General Debate

I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business.

This week, Ayesha Verrall sent out a press release saying that she had sent a letter to the Auditor-General with a slew of accusations about New Zealand First and, in particular, the decisions of one of my Ministers. The letter and press release are not only riddled with false claims and blatant mistruths; it is totally political in nature and a ham-fisted attempt at a political hit job.

Verrall and her certain fellow travellers in the media have been trying for almost a year to investigate, question, interrogate, and publicly accuse, and make Official Information Act requests on any spurious accusations they can throw around, with nothing to show for it at all. That’s why the Auditor-General’s complaint wasn’t sent to the Minister, but, instead, first to a journalist, before the Minister even knew about it. That is what is rotten in this borough. The continual, deliberately misleading, and false smears Verrall uses—

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Who wrote this rubbish?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: —I’m able to write my own speeches, unlike that idiot—have now culminated in a complaint to the Auditor-General that reeks of desperation and failure. Let’s point out some facts that Verrall conveniently forgets to mention which prove her statements to be totally baseless, illogical, and untrue.

She knows this, of course, but refuses to address them, but $216 million is only a contingency figure for excise calculated by Treasury. It is not a tax break; it is a gross overestimation, with no merit or basis. The 2023 excise for that product was $6 million. The $216 million figure was derived from comparing New Zealand with the likes of Japan, where nicotine-containing vapes are not available as an alternative to heated tobacco products (HTPs). It’s that simple.

She knows, of course, that the reduction in excise on HTPs is only for 12 months. It is temporary, to assess if it is effective in getting people off cigarettes and achieving the Smokefree 2025 target. Is she still going to make those spurious allegations when the levy goes back up when we increase it next year? No. Do you know why? Because it doesn’t make one iota of sense.

She continues to say that there was a tax break for Philip Morris. Fact: in December last year, the Minister increased the tax on tobacco. Fact: Philip Morris cannot sell their product due to new regulations being introduced. How can they benefit if they can’t sell the product Verrall is suggesting they would benefit from? This person is not even logical.

She continues to state that there’s no evidence. She says there’s no evidence or research that indicates HTPs are less harmful than smoking cigarettes. Well, on Wednesday, 2 October, on TVNZ’s Breakfast, Professor Shahab, a health psychologist from University College in London, was interviewed and he said the opposite. He said, “You do not see reductions compared with those using smoked tobacco. I would like to stress, of course, that our study that we undertook does show reductions in harmful substances for people who use HTPs.” There’s an expert, compared to this person who came here and made a mess of the health portfolio the whole time she was here. I wonder what the law is around misleading the Auditor-General.

In 2018, a study was published by Public Health England titled Evidence review of e-cigarettes and heated tobacco products. What does that London study say? “Compared with cigarettes, heated tobacco products are likely to expose users and bystanders to lower levels of particulate matter and harmful and potentially harmful compounds.” It goes on to say that the available evidence suggests that HTPs may be considerably less harmful than tobacco cigarettes, but they’re more harmful than electronic cigarettes.

That’s what their independent finding said, and the American Food and Drug Administration stated—

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: What about the Cochrane review?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: —all this can be found on Google, if she did any work at all—that the heated system heats tobacco and does not burn it. It goes on to say that it removes the exposure to 15 specific harmful products. I wonder what the law is when you’re misleading the Auditor-General.

What she doesn’t mention, of course, is that at no time has it been claimed by the Minister that HTPs are totally safe, nor that they are safer than vaping; just that they’re less harmful than smoking. Why is Verrall against having a 12-month trial to see if it gets people off harmful smoking?

Our aim is to make harmful products more appealing to current cigarette smokers—that’s why it’s a temporary trial. But in the last few days, it’s come to my attention that a close relative of Ayesha Verrall has been involved with, attending meetings, and has had access to papers and has been advising the Minister on this very topic over the past year, without declaring any conflict of interest. That is what’s rotten in this borough, and we are only just getting started, Minister. We are not going to leave off now. You’re not going to get away with that sort of behaviour anywhere outside this House.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s so lovely of the office—[Applause] Thank you. Thank you, it’s very nice the hear the—

Hon Willie Jackson: Point of order, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: Oh, point of order. Sorry, I didn’t hear that.

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Oh, what!

SPEAKER: Too much noise from his own colleagues.

Hon Willie Jackson: Mr Speaker, can we have a ruling from you, please, over the—

SPEAKER: Can you start again, sorry.

Hon Willie Jackson: Point of order, Mr Speaker. With regards to the Deputy Prime Minister having read a whole speech, given the position that Shane Jones took where he said that “No member in this House”—and he made it very clear—“should be reading anything, and if they’re incapable of doing a five-minute speech, they shouldn’t be in the House.”, what is now the current position, because the Deputy Prime Minister went word for word on his researcher’s speech.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: No, I didn’t.

Hon Willie Jackson: Yes, you did. What’s the position, Mr Speaker?

SPEAKER: Well, the member might want to make the assertion that the Minister was reading it word for word. The reality is that members are allowed to refer to notes all the way through it, and if we stopped that, then the House would be a very, very quiet place indeed.

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thought all of that cheering from the other side was for me, but apparently not. Thank you very much.

