General Debate

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

Well, we’re halfway through this electoral term, and what have we heard from the Opposition? No plans, no policies, no new ideas—absolutely nothing. It’s like Michael Wood—remember Michael Wood and his big red zero? It’s like his big red zero. Zero new ideas, zero new policies, zero new ideas—that’s what we’ve heard from the Opposition, and now look: they’re like the arsonists turning up at the fire that they set alight with inflation and high interest rates. There they are complaining about all of the problems that they’ve caused, but they have got no solution. In fact, they spend their entire time complaining about the work that’s being done to actually fix it: the work that’s being done to get our economy moving again, the work that’s being done to make sure that we get Government expenditure under control, and the work that’s being done to ensure we get interest rates under control.

But, look, there is one thing that they have delivered—one thing. They’ve delivered a new slogan—a new slogan—and I imagine that the Labour Party strategists were having a bit of a face-palm moment when Chris Hipkins rolled out the new slogan. Their new slogan is “Jobs, health, and homes”. Well, let’s have a chat about health, shall we, and let’s talk about their record, because this is where their strategists were face-palming themselves when former health Minister Chris Hipkins decided to roll out their new slogan. Of course, what was Labour’s record when it came to health? Six years of health results going backwards, Kiwis were waiting longer, health targets were scrapped, and they were obsessed with restructuring a health system, rather than focusing on patients. Sometimes you’ve got to wonder whether they actually even understand what the health system is there for, and it’s there for patients. But during COVID-19—during a pandemic—what did they put their time and energy into? Restructuring the health system, rather than actually focusing on delivery for patients.

Let’s talk about the results. Let’s talk about the outcomes. Elective surgery wait times massively blew through the roof. In 2017, when they came into office, 1,037 New Zealanders were waiting over four months for an elective treatment. For a hip, knee, or cataract operation, 1,037 were waiting over four months. But when Labour left office in 2023, that number had grown to 27,497—an increase of 2,551 percent.

So when they talk about healthcare, let’s talk about their track record on healthcare, because there’s a track record of failure to deliver, and one of the worst, which I think is an absolute shame on the previous Government, is when it comes to childhood immunisation rates. In 2017, 92.4 percent of children were fully immunised at 24 months—a 92.4 percent immunisation rate for two-year-olds. By 2023, it was 83 percent. It had plummeted to 83 percent, and the reality is that they kept failing to deliver across emergency departments. Across primary care—making it harder to see a doctor. Everything went backwards under the last Government.

We heard last week, of course, about all the infrastructure projects that we’re getting started. Well, let’s talk about some of their announcements when it came to infrastructure. They promised in 2018—in 2018—that they were going to reclad the Kidz First Children’s Hospital at Middlemore. In 2018, David Clark and Jacinda Ardern turned up and promised that they would get the recladding of the hospital started. Well, this Government is actually getting it done seven years later—seven years later—because they announced, but they failed to deliver.

Of course, when it comes to a new Dunedin Hospital, they spent six years talking about it; we’re getting it delivered. Nelson Hospital: they said in 2020, at the election, “We will have spades in the ground by the 2023 election.” I don’t even think they even know the definition of a spade. Maybe they should go and visit some farms—maybe they should go and see some of them.

Hon Simon Watts: Dig a hole—dig a hole.

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, the problem is, as my colleague the Hon Simon Watts says, that they were digging a lot of holes. They were digging a lot of holes, but not actually getting a lot done, and so of course everything went backwards for patients.

We are rebuilding the health system, on this side of the House. We’re delivering the investment to the front line: more doctors, more nurses, and more cancer medicines. We’re delivering Elective Boost and seeing patients get the care that they need. We are focusing on the front line so that patients can get the timely, quality access. We are starting to see results. There is so much more work to do, but we have a plan, and we’re getting on and getting it done.

Over the past 18 months, New Zealand First has been targeted with a series of ignorant and deliberate attacks from Ayesha Verrall and her fellow partisan pen pal, reporter Guyon Espiner. They’ve once again repeated the exposé headline this week, which was “Big tobacco now has $300 million tax break”, and they followed it up by the breathless commentary from Verrall. There are only two possibilities: either she is totally incompetent, or she is knowingly ignoring the facts. She knows that New Zealand is now number 2 in the world for the lowest smoking rates. Our smoke-free policy—which is backed by Professor Bob Beaglehole from ASH—is working, and that’s a fact. If Radio New Zealand had a shred of integrity, they would interview him about it.

She knows that this Government is doing everything it can to get the last few remaining hardcore smokers off cigarettes and on to alternatives. She knows that we need to make those alternatives more affordable and more accessible for those current smokers to quit.

She knows there is no tax break. She knows that in 2023, the tax balance sheet for those alternatives was just $6 million. She knows that the figure she continues to deliberately and disingenuously use of $216 million is not a tax break, that no money goes to anyone, and that this money does not go to big tobacco.

What Verrall fails to mention, which she knows to be a fact, is that the figure of $216 million—now, apparently, $300 million in her quotes—includes the revenue lost from people who have quit smoking cigarettes. They no longer pay the excessive tax on cigarettes, and therefore the Government doesn’t have that revenue on the balance sheet. Only a political moron and, literally, an economic moron would not know that, but she and her mate Guyon continue to perpetuate a falsehood to the people of New Zealand, to this House, and to her own party. That means that the more successful we are at getting people off smoking, the more tax revenue the Government forgoes. That is the $216 million, and Verrall knows it.

