TUESDAY, 16 JULY 2019 The Speaker took the Chair at 11.15 a.m. KARAKIA TE MANA TIAKIWAI (Youth MP for Hon Peeni Henare): Me īnoi tātou. He hōnore, he kōroria, he maungārongo ki te whenua, he whakaaro pai ki ngā tāngata katoa. Hāngai Te Atua hei ngākau hou ki roto ki tēnā, ki tēnā o mātou. Whakatōngia tō Wairua Tapu hei āwhina, hei tohutohu i ō mātou hei ako hoki i ngā kupu i roto i tēnei wānanga. Āmine. [We now pray. Honour, glory and peace on the land, may goodwill come to all people. May God find a place in each of our hearts. May the Holy Spirit work through us and be a guiding light during this session. Amen.] ORAL QUESTIONS QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS SPEAKER: Members, I will remind you that the rules for questions to Ministers are set out in the Youth Parliament Standing Orders 21 to 25. Question No. 1—Child Poverty Reduction 1. JACK BUCHAN (Youth MP for Hon Dr David Clark) to the Minister for Child Poverty Reduction: Will the Child Poverty Reduction Act 2018 reduce the 2.5 percent increase over the last decade of children living in households defined as living in poverty; if so, how? Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN (Minister for Child Poverty Reduction): I thank the member for the question. The member is correct that, over the past decade, we have seen an increase in the before-housing-cost measure of child poverty—those families who are living on 50 percent or less of median income before housing costs. The child poverty legislation that this House passed at the end of last year, of course, doesn’t in itself deliver child poverty reductions but does require the Government to set targets to do so, and they’ve been transparent about the progress that’s been made. The member asks what has been done to reach the targets, and I can advise the member that, yes, we are on track to get reductions actually well above what the member has outlined, and those initiatives include things like increases to the family tax credit, the winter energy payment, the Best Start payment, all of which has culminated in the 2019 Budget of projected reductions in child poverty of between 50,000 and 74,000 children. So not only are we on track to meet the reductions you’re talking about but we are on track to halve child poverty within the next decade. JORDAN LAPISH (Youth MP for Hon Paula Bennett): If child poverty reduction targets are not met, what further action will the Government take to address child poverty? Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Again, I thank the member for the question. I think one of the things that’s so important about the child poverty laws that we pass in this House is that, regardless of any future Government’s action or inaction, there will be transparent and available information for the public and for this House to be able to see the progress that’s been made. Because of that, in the last Budget, there was a document that demonstrated that we are actually on track. So I don’t anticipate being in the position that the member describes. We set a goal to reduce child poverty in both three-yearly and 10-yearly targets and, as I said in my last answer, we’re on track to meet those, but the process of looking at those projections, reporting on our targets, and holding ourselves to account means that when we come to Budget time, we are now setting out an agenda that shows clearly to the public whether or not we are meeting our own expectations. I am very pleased to tell the House that we are. Question No. 2—Climate Change 2. FALE’AKA BLOOMFIELD (Youth MP for Rt Hon Jacinda Ardern) to the Minister for Climate Change: Does the Minister plan to include tikanga Māori and indigenous practices in the Climate Change Response (Zero Carbon) Amendment Bill; if so, how? 1

Hon JAMES SHAW (Minister for Climate Change): In response to the first part of the question, yes, we do. In response to the second part of the question, the bill includes specific requirements designed to ensure that Māori rights and interests are considered as policy is developed and decisions are made under the bill. Iwi and Māori representative organisations will be asked to nominate members of the Climate Change Commission. When recommending the appointment of commissioners, the Minister must consider the need for skills, experience, expertise, and innovative approaches to Te Tiriti o Waitangi, Te Ao Māori, including tikanga Māori, mātauranga Māori, and Māori economic activity. The emissions reduction plan will include a strategy to recognise and mitigate the effects and impacts on iwi and Māori, and that requires consultation. The effects of climate change on iwi and Māori must be considered when preparing the national adaptation plan, and I have also asked the Environment Committee to consider whether the bill adequately addresses the Crown’s duties under Te Tiriti and to consult and engage with iwi Māori on that. COCO KING (Youth MP for Jenny Marcroft): What recent reports, if any, has the Minister seen regarding applications of tikanga Māori and indigenous practices when it comes to climate change? Hon JAMES SHAW: There have actually been a number of iwi organisations that have