disappointed—very disappointed that in two years, last year apparently being the year of delivery, we tried to imagine it done, but it wasn’t. So last year, in these two years, we’ve seen the economic growth recede from around 4 percent under National to about 2 percent under this Government. Job growth has reduced by around 70 percent from the highs under National of 10,000 net new jobs a month. The cost of living is up, driven in part by $60 a week average rent increases and, of course, the fuel excise taxes they’ve put on. People in New Zealand are going backwards under this Government, and it’s a terrible, terrible thing. They can’t deliver their greatest public policy platform, KiwiBuild—an abject failure, about 300 houses.

But I thought to myself, “Well, how about in safety? Because the Prime Minister definitely mentioned that, and public safety.” Well, there was supposedly a promise of 1,800 more police officers, and they were going to do this in their first term. We know that it was 1,800 additional police officers on the front line to when they took office, because both the Minister of Police and the Police Commissioner told parliamentary select committees that that was the measure. Aha! Unfortunately, they discovered in the latter part of last year that they had no chance of getting there, and the Minister of Police quickly made up this idea that there had always been two targets. Well, no one buys that. The Police Commissioner doesn’t buy that. The Police Association doesn’t buy that. The public of New Zealand don’t buy that.

So what have they actually delivered? Well, according to the Police Association, in January they had delivered 974 additional front-line police officers. Well, we at least congratulate them for being a little bit over halfway, but there’s no way they’re getting to 1,800. Well, that’s a number. What’s a number that we could contrast 974 additional front-line police officers against? Well, this is something this Government has delivered over the last two-and-a-bit years: almost 1,600 more gang members.

💬 Hon Scott Simpson: How many?

That’s right—almost 1,600 more gang members. Now, that’s growth in gang members that is over 60 percent faster than the growth in front-line police officers to deal with them. That is delivery. I’m not sure it’s the delivery that New Zealanders are looking for, but it is consistent with all of the other delivery failures that this Government is responsible for.

What do we see these gang members, these more than 6,000—close to 7,000 now—gang members, doing around our communities? Well, we’ve had Te Mata Peak taken over by the Mongrel Mob so that locals and tourists are unable to use it. They took that over for a patching ceremony. They scared people away from a local cemetery in Hastings. They have since gone on something of a recent—well, I think the public might call it a rampage. Ruatōria, the Napier medical centre, Taradale, Tauranga, Manawatū—what do those places have in common? Gang violence involving firearms, all in the first two months of this year. They are out of control. The Government can’t deliver the police to deal with them, and the public are being caught in the crossfire. It is only a matter of time. It is only—

💬 Hon Andrew Little: And the member wants to water down the penalties for people who abuse gun ownership.

—a matter of time. So there’s a point from Mr Little, who doesn’t understand the bill he’s talking about, because the bill he’s talking about does nothing about gang possession of firearms. Here’s the fact, Mr Little—

💬 Hon Andrew Little: Why does he oppose penalties for unlawful gun owners? Why is he opposing this? Why is he opposing it?

—in the evidence from Australia in the select committee inquiry on 2016 and 2017—shouting won’t help you, Mr Little—in the evidence on that inquiry, the evidence out of Australia was that almost 90 percent of firearms offences are committed by people who aren’t licensed. So putting licensing conditions on gang members or anyone else is going to do nothing to solve this problem. This is a Government of talk and no real action, and that’s the best way to describe that bill. Thank you, Mr Little, for raising it. It places all sorts of costs, regulation, and rules on people who follow the law, and it does nothing—nothing—about the people who are threats to public safety.

We were ready to go at the election with firearms prohibition orders which would keep guns out of criminal gang members’ hands, institute a new set of offences with real tough penalties. I tell you, it was drawn from the ballot when Chris Bishop was our police spokesperson; that lot over there voted it down. Twice we sought leave to bring it up and prioritise it in this House, and they denied it. Now it has been drawn again in my name, and on the next members’ day they should get a chance to have a go again. Unlike their bill, it actually does something about criminal gang use of firearms. Well, here’s a spoiler alert, New Zealand—here’s a spoiler alert—I’ve got five quid that there’s no way they’ll vote for it. Why—why? Because in their world, they prioritise more cost and regulation on people who follow the law. They’ve been gazing at their navels on firearms prohibition orders for more than two years. More than two years, they’ve done nothing, and I tell you what: they quite likely will do nothing. Know why? Because I think they think the rights of gang members are more important than keeping the public safe. It is a travesty, but something we can all be used to.