Any person out there with an ounce of common sense can see that going from $6 million to, now, $300 million overnight is an outright lie that is being perpetuated continuously and repeated continuously by a certain few in the media. Verrall knows that there is no tax break. She knows that so-called big tobacco doesn’t see one cent of anything. She knows that the purpose of the deduction on tax on smoking alternatives is to get people off cigarettes, so why, then, does she continue misleading the people of New Zealand and dragging the media, and in this House, daily—like twice repeated today; getting found out because you’re a dumbo—on a pathway of undermining the success of New Zealand’s goal of getting people to be smoke-free.

I am making this speech today because for 18 months, she has been allowed to get away with her mud-slinging and to get away with her ham-fisted attempts at attacking Casey Costello—

Hon Damien O’Connor: Who wrote this?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: —and New Zealand First—I’m able to write my own speech, unlike that moron over there—and we have had enough. Verrall is either ignorant or she is continuing to deliberately mislead this House. Either way, she’s not fit to remain in the role as a shadow portfolio spokeswoman in health, and she needs to apologise to Labour, first, for misleading her leader—who made a fool of himself on the Holmes show this morning—to New Zealand First and this House, and to the people of New Zealand.

If she had one ounce of integrity, she would focus on the fact that since New Zealand First’s smoke-free policy came into effect in 2020, the smoking rates have drastically decreased, to the point where we are now number one of the leading two countries in the world for low smoking rates. The smoking legislation that we permitted is working.

What Guyon Espiner needs to investigate next is this: why did Verrall, as the Minister, ignore legal advice on disposable vapes regulation? Why did she and her partisan motley crew cover this legal advice up and actively hide it from the incoming Minister Casey Costello? Why did these leaks and attacks on Costello come from her and her crew on the very issue where she ignored legal advice—that’s Verrall—and why did Verrall allow this country to be open to litigation and to be sued to the cost of hundreds of thousands of dollars and to face losing, and, now, why no mention of that from the media or from her? Where is the apology and where is the accountability—and where are you now, Mr Espiner?

This is what Professor Beaglehole said: “New Zealand’s on the cusp of making history—soon to be one of the first truly smokefree nations. … a pragmatic shift to safer and cheaper vapes has changed the trajectory. Vapes supply nicotine without the tar and toxins [of] tobacco smoke that kill over half the people who smoke long-term. … we already have a smokefree generation—youth smoking”—

Hon Willie Jackson: Are you still smoking?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: —“has all but disappeared.”

Why has this person not been sacked? The Goebbels approach, where you tell the biggest lie possible, hoping to be believed, is not going to be adopted in this country, and I’ve got a message for Radio New Zealand and Guyon Espiner: if you think you’re going to get away with this, we’ve got news for you and it’s all really bad—all really bad. This is the man who attacked me and my party 28 times in the 2020 campaign, and the Serious Fraud Office, which he backed, went to the courts three times. They cost the taxpayer $4.2 million, and they lost all three times—$4.2 million. It cost us hundreds of thousands of dollars, while this four-flushing liar thought he’d get away with it. Mr Espiner, no you don’t.

Hon Willie Jackson: Mr Speaker.

Before I call the member—

Hon Willie Jackson: Thank you, Mr Speaker. What a—

SPEAKER: Before I call the member, can I just say that some of his interjections before were directed at the Chair. I was very tempted to answer, but that would have been unreasonable. So please moderate yourself.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. What a shocking speech from a shocking Minister from a disgraceful—

SPEAKER: Well, there’s moderation for you!

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: —rotten, useless Government. Never before in my political life have I seen a New Zealand Government actively suppress the vote. I rise today to heap criticism and contempt upon the Government for passing voter-suppression rules as egregious as this. You would have to go back to 2003 for a similar level of disenfranchisement. This Government is rolling back voting rights by almost a quarter of a century, and they want a clap on the back for saving a buck.

Minister Goldsmith—you know, I don’t know what’s wrong with him. On the surface, he seems OK, but he’s very confused at the moment. I want to give him the benefit of the doubt here when he says that he started this voter-suppression Act as a sort of cost-saving measure, wasn’t it?

Hon Kieran McAnulty: It’s rubbish.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Well, it is rubbish because it’s not that; it’s racist disenfranchisement, and that’s what it is. It’s a breach of democracy—you can’t cut the costs when it comes to ensuring universal suffrage.

I want to commend our Attorney-General, one of the most principled National Party members. I haven’t seen her here in the last day or so. They must be hiding her away because she has come out—

SPEAKER: No, no—the member will withdraw and apologise.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: I withdraw and apologise. My apologies, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: Yeah, well, do it properly. Don’t start waving your arms at me.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: No, I’m not, Mr Speaker. But the Attorney-General has come out with something really, really important and I need to commend her—and I’m serious about this, Mr Speaker. She’s had the guts to call out this appalling attack on young people, Māori, Pasifika, and Asian communities. She’s had the courage to call these voter-suppression powers for what they are: discriminatory. So I’m not making a joke of the Attorney-General; I’m saying, “Well done.” This Government is vandalising democratic participation.

Now, I need the people to listen to this—this is from Elections New Zealand. This is the type of discrimination we’re talking about: 600,000 enrolments happen after writ day, with 450,000 voters during the voting period and 110,000 votes on election day. These are incredible numbers we’re talking about. That’s why I compliment the Attorney-General. She’s not here today, but she is so principled, and she’s standing up to a weak and useless leader.

