Oral Questions

1. to the Minister of Finance: What recent reports has he seen on the New Zealand economy?

The latest ANZ Business Outlook data for November 2020 showed that general business confidence continued its improved performance since August. Headline business confidence improved by 9 percentage points from the October reading, with indicators relating to investment, employment, and profit all higher. Services and manufacturing improved their expectations on ANZ’s measures, and construction was the most optimistic sector of the economy. Both residential and commercial construction expected higher activity in the future. Pleasingly, and finally in this primary answer, the indicator showing businesses’ own activity levels rose by 4 percentage points. This measure is more closely correlated with actual economic activity. ANZ noted that the New Zealand business sector is “feeling increasingly upbeat” and that “Monetary and fiscal policy have undoubtedly done their jobs this year.”

💬 Barbara Edmonds: What other reports has he seen on the construction sector?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Statistics New Zealand on Friday released their estimates of the value of building work put in place for the September 2020 quarter. Like consenting data, that data continued to show the resilience of the construction sector, with ASB analysts noting that “Building work completed over the September quarter lifted a whopping 35 percent, with residential building activity leading the charge and activities surging to above pre-COVID levels.” Statistics New Zealand noted that residential work rose 4.2 percent on the same period in 2019.

💬 Barbara Edmonds: What support is the Government providing to the construction sector to continue this growth?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Mr Speaker, I won’t test your patience by reading out a comprehensive list, but suffice to say—

💬 SPEAKER: I wouldn’t count on it.

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: —that I am particularly pleased about the support the Government is providing to the sector through our training programmes: $390 million was provided to support the Apprenticeship Boost programme across sectors, as part of the wider $1.6 billion boost to training. The head of the Building and Construction Industry Training Organisation stated, “For years, the building and construction sector has been calling for support from the Government for those firms that train apprentices. And this is the answer we have been waiting for.”

Question No. 2—Prime Minister

2. to the Prime Minister: Does she consider the over $4,600 increase in the median annual cost of renting a house since she became Prime Minister and the over 21,000 people on the State house waiting list signs of a housing emergency?

We have long called the housing situation in New Zealand a crisis. I’m pleased the member now shares this view. New Zealand has a longstanding shortage of homes, caused by a lack of investment in the infrastructure needed for new housing and Government investment in new housing. This is why the Government has stopped the previous Government’s sale of State houses; has delivered 6,000 additional public homes since we came into office; and is investing in 18,000 more homes by 2024. It’s why we set up the National Policy Statement on Urban Development, commissioned the comprehensive review of the Resource Management Act, and are now implementing its findings. It’s why we’re investing in the infrastructure needs for new homes—such as the New Zealand Upgrade Programme—and shovel-ready projects, and legislated the Infrastructure Funding and Financing Act. We’re starting to see some progress, with annual new home construction at its highest level since 1974. There is more to do, including for renters, and we’ve been upfront on that and will continue that work in the new year.

💬 Hon Judith Collins: Does she believe an increase in the number of people receiving the hardship assistance emergency housing grant from 9,000 in September 2017 to now 44,000 is a sign of a housing emergency under her watch?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: It is a sign of longstanding income inadequacy, and I now look forward, then, to the member’s support for increases in, for instance, ongoing support for those who are on Government benefits. We increased those benefits this year by $25 a week; I don’t believe they supported that. We removed the hours test for those who otherwise were previously ineligible for the in-work tax credit. We indexed benefits to wages. None of those changes do I recall the National Party supporting.

💬 Hon Judith Collins: Well, if she’s done all of that, then how come everything’s got a lot worse under her watch?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: The other point that I would make is that, alongside those changes—which were necessary; which that last Government did not support—we also have eased the access to that support, as well. We knew during COVID-19, in particular, we needed to make it easier for people to access Government support, and we have done that.

💬 Hon Judith Collins: Does she believe increased rental costs are partly to blame for the more than doubling of people receiving hardship assistance for food since she became the Prime Minister?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: As I’ve already said, we have eased the access to that support. We’ve also made sure that people who have genuine—that have housing needs—are able to join the housing register. I do acknowledge that under the National Government they, in fact, cut the register so roughly 4,500 were taken off it. What we have now is a much more accurate picture of need. Imagine the situation had we not continued to increase Government support. But what I would say is there is need out there, we will likely see that increase over Christmas, and we’re working with social agencies to make sure we continue that support.

💬 Hon Judith Collins: Is the Prime Minister in her answer seriously suggesting that people receiving hardship assistance for food are now receiving it and they wouldn’t have received it prior to her becoming the Prime Minister?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: What I am saying is that we have made it easier to access; you don’t, for instance, necessarily need a face-to-face appointment with someone at Work and Income. Now, I cannot say—hand on heart, Mr Speaker—whether that would have meant that people wouldn’t have got that support prior, but what I can say is we have made it more straightforward.

💬 Hon Judith Collins: What actions will her Government take to urgently increase the number of private rental properties in New Zealand?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: As we have heard a number of economists state, some of the issues we see in our housing market are down to housing supply and housing demand. We have tried to address both supply and demand by making sure, for instance, that we’ve put a stop to foreign buyers in the residential housing market. We’ve also done things like close tax loopholes, and we’ve, with urgency, tried to address the inadequate supply. We’re seeing, now, that come through, with consents at the highest level since the 1970s. Our hope is that, over time, that will make a difference, unlike the global financial crisis period, where we saw housing construction halve.

💬 Hon Judith Collins: Can she now advise us why it is, then, that everything’s got so much harder for people renting, under her watch?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Again, I’ll come back to the fundamental point. That is: economists in the Reserve Bank have identified rents are primarily driven by supply and demand. So, if the member would like a period of introspection, the fact that we inherited a housing market that was shy roughly 70,000 houses that were needed is having a significant impact on the housing market.

Question No. 3—Social Development and Employment

3. to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: What steps does she plan to take this term to continue the welfare overhaul so that everyone in New Zealand can live in dignity?

on behalf of the Minister for Social Development and Employment: As the Prime Minister said in the Speech from the Throne, the Government will continue the overhaul of the welfare system, building on the changes already made, including the indexing of benefits to increases in the average wage. Additionally, we campaigned on lifting the abatement threshold for beneficiaries, reintroducing the Training Incentive Allowance, and extending Flexi-wage. Alongside this, we’re committed to tripling the emergency dental grant to $1,000 per year, expanding lunch in schools to 200,000 children, lifting the minimum wage to $20 per hour, and building an additional 18,000 public and emergency houses. These actions will go a long way to improving lives for our families on low incomes.

Ricardo Menéndez March: What is the time line for this Government to deliver on all of the recommendations of the Welfare Expert Advisory Group (WEAG)?

There is already work under way on 22 recommendations of the WEAG report’s recommendations, and there is advice that has been sought on the remainder.

💬 Hon Louise Upston: Supplementary?

💬 SPEAKER: The member always gets two supplementaries; that’s the standard thing, and then we cut round to someone else.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Kia ora. What are the barriers to immediately raising the incomes of the poorest New Zealanders by 47 percent, as recommended by the Welfare Expert Advisory Group?

The Government has committed to lifting benefits at April every year by indexing them to wages, which was one of the recommendations of the report as well. If the member wishes a response to that specific question, I would request him to put that in writing so that the Minister responsible can give him a more fulsome response.

💬 Hon Louise Upston: Will the Minister change the principles of the Social Security Act that currently state “the priority for people of working age should be to find and retain work” this term?

This Government believes in supporting everyone who is able to get sustainable employment that pays them a decent wage so that they can actually live with dignity. Thank you.

💬 Hon Louise Upston: Point of order, Mr Speaker. It was a straight question that I didn’t get an answer to.

💬 SPEAKER: And it got a very clear answer, which was not supportive of the principle that the member put.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Has she received or requested any advice on whether increasing benefits to at least the levels recommended by the Welfare Expert Advisory Group would reduce the growing need for discretionary hardship grants, particularly for food costs?

As I said in a response to one of the previous questions around the WEAG recommendations, there is work under way on 22 of them and advice being sought on the remainder of those recommendations. In terms of hardship grants specifically, I can tell the member that the Ministry of Social Development has distributed 1,275,228 hardship grants since May this year and also allocated $32 million over three years to fund services that provide that support that many of our community members need at this time.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Has she received or requested any advice on options to provide additional income support in the lead-up to Christmas, whether permanent or temporary?

On behalf of the Minister, the member will know that specifically lifting core benefits has been already ruled out. However, the Prime Minister has responded to a letter from NGOs around this issue last month and highlighted the work that has already been done to lift benefits, including the establishment of the Families Package, the COVID income support package, and additional programmes like lunch in schools. The combined effect of all the changes that this Government has made is substantial. For example, 85,000 sole parents are on average $101 a week better off as a result, directly, of the changes that this Government has made.