So they’re not combating the gang members; they’re going crazy with firearms. By the way, those firearms include semi-automatic firearms. The buy-back was a failure. We knew the numbers were well lower than they should’ve been because they ignored advice and instead went with an option that they were warned would have lower compliance. So they didn’t get them all, and, in fact, there could be as many as 180,000 of these things still out there in the wild, so to speak. But we know some of them are in the hands of gang members because they’ve been using them recently, and it’s only a matter of time before a member or members of the public are truly caught up in that.

At the same time, they’re not dealing—in fact, part of the reason because they can’t deal with the gangs. We’ve seen victimisations increase markedly—markedly—under this Government. In the data reported by the police for the end of November 2019, victimisations were almost 280,000—almost 280,000—in one year, a rise, an increase, of over 18,000, in fact over 18,400 additional victimisations in that 12-year period, because this lot are soft on crime. They’re certainly soft on gangs.

An increase of more than 13,000 victimisations to do with property theft—in Ōhāriu, a place that is truly dear to my heart, we’ve got problems all of a sudden now, just in the last three months. Car conversions in Newlands—I tell you, if you own a Mazda Demio in Newlands, keep it under lock and key, because they’re going like wildfire, and not the way you want them to. A spate of break-ins and attempted burglaries around Khandallah. I see on community noticeboards in Churton Park that they’re worried because of people they’ve seen around. In Tawa, they stole a complete container load of building equipment and then, in broad daylight, tried to cut through the roller door at the local ITM hardware store to try to nick what they had upstairs.

This is what happens under a Government that has this goal to get people out of prison with no plan to reduce crime, and going soft on actually taking care of people that break the law. When they do that, they put people’s safety at risk. There’s actual physical safety with this gang tension and firearms crime going around, but when someone is burgled or has an attempted burglary, particularly when they are at home, it absolutely undermines the feeling of their personal and family safety in their own home and in their communities. It is fundamentally the responsibility of any Government to ensure that its citizens are and feel safe in their homes and in their communities, and this lot won’t do it because—

💬 Hon Andrew Little: Why didn’t you do something about the deportees—why didn’t you do something about the deportees?

He in particular is more worried about the rights of criminals than the rights of New Zealanders. They are a disgrace.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Well, it is actually with a great deal of pleasure that I rise to speak in reply to the Prime Minister’s statement. It has been a very good couple of years, and particularly the last year has been very good for the New Zealand Defence Force. And, might I add, it has been very, very good for the nation as a whole—in particular for our communities and for our nation because of the huge level of support that the Defence Force has been able to lend to communities at various times, when they have been under stress and when they have been suffering the effects of nature.

It has been pleasing that we are finally able to respond in the way in which we have in support of other Government agencies, whether it’s been the Department of Conservation and the sterling work they are doing down in the Antipodes and up at the Kermadecs; whether it’s been in support of the Antarctic operations; whether it’s been in support of the West Coasters, who have suffered pretty badly as a result of flooding; whether it’s been in support of those people—local government agencies, the Department of Conservation, the Ministry for the Environment—who were struggling with the clean-up as a result of the flooding that washed out the rubbish dump out on to the West Coast, around Franz Josef.

It’s been a very good year for the country, as the Defence Force was able to lean in and support police and, in fact, run a recovery operation at White Island to recover the bodies of the deceased who were caught in that volcanic eruption. It’s been a very good year for our Pacific Island partners, whom we have deployed in support of. It’s been a very good year for the Solomons, who have conducted an election and have been able to be supported by our Defence Force. It’s been a very good year for a Government who’s been able to draw on the support of our women and our men in uniform, of our Defence Force, to any number—and I think there are 57 named operations in one year, and that is without mentioning the ongoing work at Taji in the “defeat ISIS” campaign globally, the work in South Sudan, supporting the United Nations in Korea and the Multinational Force & Observers in the Sinai, in support of the United Nations in Golan and the on-site operations, and I could name many, many more.