started doing their own work on climate change mitigation and adaptation using mātauranga Māori techniques, and I have visited some of those, particularly in Rotorua, and taken a look at some of what they have done. Those iwi organisations have actually supplied that information to the Government, to the Ministry for the Environment, as part of our consideration for how we shape the bill. I would say that it has had a material impact on the design of the legislation as it stands. Question No. 3—Climate Change 3. ANNA MANNING (Youth MP for Hon Anne Tolley) to the Minister for Climate Change: What plans, if any, does the Government have to help towns and cities prepare, cope, and co-exist with rising sea levels and increased risk of natural disasters for our coastal communities? Hon JAMES SHAW (Minister for Climate Change): I thank the member for her question. The Government is committed to taking strong action to increase our resilience to the effects of climate change and has a busy work programme under way. The Climate Change Response (Zero Carbon) Amendment Bill, also known as the zero carbon bill, requires a national climate change risk assessment every six years. This will enable us to identify and assess climate risks and respond to them through a national adaptation plan. We’ve also provided guidance for local councils on coastal hazards, sea-level rise, and adapting to climate change. A central and local government work programme has been commissioned to consider questions of funding and financing natural hazard risk management and climate change adaptation, and that’ll help to ensure that the costs of adaptation are shared fairly between central and local government, banks and insurers, communities, and the private sector. IRIS TARAMAI (Youth MP for Hon Megan Woods): On a global level, what, if any, plans does the Government have in place to prevent climate change from having a greater impact on our corner of the world? Hon JAMES SHAW: When we refer to our corner of the world, usually we interpret that as being the Pacific, and what we know is that sea-level rise is actually occurring disproportionately, particularly in the western Pacific. That’s because heat is trapped in the oceans of the western Pacific, which, of course, expands what is already a rising sea level. The member may have seen photographs of people in places like Tuvalu, the Marshall Islands, and so on, standing up to their knees and waist levels in oceans that have risen on land that they used to work and live and play on. We stand with our Pacific Island partner countries as part of the Pacific ourselves, and we are working extremely hard, through the mechanism of the United Nations’ climate change system, to try and make sure that every country in the world that has signed up to the Paris Agreement—and those that haven’t—are doing what they say that they are committed to under the terms of that agreement. 2

Question No. 4—Education 4. KATIE DONALD (Youth MP for Hon Louise Upston) to the Minister of Education: What steps is the Government taking, if any, to ensure young people have adequate opportunities for hands-on learning and education outside the classroom that is not restricted by health and safety regulations? Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): I thank the member for her question. I think it’s important to note, though, that it’s not an either/or situation, and that, in fact, we still want young people who are participating in education outside the classroom to be doing so in a way that protects their health, safety, and wellbeing. We have had examples in New Zealand’s history where people have gone on school trips, for example, and either not come home or not come home in one piece, and we don’t want that to be the case, so it’s important that health and safety is respected in all learning that takes place outside the classroom. That’s one of the reasons why the Ministry of Education has put together some really good guidelines that schools can follow when they’re organising fieldtrips, camps, and other experiences outside the classroom, because they are a really important part of the learning process. There are many aspects of the curriculum that can be taught really well outside the classroom, and we do want to encourage schools to do that. TE RINA KOTARA (Youth MP for Joanne Hayes): To the Minister of Education: how will these opportunities be made available to people in low socio-economic areas? Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I think one of the things that we know about schools in low socio- economic areas is that finance can often be a barrier to people participating in education outside the classroom. That’s one of the reasons why in this year’s Budget the Government put more money in—an extra $150 per student—for the schools that don’t ask for parental donations, because, actually, many schools were asking for parental donations to cover the cost of things like fieldtrips. Actually, this will mean they won’t have to ask for that, and therefore that financial barrier will be removed, and therefore education outside the classroom, I think, will be more broadly available to all young people, regardless of the decile of the school they attend. Question No. 5—Education 5. ANMOL GHUMAN (Youth MP for Hon Judith Collins) to the Minister of Education: Does he believe it should be necessary for senior secondary school students to undertake civics education, including voting education; if so, why? Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): Yes, I do. I think that it’s important that all young people learn about the democratic institutions that we have in New Zealand. The New Zealand Curriculum does provide for that, but the curriculum documents that we have are very enabling in that they allow schools to decide exactly what gets taught, based on the local context in their community. So if an opportunity arises to study a local council election, for example, that might be more relevant to people than some other potential parts of civic education. So I think it’s important that schools do it. I think it’s important that The New Zealand Curriculum recognises that, which I think it does, but I think we do have a gap in that not all schools are doing it well. So we need to provide, through central government, more resources to schools so that they can do it better, and that’s what we’re focused on doing. AKSHEEN DHILLON (Youth MP for Simon O’Connor): To the Minister of Education: what measures does he believe can be taken to ensure the teaching of civics remains objective, without the political views of teachers interfering with the education, in order for young people to form their own political views? Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I think that’s really important, and, actually, it’s one of the things about civics education in other parts of the world where civics education can become a form of, kind of, indoctrination into a way of thinking about democracy. The New Zealand Curriculum has a very strong emphasis on critical thinking. In fact, some of the best civic education you can have is the ability to question everything. So if you are taught that whatever received wisdom you get, you should always be free to question that, actually, that’s a form of civic education. One of the most important things we can do for all young New Zealanders is equip them with the ability to look at 3 things from a variety of different perspectives and form their own judgments about what they think is right or wrong or true, or what has merit or otherwise. Question No. 6—Education 6. WILLIAM WOOD (Youth MP for Ian McKelvie) to the Minister of Education: Does he recognise that we have young mothers, fathers, and workers who have left high school without any basic life-skills education; if so, why does the Ministry of Education not allow schools such as Palmerston North Boys’ High School to build life-skills education facilities? Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): Yes, I do recognise that fact. That’s one of the risks of focusing on a narrow version of success in education. So if you just look at literacy and numeracy or NCEA pass rates, for example, we would often overlook many of the other really important things that happen in our school system that we also need to recognise and celebrate. The New Zealand Curriculum is a very broad curriculum. It does provide for life skills to be taught in schools, and I think we need to place much more emphasis on that. The Government’s putting extra funding—or has put funding, into a thing we’re calling the School Leavers’ Toolkit, which is focused on the non-academic things that people need to be able to do when they leave school, including things like financial literacy, which we know is important, and civic education, which we’ve also just talked about. There’s nothing to stop schools putting a dedicated focus on life-skills education. In terms of building new facilities, what we fund is schools for the number of students that they have. How they use their facilities, though, is entirely up to them, so there’s nothing to stop schools dedicating a space within their school for life-skills education, for example. ELLIE TIZZARD (Youth MP for Matt Doocey): Will he alter the curriculum to make basic life-skills education an integral part of Year 12 and Year 13 education? Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Similarly with civics education, I don’t think that we need to alter the curriculum to make that happen. I think the curriculum that we have now does really encapsulate what we want people to be learning around life-skills education. I think the real issue, though, is that it’s taught unevenly, and some schools do it well and other schools are not doing it anywhere near enough. I think the answer to that is to provide better resources for schools, and that’s where the funding that we’re putting into the School Leavers’ Toolkit, I think, will meet that need, and it will make sure that all schools are doing it to a much higher standard than they are now. Question No. 7—Education 7. XAVIER TURNER (Youth MP for Barbara Kuriger) to the Minister of Education: Why is Māori History not a compulsory part of the school curriculum? CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): The New Zealand Curriculum does have Māori history as