Ricardo Menéndez March: What further steps, if any, are planned to support migrant workers unable to meet housing costs on the emergency benefit alone?

On behalf of the Minister, the member will know that there was a substantial programme in place for migrants who were experiencing hardship that was actually administered through the Red Cross. The member will also know that although benefits are generally only available to New Zealand citizens and permanent residents, there is one exception: under section 64 of the Social Security Act, during a pandemic, foreign nationals can receive an emergency benefit, which is paid at a similar rate as main benefits and will support them to address or to meet the demands of the needs that they have when they’re experiencing specific hardship, as they are now.

Question No. 4—Finance

4. to the Minister of Finance: Will he rule out any further changes to income taxes?

As I said to the member on Wednesday last week, every Government makes changes to tax and it would be foolish for a Minister of Finance to rule out changes such as automatic tax refunds or simplifying rate calculation to avoid the need for secondary tax, which are examples of changes the last Government made to income tax in the interests of taxpayers.

💬 Andrew Bayly: Will he rule out increasing the 33 percent tax rate on trust income?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: As was stated last week in the House, we did not increase the trust rate, because there are legitimate uses for trusts. What we have clearly said is that if we see misuse of trusts, we will be prepared to act on that.

💬 Andrew Bayly: Will he rule out increasing the five-year brightline test after which a gain from the sale of a house would be treated as income for tax purposes?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: As we covered in the House last week, we have asked the New Zealand Treasury to look at how the brightline test is working and to see whether or not it needs to be changed in any way whatsoever. What I would say is I do again thank the National Party for the introduction of the brightline test.

💬 Andrew Bayly: Will he rule out increasing the top portfolio investment entity income tax rate of 28 percent?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: There are no plans to do that.

💬 Andrew Bayly: Is he aware that—

💬 SPEAKER: Order! Hang on. I’m not sure that that’s quite the answer to the question that the Minister tried to give. There are no plans to rule it out?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: No, there are no plans to do the thing he said.

💬 SPEAKER: OK. All right, it’s clearer now. I’ve helped the Opposition a lot, I think. I’m sorry.

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Is that counted?

💬 Andrew Bayly: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Is he aware that any additional income taxes will further increase the cost of rents under this Government?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: That question is based on—it was purely hypothetical and what I would say to the member, as was traversed in question No. 2 today, is that rents, as we know, are a product of supply and demand and if the previous Government had actually done something about increasing supply, we wouldn’t be where we are today.

💬 Andrew Bayly: Why should the public not believe it is a broken promise if he increases the income tax rate on trusts or extends the brightline test, considering—

💬 SPEAKER: Order! The member’s asking a question about something that the Minister has no responsibility for.

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: Point of order. Repeatedly in debates last week and the many statements made to the House and, indeed, the Speech from the Throne, reference was made exactly to the promises made by the Labour Party in the election process. So why would it be ruled out asking a Minister if he’s on board with that?

💬 SPEAKER: I wasn’t actually referring to anything to do with a party matter. It was a question of the responsibility for public opinion, which the member based his question on, and this Minister has no responsibility for that.

💬 Andrew Bayly: Why would it not be a broken promise if he increases the income tax rate on trusts or extends the brightline test, considering Labour’s manifesto made no reference to tax increases beyond the new 39 percent income tax rate?

💬 SPEAKER: Order! The member still hasn’t got to the point where he’s got a question of Government responsibility.

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: Point of order, Mr Speaker. It seems unreasonable that Ministers in many of their speeches in the House so far can claim their mandate from a political manifesto but then not be responsible for their view on how it’s delivered.

💬 SPEAKER: It’s one of the essences of question time, and the difference between questions and debates—members in debates can say more or less what they want, you know, more or less. But when it’s question time there has to be a link back to something for which the Minister has ministerial responsibility, and a party political document is not that.

💬 Andrew Bayly: Does he agree that the public may believe that it is a broken promise if he increases the income tax rate on trusts or extends the brightline test, considering he said on Newstalk ZB that he would not be increasing any taxes beyond the new 39 percent income tax rate?

💬 SPEAKER: I’m going to ask the member whether he said that in his role as Minister of Finance.

💬 Andrew Bayly: It was stated on 9 September, Mr Speaker.

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: A point of order, Mr Speaker. I think this will be helpful. Last week in the House, when Mr Bayly used that question, he did quote the Labour finance spokesperson, Grant Robertson, and you’ll recall I made a very humble and modest statement about that gentleman.

💬 Andrew Bayly: Speaking to the point of order, Mr Robertson was also asked a similar question about the trust tax rate in an interview on Thursday last week on Newstalk ZB and he—

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: You could have put that in the question then.

💬 SPEAKER: I think it’s getting close to Christmas and it’s excessive kindness on my part, but I will allow the Minister to answer the question on the basis that by next year we get our questions a bit tidier.

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The premise of the member’s question is hypothetical. As we have stated in the House, we have asked the Treasury to take a look at existing measures around the demand side of housing and we await that advice.

Question No. 5—Education (Māori Education)

5. to the Associate Minister of Education (Māori Education): He aha ngā panui kua puta i a ia mo te reo i ngā kura?

[What initiatives has he announced for te reo Māori in New Zealand schools?]

I te rangi nei, nā tōna tino pai i ngā tau e rua, nāku tonu i whakapāho kia horahia Te Ahu o te Reo Māori ki te motu hei ara whāinga mā te 10,000 kaiako, kaihautū, kaiāwhina anō hoki e hiahia ana ki te whakapakari, ki te tuitui i te reo Māori ki roto i ngā akomanga huri noa i Aotearoa. Ko te whakatinanatanga o tō mātou taunaki ki Te Tiriti o Waitangi hei whakapakari i te rāngai kaimahi mātauranga. Ā, ko te mea nui kei te tuwhera tētahi ara mō te hunga taiohi ki te ako i tō rātou reo, kia manaakitia hoki rātou kia angitu ai i roto i te ao mātauranga hei Māori.

[Today, because of its effectiveness over the last two years, I announced that Te Ahu o te Reo Māori will go nationwide as a path for 10,000 teachers, leaders, and support staff who want to improve and also integrate te reo Māori into classrooms across New Zealand: the implementation of our support of Te Tiriti o Waitangi to strengthen the education workforce. Also, the main point is that a path is now available for young people to learn their language, in which they will also be supported to succeed in their educational career as Māori.]

💬 Willow-Jean Prime: He aha ngā kōrero kua rangona e ia mō te whakarewatanga o Te Ahu o te Reo Māori?

[What has he heard about the launch of Te Ahu o te Reo Māori?]

💬 Hon KELVIN DAVIS: Kua tata ki te 1,000 kaiako, kaiāwhina hoki kua whai wāhi ki te kaupapa nei. Āianei, kua māia ake rātou ki te whakamahi i te reo Māori i roto i ō rātou kura, i ō rātou akomanga. Nā ngā whānau, ngā mātua, ā rātou tamariki, tae noa atu ki te hapori whānui i kī e hiahia ana rātou kia whai wāhi ai te reo Māori ki ā rātou akoako katoa, ā, mā Te Ahu o te Reo Māori tēnei karanga e manaaki.

[Almost 1,000 teachers and support staff have participated in this initiative. Now they are more confident to use te reo Māori in their schools and their classrooms. Whānau, parents, their children, and the wider community all said that they want the Māori language to have a place in all of their learning, and Te Ahu o te Reo Māori will answer this call.]

💬 Willow-Jean Prime: E mea ana ia ki te tuku i Te Ahu o te Reo Māori kia hora i te motu ā ngā tau e tū mai nei?

[Is he saying that Te Ahu o te Reo Māori will spread nationwide in the coming years?]

💬 Hon KELVIN DAVIS: Ko te whāinga matua mai i te tau 2021 ki te tau 2025, ka eke ki te 40,000 te rāngai kaimahi mātauranga ka puta nei ō rātou ihu i Te Ahu o te Reo Māori; 10,000 ngā tūranga e wātea ana ia tau. Mā tēnei kaupapa e rangona ai, e kōrerotia ai te reo Māori i ō tātou akomanga, ā, ka whai wāhi ia ki roto i ngā akoako a ngā tamariki katoa i Aotearoa.

[The main goal from 2021 to 2025 is for 40,000 of the educational workforce to graduate from Te Ahu o te Reo Māori; there are 10,000 places available each year. It is through this initiative that the Māori language will be heard and spoken in our classrooms, and it will have a rightful place in the learning of all children in New Zealand.]

💬 Rawiri Waititi: Ka pēhea te Minita ki te hiki i te pūtea ki ngā kura reo Māori, pēnei anō ki ngā kōhanga reo, ngā kura kaupapa Māori, me ngā kura ā-iwi?

[How will the Minister increase funding to Māori-medium educational facilities, like kōhanga reo, kura kaupapa Māori, and kura ā-iwi?]