I have deep misgivings that this Government has jumped the gun with these voter-suppression powers. For a law that impacts this many voters, I believe it should require a supermajority. National messed up banning prisoners from voting, because they didn’t have a supermajority, and I believe that this new voter-suppression Act should face the same legal challenge.

Why disenfranchise young people, Māori, Pasifika and Asian communities? The purpose of our system, surely, is to engage people and make it as easy as possible to get them to vote. It’s just shocking that we’re not embracing them and pushing them along. Why push those on the margins to even more marginal spaces—surely, that’s the question. When we have failing participation in civic life, why make it more difficult to vote? This Government risks being accused of rigging the next election, and if these voter-suppression powers go through, we can’t risk our democratic reputation because the Minister wants to save some money.

Finally, I want to say that I don’t know what’s more offensive: the gerrymandering of our voting rules to rig the election, or the Deputy Prime Minister referring to 600,000 people as “dropkicks”. It’s a disgraceful attack on all the voting rights of our democracy when you have a Deputy Prime Minister doing that. Every Kiwi of conscience, no matter what their political persuasion, should denounce this and denounce Mr Seymour. David Seymour must and should apologise for his attack on our communities—working-class Kiwis, Māori, Pasifika, and Asian. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: he’s the most dangerous politician of the last generation and—surely—not only a disgrace as a Deputy Prime Minister but surely the biggest dropkick of all.

Well, that was a speech well below the dignity of the member who gave it. It was an awful speech, and I want to know what happened to the real Willie Jackson. The real Willie Jackson used to be someone who had passion and vigour and was actually on point, but that wasn’t the Willie Jackson that we heard today.

We all know that in life and in politics and in business, sometimes the most irritating things are the smallest things. It’s like the Labour Party—small things are very irritating. But another really irritating thing is the surcharges that you have to pay when you go to a shop and buy your date scone and your cup of coffee—and you’ll be visiting the beautiful Coromandel, spending time and money in my patch—and then you get stung at the end with a surcharge of 2.5 percent, sometimes 3 percent, sometimes 4 percent, and maybe even more in some cases. Well, on this side of the House, we take the view that doing a transaction should be simple, should be transparent, and should be obvious. The price on the cabinet where the muffin is, or the steak pie or whatever it is you’re buying, should be the price that you pay at the till.

This week, we’ve announced a decision to do away with one of those small little irritating things in life and business and commerce—

Hon Nicola Grigg: What—Kieran McAnulty?

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON: —no, it wasn’t Kieran McAnulty—and get rid of the surcharges. Now, I know from my own personal experiences of how annoying these little charges are, and I know every member in the House will have experienced the same thing, just like every New Zealander will have experienced the same thing—we know how annoying it is. I didn’t expect, however, that the announcement of this decision would be as popular and as welcome as it has been. It’s been received magnificently well all around the countryside, and people have responded in a way that, frankly, is just off the charts.

Those checkout surcharges in some cases—not in every case, but in some cases they’re a swindle. Now, what we know for sure is that anything over a 0.7 percent surcharge—if you’re using a contactless debit card, for instance, anything above that is a rip-off. We know also that anything above 2 percent for credit card usage, whether you’re using your fancy phone, like Mr Todd Stephenson uses when he goes and buys his muffin and his coffee down in Queenstown, or his phone—anything over 2 percent, that’s a swindle as well, and yet we often see those pesky little stickers with prices that say that it’s a 2.5 percent surcharge, or sometimes 3 percent or sometimes 4 percent.

I’ve even noticed some that don’t put the percentage on at all, and you literally don’t know—the consumer doesn’t know when they go up there. It just says that a payWave surcharge will apply. That person doesn’t know how much they’re going to be pinged until the transaction is made. Now, I think that’s literally daylight robbery.

One of the things that we know is that the Commerce Commission has made it very clear that the interchange fee has to come down. Now, they’re going to do that by December of this year, and that’s an appropriate thing. It means that the cost to the businesses is going to come down. That’s why we’ve announced this change.

What we know is that in other countries that have also banned surcharges, like the United Kingdom, like the European Union, and like Australia is soon to do—what we know from those jurisdictions is that when those surcharge bans have been put in place, there hasn’t been an increase in pricing, because retailers and businesses understand, ultimately, that that’s a cost of doing business. It’s just like rent, electricity, insurance, and wages are a cost of doing business.

It’s 2025 and it’s time that New Zealand got modern and did away with those curled-up, coffee-stained, handwritten, dodgy-looking little stickers on the EFTPOS machine that are annoying so many New Zealanders. They’re so excited about it that the feedback I’ve been getting is “Why can’t you do it sooner?” Well, let me assure members in the House and New Zealanders around the countryside that if we can do it sooner, we will, because we think that this is a small but practical opportunity to make life easier and more transparent for New Zealanders.

Sometimes it’s the small and little things that you want to remove from your life to make things easier, simpler, and more transparent—small, easy things that will make New Zealanders’ lives easier, simpler, and more attuned to what it should be in a modern world. Speaking of small, annoying, irritable things, the Labour Party has yet to come out and just tell us whether they’re going to support it or not—

SPEAKER: That’ll do.

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON: —and so I’m hoping they’ll tell us.