Look, I want to talk a bit about defence to the House, because we’ve had a little bit of trouble, and I want you to know that the Manawanui, when it sank on 6 October off the coast of Upolu—I really want to thank the House for not trying to politicise what was a really difficult time for our Defence Force. I’m really proud of the fact that the captain and the crew got off the ship in really difficult and trying circumstances at a time when we could have expected to have had people coming home in body bags. I’ve got to say that I thought they did a great job of getting people off safely, and a big thankyou to my colleague and friend the Hon Chris Penk for standing in for me last week on this matter.

I can tell the House, too, happily, that the three containers have now been removed. They are sorted in that way and, obviously, work is ongoing in relation to the condition of the fuel tanks on board and the submerged ship with a view to removing that fuel as soon as that is practical. Of course, the Defence Force is working really well with the public of Samoa, the Government of Samoa, and with the insurers to help make all that happen.

Last week, I was at NATO in Brussels, and it was a very simple message from my attendance there as the first time that the IP4—which is the Indo-Pacific Four—defence Ministers were invited to the NATO defence Ministers meeting, and that’s New Zealand, Australia, South Korea, and Japan. The real big message is that what happens in Europe matters here, and what happens here or in the Indo-Pacific region matters in NATO—that’s really clear.

For the first time, we’ve been invited, and people understand that everything is changing. We do not live in a benign strategic environment; I think that history will show us that we never really did. What we were—we were, at a time, post the falling of the Berlin Wall and people hoped that things would be fine and everyone would get along, do some trading, and get along with their business. But what is happening is that, of course, we’ve also had the South Pacific Defence Ministers’ Meeting—which I hosted just before that—and what was clear from the South Pacific defence Ministers is that they were concerned not only about Europe but they were also very concerned, in particular, about the Indo-Pacific region.

We know about the issues around the Taiwan Strait; we know about the issues around the South China Sea; and we know as well that two days before that meeting, China launched an intercontinental ballistic missile that ended up in the nuclear-free zone of the South Pacific. That is for the first time in 44 years. Things are changing. We know now that the North Koreans are sending 1,500 troops to help Russia against Ukraine. We know that things are changing, and it is really important that we keep doing our bit that we can, to work on making sure that not only are we in a safe position, but also our neighbours are, as well.

We’re very fortunate because we have great intelligence that comes through the Five Eyes system, which we’ve been party to for over 70 years. If we did not have that, we would not have the sort of information that helps keep us safe, particularly around cyber-attacks.

Before I went to Brussels, I was in Singapore at an Association of South-east Asian Nations (ASEAN) cyber Ministers’ meeting. The amounts of tax, the amounts of activity from various actors—State actors, criminal gangs, and individuals are attacking all around the world. In New Zealand, thankfully, we have a very good system, but even we are not immune to those sorts of attacks.

What I will say to the House is that it is a really challenging time. I mean, I grew up in the Cold War, and this is scarier than that—it’s that bad—but the good thing is that people are talking together, working together, and diplomacy is still ongoing. Churchill had this saying that “jaw-jaw is better than war-war”, and I think the more that we can do that, the better. We also need to be very aware that we cannot keep our heads in the sand. We do have to be aware that we are part of the world, and if that intercontinental ballistic missile said anything, it told us, and me, that we are well within its sights should that ever happen, and, hopefully, it never will.

We do need to stand up for freedom. We do need to stand up for Ukraine. We do need to stand up for democracy. We do need to stand with countries that share our values, where people can vote and where they can say whatever they think.

In the last few weeks, New Zealanders have got real insight into what this Government actually thinks about working New Zealanders. They think it’s OK for a Government Minister to enter somebody’s workplace to mock them in front of their employer, to call them a loser, and to harass them when they will not agree to go drinking with that Government Minister. Not only does the Government think that that’s OK, they’re not even willing to investigate properly what happened. The Prime Minister is unable to answer basic questions about what happened, why it happened, and why the Government thought that it was funny.

Andrew Bayly’s first line of defence was that calling someone a loser and harassing them in their workplace was an attempt at humour. I don’t know any workplace in the country where that would be seen as an acceptable form of humour in 2024. Only members on the other side of the House seem to think that that is in any way an acceptable excuse. The Prime Minister, first of all, didn’t bother to inquire about why he wasn’t told about the complaint existing in the first place. That should have been major red flag number one. When Andrew Bayly received a complaint about his conduct, the fact that he did not have sufficient respect for the Prime Minister to tell the Prime Minister that it has happened says everything about Christopher Luxon’s leadership.

The second red flag was that it took the complainant to email it widely across the House before the Government were willing to take it seriously. Andrew Bayly still had not apologised to the worker concerned directly at that point. It was only when he realised other people were finding out about it that he thought fit to apologise to the worker that he had mocked and harassed in their workplace.

The third red flag should have come at that point to the Prime Minister when he didn’t sit Andrew Bayly down and ask him, “What exactly were you thinking?” Why in any workplace did Andrew Bayly think it was OK to mock someone, call them a loser, tell them to eff off and go home, and then harass them for not being willing to go drinking?

The fourth red flag: the question the Prime Minister never asked Andrew Bayly was, having humiliated this poor person, why did he go back and do it two more times? Andrew Bayly must have known that his harassment of this person in the workplace was unwelcome, and yet he went back and did it two more times. Why did the Prime Minister not ask Andrew Bayly any questions about that?