But the reason that the Defence Force has been able to do these things is because of the unprecedented amount of support that’s come from the coalition Government. I’m going to acknowledge the Green Party here who are—and I remember very clearly in the campaign in the Wairarapa when there were people saying things like, “Well, you don’t want to vote for New Zealand First because if you do that, you’re going to get a three-headed monster and the Defence Force will never get any money.” It might have been Alastair Scott but I won’t say it was; Alastair Scott’s right across the aisle from me having a chuckle right now. People were saying if New Zealand First gets into Government and if they form a coalition with Labour and if that involves the Green Party, that’s it—the New Zealand Defence Force won’t get a brass razoo.

Well, my oh my oh my. Look at what has happened with the last two Budgets. We have seen, from this coalition Government and support from our confidence and supply partners, the greatest injection into the Defence Force in capital expenditure that people can remember or think of since possibly the 1960s when we deployed—we won’t get into that debate: whether it was right or wrong—into Vietnam, the greatest injection of capital funding. We have made decisions that are intergenerational—they are generational decisions, decisions that should have, one would have thought, been made by a conservative Government made up of the National Party and the ACT Party at some point in time over the last nine years or the previous nine years. Decisions weren’t—all but one, and I’ll give the credit to the Hon Gerry Brownlee because he is the one National Party MP who held the position of Minister of Defence who actually did get some things done. And we will take receipt of HMNZS Aotearoa—which was his work, getting it through Cabinet—this year, and I will make sure that Mr Gerry Brownlee is there to see that ship when she arrives in Devonport. But other than that, it was a big fat nothing.

This is the Government who has delivered the replacement for the P-3s—aircraft that go back to the 1960s. This is the Government that is on track to deliver the replacement. In fact, we’ve already announced we’re going to the C-130 Super Hercs, the replacements for our 1960s era—and they should be retired straight into the Museum of Transport and Technology, these aircraft, they’re that old. They’re the oldest H-model Hercules flying in the world and some parts are literally being held together with duct tape. But this is the Government that is making the decision to replace these aircraft. Nobody else. These aircraft should have been replaced 15 years ago. This Government has made that decision.

This is the Government that in 11 months flat delivered a hydro dive, hydro capability that wasn’t on track to be delivered for another six years. This Government is committed to supporting the women and the men of our defence forces that they may be properly trained, properly staffed, properly equipped, that when they deploy internationally to undertake the missions that the Government gives them, they are able to do them successfully with distinction and come home to their families safely.

This is the Government and this will be—I have only two priorities this year in terms of capability. One is to get the Hercules done and dusted. We’ll do that. The second is to get protected mobility for the army—and we know what we need there. I tried desperately as an Opposition MP to stop the procurement of the light armoured vehicles. Now I have the unfortunate task of selling them because they are not fit for the purposes that we require of them in the modern battlefield context. They’re not, and it’s a sadness that we lost our air combat capability as a result of that rather stupid decision, but it wasn’t my decision.

This is the Government that has delivered Network Enabled Army tranche 2. This is the Government that has delivered the NH90 simulator. This is the Government that signed up and delivered new King Airs and returned pilot training from Australia back to Ōhākea. This is the Government that’s already committed about $3 billion of defence investment. And this is the Government that has invested in the P-8s, which will result in infrastructure in Ōhākea, delivering a build in infrastructure that will build or provide about a $400 million economic boost to the Manawatū region as families from Whenuapai move down and occupy houses as the infrastructure to accommodate the P-8s is built, and that’s under way right now.

This is the Government that takes seriously a commitment to our youth in developing them and getting the very best out of our young people that we can. This is the Government that has reopened two Limited Service Volunteers facilities: one in Whenuapai and one in Trentham. This is the Government that has doubled the intake of Limited Service Volunteers and is producing outstanding results as we help these people reorientate themselves and prepare themselves for the work environment. It is this Government that is engaging with employers and getting them engaged with the Limited Service Volunteers scheme. And I’m being well assisted—and I thank her very much—by the Hon Carmel Sepuloni through the Ministry of Social Development in that space right now.