Good—you’re all good.

Palestinian people have hopes and dreams. Palestinian families want to feed and care for their children. Palestinians want joy, and Palestinian children have told us that they want to live, but the State of Israel is committing genocide in Gaza against the Palestinians, and it is just plainly wrong.

There are no justifications for the blatant murder and slaughter and starvation and rape and femicide that Israel is committing—that’s right. The United Nations rapporteur, in their report, has stated that Israel—and I quote—is “deliberately killing Palestinian women and girls with the intent to destroy them and the continuity of the Palestinian people.” to wipe out whakapapa lines. That is femicide. According to those estimates, women and girls account for 67 percent of the Palestinians killed by 9 July.

What more does this Government need to take action? There are no justifications for genocide; there should be no conditionals for calling to an end to genocide. So the Greens are calling on this Government to affirm Palestinian statehood now, to support our bill to sanction Israel, and to support special visas for Palestinians wanting to flee to safety, and not just every day but every hour of delay costs lives.

Today, we got from the Prime Minister’s Government a weaksauce statement, and it was so weaksauce, I’ll read it out. It says something about “we might consider, we might have a look”. It says that New Zealand expresses the “willingness or the positive consideration of our countries to recognise the State of Palestine”. What on earth is that? How much more weaksauce can you get? What more does this Government need to show leadership, to send a clear message to Israel that Palestine deserves its independent statehood and that this is the only true way to enduring peace and the justice, which is deserved by the people of Palestine?

This is actually about the humanity and decency of our world. This is about recognising that having a world for all our mokopuna to be safe in requires us to protect the mokopuna of Gaza right now, and more and more and more countries around the world are finally stepping up. We’re finally seeing a backbone—finally—after years and years of the murder and slaughter and inhumane killing that happened long before that October date that everyone tries to pin the starting point of this genocide on, which is just incorrect. It is just a historical fallacy.

Where is the backbone of Aotearoa and our Government to step up and be a voice for the mokopuna of Gaza, for the mokopuna of the world, to say no? How can we let this continue before our very eyes? How can we create a world that allows this to happen before our very eyes?

New Zealand, I thought, was stronger than that. New Zealand, I thought, had a vision to be independent and to stand on our own two feet for just what is right and what has to happen right now. I am proud of the Greens, even right back in 2021, putting in this very House a notice of motion to call for this country to recognise the statehood of Palestine, and we continue to support the activists around this country who show up every day, every weekend, in big and small communities everywhere, putting their livelihoods on the line because they know that whatever suffering and challenge we are facing here, it is nothing compared to the very real plight of what is happening to humans.

Despite what Israel has tried to do to dehumanise them and to rob them of their mana and their dignity, people around the world and around our communities know that these are humans we are talking about. These are our fellow humans—our people. The globe connects us all. It is just like the tsunami in Russia today that is starting to threaten to come down to Japan, and then to have an impact on the west coast of our shores—that is how we are connected.

Our humanity is supposed to connect us all. Our decency relies on us to be accountable, and I stand in this House today for a free Palestine.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s a real pleasure to be able to stand up today and talk about the backbone of the New Zealand economy, and that, indeed, is of course our agricultural sector.

I’ve been reflecting. I used to stand up in this House as an Opposition MP, genuinely and deeply concerned about the future of farming in this country, and that was, by no means, because of the lack of skill or intent of the New Zealand farmer, but it was absolutely and utterly because of the provisions, and the onerous regulations, and the burden that the previous Government placed upon the farming sector of New Zealand—you know, David and Damien and the other “henchmen of the Apocalypse” drove our agricultural sector to its knees. But, happily, when we came into office in 2023, we set about turning it around.

When we came into office, the confidence of the sector was through the floor. I cited it earlier in question time: negative 66 percent. Red tape from the capital city—from this Parliament—was out of control. Farmers were bogged down in regulation, not production; mental health was suffering; investment had dried up; and the most efficient producers of food and fibre in the world were being told that they were the enemy and that they were the problem. So we campaigned on not closing down our farms, on not sending jobs overseas, and on not sending production overseas. We campaigned on getting this House out of farming and out of agriculture. We campaigned on building a partnership between the New Zealand Government, and farmers and growers around New Zealand. Most importantly, we campaigned on rebuilding the confidence of the sector, New Zealand’s greatest export earner.

In order to do that, we’ve travelled up and down the country and we have spoken at length with farmers and growers around New Zealand. That is why the policy with the regulatory shifts and the legislative changes that we’re driving through this House will work. They are working because they have been built from the grassroots up. We’ve spoken recently at the primary industries summit and at the Meat Industry Association. I myself am going down to the New Zealand Apple and Pears conference in Nelson tomorrow. We speak to farmers and growers every single day so that we know we are getting the settings right.

It is no secret that the economy of New Zealand was driven into the ground under the previous Government. New Zealand needs our agricultural sector to fly. We need it to hum. We need it to rebuild this country’s wealth and its prosperity. Therefore, every single member of this Parliament owes it to the farmers of New Zealand and the growers of New Zealand to ensure that we get the settings right and we get them right for the long term, for the ongoing sustainability, productivity, and profitability of this country.

Rural communities are the engine room of this economy. When farmers are doing well, we know that New Zealand does well. That capital, that profit—it flows through to local businesses and regional jobs, and it grows the economy for all New Zealanders. We need agriculture to do well in this country, and, indeed, it is doing well. It’s set to hit $60 billion in exports this year. That is a record for this country—that is incredible. We owe farmers and growers a debt of gratitude, and it is being proven that our policies are shifting sentiment.