💬 Hon KELVIN DAVIS: E $232 miriona kua tukuna atu ki te kōhanga reo i ngā tau e rua kua pahure ake nei. Mehemea ka hoki ōku whakaaro ki te wā e moe tahi ana Te Paati Māori me Te Pāti Nāhinara, e iwa tau, kīhai rātou i whiwhi i tētahi paku pūtea.

[$232 million has been granted to kōhanga reo in the last two years. If I think back to the time that the Māori Party and the National Party were together—nine years, and they didn’t receive any funding at all.]

Question No. 6—COVID-19 Response

6. to the Minister for COVID-19 Response: When he said last week in question time in relation to the COVID-19 Surveillance and Testing Strategy Group report, “I did receive earlier drafts”, how many unique draft versions of the report has his office received, and on what dates were those drafts received?

As I indicated in my response last week in the House, my office was sent a copy on 30 September. I asked the review panel to go and consult with the Ministry of Health before the report was finalised and they did that. My office received the final report on 27 November. I also asked two members of the advisory committee to review the contact tracing performance during the August outbreak as an appendix to the group’s main report and my office received that on 1 December.

💬 Chris Bishop: Why did he say last week that he’d received “drafts”—plural—of the report when in reality he just got sent a copy of the report on 28 September, as he’s just stated?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: If the member thinks that that’s the big issue of the day then that’s up to him, but whether I used the word “draft” or “drafts” is really immaterial. I received a copy of the report on 30 September; I received the final report on 27 November.

💬 Chris Bishop: What has happened between 30 September, when he first received a copy of the report and 27 November when he received the final copy of the report?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: A new Government has been sworn in.

💬 Chris Bishop: When he said last week in relation to the review panel, “They made some recommendations around how the reporting and monitoring of the testing could be improved. Obviously, people are affected by that;”, is it fair to say that during that two-month interregnum he’s just referred to, the people affected by that have provided feedback on the report?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Yes, that’s certainly one of the things that’s happened during that time.

💬 Chris Bishop: Does the Ministry of Health disagree with aspects of the report because the report identifies failings in the ministry?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The Ministry of Health did disagree with some aspects of the report. That is one of the reasons why I asked the review panel to go and consult with them. I think there’s a natural justice process here—that’s only fair that they have the opportunity to respond.

💬 Chris Bishop: Will he give a commitment to the House today that the report will be released before Christmas so that the public can see what failings in the Ministry of Health have been identified by the expert review panel that he and the Government appointed for that very reason?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: As I indicated to the member last week, the report makes a number of recommendations, some of which the Government’s yet to consider. Some of them include budgetary matters. We will be looking to progress those as soon as possible, but I won’t put a particular time frame on that.

💬 Chris Bishop: Is he seriously saying to the House that a report commissioned by the Government under urgency at a time of grave national crisis to do with testing at the border, that makes recommendations to improve failings—

💬 SPEAKER: Order! A question, not a speech.

💬 Chris Bishop: —will not be released before Christmas?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I didn’t necessarily say that. I say that I’m not putting a time frame on it. [Interruption]

💬 SPEAKER: Order! Whichever member said that will stand, withdraw, and apologise.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: I stand—sorry—withdraw and apologise, sir.

Question No. 7—Research, Science, and Innovation

7. to the Minister of Research, Science and Innovation: What progress has been made on the Government’s Vaccine Strategy?

The Government has made good progress on its vaccine strategy, having announced two deals with vaccine providers so far. We’ve recently agreed in principle to purchase an initial 750,000 courses from Pfizer/BioNTech and up to 5 million courses from Janssen. The Government’s COVID-19 vaccine strategy ensures that we are purchasing through a number of different avenues to access suitable vaccines as soon as safely possible.

💬 Dr Liz Craig: What recent reports has she seen on how effective some vaccine candidates are?

💬 Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: Early indications from clinical trials of vaccine candidates show the effectiveness is higher than had previously been expected, which is promising. For example, one of the candidates we have secured—Pfizer BioNTech—has been reported at 90 percent effectiveness. However, safety will always be our absolute priority, and we will not be rushed into accepting the first vaccine that shows promise. Vaccine candidates will be assessed through our own regulatory processes before they are distributed to the community.

💬 Dr Liz Craig: Is she confident that we will secure access to vaccines that will meet the needs of our population?

💬 Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: Yes. The vaccine strategy has sought to position New Zealand well to secure access to safe and effective vaccines as soon as is possible. Undertaking a portfolio approach means that we are looking at a range of different vaccine candidates and, in doing so, maximising flexibility and choice when it comes to what is best for the needs of our population. I am confident that our vaccine strategy has us well positioned to distribute vaccines, when they are available, which have met our own regulatory standards.

Question No. 8—Prime Minister

8. to the Prime Minister: What actions will the Government take in response to the report of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Terrorist Attack on Christchurch Mosques?

Firstly, I want to note that we know the release of the report today is a difficult and stressful time for our Muslim community, and I know they will be in the minds of all of the members of this House as we debate the report. Immediately after the attack, we, obviously, as the member knows, took swift action to ban military-style semi-automatic and assault rifles through stronger gun laws, and took action to prevent stockpiling. The royal commission report itself notes that these changes have addressed a number of issues that the commission identified. More generally, the Government accepts the findings of its report and agrees, in principle, to all recommendations. Implementing some of the recommendations will require further consideration. On many elements, we expect to undertake consultation with members of this House in order to reach consensus. There are, however, a number of areas where we can give an initial response: Andrew Little has been appointed as coordinating Minister for the ongoing work programme; the establishment of a ministry for ethnic communities to support and strengthen the work programme around social cohesion, which will be in conjunction with the Ministry of Social Development; the establishment of a national centre of excellence which brings together academia, civil society, and Government to research radicalisation and violent extremism; amending the Terrorism Suppression Act to strengthen counter-terrorism legislation. As I said, this is not a comprehensive list and I do expect there will be plenty of debate and dialogue in this House as we work to form consensus where we can.

💬 David Seymour: Has any Government employee lost their job for the failings identified in the report, and, if not, will any?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I absolutely appreciate that, with such a significant report, the member may not have had a chance to go through this significant 800-page report, but he will see, certainly from the summary of recommendations, that the report does not find that there were any failings from Government agencies that could have identified the preparation of this attack on March 15, and does not go to individuals holding individual account beyond, of course, the terrorist themselves.

💬 David Seymour: How does the Prime Minister reconcile the policy of Government action to engineer social cohesion amongst New Zealanders with the foreign origin of the terrorist and the extraordinary way that New Zealanders united in the wake of the tragedy, that was admired around the world?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Because I think there is a general acknowledgment, I would have thought, within New Zealand that whilst, of course, this individual, as you’ve pointed out, did grow up in Australia, he had an ideology that was not unique to him. Of course, you see within the report references to the fact that there are those who hold extreme ideologies in New Zealand that were of a similar nature to the terrorist in this case and that there is work to be done if we as a nation are to address the origins of that ideology and work to prevent that manifesting in terrorist-style activity.

💬 David Seymour: How does the Prime Minister intend to hold public sector agencies accountable for failings that were identified in the report, before establishing new agencies?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Actually, I think, to be fair to the report itself, the report identifies where there has been a lack of clarity around accountability. So in the national security landscape alongside the security intelligence agencies, the New Zealand Police, who take an operational role you also, of course, have the Combined Threat Assessment Group, the National Assessments Bureau, and the role of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. What the report finds is that we do need much greater coherence and clarity around the organisation of our security intelligence agencies. So that in itself does not necessarily lend itself to looking for singular accountability in this case, but it does point to learnings that should make for more cohesive intelligence-gathering agencies and a framework for the future.

💬 David Seymour: Will the Government follow the royal commission’s advice and implement British-style hate speech laws without the exemptions for free and open debate present in that country’s laws?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: My recollection of the discussion in the report actually identifies some issues with the UK legislation, and so, I think, within the report it traverses those issues. Our intention, of course, is that we need to respond to both the existing framework that we have and some of the elements that are missing from within it. The member will well know, for instance, already within the human rights legislation there is coverage over certain groups but, for instance, religion is not included. So the report points out that you are covered by the human rights legislation if you identify as being Jewish or Sikh but not, for instance, if you’re Muslim. So there are gaps in the legislation. What we will be seeking to do is to work across Parliament. We do want consensus where we can build it, because, of course, that will stop this debate becoming divisive and potentially leading to the targeting of certain communities.

Question No. 9—Police

9. to the Minister of Police: What recent reports has she seen regarding the seizure of illicit drugs by the New Zealand Police?

I have been advised that police have recently made a major bust in Kawakawa last week, resulting in the seizure of a significant quantity of methamphetamine with an estimated street value of almost $90,000. In addition, 50 kilograms of iodine pellets were also located, which is used in the manufacturing of meth, with a street value of around $125,000. Police also recovered a firearm and more than $100,000 in cash. Illicit drugs like meth are destructive and have no place in our communities. I thank our police for their fantastic work.