part of it. It has the history around the Treaty of Waitangi and the signing of the Treaty as part of it. The more prescriptive aspects of that, though, tend to be in the higher levels of the curriculum, where it becomes more optional. So it’s at level six of the curriculum, which generally is around year 11. So that’s where you start to make subject choices of your own, and so some people are not getting that information. So I think one of the really live debates we’ve got at the moment is around whether some of the stuff that’s currently sitting at the higher level of the curriculum should be brought a bit further down the curriculum, so that people are learning about New Zealand history from a younger age. The New Zealand Curriculum, as I’ve said in answer to other questions, is quite enabling in that it allows schools to teach in a local context. So if we take Māori history, for example, I think it’s important that schools are partnering with local iwi to ensure the aspects of Māori history that are important to their local community are what the school is actually focused on teaching. Again, I think there’s variability. I think some schools are doing it well, and I think some schools aren’t doing enough of it. So it’s not really a question about compulsion, because it’s already there in the curriculum, it’s just that some schools aren’t putting enough emphasis on it. So we’re looking at how we can make sure we get more emphasis on that, and more of those partnerships between schools and their local Māori communities, to really highlight which parts of Māori history they want to have taught locally. 4

POUNAMU WHAREHINGA (Youth MP for Marama Davidson): E Te Matua Kaikōrero. He pātai tāpiri atu. Te Minita o Mātauranga. He aha ngā rautaki, he aha rānei tō mahere rānei mō te mātauranga o Te Arawa ki te whakaako i ngā tauira-ā-kura e pā ana ki te tangata whenua, e pā ana hoki ki ngā kawenga me ngā māngai tauiwi ki te whakamana i Te Tiriti o Waitangi? Ki te whakaae, tēnā whakamārama mai pēhea. [Mr Speaker, a supplementary question to the Minister of Education. What are the strategies, or what is your plan, for education in Te Arawa to teach students about the responsibilities of indigenous and non-indigenous people of upholding the Treaty of Waitangi? If there is agreement, please explain how.] SPEAKER: Can I ask the member just to ask the first part of her question again. We just had a slight getting— POUNAMU WHAREHINGA (Youth MP for Marama Davidson): Āe. Ka pai. Ki te Minita o te Mātauranga. He aha ngā rautaki, he aha rānei tō mahere rānei mō te mātauranga o Aotearoa ki te whakaako i ngā tauira-ā-kura e pā ana ki te tangata whenua, e pā ana hoki ki ngā kawenga me ngā māngai tauiwi ki te whakamana i Te Tiriti o Waitangi? Ki te whakaae, tēnā whakamārama mai pēhea. [Yes. Good. Mr Speaker, to the Minister of Education. What are the strategies, or what is your plan, for education in New Zealand to teach students about the responsibilities of indigenous and non-indigenous people of upholding the Treaty of Waitangi? If there is agreement, please explain how.] Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I actually have The New Zealand Curriculum document with me, which sets out in more detail what young people in New Zealand schools are expected to learn at each level. There is an emphasis on Te Tiriti all the way through the curriculum, so it’s actually one of the guiding things that inform the curriculum’s implementation at all levels of the system. We expect all young New Zealanders to learn about Te Tiriti, and some of the history around it as well. I think, again, though, it’s one of those things where some schools do it well; and some schools aren’t doing it as well as they might do. One of the challenges that we have is that if you ask some of the schools that aren’t doing it well, they would say that they think they are doing it well. So we’ve got a challenge there to make sure we’re providing better resources and better support so that all New Zealanders learn with an understanding of the Treaty and the history of the Treaty and, actually, how it applies to modern-day New Zealand, which are all things that are encapsulated in the curriculum but probably aren’t given the emphasis that they should be given. Question No. 8—Finance 8. CHARISE PEREZ (Youth MP for Hon Grant Robertson) to the Minister of Finance: How is the Government planning on balancing economic growth while being accountable for individuals’ wellbeing? JAMES SHAW (Associate Minister of Finance) on behalf of the Minister of Finance: I thank the member for her question. Economic growth and wellbeing are not mutually exclusive; they are interdependent. Economic growth can enable wellbeing both directly—by lifting incomes that affect material wellbeing—as well as indirectly, in the sense that a high-performing economy enables us to invest in areas of wellbeing such as improving mental health services and reversing environmental damage and biodiversity loss. However, economic growth does not automatically lead to greater wellbeing. For example, it can have negative effects on the environment and it can increase inequalities, and we have seen that