I want to refer members of this House to this fine publication, the Farmers Weekly—acknowledging Neal and all of the guys that work so hard every day—“Farm confidence surges after a tough few years”. I go on: “Back to farming, not fighting regs.” What does that tell you? That is exactly what a Government in this country needs to be focused on, which is letting farmers get back to farming, and not fighting off unnecessary regulation.

The list of what we have done and what we have changed in a short 18 months is long. I’ve got an entire A4 page in front of me, but some of the highlights are that we’ve removed agriculture from the emissions trading scheme, we have repealed Labour’s punitive ute tax, we’ve passed the first reading of the legislation to ban farm-to-forest conversions, we’ve started rebalancing Te Mana o te Wai, we’ve halted Labour’s freshwater farm plans and those restrictive significant natural area requirements, we’ve launched contestable funds for rural support, and we’ve established a new pastoral group focused on informing through science what methane reduction should actually look like.

The list goes on and on and on. Suffice to say, this Government backs farmers. We will back them to the hilt, and we are intent on their ongoing success.

I have in my hand a page from that fine publication the Farmers Weekly, and, in it, I want to refer to something that the Minister of Climate Change, Simon Watts, said some months ago. It’s talking about the target set under the Paris Agreement around climate change, and he said, “Some will meet them, and some won’t just because [of] national circumstance. You have to have the intent to meet it and if you don’t meet it, no one sends you an invoice—and that’s why it’s not a liability on the government’s books.”

“No one sends you an invoice”, he said, but just last week, the International Court of Justice delivered its judgment on the Obligations of States in respect of Climate Change. This is just the summary and the actual judgment is significantly long, but let me tell you what is in that judgment. Very roughly paraphrasing, it says that States must act on climate change, or be held responsible. Its key findings include that 1.5 degrees Celsius of warming is the agreed legally binding target for limiting the global average temperature increase. It agreed that customary international law imposes binding legal obligations on States to take preventive and precautionary measures to avoid climate harm. It agreed that while the emission of greenhouse gases is not per se unlawful, a failure to take appropriate measures to prevent foreseeable harm does constitute a wrongful act attributable to States. It agreed that States must regulate private actors’ emissions. It agreed that States have a responsibility around climate change. It agreed that climate action can trigger legal consequences. It turns out that there is an invoice coming due on climate change.

Then a second report came out last week. It was the Climate Commission’s annual monitoring report on climate change, and what did that report tell us? It said that our emissions budgets may not be met. Here’s the rub: the first emissions budget, we’re probably going to meet it, but I’m just going to say that under the Labour Government, emissions were coming down; our second emissions budget can be met, but there are areas of significant threat; and our third emissions budget, covering the period from 2031 to 2035, requires further action urgently in order to be met.

Not only is there now an invoice from the International Court of Justice but the current Government is building up our liabilities in respect of that invoice. It needs to take climate action soon, and it’s important not just because of the international settings and not just because we might have an obligation to other States; it’s important because climate change affects us here every day in our ordinary lives in New Zealand.

We’ve just seen in the last week or so extraordinary downpours through the country. We know that our weather is being affected by climate change. We know that the intensity of those storms and the amount of rain that is being dumped on farming communities is deeply affected by climate change. We know that our homes are at threat because of climate change. We know that our health is at threat because of climate change—not just the immediate threat to life and limb but the mental health of many people who live under the stress of climate change. We know that jobs are under threat due to climate change and that that Government, by focusing on dying industries and on oil and gas, is ignoring the plentiful jobs that are to be found in green industries.

Labour is proud of its record on climate change, and we stand by it. Our record of the Clean Car Discount, of public transport, and of the Climate Emergency Response Fund, which was used to drive emissions down—we were doing the work that needs to be done to get our emissions down.

That Government is ignoring the problem. It is tucking the problem away and pretending it doesn’t exist, and because it continues to do that, one day soon that bill will come due. It’s not just a bill that’s going to come about because of the International Court of Justice; what we are doing by refusing to act is imperilling the futures of our children and our children’s children. It’s time to act.

Over the last few months, sitting in this House, one thing has become apparent to me. Obviously, very few members took third form economics, or, for the youngsters in the House, year 9, I believe it’s called, because that’s where I learnt about the law of supply and demand.

Much time, recently, has been given to discussing the issues of the cost of living—in particular, food prices—but very little understanding seems to occur on exactly what levers a Government can pull to make changes on this. Now, if I want to look at part of our food sector—the vegetable sector, for example—it’s an area where I am really concerned that we might see future price increases. It’s a sector where the products are not exported and it’s all for internal use, but these prices are set domestically through internal demand, but the Government—this building—has a big role to play in terms of the supply side of the equation.

Now, vegetable production in this country is increasingly becoming constrained through regional plans that are driven and pushed by the Resource Management Act and the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management. We’ve got rules around the intensification of land use that are choking the sector’s ability for growers to rotate their crops. This is an ancient practice going back to the Middle Ages that makes sense. It reduces disease burdens in crops, and it’s just common sense. It enables pastoral farmers to renew pastures—just common sense. But with the way our laws are, it is making it impossible for farmers and growers to do this.