💬 Ginny Andersen: Has the Minister seen any other reports on police disrupting illicit drugs trade in New Zealand?

💬 Hon POTO WILLIAMS: Yes. As part of the ongoing Operation Cincinnati, police have disrupted gang operations involved in the importation, distribution, and manufacture of methamphetamine and MDMA, along with other illicit drugs throughout Auckland and Christchurch. This shows the impact of our 700 new cops focused directly on organised crime, and what that’s having.

💬 Ginny Andersen: How has the Government supported police in this important work?

💬 Hon POTO WILLIAMS: We’ve supported the police by putting more officers on the beat: 2,500 new constables, 1,300 new FTEs, 700 alone focused on organised crime. We have banned military-style semi-automatic weapons, magazines, and parts; taken 62,000 prohibited firearms out of circulation; and passed the Arms Legislation Bill. This Government delivers for police.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Is the Minister aware of any reduction in illicit drug consumption as a result of this police activity?

💬 Hon POTO WILLIAMS: What I can speak to is the fact that police are delivering for our communities, and what police efforts are doing is disrupting gangs and continuing at pace. Seizures and forfeitures of assets are also continuing to increase, as I’ve noticed in my previous answers.

💬 SPEAKER: I think the member can have a bit more of a go at the actual question. Does the member want the question repeated?

💬 Hon POTO WILLIAMS: Yes, please.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Is the Minister aware of any reduction in illicit drug consumption as a result of the police forfeitures and otherwise which she has outlined?

💬 Hon POTO WILLIAMS: The whole point is if the drugs are off the streets, they cannot be consumed.

Question No. 10—Children

10. to the Minister for Children: Does he have confidence in the chief executive of Oranga Tamariki following her admission that structural racism is a feature of the care and protection system?

E whakapono ana ahau kua tika ngā whakataunga a te tumuaki o Oranga Tamariki. I rangona ahau he maha ngā kupu mihi e pā ana ki āna whakataunga, engari e tika ake ana i te whakapāhatanga. Ko te mea nui rawa, mā Oranga Tamariki e whakatika ngā hapa ō mua. Koinei te wero kei mua i a mātou.

[I believe the decisions made by the CEO of Oranga Tamariki were correct. I heard many complimentary words about her decisions, but it is even more correct due to the apology. The most important point is that Oranga Tamariki corrects the mistakes of the past. This is the challenge before us.]

💬 Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: How can he have confidence in the chief executive of Oranga Tamariki when report after report has highlighted serious failings under her watch?

💬 Hon KELVIN DAVIS: E whakapono ana ahau ka whai te tumuaki o Oranga Tamariki i ngā tohutohu hei anga whakamua a Oranga Tamariki.

[I believe the CEO of Oranga Tamariki will follow the advice so that Oranga Tamariki looks to the future.]

💬 Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: How does the Minister intend to unravel the structural racism at Oranga Tamariki, as shown in report after report?

💬 Hon KELVIN DAVIS: Koia taku tino whāinga, ki te takahi i te kaikiritanga ki raro, ki te whakapanoni i ngā pūnahatanga kia mutu ai te kaikiritanga.

[That is my primary goal, to stamp out discrimination, to transform the systems so that discrimination is ended.]

💬 Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Has the Minister read the report of the Children’s Commissioner, who went as far as to say that the system is so broken that there should be a by Māori, for Māori agency established?

💬 Hon KELVIN DAVIS: Āe.

💬 Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: How long does the Minister expect tamariki Māori to wait for this Government to get its act together and fix the structural racism at Oranga Tamariki?

💬 Hon KELVIN DAVIS: Ko te mea nui, e hia kē ngā tau kei raro i tērā atu o ngā Kāwanatanga kua haere wēnei āhuatanga? Engari ko tēnei Kāwanatanga e wero ana i wēnei kaupapa.

[The main issue is, for how many years under that other Government did such things go on? But this Government is challenging these topics.]

💬 Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Point of order, Mr Speaker. The question wasn’t answered.

💬 SPEAKER: One of the points of order could’ve been that it wasn’t addressed. There’s not a requirement to give an answer to the satisfaction of members in our Standing Orders—possibly unfortunately, but, you know, that is the case. The question was addressed.

💬 Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Will the Minister accept that presently there is a separatist system running our child care and protection services—Oranga Tamariki is a Pākehā organisation from top to bottom?

💬 Hon KELVIN DAVIS: Kua tino mārama ahau. Ko tā te mema e taunaki ana ko te huarahi ngāwari noa iho, ki te whakawehewehe i ngā pūnaha. He pakeke ake tā mātou e hiahia ana, ko te tūmanako, ko te rāngai tūmatanui kia whakapakari ai i ngā pūnahatanga hei painga mō te Māori, ki te mahi ia rā, ia rā i te taha o Ngāi Māori nā te mea kāre e taea e te Karauna te horoi ōna ringaringa i tēnei kaupapa.

[I have been very clear. What the member is supporting is merely the easy path, to separate the systems. What we want is more difficult, that the public sector hopefully strengthens systems for the benefit of Māori, to work each and every day alongside the Māori people because the Crown cannot wash its hands of this issue.]

Question No. 11—Diversity, Inclusion and Ethnic Communities

11. to the Minister for Diversity, Inclusion and Ethnic Communities: What actions has the Government announced to promote social inclusion in New Zealand?

As part of our response to the findings of the report by the Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Terrorist Attack on Christchurch Mosques, the Government has announced a suite of measures today, designed to promote social inclusion. We are significantly upgrading the Office of Ethnic Communities to create a new ministry for ethnic communities. This ministry will have greater mana and standing, with a better ability to support and respond to the needs of our increasingly diverse communities. Alongside this, we’ve announced a national centre of excellence to bring together academia, civil society, and Government to research the prevention of radicalisation and the promotion of social cohesion. We’ve also announced a range of other initiatives, such as the new Ethnic Communities Graduate Programme. These are designed to ensure that Government better reflects the increasingly diverse populations we serve.

💬 Ibrahim Omer: How does this announcement build on the work that the Government has done to promote social inclusion since the 15th March attacks?

💬 Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN: Since the 15th March attacks, the Government has undertaken significant work to promote social inclusion. The Office of Ethnic Communities has doubled in capacity, the largest expansion in its history. We’ve also made an eightfold increase in the Ethnic Communities Development Fund, from $520,000 to $4.2 million—that’s money that goes directly to our communities. This complements a whole-of-Government piece of work, such as the Give Nothing to Racism campaign, and ensuring that the education system teaches our children to value diversity and enhancing the capacity of the Human Rights Commission.

💬 Ibrahim Omer: Why has the Government undertaken these actions?

💬 Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN: I want to take this opportunity to acknowledge the trauma experienced by the survivors of the March 15th mosque attacks and whānau. This Government stands with them and will work to implement the recommendations from the royal commission report, to make New Zealand a safer place. New Zealand is an increasingly vibrant and diverse nation, and this diversity is one of our greatest strengths. It is important, though, that everyone in New Zealand is able to access opportunities and to participate fully. These actions are a step in that journey.

Question No. 12—Education

12. to the Minister of Education: What are his three top priorities as Minister of Education?

The Government actually has five priorities, as set out in the statement of National Education and Learning Priorities in the tertiary education strategy. I share these priorities. They are: putting learners at the centre; barrier-free access; quality teaching and learning; the future of learning and work; and world-class, inclusive public education. I can also assure the member that I will make it a priority to ensure my numbers add up.

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I didn’t ask the Minister what were the five objectives in the National Education and Learning Priorities. I asked him what his three priorities are to get a sense of what he was up to.

💬 SPEAKER: Well, I think if the member had listened very carefully at the beginning of the answer, he would have worked out that it was in order.

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: Where does improving student achievement fit in amongst his priorities?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Right the way across. But, of course, if you’re putting students at the centre of education decisions, then, of course, that covers student achievement.

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: How are students likely to be at the centre if only 58 percent of them are turning up regularly to classes before disruption from COVID-19?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The member has highlighted a very important point—that student achievement is intricately linked to student attendance. Students who don’t show up do not achieve as well in education, and we do have a worrying trend in New Zealand—which started under the last Government—of increasing numbers of students not showing up at school regularly. Government can take some responsibility for contributing to that, but, of course, parents have the ultimate responsibility to make sure their kids are attending school.

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: Does he have a target for regular attendance, and, if so, what is it?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I want all kids to be attending school regularly, and I won’t accept any target that’s below that. I do acknowledge that there are occasions where students can’t attend school for a variety of reasons, including when they’re sick, and we would encourage them to stay home in those circumstances. But the level of non-attendance in New Zealand schools is completely unacceptable.