Then we had the situation today of Andrew Bayly and the Prime Minister saying contradictory things. We had the Prime Minister saying that Andrew Bayly was drinking between his interactions with the worker, and Andrew Bayly saying that that never happened. Is it that the Prime Minister doesn’t believe Andrew Bayly, is it that the Prime Minister never asked him and made it up on the spot, or is it that someone isn’t actually being upfront with the House? They can’t both be correct. The Prime Minister and Andrew Bayly have said contradictory things. One of them will have to be in the House correcting their answer. Is it that the Prime Minister was wrong in that Andrew Bayly wasn’t drinking between his interactions with the worker, as the Prime Minister said he was? Or was it that Andrew Bayly was wrong in that he wasn’t drinking between his interactions with the worker?

The next question which was never answered was: how long was there between those interactions? Was it a significant period of time? Because you can consume quite a lot of alcohol in that time. How long was it between those interactions? Is this a matter of minutes or is it a matter of hours? I think the Prime Minister needs to ask Andrew Bayly a lot more questions. I think him brushing this off and saying, “Oh, well, he said sorry so that’s the end of the matter.” isn’t good enough. This is not conduct becoming of a Government Minister. If this Government had any standards at all, Andrew Bayly would not be a Minister.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thought I would talk a bit about the Otago Regional Council because there’s been a lot of very dramatic and misleading rhetoric from the Opposition on the Otago Regional Council.

This Government signalled to regional councils and unitary authorities very clearly at the beginning of this year that the Government was replacing the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management (NPSFM) and that the time frame for regional councils and unitary authorities to notify their freshwater plans would be extended out until the end of 2027. More recently, yesterday, we provided some certainty to regional councils by pausing the ability for them to notify their plans until either the new NPSFM has been developed or the end of 2025, whichever comes sooner—a short pause of a matter of months or possibly up to a year. At the same time, during that restricted period, there would be an exemption pathway for targeted plan changes within that period.

This pause is a very sensible and pragmatic thing to reduce duplication of work by the councils, to reduce cost to ratepayers, and to ensure that councils are not notifying a plan which would almost immediately need to be amended to align with a newly developed freshwater statement. It’s appalling—absolutely appalling—that the previous Government’s National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management was so complicated, was so unworkable, so costly, so complex, and so overburdening that it cost $18 million of Otago Regional Council’s ratepayers’ money to develop their freshwater plan—and this simply cannot continue. The national direction on freshwater must be more simple; must be clearer, less complex, less costly, and easier to implement, and able to genuinely lead to freshwater improvements that we all want. People react to council rate increases, but councils have been trying to manage their responsibility to the costly direction from the previous Government.

The degradation that has occurred for some of our waterways has happened over decades, and we simply cannot expect that this can be undone overnight. There is critical work that has to occur, but those changes will come about by the people on the front line that are doing the fencing, the planting, the innovation in their effluent disposal, and the different practices in their farming. It happens because people on the ground do the work, not because a Government writes something down.

Farmers, growers, and others in the primary sector are absolutely keenly aware of the improvements that are needed in our fresh water, and they are actively working towards these improvements. That is why this Government will work with them and not vilify them in a way that members of the Opposition have done. It is appalling to have seen hard-working people in our primary sector being vilified by the Opposition when they work to bring about these improvements.

Unlike the Opposition, we understand that a balanced approach which enables both economic growth and mitigation of the impacts on the environment is necessary because, quite simply, a country that is broke cannot bring about those changes.

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I’ve got to say it’s been a long, hard winter for New Zealand with inflation, which has driven interest rates and left people struggling to make ends meet at the end of the week. We understand that, because we’ve watched since the previous Government kicked off a cost of living crisis three years ago, but with the Consumers Price Index, or inflation, down to 2.2 percent for the last quarter and with rates coming down to 4.75 at the Reserve Bank and more significant cuts forecast to take pressure off people’s mortgages, we can truly say that at this time of year, the days are getting longer, the sun is getting brighter in the sky, and some hope is finally returning to New Zealand.

I’m proud to stand here, leading the ACT Party as part of this coalition Government, which is working hard every day for New Zealanders. We are saving money and doing more with less, just as our predecessors in the Government did less with more. We are improving the services that people receive so they get better education, they’re more likely to attend, and they’re safer on the streets, and we’re being accountable for what happens in ways that are totally foreign to New Zealanders, had they only watched the previous Government for the last three years.

Let me count the ways and give members some tangible examples. Yesterday, I was thrilled to attend a launch and a celebration of a new initiative—in fact, a new kind of initiative—where Kiwi businesses; our Government department, in the form of the Ministry of Education; and civil society, in the likes of KidsCan and the Heart Foundation, have come together and cooperated to deliver the healthy school lunch programme at half the price and, I’ve got to say—having sampled some of the goods—with better quality than was previously delivered. And the indignance of the left—the whinging, the moaning, and the criticism. The indignance: “It couldn’t possibly be true.” But it is true, and it’s a tribute to the way that those groups of New Zealanders came together and worked to get a better result.