It is this Government that is committed to a first principles review of the Defence Force real estate footprint. And we are looking out to 2030; we are actually looking out to 2070 as to what this nation needs.

I think the one thing that we can say right now is that we have made some historical decisions in the Defence Force, and the Defence Force is the better for it. And I haven’t even started on our veterans, and I have 24 seconds to go. The only thing I will say is that we are not finished. We have till September and there is more coming down the line. This is a Government of action, not talk.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise to speak in response to the Prime Minister’s statement, and I want to talk to many topics that I will hold her and her Government accountable for in this response. She talked to health. She talked to having confidence in the Government. She talked to having trust. I will challenge all these points across three domains. The first will be health: infectious disease and vaccines; the second will be the reform of vocational education; and the third will be the Tuia 250 data breach.

New Zealanders cannot have confidence or trust in this Government or the management of infectious diseases or of vaccines. This time last year in Northland, there was a meningitis outbreak. On behalf of Northland parents and children, I am holding Pharmac to account for playing God and not telling anyone there were enough vaccines. I need to indicate to David Clark and the Director-General of Health that I held them to account at the time. I said, “Why did you not tell anyone that there were enough vaccines?” We now know the truth—we now know the truth. I wonder why at the time they didn’t say, “We didn’t know.” I wonder why they backed Pharmac. I wonder why it’s taken so long to get to the truth. But at that point in time, I held them accountable. We now know that is not correct.

It is now an unequivocal fact that Pharmac knew about 30,000 extra meningococcal vaccines—enough vaccines for everyone—and they told no one. We know that from the written parliamentary question this is what it looks like when Pharmac coughs up that, “Yes, we knew about the vaccines and we told no one.” Why did Pharmac not convey the useful information around the 30,000 extra meningitis vaccines to the Ministry of Health before the Northland vaccination campaign was signed off on 22 November 2018? Pharmac’s reply is, “Pharmac is a Crown agency and makes independent funding decisions.” That is their reply. They told no one. They didn’t tell the Ministry of Health about the extra vaccines. They didn’t tell the Minister about the extra vaccines.

Pharmac actually met three times before the Northland campaign was signed off with the Ministry of Health people who were organising the meningococcal campaign in Northland. Three times, Pharmac officials sat in the room with the hard-working ministry people who were trying to figure out the best response for Northland, and they said nothing. They had the knowledge within them that there were enough vaccines for everyone. They said nothing. The first meeting, the second meeting, and the third meeting, Pharmac said nothing.

It’s not my view; it’s all in writing. Look through the parliamentary questions on three dates: Pharmac people who had knowledge of the extra vaccines sat in the same room with the Ministry of Health and said nothing. They let them try and figure their way through a campaign where they understood there were not enough vaccines, but Pharmac knew there were. Pharmac’s reply to this, when they say in the written question, “We’re a Crown agency and we make independent funding decisions.”, is code for Pharmac is omnipotent. Pharmac is above everyone. Pharmac doesn’t have to tell Ministers or director-generals. Pharmac played God, and that is not their role. The Minister herself put in writing that knowledge of those extra 30,000 vaccines was important and it was useful. Pharmac must be held accountable for this. We cannot let them keep important information secret from the ministry, secret from the Minister, from people who are forming a response to a really urgent infectious disease outbreak. An apology to Northland parents and some evidence of change would be a start.

There is another sadness. There was no money for meningococcal vaccines for Northland children, but Winston Peters gave Papua New Guinea millions of dollars for vaccinations and, even worse, a meningitis vaccination campaign to Fiji. While Northland children were missing out on meningitis vaccines, Winston Peters gave millions of dollars to the Pacific. Northland parents will not forget that. Northland parents will not forget that—in their moment of need, with an infectious disease outbreak—Winston Peters gave money to the Pacific. And I do not decry their need, don’t think that for a moment.

💬 Hon Scott Simpson: It’s about priorities.

But it wasn’t much—it’s a priority—for Northland children to have the vaccines that they needed. When he looked out his window, and he looked into his immediate neighbourhood, why did he not see the five- to 12-year-olds who needed the vaccines? That is a sadness.