💬 Jo Luxton: How have the Government’s actions over the last year advanced his priorities?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I’m incredibly proud of the way the education system as a whole rose to the challenge of COVID-19, especially during the lockdown. Just to name three particular things I think we should all be proud of: we established two television channels to broadcast education-related content, we increased the number of students who have access to the internet and digital devices at home, and we made changes to make sure that this year’s NCEA students weren’t unfairly disadvantaged.

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: Supplementary?

💬 SPEAKER: No, no. The member’s party has used its supplementary questions.

ROYAL COMMISSION OF INQUIRY INTO THE TERRORIST ATTACK ON CHRISTCHURCH MASJIDAIN ON 15 MARCH 2019

Report

I move, That the House note Ko tō tātou kāinga tēnei: Report of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into the terrorist attack on Christchurch masjidain on 15 March 2019.

Today, the Government tables the report of the royal commission of inquiry into the terrorist attack on the 15th March. Before we begin with the findings and the steps we must take, let me first speak directly to the Muslim community in New Zealand. Nothing in this report, nothing that had happened in the courtroom, nothing that we have done in this Parliament, or nothing we will do in the future of this Parliament will take back what happened that day, but I hope each of those acts takes us one step closer to justice and one step closer to change. Till that day, I say as-salamu alaykum—may peace be with you and may peace surround you.

Ten days after March 15, we announced the royal commission. It is reserved for matters of the gravest public importance. We wanted to ensure that this independent inquiry was able to ask the questions that we all had, but that, most importantly, the Muslim community had.

Those questions included whether there was any information provided or otherwise available to relevant public sector agencies that could or should have alerted them to the attack, whether there was any failure in information sharing between relevant agencies, whether public sector agencies failed to anticipate or plan for the attack due to an inappropriate concentration of resources, whether any relevant public sector agency failed to meet required standards or was otherwise at fault, and any other matters relevant to the purpose of the inquiry. These were the questions being asked and, 18 months later, those are the questions that were meticulously answered in this report.

Over 1,000 people made submissions, hundreds met with the inquirers, and international experts shared their insights, and the result is 800 pages’ worth of findings. Now, we will not be able to summarise it all in this House today, but I do want to place the key findings on record, and also then respond with some of the initial response from the Government.

The report finds: “We conclude the concentration of counter-terrorism resources on the threat of Islamist extremist terrorism before the New Zealand Security Intelligence Service’s baselining project began in May 2018 was inappropriate because it: … was not based on an informed assessment of the threats of terrorism associated with other ideologies; and [it] did not result from a system-wide decision that, despite the absence of such an assessment, counter-terrorism resources should continue to be allocated almost exclusively to the threat of Islamist extremist terrorism. We find that: … the inappropriate concentration of resources on the threat of Islamist extremist terrorism did not contribute to the individual’s planning and preparation for his terrorist attack not being detected. And for that reason, the Public sector agencies involved in the counter-terrorism effort did not fail to anticipate or plan for the terrorist attack … No Public sector agency involved in the counter-terrorism effort failed to meet required standards or was otherwise at fault in respects that were material to the individual’s planning and preparation for this terrorist attack not being detected.”

On the firearms licence, the report found: “New Zealand Police failed to meet required standards in the administration of the firearms licensing system” and that “the Arms Manual, the Master Vetting Guide and the Firearms Licence Vetting Guide did not provide coherent and complete guidance … New Zealand Police did not put in place arrangements to ensure that firearms licensing staff received systematic training and regular reviews of their practice; … in dealing with the individual’s firearms licence application, New Zealand Police did not adequately address whether gaming friend and their parent knew the individual well enough to [act] as referees.”

The report goes on to consider “what might have happened” had the licensing policy and process been appropriate and how this may have impacted the events of March 15. While hypothetical and speculative, “if the individual’s application had not been granted, … We think it possible, and perhaps likely, that he would have been able to obtain a licence eventually,”. But this is a message I wish all of this House to hear, particularly those who take diverse views on gun laws: “It is also possible that he may have formulated a plan to carry out the terrorist attack using different means or abandoned his planning for a terrorist attack in New Zealand” were it not for our gun regime.

This is only the beginning of the report’s findings. It traverses our security and intelligence arrangements, counter-terrorism framing, and information-sharing provisions, but it’s important to take a moment of pause because while the royal commission found no failures with any Government agencies that would have allowed the individual’s planning and preparation to have been detected, it did identify many lessons to be learnt and significant changes that are required.

For many years, Muslim community members have raised concerns over issues like the disproportionate scrutiny by security and intelligence agencies. This report confirms there was that inappropriate concentration of resources.

It also identifies, as I’ve said, the failings within the firearm-licensing system. The commission made no findings that these would have stopped the attack, but they were failings none the less, and for that, on behalf of the Government, I apologise.

This report also identifies a permissive firearms regime—for that, we must all take responsibility. It demonstrates why we took those steps immediately on military-style weapons, why it was so important that we made the changes we did, but it also tells a story of, over decades and decades, a lack of action in an area where there was much-needed reform.

There is much work to do. I don’t want the response to this report to be political. Many recommendations, of which there are 44, relate to issues that we will seek consensus over. We will work hard to achieve that, but let me start by outlining some of the plan that we can announce from today. Firstly, we agree in principle with the 44 recommendations. Secondly, Minister Andrew Little will coordinate the cross-Government response to the recommendations.

Thirdly, some of our immediate responses include: in line with recommendation 30, we will establish a ministry for ethnic communities—long called for. Following recommendation 35, we will establish an ethnic communities graduate programme within our public sector. Recommendations 25 and 26, which suggested to us that we needed to continue to support victims and survivors of the attack on that day, and we will do that through wraparound support—directly walking alongside those families.

Recommendation 14: we will establish a national centre of excellence to prevent violent extremism and promote those preventative actions that are known to reduce radicalisation—and they do fall in the space of social cohesion. I do not call them social engineering; I call it prevention.

Recommendation 42, which establishes an organisational response within the police to recording and managing hate crime. Also, early intervention programmes across agency to address risk factors that we know lead to radicalisation.

Recommendation 44: we will work with parties across Parliament on the gaps in hate speech legislation. I know this is a contentious area, and we will work with determination to try and form that consensus if we can.

In recommendation 18, we see calls to strengthen counter-terrorism legislation. That was something the Government had started work on prior to March 15, and we will now bring those amendments to the House.

There is much to do, but I want to leave my final words as words of thanks to the commission for its enormous work. I can do no better than summarise the path ahead than using their own words: “We accept political engagement on these issues will not be easy. But facing up to the hard issues and having open public conversations are critical. … We hope our report will encourage members of the public, officials and politicians to engage in frank debate so that everyone understands their roles and responsibilities in keeping New Zealand safe, secure and cohesive. There is impetus for debate around the kind of country New Zealand aspires to be.”

May that objective guide us in this House, but may the memory of the 51 who were lost, the survivors, and witnesses remain with us as we embark upon this journey. Nō reira, tēnā tātou katoa.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I join with the Prime Minister in thanking the commissioners for their work. It’s obviously been an extremely onerous, difficult task for them. They’ve clearly, with the 800 pages of their report, shown that they have taken it incredibly seriously and they have listened to everybody who has spoken to them.

We received, as the Opposition, an embargoed copy of the report at 10 o’clock this morning, but we have had an opportunity to certainly look at quite a lot of the report in relation to the recommendations. We think there’s a great deal of information in the report which needs to be carefully absorbed and considered, and we’ll be spending some time over the coming months and weeks doing exactly that. This is a wide-ranging report that must be treated with utmost respect, but the recommendations within it must be also properly scrutinised.

The atrocities committed on 15 March 2019 were the actions of an evil terrorist in that they were designed to spread fear and to silence those who did not share his world view. However, the actions of New Zealanders following that in their denouncing of him and what he stood for has shown that he failed miserably if his outcome was to change our way of life and our way of thinking. We have shown, as a nation, that we are not prepared to give in to fear, that we are not prepared to tolerate extreme hate, and that we are not prepared to let anything like the wickedness that took place on March 15 to ever happen in New Zealand again.

The Opposition stands ready to work constructively with the Government on this, and we will learn from this experience and make New Zealand a safer place in which to work and to live. I think that shows the value of having a royal commission and its ability to probe very deeply into issues like this.

I’d like to take the opportunity to acknowledge the 51 victims who lost their lives that day, the dozens more who witnessed and survived the attack, the brave police officers who rushed in to help, the doctors and the nurses and the paramedics who worked tirelessly to save lives, and the people of New Zealand, who rallied together to say that this is not us. I’d like to acknowledge, again, everyone involved in the royal commission of inquiry, not just the commissioners but all of those who worked—all the secretariat—and all of those who gave evidence in their submissions to the royal commission, and to acknowledge the tremendous support that New Zealanders received from all over the world in the wake of the attacks.