I watched Karen Chhour show real accountability. Last year, there were 15 incidents in 2023 where kids got up on the roof at Oranga Tamariki facilities. Karen rolled up her sleeves and started also strengthening the buildings and improving the culture at those facilities. This year, there’s been one such incident, and, as the Minister, she was up there on the first flight yesterday, on site, and making sure the situation was dealt with, and they were down before lunchtime. Not to have KFC for lunch, I might add, Mr Speaker—he’s smiling at that and he knows that, actually, we have a new style of Government of accountability and a new broom in town.

I watched Brooke van Velden announce a memorandum of understanding between the Department of Internal Affairs, for which she’s responsible; and the Teachers Council to share information and identify any person that is a risk to children around sexual offences faster than they would have been under the previous Government. It’s simple stuff; some would say a minor detail, but absolutely critical for the safety of children, particularly in the wake of the royal commission of inquiry’s shocking findings—doing the business in little and large ways, every day.

I’ve watched Nicole McKee deliver on three strikes. People criticise the way it was introduced to Parliament, so this Government did something. We listened and we toughened it up, and we say to the people who want to commit three serious or violent sexual offences—

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Listened to who?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: Duncan Webb said, “Listened to who?” The victims of the crime, Duncan—the people your Government should have been listening to for the last five years, but didn’t, as we saw offences rise endlessly. Now we can say to those serious sexual and violent offenders, “Your previous strikes will count under the new law.”, and the Duncan Webbs of the world will say, “Oh, there will be more people in jail.” Yes, Duncan—that’s the point. We want them in there, so the rest of us law-abiding New Zealanders are safe out here.

I watched Andrew Hoggard, one of the true farmers of this Parliament—one of the few true farmers of this Parliament—announce that significant natural areas, those violations of farmers’ property rights, are having the pause button pushed, and then they too will be gone. Just like those kids, down from the roof.

Who could forget Mark Cameron chairing the Primary Production Committee, ensuring that banks and the regulators of banks are held accountable for the costs that they put on farmers?

All of these initiatives are held together by that simple idea that no matter who you are or who your ancestors were, you have a right to make a difference in your own life and the lives of those you care about in this great country. Thank God for the ACT Party.

What a shocking and disgusting act to follow. This Government and the so-called Minister for Children, who wants to—even more—punish some of the most vulnerable rangatahi in our country and then wants to make jokes about them getting up on the roof because they weren’t being fed. [Hon David Seymour leaves Chamber] Yep, off you go. The reason that those children were up on the roof—go and read the Children’s Commissioner’s report.

Hon David Seymour: Point of order, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: I think I know what the point of order is, but go ahead, please.

Hon David Seymour: Mr Speaker, it puts a member in real difficulty when they leave the Chamber and somebody refers to their absence as they’re leaving and says, “Oh, off you go.” Some members with less rectitude than the ones I know might actually react to that, and that creates disorder in the House. I ask that you request that comment be withdrawn.

SPEAKER: I did actually hear that. I thought at the time, “Do I break this up or not call attention to it?”, because it is extremely disorderly to do that, as it would be to point out members who aren’t here. I would ask the member to withdraw and apologise for that remark.

TAMATHA PAUL: Sure thing, Mr Speaker. I withdraw that comment.

SPEAKER: And apologise.

TAMATHA PAUL: And apologise for that comment.

SPEAKER: Carry on.

TAMATHA PAUL: As we’ll continue back to the real issue: on the children who were up on the roof and we have people making jokes about giving them KFC, when the reason they were up on that roof was because they weren’t being fed. This is the same youth justice residence that was inspected by the Children’s Commissioner, who found inappropriate and deeply troubling conduct from the people who work in that youth justice residence. Rather than saying to those young people, “What happened? What’s going wrong? What are you facing in here?”—because Korowai Manaaki has a track record for the way that they treat children—and rather than asking them, “Why are you up on the roof? What are your needs? How are you being let down by this residence?”, instead of that, they’re being charged—they’re being charged—and now they are even more likely to spend a lifetime in our criminal justice system.

This is what people have been raising over and over again: why are politicians trying to win votes and win political point-scoring over the real, serious needs of children? We are talking about children. I think that we get into a really dangerous place when the decision-making people in this country and politicians in this room put votes before the needs of children. We know what happens when their rights are put to the side: they get abused. Two-hundred-thousand children abused in State care, and then we’re going to stand up next month and we’re going to say to them, “Sorry. Sorry about the abuse that you endured, but we’re still going to press forward with our broken justice system. We’re still going to push forward with our failed military boot camp experiment.” It’s just disgusting.

I want us to know who exactly are in those youth justice residences: 80 percent of the young people in child prisons have a mental health disability. More than 70 percent of the young people who are in the youth justice residence in Christchurch have had one serious traumatic brain injury in their lifetime, and that’s because the children who are locked in these child prisons are some of the most vulnerable young people in our country who have had nothing in their lives except abuse, intergenerational trauma, and poverty. I’m not trying to make excuses for the behaviour, but I want us to grow up in this House and I want us to actually address the causes of why those young people have let them down, and for us to not merely contribute even further to the trauma and the hardship that is all they have ever known in their lifetime.