Close to me, in the Horowhenua, around 20 to 25 percent of this country’s leafy greens come from that region. Now, none of those growers in that region can get a consent—absolutely impossible. The regional rules, effectively, stop it. This situation is also going to happen in the north Waikato, under the Proposed Waikato Regional Plan Change 1. Growers there will be needing to get consents, likely unable to be given to them. Now, what does this do? It has a simple chilling effect on a grower or a farmer who may be in the situation of asking, “What is the future? What can I do? Can I invest? Can I do anything? Do I really want my children to take this over?” That just creates a situation where people only look to exit. We have a real risk of having a reducing supply here in New Zealand, which will see increases in food prices.

Now, we are taking action to stop this. That’s why, in the new resource management system and national direction, we intend to ensure that growers are enabled and permitted to grow vegetables and that they’re not stopped from doing this, but can get on with farming and producing the nutritious and affordable food that New Zealanders want to buy. That’s the action we are taking. Now, I would challenge the members opposite: are you going to support that? Because if you aren’t, please tell New Zealand how you’re going to keep food prices down.

Finally, I would love to cover off this beat-up that is the price of butter. As has been covered, prices are set internationally, but New Zealand can influence these international prices, and how, you ask. Well, we’re only 2 to 3 percent of world milk production, but we are 20 to 30 percent of the world trade in dairy products, and that’s where the prices get set, in that part of the international market where everything gets traded back and forth. So a reduction or an increase in supply from New Zealand will likely have an impact on global prices.

When members opposite voted against agriculture being removed from the emissions trading scheme and thus avoiding the situation where we would have seen production decreases in New Zealand, they were, in fact, saying, “We’re happy for the price of butter to increase.” When they say, “We want a whole bunch of higher taxes that are going to slam farmers and everyone else.”, they are, in fact, saying, “We want higher butter prices.” When they dream up unworkable and unaffordable environmental rules, they are at that point saying, “We want higher butter prices.”

My challenge to the members opposite is this: please tell us the actions that you will take that will change supply or demand equations and create affordable food prices, because, to date, your words and actions are quite contradictory.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s great to be here today to represent Hamilton East in this general debate and to speak in the House. There’s so much good stuff happening, both within the National Party at a national level and at a micro level. I had the privilege of talking about the fantastic new Waikato medical school last week, and I intend to talk a little bit more about that because the good news is still sinking in.

But before I do, I’d just like to talk about a few other things happening in New Zealand’s fastest-growing city, Hamilton. Of course, recently we had Jetstar set up international flights between Sydney and the Gold Coast, and that’s believed to bring in $45 million to the regional economy every year. It’s 100,000 passengers, which is just fantastic.

Hon Damien O’Connor: There’ll be even more leaving.

RYAN HAMILTON: Sorry, what was that?

Hon Damien O’Connor: They’ll be flooding out of Hamilton.

RYAN HAMILTON: Oh, and they’re coming in too—they’re coming in too, Mr O’Connor, I can assure you. We’ve got two new hotels being developed, which is fantastic. Pragma and Vision Complete Earthworks are developing one called the Mistry Centre, a 12-storey tower block renovation, which is going to be awesome, and just when you thought that was good, we’ve also got the Templeton Group doing a 25-storey development right in the centre of town. Hamilton, Kirikiriroa, “the Tron”, the “City of the Future”—it’s exciting.

Then, later in the year, we’ve got our regional theatre opening up, which is going to be incredible. It’s a $100 million project and a great example of how to fund infrastructure—social infrastructure, hard infrastructure—with central government, local government, philanthropy, and business. It’s going to be fantastic, and there’ll surely be lots of invitations going around this Chamber.

Two weeks ago, we also had the All Blacks in Hamilton, with the French test match—the third in the series—which we were able to win, even though three tries were held up, unfortunately. It was fantastic. We had 24,162 Hamiltonians screaming at FMG Stadium—it was just fantastic.

I’d like to go back to the Waikato medical school, and, obviously, the announcement was last Monday. I’ve been advocating very hard. It’s been on the boil for a long time, as I’m sure members will appreciate, to get it over the line with what was somewhat of a duopoly between Auckland and Otago, but it’s fantastic that Cabinet and our coalition Government supported it. In fact, in 1952, they considered having a Waikato medical school when Dame Hilda Ross was on the scene, but they ended up deciding against it because Waikato didn’t have a university, and so that actually became the genesis of the University of Waikato. As I shared last week, it has now gone full circle and, in 2028, they’ll be opening the medical school.

I had the privilege of catching up on Monday, before I flew to Wellington, with Neil Quigley, the vice-chancellor, and Professor Jo Lane, who is the dean of health there, and of looking at the old B Block. If anyone studied at Waikato University, that’s where it’s going to go. The university was, you could say, cheeky, but you could say faith-filled: they demo-ed the building and they kept preparing in the hope that the Government would go ahead with this medical school. It was a bit risky because, of course, if they didn’t, well, that would have been a big empty section perhaps; but the building was old anyway. But good news: we’re delivering that medical school, and how fantastic it’s going to be.

Members around the House may not realise that currently we’re 220 GPs short in New Zealand, and that’s projected to go to 870 GPs by 2032—870 GPs short. That’s on top of the boosting we’re currently doing with Otago and Auckland, that’s on top of the overseas doctors we’re trying to bring into the country, and that’s on top of the 325 New Zealanders training in Australian medical schools. Australia has 25 medical schools; we’ve got two. We should be working on our fourth or fifth, but at least now we can say that we’re finally working on our third one.