The world was horrified, just like we were, because we’re not used to seeing ourselves as a country where this happens, and that’s because we just haven’t seen this level of terrorism attack that I can ever think of. Certainly, it is something that we have had—issues of terrorism and proposed terrorism in this country—but they have been able to be foiled or various things have taken place, and they very seldom see the light of day in the media.

Ultimately, no matter the failings by various people or departments or agencies, there is one person who is utterly responsible for the actions of that day, and that person is now serving a life sentence without parole in a New Zealand maximum security prison—a very good place for him to be. But it appears that certain systems within Government could have and should have performed better in the lead-up to that extraordinarily brutal event. I would not like the people who were involved in those agencies, though, to feel that they were the people responsible for that person’s actions. We always know that there are failings in any system and that people make judgment calls that sometimes are shown to be wrong, but there was one person responsible, and that one person is the terrorist.

In principle, we support strengthening the role of New Zealand’s security intelligence agencies to safeguard against any repeat of these terrible actions. I think that in many ways, many New Zealanders have become extremely complacent to the view that we live at the very bottom of the world and nobody takes much notice of us, but we are, unfortunately, a country that can sometimes be seen as ripe for attack, and this was one of those times. But we must tread very carefully in this area because we must safeguard New Zealanders’ rights and liberties, because otherwise we will end up creating the very society that this terrorist eventually wanted us to create, which is one which is not a liberal democracy, and not one where other people’s views can be different from our own and we don’t resort to violence.

We have an obligation to safeguard our liberties and our rights. It’s worth remembering that we will not be able to completely stop terrible crimes like this, but we can certainly do some things to assist. We must do everything that we can to suppress it, but we cannot sacrifice our freedoms, or otherwise we will lose so much of what we hold dear.

We acknowledge in the National Party that this report found our security agencies’ concentration on the threat of Islamic extremist terrorism was not the reason this terrorist’s actions went undetected. What is clear from this report is that even though there were clear failures from organisations that could have put roadblocks in the way of this individual, he was not part of some wider group or larger movement. He was, in fact, a terrorist hiding in plain sight.

Turning now to firearms, it would appear that police guidelines around firearms licensing have fallen well short of expectations. It’s clear that this terrorist should never have been able to obtain a firearms licence. It shows the value of having a royal commission that we were able to come to this conclusion with the full facts in front of us. We support moves by the police to improve their training and firearms licence - vetting, and we expect that this will make New Zealand a safer place. We supported the first tranche of firearms legislation that followed this attack, but we are concerned that moves since then have largely been regulations that will burden law-abiding New Zealanders with more cost, rather than getting guns out of the hands of criminals, and we believe that it is time for us as a Parliament to adopt the firearms prohibition orders to take guns off gangs and other criminals.

We also want to acknowledge the work of those who worked with the victims. We acknowledge that the report recommends ongoing recovery support for affected whānau, survivors, and witnesses. I don’t believe anybody could ever overcome such an enormous tragedy in their lives and to their communities, so, in principle, we believe that a victims’ commissioner should be considered. We’d certainly put in place an adviser on victims to the Minister of Justice, and we believe this is something that should be continued with and extended.

We must always remember that New Zealand must be a place of safety for everyone: for people who come to live in New Zealand, for those of us fortunate enough to have been born here, and for people who have come to see New Zealand as a refuge. They and we deserve New Zealand to be that place. We are the best little country in the world, and we deserve to have every New Zealander know that this is a safe place for them.

So, in principle, we support many of the recommendations. We want to work with the Government to bring about a better outcome for our country. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I join with other leaders in thanking the royal commission for their report. I want to start, though, by saying al salam alaikum to the 51 shuhada, to those that they have left behind, and to every Muslim New Zealander. Today is a day that I suspect nobody wants to be talking about this topic, but all of us must, and what we must say, first and foremost, to those victims and those they left behind them is that we are one with you, that we reject the actions, the incomprehensible barbarism, of this terrorist, and that this is your home and you should have been safe here.

It’s difficult for New Zealanders, as other speakers have noted. Normally, the bad news is confined to the world section of our papers, and we found 20 months ago that we’d supplied the bad news to the papers of the world. We will never erase the scars on the heart that this tragedy has left, but we can choose a better way forward, and that’s what this royal commission of inquiry has chartered for us to do.

We should acknowledge the exemplary rhetorical leadership that our Prime Minister supplied for New Zealand and the world in the wake of our nation’s tragedy. Her call that “He may have chosen us, but we utterly rejected him.”, I think, was exactly the right thing to say.

Now, we must turn to positive, practical solutions that will ensure that such a thing cannot happen ever again, and, as the Government seeks to respond to this royal commission report, I believe it will face some paradoxes. I do not believe it is possible to say that it is nobody’s fault but that, somehow, new entities will be more accountable. There has to be accountability when 51 people are slain. There cannot be simply an excuse that no one person was in a position to do so.

It is critical that we face up to the paradox that this terrorist came from without. It is not acceptable, in my view, for New Zealanders to flagellate themselves and believe that we must have a form of social engineering led by the Ministry of Social Development when, actually, the response of New Zealanders to this tragedy and this hatred was united and exemplary and a beacon to the world. In particular, it would be wrong to introduce British-style hate speech laws without even the exemptions for free and fair debate that those laws have in Britain.

I hesitate to bring up the case of firearm laws today in this debate, but, unfortunately, the Prime Minister chose to make a number of political points about them. The sad truth is that the Government’s response was ineffective, divisive, and—without the benefit of this royal commission of inquiry report—premature, and one only has to look at the fact that the Government banned around a quarter-million firearms and collected 60,000. How does that help keep New Zealanders safer?

This report calls for—and the Government has responded positively to—the idea that we must build social cohesion and capital. Nothing this Parliament has done in the six years that I have been here has been more divisive than the rushed firearm laws with no consultation. That’s not the way to show leadership.

Those 51 shuhada deserve much better. They deserve a Government that holds those accountable to account before shifting to new agencies, and one that recognises that the terrorist’s intention was to create chaos and disruption. We must remain united around our common humanity and the freedoms of our liberal democracy that make New Zealand so special. That is the way to honour those lost last year. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Al salam alaikum. The release of this report brings us back to that day on March 15th last year, when our nation’s heart was broken. I think of the families of the 51 shuhada and the witnesses, the paramedics, and the community in Christchurch, who will have the turmoil and the pain returned to them today, and I want to specifically thank them for their courage in engaging so fulsomely with the creation of this report.

What I remember of that day, almost immediately after the first reports of the terror attack happened, was the outpouring of messages that I received from the refugee and migrants of colour communities, who were fearful and wanted to reach out to an MP and share our experiences of hate crimes and hate speech—the fear that they felt. They shared the number of times that they’d reported the more minor attacks leading up to this to this act of terror, inconceivable in its scale, but they did say, “We saw something coming.”

I want to acknowledge that it was Māori who raised the voices of our Muslim community in the days following the terror attack in saying that a hate crime, mass-murder prejudice has existed in this nation before, because it was Māori that had experienced it. They warned that losing the lessons of prejudice will only mean that our nation remains in a state where marginalisation happens and none of us are safe.

So this report is the beginning, and the other memory—the most distinctive memory that everyone in this House has actually acknowledged, as well—is that there was also an incredible outpouring of love across our whole nation as we wrapped our arms around our Muslim community. I will never forget that the city of Dunedin ran out of flowers on 16 March because they were all at the mosque. Those beautiful people, that incredible love, is what will hold us to account as a Government, as a Parliament, as we heed those warnings and we take decisive action to implement every recommendation of this report, and I’m so heartened to hear our Prime Minister say today that we will do just that.

We will update our hate speech laws to be inclusive and effective, as the Green Party has campaigned on for over two years. We will acknowledge that our national security agency—the agency that was entrusted with keeping us all safe—disproportionately and wrongly, without evidence, was targeting our Muslim community without looking into far-right, white supremacist terror. I know that the report didn’t identify that failure as directly leading to this act of terror, but we will never know what could have been had that agency ascribed resource to looking into white supremacy, and our marginalised communities will never feel safe while that system is not fixed.

We know that our police failed in applying our gun laws, and that did directly contribute to this act of terror happening. We know that the report recommends better systems be put in place and we know that the report writers were not mandated to look at gun law reform, but I am proud that our Government did act decisively in banning military-style semi-automatics—which never had a place in our society—that we did work to make it more difficult to obtain firearms, and that New Zealand is not a nation, like others are, that looks on while mass violence happens and won’t change our gun laws for pressure from a gun lobby.