I’m concerned about where we’re moving in the youth justice space. We just passed a law last month that says that now we can mix adult and youth prison populations. Even the remand rules and the fact that young people spend all this time on remand in these child prisons and it doesn’t get taken off their sentence like it does with an adult—we have a real problem. I’m going to extend an olive branch here and say I would love to be part of a cross-party working group on youth justice. I want to work with all the parties in this House to find another way to deal with youth justice, because I know that a lot of people care about it in this House, but I want to see some commitment.

I want to put the Minister for Children on notice that she needs to put the needs of children above this disgusting rhetoric about being tough on crime, because it doesn’t work; it creates more child victims. This Government will be accountable next month when they make the apology to the ways that they continue to repeat history—failed history. Boot camps: failure. Three-strikes law: failure. What other experiments are you going to resurrect and subject our kids to?

Hon Judith Collins: The Speaker’s not going to do it.

TAMATHA PAUL: You—sorry; the Minister will be held to account. Close down the youth justice residences and end the failed experiment of boot camps.

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I rise to speak as the member of Parliament for Southland, and I should say that, as the member of Parliament for Southland, a good part of my electorate includes Otago—in fact, over 60 percent of my population lives in Otago. I am very pleased to see this Government working hard to improve the Resource Management Act, which affects all parts of my region a lot, and the country as a whole.

Just speaking first to the points that have been made by some people who, I think, don’t understand the system maybe as well as they should, they’re trying to say that the Government, yesterday, by putting forward an Amendment Paper which made it clear to the councils that they had to delay publicly notifying their freshwater planning instruments until the Government had completed its work on a reform of the freshwater management policy, the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management—some commentators have been trying to say this was anti-democratic for local government. That, frankly, is misunderstanding, at best, the system of government. The National Government—the central government—sets statute, sets the regulations; it sets the national policy statements that the regional councils then implement and put into force, in consultation with their communities.

Now, the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management that was brought in by the Labour Government in 2020 is going to change. This Government has made that very clear. To require regional councils to continue to work on implementing a national policy statement that is going to change is, frankly, not helpful to ratepayers and not helpful to residents of our regions and is in fact wasting the time of those councils, wasting the time of those who will be submitting on those plans, and wasting ratepayers’ money.

This Government is making it very clear in law that councils must not, cannot publicly notify those plans until the Government has changed the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management, which it is currently working on doing. This provides certainty to regional councils, it provides certainty to farmers, it provides certainty to ratepayers, it provides certainty to everyone in our regions. The work that has been done by regional councils on this will, no doubt, be helpful when the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management—the new one—is available and the councils can go to work on it. It would be, frankly, irresponsible to continue to work on these until the new freshwater management policy is available.

There are some other important things that have been included in the legislation that is going to be voted on very shortly and will become law for the first tranche of some of these amendments to the management of freshwater, which is excluding the hierarchy of obligations contained in the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management 2020 for resource consenting requirements. That’s while this review of the national policy statement is being done. That’s important because we need to make sure we get a sustainable and balanced approach to water management. We need to ensure that we can ensure that our farmers—and we have very engaged farmers and landowners who are continuing to work on environmental measures in very challenging economic conditions.

I also want to acknowledge this is notwithstanding the incredibly challenging spring that we’ve just had in Otago and Southland, which has seen farms underwater as well as many others and roads affected. It has seen mental health, frankly, challenged significantly, as everyone’s trying to ensure the safety of their stock and people and look after the land, etc. It’s actually been a very, very difficult time, and I’m very pleased to be part of a Government that has provided certainty to everyone in our regions, including the regional councils and their councillors and their staff, that they can focus on the work that they need to and not waste time—precious time and precious money—and create further uncertainty when the Government is going to be providing that clarity in the future on these freshwater planning standards.

So, with that, I would say let’s make sure this debate is one that actually understands how the process works, and let’s focus on the needs of the people in our region. Thank you very much, Mr Speaker.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. It seems that there’s just been an invitation for people to actually understand what the process means, and we’ve heard from the Minister for the Environment, before, that there have been some misleading statements. I’m going to take those two comments personally because, in the past 24 hours, I’ve been spending a lot of time on this issue and for the past, I don’t know, 25 years or so, I’ve spent a lot of time on the Resource Management Act, and I think I understand what is happening here, Mr Mooney. What is happening is a disgrace. What is happening is a promise from your Government—

Joseph Mooney: It would be a disgrace to keep it going.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING: The disgrace is that this new Government, led by National, wants more pollution. That’s all it can possibly want—

Carl Bates: Stop scaremongering!

Hon RACHEL BROOKING: —because—oh, now I’m being told that I’m fearmongering—I’m fearmongering! I’m not fearmongering. What is fearmongering is saying that the Otago Regional Council’s plan that they were going to notify today; that they were going to vote on to notify today; to notify on 31 October, in a few days’ time, was somehow going to cause huge problems that were going to need to be changed by a Government that wants more pollution. That is the fearmongering.

That council has spent $18 million and taken five years to work on this plan, to work with the community, to work with mana whenua, and what are you doing? Oh, you’re pausing it—the Government is pausing it. For what? What is the fear that this plan will do something so terrible that the Government’s future—future—policy statement for fresh water will somehow make all of that work be useless, go out of the window? It would only be the case if there is a radical change to those regulations that are there to protect our waterways, that are there to stop the pollution. That is all that you appear to be saying.