I want to talk to the measles outbreak at the end of the year. Thousands of cases of measles, and we ran out of vaccines. Minister Genter was wrong when she says it was a matter of distribution; it was a matter of supply. Every DHB who is replying to an annual review are giving the dates when they ran out of measles vaccine. There was a shortage of measles vaccines. Now, early in the piece, we came up with solutions. We recommended that pharmacists be authorised to vaccinate for measles. They already vaccinate for H flu; they are well capable, they are enthusiastic. A third of all pharmacists are already giving the flu vaccine. So, very early in the outbreak, as a party, we put forward this suggestion. In our hands, I would submit, we could make this change in about five days. It is simple. It is a small administrative change, that’s all it is.

The ministry, no, they delayed—and delayed and delayed. It was months later before they found themselves coming to the House proudly saying, “Yes, we are now authorising pharmacists to give the measles vaccine.” What has been the consequence of that delay? How many vaccines have pharmacists given for measles during the recently finished—or soon to be finished—measles outbreak? What was the consequence of that delay? What number would you guess that pharmacists have given of measles vaccine when they were authorised? I’ll tell you that number, because I got it about two hours ago: 20. Twenty people had the benefit of pharmacists vaccinating for measles when we had thousands of people lining up for the measles vaccine, when we were needing thousands of vaccines. We needed these people to be vaccinating, authorised vaccinating, months before the ministry finally got around to it, and the sum total of people vaccinated for measles by pharmacists, as of two hours ago, is 20. It’s appalling. That’s a shocking delay. Way too late, way too little.

I want to talk now to the Tuia 250 data breach: a data breach where the independent review was conveniently released late and close to the House rising last year, so we could not scrutinise it. And in this part, I want to speak directly to the Prime Minister, who, in her role as the Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage, has responsibility for the Tuia 250 data breach. It is a matter of fact that as a consequence of that data breach, she has data breached more young people than any other Minister in this Government has. Parliamentary Library have confirmed she has data breached more young people than any other Minister in this Government. She says she cares for young people, but she doesn’t care for their data.

This is not the first data breach Jacinda Ardern has had. In fact, there were two before Tuia 250. One of them was an email attachment that was sent to the wrong place. It was a sensitive email. It actually contained the list of titles of upcoming papers for the Ministry for Culture and Heritage, sport and recreation—it might have even been yours, Minister Faafoi—and the broadcasting portfolios. So you make a mistake. You send an email to the wrong place. It’s got sensitive data. What would you do? You fix up what you’ve done at your end, but shouldn’t we reach out and say, “Look, I’m really sorry, Minister Faafoi. I actually data breached some of your data. I think I’ve fixed it at my end. Can you tidy up at your end?” Wouldn’t you reach out to sport and recreation, which I believe is Grant Robertson, and say, “Hey, Grant, just letting you know—made a small mistake at our end. We’ll fix our end, but can you make sure that your end is tight?”? That’s what a responsible person would do.

Did Jacinda Ardern do that? No, she did not. In written parliamentary question 39995, I asked her: did she communicate with the Ministers for broadcasting and sports and recreation that she had data breached their data? I’m advised the Minister of Broadcasting, Communications and Digital Media was not notified by the ministry. I’m sorry to be telling you this for the first time, so maybe there is some stuff at your end that you do need to tidy up. I would have thought a responsible person would have done that. The Prime Minister was not responsible. Jacinda Ardern breached data from other ministries.

The independent review of Tuia 250, when it was released, had a key finding: a significant conflict of interest. So there was a member in her ministry who had a personal relationship with the website developer of Tuia 250, the website that eventually failed, and the legal team—this is what the Official Information Act tells us—eventually identified it with him or her and said, “You can’t do that. You’ve got a conflict of interest.” What did that person do? Did they stop? No, they did not. They continued to provide information just to the successful tenderer. Wow, what an outrageous conflict of interest. Despite being warned by legal, “You have a conflict; you need to stop.”, of the three tenders for this project, he or she continued to provide information just to that successful tenderer. That’s a conflict of interest. We can have no trust that this Government or Jacinda Ardern can look after our data.

I move, That this debate be now adjourned.