Now is the time to centre the voices of the victim communities. Now is the time to listen to them as they react to the recommendations, and as they call for different types of reparations for mental health, for ongoing support of young people who have lost parents. Their thoughts and their ideas about how we can make New Zealand more safe and inclusive will have to be centred in order for us to uphold the promise of all of that aroha from across our nation so that we can weave it into an enduring fabric of our society. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Kei te tautoko ahau i ngā mihi ki te Kaikōmihana, nā rātou tēnei rīpoata. Kei te hoki atu ngā mahara ki te wā i aituāhia tēnei parekura nui ki Ōtautahi, Maihe 15, 2019.

[I support the acknowledgments to the Commissioner, the authors of this report. My thoughts are with those who were taken during the tragedy in Christchurch on March 15, 2019.]

Firstly, I acknowledge the loss of life, particularly in the sacrosanct place of worship in which these cold-blooded murders took place.

Our security services are so engrossed in watching Māori activists that they overlooked white supremacists. The total criminal justice and security system must acknowledge the over-regulation and over-policing of Māori. We will never forget the massacre at Rangiaowhia, or the invasion of South Taranaki, in the non-violent community of Parihaka. But it never ended there. The attack on Tūhoe and Rua Kēnana at Maungapōhatu and the atrocity inflicted on Tūhoe again, nearly 100 years later, over the Tūhoe raids of 15 October 2007 shows there is still something deeply wrong.

This is our home—ko tō tātou kāinga tēnei. This is our reality—the use and abuse of the power of the State concentrated on race rather than rights. Here, the full powers of the State allowed a white supremacist to commit an atrocity on a scale in New Zealand history that will position us in the worst of times, but it brought out the best of times in our collective response.

The report concludes that there was an inappropriate concentration of counter-terrorism resources on the threat of Islamist terrorism. More must be concentrated on white racists and white supremacists, because the only multiple killings carried out in Aotearoa in the last 150 years have been by Pākehā, in addition to what the report found—not gangs.

Firearm laws will only marginalise Māori. The New Zealand Police had degraded and, from 2015, was not carrying out strategic terrorism threat assessments. That is an issue of police prioritising resource.

The report recommends the setting up of a new intelligence agency—our own homeland security, if you will. Māori have a right to be suspicious about the set-up of any new Crown intelligence and security agency. Why? Because six months ago, in this House, under the cover of COVID legislation, our marae—our sacrosanct places of culture and worship—were named to allow police fishing expeditions to enter at will. Mosques were not named. Churches were not named.

Thankfully, the Māori Party has returned to this House to shine our light and to speak our truth. We will be cautious and vigilant. Nā te mea, nā tātou tēnei kāinga. Kia ora tātou.

[Because, ultimately, this is our home. Thank you.]

Before I call the next member, I am—I didn’t want to interrupt that member before he spoke. But I will indicate to him that the requirements for business attire will be applied to him before he is called to speak in this House again.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Over the days and months since March 15, I have had the privilege of working alongside our Muslim communities in Christchurch to see close up, on an everyday basis, the impact of the loss of 51 lives. The reach of that loss of those 51 lives stretches into the hundreds of people who are left affected today, and I want to give my love and my thoughts to all of those people today. I know what an important milestone the publishing of this royal commission report is for this community today.

I also know how difficult the very act of giving evidence to the commission was for many in the community. It meant a reliving of the trauma and remembering a series of events that they could never have imagined and that they really didn’t want to revisit, but none the less they believed and understood the importance of this royal commission into what happened, and so were prepared to do that. So I really want to thank the members of the community who did that. But I do know what an important part of the journey giving that evidence has been.

I also know, seeing this laid bare over the course of 800 pages collected together into four volumes, how difficult and confronting it has been to read, and, having spent the weekend with many of the affected members of the community, what a traumatic ordeal it was again, reading this laid here in black and white. But I want to thank all members of the community for what they have done because I know that there existed within this community an utter commitment that they needed to do whatever was necessary to ensure that this never happened in their country—New Zealand—ever again, and so thank you for that.

One of the things that has always touched me the most every day since March 15 is the way in which members of these communities regard the atrocities of March 15, not just as an attack on them in their places of worship, in their mosques, but an attack on New Zealand, the country that many of them have chosen to call home and that they are proud as New Zealanders to call home.

For many years, and certainly in the months following the attack, the concerns that the Muslim community have had around the feeling like there was a disproportionate level of scrutiny on them is something that I have heard many times. The report does confirm that there was an inappropriate concentration of resources and it does also identify failings in the firearms systems, and these are the very things for which apologies have been issued today. But it also—importantly—identifies that there was not one single thing that would have prevented this attack, and I think that is really important to remember.

There are 44 recommendations contained in this volume, and I am conscious of how much we must treasure each of those 44 recommendations, because those recommendations are born out of the evidence and the grief of a group of people that were prepared to retell their stories so that we in this country would never have to relive that. As a Government, we have agreed in principle with all of these, but I think it is important that we realise some of these changes have already begun, such as the gun reform. The commission report acknowledges that while there was a permissive firearms regime, that certainly was something that could have made New Zealand a more attractive location for the terrorist, and that work has already begun and is under way in this area. But some of the changes we need to make are long term, such as education.

It is also true that some of the recommendations and the considerations we have to give will be hard and they will be challenging, but this is not a reason not to do them. As a group of politicians in this House, it is our duty to ensure that we are willing to do what is hard and what is challenging and to not resile from it, because it will make a difference.

Our failure to address the firearms regime over decades is an example where we didn’t do what was required because it was hard and challenging. I think the best monument we can leave to those 51 who died is the fact that as a group of members of this Parliament, we are prepared to do what is hard and challenging.

Can I begin by, once again, expressing my sympathy, my empathy, and aroha for all of those who survived this horrible attack, those who were the relatives and families of the 51 who died or the 40 who got shot, or the many, many friends and associates of those communities who have been so deeply affected by this particular abhorrent attack.

On the day, news of what had happened grew over a period of hours, and reports came through with, initially, a shooting and then perhaps five, then seven, and then, I think, 17, and, ultimately, the numbers going up to the horrific 51 that was the eventual toll wreaked by this terrorist. The city itself developed an eerie silence. We had seen something similar with the earthquakes, but that was different. That was a geophysical phenomenon that could be understood; there was no understanding for this. There was also a great deal of uncertainty about the why, about the who, and about the how.

While we’ve talked over the last hour or so about the great outpouring of love and empathy for the affected communities, I think we need to also recognise the extraordinary statement of forgiveness and of love for this country expressed by the imam and many others subsequently in the wake of this whole tragedy. As many of those people were dealing with it, they had already defined how they wanted to react to it, and I think that speaks to the deep commitment that they have to this country, to the values of this country, and to why they want to live in this country. For many of us who cannot understand how it could ever have happened here, that is, remarkably, a comfort when it should be we who are comforting them.

This report is a good one. It has in many ways confirmed the good aspects of living in a country like New Zealand, in that there can be a pretty honest, deep consideration of something that is so horrible and that there is not too much left unvarnished in it.

But I would say that there are aspects of this report that are slightly vague, and while it is clear that there was no responsibility being particularly sheeted home to any Government organisation, the suggestion that there had been a wrong focus, etc., tends to ignore the history that we had seen post the Terrorism Suppression Act of 2002. That Act was in response to the Twin Towers attack in the United States. That was an event that saw all of the security arrangements around travel in New Zealand change—massive changes—and, on top of that, we saw the emergence of ISIS and its absolute perversion of the greater good that comes from the adherence to the Islam religion. In that environment, I think it’s a little bit of a harsh criticism. It’s also a worry that in this new look, we might miss something once again.

The National Party, obviously, wants to work with the Government to get as good a structure as possible around the security services that operate in this country. We do want to see the licensing of firearm owners strictly adhered to, and some of the story that’s told in this report needs to be aired a little bit further because there is a failing there that I think cannot be overlooked.

When it comes to some of the recommendations—remember that in the 44 recommendations, I think 19 of them relate to the security services—we do, as others have already mentioned, have to be careful that we do not end up with a pernicious regime that affects the freedoms that New Zealanders value so much and that affects the freedoms that caused the outpouring from the imam and his followers and the many of those who were victims in support of the lifestyle that we have here in this country. This, I think, can be a document that will lead to a better arrangement for New Zealanders, an arrangement that will protect the freedoms that we all expect to live by but that will also make sure that part of that freedom is freedom from the threat of this sort of lone wolf terrorist action.

Tēnā koe e te Māngai. Al salam alaikum. As other speakers have done before me in this House today, can I begin by acknowledging the horrific attacks on the mosques in Christchurch, the loss of 51 lives, those who were injured in the attacks and those who witnessed the unfolding of those horrific attacks on that day, and the whānau of all those people.

Can I also acknowledge the work of the royal commission and all those involved in the process. It is a substantial report. I want to also say that this week will be a difficult time for all those who have been involved as a result of these attacks. I want to begin by acknowledging their courage and strength, and—as has been mentioned by the Hon Gerry Brownlee, the speaker who has just resumed his seat—the leadership of the Muslim community in the wake of those attacks, where many members of our Muslim community here across Aotearoa spoke about reacting with compassion and forgiveness, and also wanting to acknowledge the aroha extended by New Zealanders across New Zealand.