Now, we’ve also heard—I wanted to talk about three things: one is the South, one is the terrible processes that this Government keeps continuing with, and the third is what seems to be a hatred for councils that we’ve seen—

Sam Uffindell: What an inspiring vision.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING: —on ample display this week. Oh, and Mr Uffindell says that’s an inspiring version of events, that his Government hates councils.

Sam Uffindell: An inspiring vision.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING: Well, this is the vision of the National Government. Now, what we have seen is an amendment dropped into the House yesterday, around lunchtime, that said “the Otago Regional Council that is meeting tomorrow”—being now today—“can not notify its plans.” But, of course, that amendment and that bill has not yet had its third reading and it has not yet been signed off by the Governor-General. There is no Royal assent, so of course it is not law at the moment, today, on 23 October when the regional council was going to meet. Of course, there is, in the Amendment Paper, a retrospective clause to say that, despite the Act commencing when it gets Royal assent, it will be retrospective until yesterday, 22 October.

Retrospective clauses should only be used in really rare circumstances where there is a very strong justification for doing so, and all that I can see in terms of justification here is the Government saying, “We don’t want you, democratically elected regional council, to notify your plan in accordance with the existing laws, because we’re going to change the rules at some point, and the only reason we wouldn’t want you to continue with it is because we want more pollution.”

That is the only logical conclusion to what this Government is doing: they want more pollution and they want more pollution in the South. They don’t want a tertiary hospital in the South. No, no, no, they want more pollution; they want to waste the $18 million of taxpayers’ money; they want to put up rates, with all that they have done, to decrease localisation.

Thank you, Mr Speaker, and thank you for the opportunity to take a call in this debate this afternoon and remind the House—remind the House—that there is a new team in town. We are a year since the election, and there seem to be some members of this House that haven’t realised that there is a new team in town, that there is a new vision for New Zealand, and that there is a Government that is getting out and getting things done. I know that members, like our member for Upper Harbour and the constituents there, know that there is a new kid on the block. It is legislation, like the legislation we’ve been referring to this afternoon, to make sure that regional councils around this country know that there is a new Government, with a new vision, that is going to get things done.

As I meet with farmers across this country, as I go with my colleagues to field days, to—

James Meager: Ashburton show.

CARL BATES: —Ashburton show—I wasn’t at the Ashburton show, but to shows across the country. As we get out and about, farmers are telling us that regional councils haven’t got the message. Sometimes, you have to make it very clear that the message is going to get through, and that is what the Government is doing this week. We make no apology for that, because it is a year since the election and it is time that everyone across the country got on board with a vision that is designed to ensure we get New Zealand back on track. And that is exactly what we’ve been doing. Surprise, surprise—it’s called achievement; something that New Zealand had missed for the six years of the failed Labour Government.

In 2022, we had inflation at 7 percent—shameful. In June, inflation was at 3.3 percent. Last week, we achieved getting inflation down to 2.2 percent. The era of crushing prices is over. People are telling me in Whanganui that they are pleased to see that we are delivering, that we are getting New Zealand back on track.

Earlier in the year, I had the privilege of hosting Minister Willis in Whanganui on a wonderful Saturday morning. Down by one of the coffee stalls, we stood and we chatted to a variety of people as they came past, as they came to get their coffee and have a chat with an available Minister of Finance who was fronting up to have a conversation with constituents in Whanganui. We spoke to a mum who was pleased to see that we were delivering on our promise of FamilyBoost, and who shared the story of how that would affect her and her family—to get more money in their pockets. We chatted to tradies who are looking forward to the tax relief that they were going to get under this Government. And we spoke to farmers that were thankful that they had a Government that was backing them.

Even with this reduction in inflation that’s been achieved, we did need to support New Zealanders, following six tough years, by delivering things like the tax relief we delivered on 31 July, and FamilyBoost, as I said, to ensure that we could put money into the pockets of families that needed it. Up to $150 a fortnight for households earning up to $140,000 a year. I wrote to all early childhood centres in my electorate to ensure that they knew exactly how them and the families in those centres could apply for that tax relief.

I just want to say to anyone watching today that hasn’t been able to get the answer from their local MP—because they might not have a local MP on this side of the House that’s working hard to ensure these messages about tax relief and FamilyBoost are getting out there—if you aren’t clear on how to apply for your FamilyBoost, give your local MP a call or give one of us a call. I’m sure we’re happy to help—anyone on this side of the House—to ensure that that FamilyBoost relief gets into your pocket, because, from 1 October, you’ve had the opportunity to apply, to put in those receipts, to put in those invoices that you’ve paid for your early childhood care—

SPEAKER: Yeah, I don’t think I’ll be applying, but thank you.

CARL BATES: —and get that relief. Fair enough, Mr Speaker. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Look, I really appreciate having the call today because I want to point out something that’s really concerning to me about the behaviour of one of the other Ministers in the Government, and that’s Nicole McKee. She has recently—on Sunday, I think it was—made an announcement about the three-strikes legislation and changes that she wants to see to that bill, which is currently before the House and, in fact, currently before the Justice Committee.

In that press release of 22 October, in fact, she gave the reasons for the changes, and she said, “We agree with submitters that the threshold was set too high.” Now, the fact of the matter is that the submissions before the select committee, which have been tabled and released, are overwhelmingly against the bill, so it’s not accurate to say that the Minister agrees with the submitters as if some revelation has come from those submissions.