Of the GPs that graduate from our current schools, only one-sixth of them actually stay as a GP. The others go on and do surgery or neuroscience or other things. Only one-sixth of them stay, and only one-fifth stay in rural areas. Most of them work in Auckland, Wellington, Christchurch, and Dunedin. This model works, and it is proven—the criteria, the assessment, the four-year training programme, where they place the students in rural areas to get them used to those environments—and the goal is 60 percent rural placement. We can’t keep doing what we’ve been doing and expect a different result. This is geared towards systemic change, and it’s going to be awesome.

Just very quickly, I’d like to shout out to Hamilton Gardens and, in particular, the Hamilton Arts Festival Toi Ora. It had some good news this week thanks to a sponsorship with Air New Zealand. I’ll give a shout-out to Geoff Turkington, who does an incredible job—a record-breaking attendance this year, 47,000 people—and also the chairman, Chris Williams, who has had some health challenges lately. But he’s recovering, he’s well, and we thank him for his service to this incredible event. Thank you, sir.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s always a pleasure to have the opportunity to take a call in the general debate. I want to use the five minutes that I have to make a challenge to the House around an issue that has been ignored by New Zealand for too long, and that is the very important issue of modern slavery.

There is an urgent need to combat modern slavery and trafficking for persons in New Zealand. Billions of dollars in New Zealand are spent on supply chains connected with modern slavery. The Global Slavery Index estimates that around 8,000 people in New Zealand each day are in situations of modern slavery, and, unknowingly, each New Zealand household is spending around $77 per week on goods associated with forced labour. Our money that we spend in New Zealand is affecting the human rights and the lives of real people, both here and overseas.

This is an issue which is not new to this Parliament, and it’s also not something, I think, that most people in this Parliament disagree on. There has been a significant amount of work done to try and make sure that New Zealand has modern slavery legislation that meets the need of our moral duty to address it not only here but also overseas, and also address some of the important commitments that we’ve made to overseas partners.

I want to acknowledge the work that was done under the previous Labour Government of the Modern Slavery Leadership Advisory Group, and I want to acknowledge the work that’s been done since the change of Government by the Modern Slavery and Trafficking Expert Practitioners Group. Now, this is a voluntary group that got together and saw that there was a high degree of political consensus around this issue in New Zealand, and had the skills and the foresight and the conviction to draft legislation on modern slavery that could be introduced to this House if this House would so will it. I commend that group for taking practical steps to ensure that this House—if we can find a way on this issue—can introduce laws on modern slavery as soon as possible, possibly even next members’ day.

The bill that they have drafted, I have put in the ballot as a member’s bill in my name, but I want to be clear that this is an issue that isn’t something that I advocate on my own as an member of Parliament or on behalf of the Labour Party. It is something that all members of this House have an obligation to address, and it’s something on which there have been many, many overtures across the House to try and find a way forward on this issue. So I say again to any member of this House who is committed to ending this terrible practice of modern slavery: let’s find a way forward to try and make sure that New Zealand has laws that prevent this terrible practice, both here and abroad.

The bill that I have put in is a comprehensive bill. It establishes a reporting register, but it also establishes things that would support victims of modern slavery when they are identified in New Zealand, like certification of the fact of their being modern slaves, and assistance. It also puts in place review provisions so that we can make sure that this legislation is the best that it possibly can be.

It won’t be news to anyone in this House that New Zealand is not a leader in this area. In fact, modern slavery legislation is in place in many other countries around the world that New Zealand would look to. In places like Australia, in places like the United Kingdom, and in places like Canada, those countries have put in place different pieces of legislation that address modern slavery, and many companies that work in New Zealand are actually subjected to laws banning modern slavery already because they trade in other countries. It’s time that New Zealand stood up to this terrible, terrible practice and also stood up to our international obligations that we have in the EU fair-trade agreement (FTA), which requires us to put in place modern slavery legislation, and the UK FTA also requires us to do this.

This issue has gone on for too long without a response from this Parliament. The legislation is here, it’s ready, and all it is waiting for is the political will of this House to make it happen. On this side of the House, we have already told the Prime Minister that we are willing to support legislation on modern slavery to get this issue solved. We ask members across the House and across the Parliament to recognise that this has gone on too long, that the time is right, and that New Zealand must stand up to this terrible practice of modern slavery. It is time.

It’s been just over a month since I had the honour of joining the Prime Minister’s first official delegation to China. While the trip itself has ended, the impact is only beginning and will continue to take shape in New Zealand through the deals that were signed, the relationships that were strengthened, and the doors that were opened for New Zealand businesses. I’ve spent the last month reflecting on what I saw, heard, and learnt, and also when I’ve been speaking about it with business leaders, exporters, and many of my colleagues in this House because this trip was about one thing: growing the New Zealand economy.

The Prime Minister’s delegation to China helped unlock a total of $1.29 billion in economic value for our country. That includes $814 million in new business-to-business trade across food and fibre, health and wellness, manufacturing, tourism, education, and the list goes on. It also includes $400 million in improved market access, opening and expanding export channels for Kiwi goods and services that are in demand.