The report encourages us to take a holistic view of the changes that need to be made to ensure that New Zealand is a more socially cohesive nation and a safer place for all of us. The report adopts a useful definition of a socially cohesive society as being one in which all individuals and groups have a sense of belonging, inclusion, participation, recognition, and legitimacy. In New Zealand, social cohesion also includes upholding Te Tiriti o Waitangi, and those are some of the principles that the Government will base our response on.

I want to focus much of my contribution today in the House on the issue of social cohesion—as is mentioned by the report—both in my capacity as the Minister for Diversity, Inclusion and Ethnic Communities and in my associate social development role, where I will be leading some of that work for the Government. I want us to be a society where everyone feels safe, valued, and heard and is able to participate fully and where we treasure the values that unite us while celebrating our diversity, and a society where we protect our taonga of te reo Māori, but where we also value and celebrate the 160 different languages that we speak, and where we feel safe in dressing in particular ways that may make us feel comfortable, even if it identifies the faith that we belong to.

Our Government accepts, as has been mentioned, all of the findings of the report and agrees in principle to all 44 recommendations. Some of the principles that will guide our ongoing work include our vision for Aotearoa to be a diverse, inclusive, and safe nation, and Te Tiriti o Waitangi and its principles. The survivors and whānau of those at the centre of that attack will be integral to our response as a Government, and we will strive for safer communities and a New Zealand that is more inclusive, with equal protections for us all.

I want to, in the time I have remaining, just focus on a few specific initiatives that have been part of ongoing work that this Government has rolled out since March 15th last year but to also speak to some of the specific recommendations made in the report. One of them, in line with recommendation 30 of the royal commission report, is that this Government is establishing a Ministry for Ethnic Communities, and that has been long called for. The new ministry will take the place of the Office of Ethnic Communities, and it will increase the standing and the mana of this agency. It will improve the leadership of the agency across the Public Service and include a direct reporting line to the responsible Minister—in this case, myself. It will provide a greater ability to deliver on the ongoing programme of work that this Government has to better support and respond to the needs of our diverse communities, and I want to acknowledge the voices that have been calling for this for a while. We will also provide meaningful work experience and pathways into the Public Service through an ethnic communities graduate programme. This in line with recommendation 35, that recommends greater diversity in the Public Service at all levels.

Finally, I want to speak to the collective impact board that comes out of recommendations 25 and 26 to ensure that our survivors and whānau have the ongoing, wraparound support that they need to navigate their way across various Public Service agencies. This has been called for by the group at the heart of these attacks. I just want to acknowledge that this is a Government that will ensure that support continues, and will stand alongside them and work with them to design that support. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Al salam alaikum. It is with heavy heart that I take a short call in this debate in response to the royal commission report on the tragic events of March 15, when one individual committed an evil act taking away the lives of 51 fellow New Zealanders, and attempted to kill 40 more. Nothing can underline how these events have left a dark stain on our country’s history.

My thoughts and prayers are with the victims and their families. No report will bring them back to us. No report will ever wipe away the tears or the pain.

Not only was this a tragic act but it took place in a sacred place: a place of worship, a place meant for peace, and a place meant for prayer. As a country, we are proud of our freedoms, and particularly of our freedom of religion and our freedom to worship in peace and without fear. This right was taken away, and for that we must truly condemn it.

As the National Party spokesperson for police, I wish to acknowledge the heroic actions and the role our police undertook on March 15 last year. Within moments of being notified of what was taking place, they responded with speed and with haste and put their lives on the line to apprehend this individual, with a profound sense of duty to protect New Zealanders. Not only did they act on the day but in the days following, where they dutifully ensured that their presence was felt, not just in Christchurch but across New Zealand, to ensure people worshipping or praying at mosques, churches, or other places of worship could do so in peace. I say to our policemen and women, thank you.

It is clear, reading the royal commission report in the brief time that we’ve had it, that there were a number of failures committed by the police regarding the licensing process which approved the licence for this individual, and I would wish to acknowledge the Commissioner of Police, Andrew Coster, who has said that the systems were lax and open to easy exploitation. There were a number of recommendations put forward around how this process could be improved. They were around ensuring that the coherent and complete process for processing firearm applications was done, and the report acknowledged that the training and review processes were not adequate.

Part 5 of the report goes into these issues in significant detail. It is clear that this individual should never have had a firearms licence. Issues regarding whether the referees were suitable were raised, as was the close relationship between the referees, as outlined in the report. Red flags were also raised to say that the referees didn’t know the individual well enough, and the report says that more investigation was warranted, our training of police staff was not regular and not reviewed frequently to ensure good practice and consistent practice, and the guidelines should have been kept up to date.

The royal commission makes a number of very sensible recommendations about this licensing regime, and the National Party will support changes which mean that these processes are improved and that the training for police staff who process these licence applications is adequate. As a country, we need to take all gun violence seriously, but we must also ensure we uphold and protect the rights of law-abiding citizens. Future changes must be targeted at the people perpetrating harm—criminals and those who intend to commit harm—and ensuring the licensing system and processes are adequately robust. National supported the first tranche of firearms legislation, but have not supported further reforms which seek to put more regulation on law-abiding firearms licence holders.

This report outlines that there is now need for improvement in the police processing as well, and this is exactly what the Government must ensure takes place. We need better training. We need to ensure police staff administering these are better trained and that there are better policies, but we also need to ensure that we have firearm prohibition orders to take the guns out of the hands of gangs—a crucial tool which this Government must also pick up and take on.

In terms of our national security, this report also outlines that partisan opposition has reduced the social licence for our national security services to do a better job, and we do need to take up the call of the Prime Minister to ensure that we do work together. We do ask that the Government works closely with us on those issues.

This is a serious and comprehensive report. I wish to acknowledge the Hon Sir William Young and Jacqui Caine and all those who contributed to it. I thank you, Mr Speaker, for the opportunity.

Kia ora and al salam alaikum, Prime Minister. Today is a very difficult day for our community, so to speak, as the report of the royal commission into the March 15 attacks comes out. But also I can’t help but go back to March 15, to the day that the attack was carried out. I was just in a quick meeting when I got a text from a friend, who said, “Have you heard what’s happening in Christchurch?”, and I said no. She said that there was a shooting. I thought it was just this random shooting, and I didn’t think there was an attack that potentially was going to take 51 precious lives. Like Imam Gamal Fouda said, it was an attack on a beautiful image of New Zealand; it wasn’t just the Muslim community. The Muslim community might have been a direct target, but it was an attack on an image of our beautiful country.

Across New Zealand, the Muslim community leaders have raised concerns of the potential attacks to mosques and other Islamic centres for many years. Those warnings, they were ignored, and the security agencies chased Muslims, some of us because we were suspects, and some of us because they wanted us to work with the agencies. I was one of the people who was contacted by the security agency. My answer to them was that I do love and care about this country and that if I were to see anything that potentially could hurt this country, then I would report it, and that was the last time I spoke to them.

So now we see in the report that there was nothing that could have been done to stop that attack. But also, as we move forward, I just spent a couple of days with the Muslim community and the affected whānau down in Christchurch, and their resilience, their strength, is just as it was on March 15. Now, as we move forward, what the families want is they do not wish this kind of attack to either the Muslim community or to anyone in New Zealand. Primarily, this is the assurance, and this is what they’re looking for, alongside, of course, other supports and the other stuff.

So it was an attack on our identity. To me and to many other Muslims, as well, it was the day that we doubted our sense of belonging to this country, and that was the intention of the terrorist in the first place—so he can make us feel that we don’t belong to this country and so he can make us react with revenge. His intention was primarily to divide the country and turn us against each other, but he failed.

Today, it’s heart-warming to see that the Government has accepted the 44 recommendations in principle, and they will be acted upon. Some of the things that have been mentioned in the recommendations are some of the things our communities and all the ethnic communities and the Muslim community, in particular, have been asking for. So it’s really good to see that this detail has been mentioned in the report. I’ll be looking forward to seeing the implementation of this.

The last two days I’ve spent with the Muslim community and the affected whānau down in Christchurch. Primarily, they are looking forward for those recommendations to be implemented, as it’s being demanded by the royal commission.

So today, we acknowledge the 51 shuhada. May Allah subhanahu wa ta’ala grant them the highest spot in Jannah, but today the real work starts. The real work, not just to protect the Muslim community, but also to protect every New Zealander—those who are vulnerable to these kind of attacks. So as we pay our tribute to those who passed away, we also want the security agencies to focus not just on a specific group, but also on every threat that could potentially hurt New Zealand. Kia ora.

The question is that the motion be agreed to.

Motion agreed to.