That’s a real concern, because the Prime Minister went on Radio New Zealand and was asked, in terms of what’s happened here, “Why are you making these changes, Minister?”, and he said, “Parliament and the people are working together, and we’ve got a good outcome.” He was then asked whether, in fact, this was done because of emails that had gone to Nicole McKee’s office—Nicole referred to some emails that were relied on. “Is that what it’s about?”, he was asked. “No,” said the Prime Minister, “we had submitters at the select committee.”

Well, that’s all very odd, because Nicole McKee was pressed on that very matter on Radio New Zealand as well, and she was asked whether it was about the submissions at select committee, which of course she knew were overwhelmingly against this legislation. She said, “We’ve heard from many people, especially through emails to my office.” Now, that’s not a submission.

The members on the other side gasp as if this isn’t important, but I’ll tell you why it’s important. If there’s some back door to the Minister’s office where you can have the Minister’s ear and change legislation as it’s going through the House and totally subvert the select committee process, then there is something wrong here. If the Minister has a different policy view and if she wants a shift in policy, she should be coming to the select committee, she should be proposing an Amendment Paper, and we should be consulting on it. But no, the National Party stooges over there are being totally led by the nose—led by the nose—by the ACT Party, who are making up policy as they go along, and not equipping the Prime Minister to answer questions on Radio New Zealand about it.

The Prime Minister has been made to look, frankly, like a fool because he was not accurately answering questions about what the motive for the change was. The motive for the change appears to have been a flood of emails into the Minister’s office, organised by the Sensible Sentencing Trust, that she then responded to, notwithstanding the fact that every legal organisation that submitted to the select committee was fiercely against these changes. The Law Society, the Law Association, the Bar Association, the Criminal Bar Association, the Children’s Commissioner, and the Human Rights Commissioner all said this was a bad idea. To then issue a press release and put it on the Beehive website and to suggest that this was because of submissions is misleading, at best. The Beehive website and ministerial capacity shouldn’t be used in that underhanded way.

What we need to do is get back to select committee and this needs to go through a thorough process. I see that the chair of the select committee is here, and I’ll be pressing him to make sure that these new amendments get a thorough submissions process and aren’t rushed through, because this is against all advice, including the advice of the Minister’s own officials.

It’s another shonky process where one of the minor parties is making the National Party look like fools. The Prime Minister needs to hold Nicole McKee to account and say, “Why were you not being accurate about the basis of these changes?” They’re bad changes and they need to be examined. Let’s let the select committee do its job.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Maybe we should bring back that disinformation unit that the last lot had and maybe we should send them to the Labour Party offices, because there be treasure—there be a veritable gold mine of disinformation.

I can understand why the previous member, Duncan Webb, is a little confused. He’s a little new to the place, so I can take him through the process. There were submissions made to the Justice Committee, there were people who wanted the law strengthened, there were people who didn’t want the law at all, and, as is a normal response in all of these select committee processes, the officials take on advice and they produce a departmental report. And when we receive that departmental report and consider it in private, we will make considerations about what the committee may wish to support or not to support. So, for Dr Duncan Webb, if he’s considering a new career in a couple of years’ time, I suggest he stay away from constitutional law and advising on how parliamentary process works.

The Opposition do need to read the room. The people have spoken, the Government has changed, the policy direction has changed, and this is a Government that has heard the calls of farmers and rural and regional New Zealand and any anybody who wants to do anything done and get anything done—and we are unapologetic about getting it done.

It appears to the Opposition that if you listen to submitters and change your mind, it’s a bad thing; if you ignore submitters and continue on ahead with what you were going to do, it’s a bad thing; if you hear submitters, it’s a bad thing; if you don’t hear submitters, it’s a bad thing. The only good thing that we’ve heard in this House today are the contributions from this side and the legislation that this Government is passing so that we can build a better economy and get our country back on track.

The members opposite cry foul about localism, but remember this was the party that amalgamated district health boards (DHBs) together into a mega entity, putting high-performing DHBs like mine in South Canterbury under pressure, forcing them to conform and go towards the standard and go towards the mean. That is the party that amalgamated the polytechs, driving those high-performing polytechs to cross-subsidise those who were struggling; the party that implemented restrictive, top-down, heavy-handed, one-size-fits-all national policy statements and national environmental standards that put increasingly restrictive rules on farming and agriculture. And now our country is reaping the rewards for six years of mismanagement by that lot—the party which, at the same time, encouraged land-use policies which drove our country away from agriculture and put pressure on our agricultural sectors.

The Opposition cry foul and they say that the people in the regions and the people of Otago don’t like what we’re doing. Well, I saw what the people of that fine establishment the Otago Daily Times, the readers of the Otago Daily Times, said. I’ll tell you what they said, Mr Speaker, in response to the freshwater changes. John Costin says: “Outstanding news, well done.” Peter Marshall says: “Well done. It’s high time logic and common sense prevails.” Cameron Maxwell: “Why is the ORC surprised? They were told to hold off. Finally, finally, we might have a chance that something more sensible coming from this.” And Ian Sinclair, he simply just says: “Well done, Penny.”, and then he chucks up a thumbs-up emoji. That’s the response from the people in the regions. That’s the response from what we are doing. That is what they are keen on.