But beyond these headlines, what it means is real growth for New Zealanders and all businesses in our country. It means our kiwifruit, our apples, our beef and lamb, our dairy, and our skin care and wellbeing products are reaching more consumers in one of the world’s most competitive and exciting markets. It also means that our exporters—companies like Zespri, Alliance, Silver Fern Farms, Rockit Global, MitoQ, The Beauty Lab Collective, Fonterra, Moana Seafood, Villa Maria Wines, Fiordland Lobster Co., and the list goes on—are seeing more value and volume to what they produce. That leads to stronger returns, more jobs, and higher incomes back here at home.

It also means that tourism and education service providers like UP Education, the University of Victoria and the seven universities in New Zealand, Auckland and Christchurch airports, and Air New Zealand are strengthening their competitiveness to provide world-class education and tourism activities, attracting some of the best talents to New Zealand, and they continue to provide that strong pathway to even more economic growth for consumers and all New Zealand products. So thank you to the Prime Minister and thank you to the Minister of Tourism, Louise Upston, and Minister Mark Mitchell for all your leadership and hard work.

This Government has set a very clear goal to double the export value of New Zealand exports by 2034. Now, that is very ambitious, and this trip to China showed that we are on the right path. We cannot grow our economy or raise living standards by simply trading among ourselves. We are a small and very smart country that wins when we connect with the world. When our businesses grow, New Zealand grows, when our exports grow, wages grow, and what I witnessed in Shanghai and Beijing with the Prime Minister was a group of world-class Kiwi exporters who are respected, agile, extremely smart, and deeply committed to quality. They also understand their consumers, they understand the markets, and they understand what it takes for New Zealand businesses to win globally.

Now, these are the companies that are expanding their footprint in China’s market and in other markets by investing into relationships, innovating in how we produce smartly and more productively, and building that trust in the overall “New Zealand Inc.” brand. These successes will benefit regions and cities, from farmers to urban and to rural areas, to factories, to logistics hubs, to retailers, to workers all across this country—that is, all New Zealanders across our country.

I saw enormous opportunity for growth in these sectors like wellness, nutrition, creative industries, and tourism. We’ve launched campaigns together and partnerships that will bring more Chinese visitors to New Zealand—visitors who spend, explore and support our local businesses in New Zealand. This is how we grow, and this trip reaffirmed something that I deeply believe in, which is that New Zealand has what the world wants—safe, trusted, premium products—and we, the National Government, are all about delivering on that promise and helping our country to grow. I’m very proud and privileged to have been part of that trip, and I am strongly supporting the Government to show New Zealand what growth is like. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s a pleasure to have the opportunity to take a call in this general debate and to use it as an opportunity to shine a light on our science, innovation, and technology sector, or—as they are known to our current Government—the “cut, cut, cut sector”, because that is all that we are seeing for people who work in our science, innovation, and tech sector, and in those communities.

There is no vision and there is no leadership from this Government in this space. Our Crown research institutes have been restructured into public research organisations and, in the process, gutted of public good science. This has driven some of our best and brightest talent offshore, and is creating confusion and fear within those research institutions.

At a very simple level, there are so many challenges with the current merger between our CRIs—our Crown research institutions—and there’s huge insecurity in their very, very precious and vital workforce, with looming restructures expected in a further 12 to 18 months. This means that our overseas institutions and corporate sector locally are actively recruiting the talent out of this sector, and there are inconsistent policies between CRIs in the merger that are now making things difficult.

This Government came in, wiped out social sciences, and took away the time for our brightest innovators to spend time at the bench doing the science and having blue skies research. The best thing that you can hear in a lab is someone saying, “That shouldn’t happen.”, and at the moment, the opportunity for people to have those unexpected discoveries is being taken away by this Government.

It was summed up best by a person I spoke to in the science community who said to me that they cannot look graduates in the eye and tell them that it is worth pursuing a job locally or studying locally. Their best advice to graduates is to get overseas now while there are still jobs there, and that is a shameful state of affairs for our science, innovation, and technology community.

Another area in which there is work taking place is in a gene tech bill, arguably the most significant piece of scientific legislation that we may see in our lifetime. But this is loose and dangerous from this Government, and if you don’t believe me, read the submissions. There is a huge number of them, especially given the narrow window of time available to submitters, but so many are left behind. There’s a lack of Māori representation, a lack of economic analysis, and poor regulation. It’s a worry to see a bill being brought forward that is so out of step with where the rest of the world is at.

The other thing that I wanted to touch on that has caused deep concern in our science, innovation, and technology community is the Government’s AI strategy—if you can call it that, because this is not a blueprint; it is a retrospective spec sheet. It has spelling mistakes; it has hallucinations. It’s not preparing New Zealanders for the future at all—

Sam Uffindell: What would you do?

REUBEN DAVIDSON: If you don’t believe me—as some members on the other side of the House seem to be calling out—then listen to the voice of the very sector affected by it. Our academic community describe it as being all hype and no vision, or—

Sam Uffindell: But the industry liked it.

REUBEN DAVIDSON: —the “AI strategy [that] sets a dangerous path forward for New Zealand, with an attitude of economic growth above social good.”, and if that bellowing member is happy with that, he should have a good think about it.

The tech sector says no targets—and we know it is about the “frickin targets” —no action plan, no national AI vision, no Māori data sovereignty, no targeted investment, and no definition of success, with the buck being passed to business to drive. That is the assessment of the AI strategy that this Government is calling a strategy, and it is nothing more than a poor piece of ChatGPT.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.