The Opposition needs to read the room and councils need to read the room. It’s not just fresh water; it’s consenting, it’s common sense. My regional council needs to read the room, and my local councils have read the room. I’d like to quote from a letter sent from Timaru Mayor Nigel Bowen to Environment Canterbury just last week: “I write to express concern at the continued progression of the Canterbury Regional Policy Statement, with a decision to notify anticipated to be taken next month. It is counterproductive to notify this piece of work when such clear policy shifts have been consistently signalled by Government.” He goes on to say: “If the regional policy statement is progressed to notification, significant costs will be incurred by communities throughout Canterbury in responding to this change.” Finally, he signs off by saying: “The review needs to be delayed, allowing for a level of engagement proportionate to the changes proposed and to ensure alignment with national direction.” That is a letter from the mayor of a district council to the chair of a regional council. The district councils in my area have read the room; so does the Opposition need to read the room.

In fact, it took near-universal outrage for Environment Canterbury to back down from their proposal to remove regional representation from mid- and South Canterbury. It took thinly veiled threats of secession; it took thinly veiled threats of going out and doing their own thing before Environment Canterbury finally decided to read the room. I’d like to thank those councillors in Environment Canterbury who stood up for mid-Canterbury, who stood up for South Canterbury, who stood up for the representation of the people in my region to have a say. It’s not just urban Christchurch which runs our council; it is the entire region. This is a Government that is getting things done and is getting our country back on track.

Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. He mihi nui tēnei ki a tātou i tēnei wā.

[This is a big greeting to all of us at this time.]

I bring the voice of the tribes of Whangārei into this House, as I want to address fast track and its implications for the tribes, the hapū, and the iwi of Whangārei Harbour, because while we might have 149 projects listed, we have six in Whangārei itself and those projects have been identified as regionally and nationally significant. But this is a struggle without end—a struggle without end for the tribes of Whangārei who have opposed Northport expansion since the 1990s.

As a mokopuna of these tribes, trying to protect Poupouwhenua as one of the last remnant pieces of land in southern Whangārei, I bring their voice to this Whare. In considering the proposal of the 1990s, which would see the expansion of the port, the deep-sea port, our people went to court. Our people went to court and fought against the consent. They stood unanimous in their opposition, and they fought to protect te taiao, they fought to protect the seabed, they fought to protect the little bit of whenua that we had left in southern Whangārei, otherwise known as Poupouwhenua.

He taonga tēnei whenua mō te iwi, mō Patuharakeke, mō Te Parawhau, mō ngā hapū tini o Whangārei-terenga-parāoa.

[This land is a treasure for the people, for Patuharakeke, for Te Parawhau, for the many hapū of Whangārei-terenga-parāoa.]

The sad thing is, when we went to court, we ended up with a little bit of mitigation and a kaitiaki committee that was established, which would receive $50,000 annually to contribute to kaupapa within the harbour. Now, interestingly, with this committee, it’s only recent that the hapū have started to generate any types of projects out of that $50,000.

I want to refer to a quote from Luana Pirihi of Patuharakeke in 1998, where she said that “Through this expansion, it effectively ended our connection to the significant site and the ability to pass down the customs associated with this special place known as Poupouwhenua because the pipi beds were lost in the reclamation, as Northport expanded across the whenua and the papamoana.”

Now, huri ki tēnei wā tonu. [we turn to the current time]. It’s been a couple of years where the tribes, again, whenua trusts, and the community stood in opposition of proposals to expand Northport once again, and our people stood before independent commissioners and presented their evidence, because Northport sought, through their consents, to expand 12 hectares of reclamation. They also sought to establish a 250-metre wharf extension and also 1.72 million cubic metres of dredging of our takutai moana, including the disposal of that takutai moana goodness knows where!

The problem with this was that our people stood united with community, residents, and ratepayers, and we were successful. The commissioners heard the plea of our people. They recognised the cultural significance of Poupouwhenua as a tauranga waka, a traditional landing place, as a mahinga mātaitai, a place of significance where our people would gather and provide kai, harvest kai for their people and community. The hearings were conducted, and the commissioners came back and said, “Kāhore”—kāhore that this could not take place, because it was cutting off public access to the last remaining piece of the takutai moana for the people of southern Whangārei, but, further, the tribes could not execute the kaitiakitanga that we so value. Auntie Luana Pirihi, once again, pointed out that these pipi beds have basically been left remnant. They can’t gather cockles and pipis in their community any more.

Northport appealed, and in August, they came back and they said, “We’re appealing to the Environment Court.” All the while, we had them, alongside this Government, applying for the fast-track process. Now, when the list of the projects came out, we hadn’t had the opportunity for community voice to be heard. The tribes of Whangārei are locked out of the process, and there’s no guarantee, through the fast-track process, that the hapū or the impacted land owners will have any voice in the process moving forward. That’s the problem with this legislation, and that is the localism that this Government purports that they are bringing into this House. I doubt it, because the people of Whangārei will stand, as residents and as hapū, together to oppose this important issue for Poupouwhenua. Kia mau tonu mai. [Keep an eye on that.]

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.