in New Zealand over the course of the last 10 years. Therefore, this Government is committed to a programme of sharing the proceeds of economic growth in order to ensure wellbeing. We’ve spent over a billion dollars investment in mental health in this year’s Budget. In 2017, we announced the Families Package and increased tax credits and the accommodation supplement and introduced the winter energy payment. We increased the minimum wage. We introduced a set of child poverty reduction targets. We’re strengthening the Māori and Pacific contribution to the economy by including the Crown-Māori Economic Growth Partnership and national Māori Economic Development Strategy. We’ve increased incomes and eased pressure 5 off parents by increasing parental leave, improving early childhood education, and addressing the gender pay gap. We’re investing $56 million in the Whenua Māori Fund over the course of the next four years, helping Māori to develop plans and— SPEAKER: Order! Order! I’m going to remind the Minister that his replies are meant to be concise. Hon JAMES SHAW: Very good, Mr Speaker. CLAIRE RANDALL (Youth MP for Dan Bidois): How can the Government support the wellbeing of young people and youth as they enter the workforce and start to benefit the economy? Hon JAMES SHAW: On behalf of the Minister, if you look at the packages that we had in Budget 2019, we were framing that entire Budget through the lens of wellbeing. When we set up the Budget process, we went to the Government’s science advisers—we have one science adviser per agency—and we said, “What are the things that you think that best evidence shows would create the longest and most effective intergenerational wellbeing for New Zealand?” So, actually, that was the basis of decision making for this year’s Budget, and we had a number of priorities that came out as a result of that. I mentioned the billion-dollar investment in mental health, particularly youth mental health, to ensure that people have the resilience to be able to deal with the challenges that are coming up in front of us. We’re investing significantly in both the infrastructure and the running of education, at every level of education—in particular, helping people into tertiary education, which, of course, will ensure greater productivity and incomes in the future. So if you look at Budget 2019—the Wellbeing Budget—we’re very proud of it. I mean, it is a fundamental shift and it deals precisely with what it is that the member is asking about. Question No. 9—Finance 9. HAYLEY XIE (Youth MP for Simeon Brown) to the Minister of Finance: Does the Minister believe that the Government can stay within its new debt target of reducing debt to 20 percent of GDP by 2021 to 2022; if so, how does he plan on achieving this? JAMES SHAW (Associate Minister of Finance) on behalf of the Minister of Finance: In answer to the first part of the question, yes, we do. In answer to the second part of the question, we’ll achieve this by carefully balancing revenue and expenditure, debt and investment, in the hands of an extremely wise, intelligent, and hard-working Minister of Finance. VALENTYN SANTHARA (Youth MP for David Seymour): Does the Minister believe that the current Government surplus and aim to reduce debt to 20 percent of GDP will help reduce debt in the long-run? Hon JAMES SHAW: On behalf of the Minister, the Government has a fiscal strategy of getting core Crown debt down to 20 percent of GDP within five years of taking office, which is the 2021 to 2022 financial year. Beyond that, what we have said is that, actually, we want to observe a bracket of between 15 percent and 25 percent of debt to GDP. What that allows us to do is to both maintain a prudently low level of debt—so, for example, if we had another great financial crisis or another significant earthquake, then we would be able to leverage up our debt fairly quickly to a higher level than that in order to be able to pay for the costs that come with those sort of crises—but also, given that we currently have the lowest borrowing costs to Government in all of recorded history and we have a 30-year infrastructure deficit that’s built up and a bow wave of investment that is required, we are giving ourselves the capacity beyond the 2021 to 2022 fiscal year to actually responsibly invest in those things that have been lacking in New Zealand that have really held us back over the course of the last 30 years or so. Question No. 10—Health 10. SHIQUILLE DUVAL (Youth MP for Willow-Jean Prime) to the Minister of Health: What investment has he identified, if any, to build more mātauranga-based solutions to address the high use of meth in Te Hiku/Northland? Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Associate Minister of Health) on behalf of the Minister of Health: Tēnā koe. I personally want to acknowledge that this Government sees drug use as 6 something that is best treated as a health issue, and that’s why we are in the process of ensuring that we have an adequate health-based approach, like mātauranga-based solutions, which we know are going to be more effective at helping the people who have the most difficulties. In Northland, the DHB contracts Ngāti Hine Health Trust, a kaupapa Māori NGO, to deliver 12 residential kaupapa Māori alcohol and drug beds, and they have six clinical full-time staff, three of whom are focused on child and youth. We allocated more funding to Te Ara Oranga, the Northland DHB methamphetamine reduction pilot, which has been very successful and includes pou whānau connector roles across Northland. Pou whānau work with whānau and provide assertive outreach programmes to engage people in their communities who are experiencing harm from meth. ARIE TINIWHETU DARGAVILLE REHUA (Youth MP for Hon Nanaia Mahuta): What monitoring is he and his officials undertaking, if any, to prevent any ramifications surrounding the concerns of the running of the Waikato District Health Board? SPEAKER: It’s a slightly marginal question, given the start, but I’m going to ask the Minister, on behalf of the Minister in charge of that area, to stretch herself. Maybe if the question can be repeated—and that gives the Minister the advantage of being able to change focus somewhat. ARIE TINIWHETU DARGAVILLE REHUA: What monitoring is he and his officials undertaking, if any, to prevent any ramifications surrounding the concerns of the running of the Waikato District Health Board? SPEAKER: As far as they relate to the primary question, especially meth. I think we’ll say “meth in the Waikato”—all right? Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Thank you very much for that question. We do know that there have been some concerns of the running of the Waikato District Health Board, and that’s why the Government recently appointed a commissioner to help sort out some of the difficulties that have been experienced. When it comes to reducing the harm from meth—again, whether it’s in Northland or in other parts of the country—the key focus is that we take a health- based approach and that we ensure that the people who are in the best position to reach out to and support those people who are struggling with meth addiction have the resources that they need to overcome that and be rehabilitated. Question No. 11—Health 11. WILLIAM FORD (Youth MP for Andrew Bayly) to the Minister of Health: What plans, if any, does the Government have to combat and lower the high male suicide rate in this country? Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN (Prime Minister) on behalf of the Minister of Health: Look, I think every member in this House acknowledges that we have staggering suicide rates in New Zealand, and not only are we over-represented relative to other OECD nations in our youth suicide data; the member is right to point out that, actually, there is a high rate amongst our men. The Youth 2000 surveys and successive surveys over the year amongst young people also demonstrate that it’s our young men who are least likely to seek help if they’re experiencing a distress or suicidal thought. Now, the answer from our perspective is making sure that mental health support is available at all points. That means rolling out, for instance, youth health teams in our schools—and in the last Budget we began with decile 5—to make sure that young people are able to access services where they are, when they need it. We also, in the last Budget, put over $1 billion into primary health services. Now, that means, say, for instance, a young man, who may go to their GP’s clinic not with a view to talk about mental health but perhaps for a medical condition—if they then demonstrate that there are issues that they’re experiencing, their GP can take them within that medical centre to primary mental health support. So having that service available, even if it’s not being sought at the time, and having accessible services across the country, we think, is key to making sure that people, when they need help, will be able to access help. BRADLEY WHITE (Youth MP for Stuart Smith): What plans, if any, does the Government have to combat and lower the high male suicide rate in rural communities? 7

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I thank the member. This is an issue, actually, I have discussed with the rural help trust and with Rural Women. We do have a specific issue with those in our isolated rural communities who do experience often the distress of financial strain and extreme weather events that can impact on them economically. That’s again why the mental health package we’ve rolled out we’ve tried to ensure will work in urban communities and rural. For instance, $21 million has been put aside for telehealth services. So if someone chooses to call 1737 or wishes to seek an appointment that they’re able to conduct online, that will be available to them so that rural isolation isn’t a reason why someone isn’t able to access service. But I think we also have to create an environment where people feel willing to ask for help. We do need a culture shift. When I travel overseas, I often reflect on that fact that in New Zealand we are more open to talking about mental health issues, and I only encourage that ongoing ambassadorial role that so many in our rural communities are starting to play by talking openly about these issues. Now our job as Government is that when they do, the help and support is there for them. Question No. 12—Health 12. CHANTAL GALLAGHER (Youth MP for Dr Deborah Russell) to the Minister of Health: Will he increase funding to deal with the increased suicide rates in the 15- to 24-year-old age bracket? Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Associate Minister of Health) on behalf of the Minister of Health: Tēnā koe. Thank you very much for that question. We know that youth suicide is such an important and devastating issue. It is one that the Government absolutely will take action on. The recent Wellbeing Budget included $40 million over four years for suicide prevention. This supports programmes that might affect everyone in New Zealand, not specifically youth, but most of which will have an impact in addressing youth suicide rates. The ministry is currently drafting a new suicide prevention strategy and action plan which is cognisant of the rates of suicide amongst young people, and this group has been identified as a key group that needs to be targeted and supported in this work. JEROME MIKA (Youth MP for Hon Willie Jackson): Will he prioritise targeted funding for suicide prevention for Māori and Pasifika peoples? Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: On behalf of the Minister, building youth resilience and supporting particular groups—Māori, Pasifika, rainbow. There are a whole number of groups that are particularly vulnerable to this, so it is important that we have targeted programmes and that the programmes that we have are co-designed. I can talk about one programme that’s already rolling out, and that is Piki. It’s a new pilot initiative that will help an estimated 10,000 young people with mild to moderate mental health symptoms across Wellington, Hutt Valley, and Wairarapa regions. Although this is just an initial pilot, it will be able to provide us with the experience and evidence that we can use to roll it out more widely, and this programme was co-designed with the most at- risk youth, including Māori, Pasifika, and the rainbow community. Question No. 13—Health 13. LILY LEWIS (Youth MP for Alastair Scott) to the Minister of Health: What support, if any, is the Government offering to mental health campaigner Mike King’s calls for free counselling to Kiwis under the age of 21? Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Associate Minister of Health): Tēnā koe. On behalf of the Minister, I thank the member for the question. As I answered in the previous question, we are already focusing, through the pilot Piki, on young people aged 18 to 24 in the Wellington region. But the member raises a good point, and Mike King certainly has been an effective campaigner. The Government has a commitment to ensuring that counselling is available through two mechanisms. The first one is wellbeing in schools. This includes the quality school-based health services that positively impact student health and wellbeing, and there will be a focus on areas including depression, suicide risk, sexual health, alcohol abuse, school engagement, teenage pregnancy, and 8 accident and emergency presentations. So that’s expanded to include decile 4 secondary and high schools. Then, in the Green Party’s confidence and supply agreement with the coalition Government, we also have a commitment to delivering free counselling to all young people under the age of 25, and the Piki pilot, which I described in the answer to the previous question, is the first step in ensuring that we have those services available. TERESA RODGER (Youth MP for Hon Poto Williams): What support, if any, is given to our minority groups in Aotearoa to help deal with mental health in a way that is culturally sensitive and relevant? Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: On behalf of the Minister, again, we have to be mindful in the design of all of these public programmes that we are rolling out, whether it’s through the Piki pilot, the school-based health services, or other aspects—the $40 million that has been allocated to suicide prevention—that we approach different programmes with a co-design approach, so that we know that the people who are the most vulnerable and most likely to be affected are able to feed into the design of those services so we know that it works for them. SPEAKER: Members, before I call the next question, I just want to say that we’re getting through these at a rate slightly faster than anticipated. Rather than invite Ministers to give longer answers, which I think is not productive, what I’m going to do is say to the people who are asking the question or asking the supplementary question that if they, in fact, want to ask an extra supplementary—just those two people—I will let them do that. Question No. 14—Immigration 14. FREYA YOUNG (Youth MP for Paulo Garcia) to the Minister of Immigration: What measures, if any, are in place to ensure that the values of all immigrants are compatible with those of New Zealand, including gender equality and freedom of speech? Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Minister of Immigration): Thank you, Mr Speaker. As part of our commitment to pluralism and respect for freedoms of religion, ideas, and expression, the Government does not prescribe what people should believe. Instead, we require people to comply with our laws. These include the protections against discrimination in the Human Rights Act. We expect this of everyone in New Zealand, from new migrants to tangata whenua. CHRISTIAN DENNISON (Youth MP for Hon Chris Hipkins): He aha ngā kaupapa mēnā he kape anō i tua atu ināianei mō te Minitanga o te Manenetanga hei whakaako i ngā tikanga me ngā uaratanga o te ao Māori ki ngā manene hou? [What is the situation if there is a further cap on the future for the Ministry of Immigration to teach Māori customs and values to new immigrants?] Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: Many new migrants avail themselves of opportunities to learn about New Zealand customs, New Zealand history, and tikanga Māori. In particular, our refugee population are afforded the opportunity to learn English and to engage with tikanga Māori to get a better understanding of their new country and their new community. CHRISTIAN DENNISON(Youth MP for Hon Chris Hipkins): Are there any plans to make this a compulsory plan to teach migrants? Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: Not at this stage. Question No. 15—Justice 15. MACKENZIE FALLOW (Youth MP for Dr Liz Craig) to the Minister of Justice: Is he willing to consult New Zealanders on the merits of forming a formal, written constitution for Aotearoa New Zealand; if so, what are his plans to do so? Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Justice): I thank the youth member for that question. The Government presently has no plans to engage in any consultation over a written constitution. To put that in context, the last time there was a wide-scale consultation over a written constitution and any constitutional issues was with the Constitutional Advisory Panel that reported in 2013. The consequence of that exercise was that none of the recommendations from that panel’s work were taken up by the Government. This Government has chosen to take up one recommendation, which 9 was about strengthening the status of the various citizens and human rights in our New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. The issue about a written constitution entails very profound questions, not the least of which is the status of Te Tiriti o Waitangi and how to preserve the mana of that document as we consider our constitutional framework. NIKITA RAMAN (Youth MP for Hon David Bennett): Does the Minister believe there are merits in forming a formal, written constitution for Aotearoa New Zealand; and if not, why not? Hon ANDREW LITTLE: The Government view is that there is no appetite at this point to consider the issues around a written constitution. It would be a significant exercise requiring not just consultation but, ultimately, a process by which a decision could be made to adopt a written constitution. But if the youth member were to ask me personally, I would say I think it is time to have a more transparent way for all citizens to understand their relationship with the State, the State’s relationship with citizens, and the powers that the State has over citizens and other organisations. Question No. 16—Justice 16. NOELENE TEWHAKAARA (Youth MP for Jan Tinetti) to the Minister of Justice: What initiatives, if any, have been introduced or planned to ensure Māori rangatahi offenders are supported to lead crime-free lives as adults? Hon ANDREW LITTLE: The Government has continued the roll-out of the Rangatahi Courts, which was an initiative started under the previous Government. Those courts are, effectively, the Youth Court, but they are conducted on marae and in places suitable for rangatahi, and they engage kura and kaumātua in the work of the particular judge that is conducting the court. In addition to that, in the most recent Budget, the Government continued the funding for a programme called Oho Ake, which has been a pilot programme run by Tūhoe, which is about early intervention for rangatahi offenders from their iwi and intervening early enough and effectively enough to move those young people off an offending track. More broadly, the Government has continued and will shortly conclude the pilot for the alcohol and other drug treatment court. While not specifically directed at rangatahi, certainly some of the most effective results in that pilot court—which is about putting effective treatments around those whose offending relates to alcohol and other drug addictions—come from the younger people who go through that court. Finally, the Government recently supported the hosting of the hui Māori on criminal justice reform. The group who put that hui together, Te Ohu Whakatika, is shortly to report to me. That report will be made public, and I’m expecting some recommendations about more effective ways that the criminal justice system can work to assist rangatahi offenders in getting off that offending track. CHYNA WEST-JOHN (Youth MP for Chris Bishop): Does the Minister plan for the expansion and further development of iwi community panels in the Rangatahi Court; and if not, what are his plans to ensure the justice system works appropriately with rangatahi Māori? Hon ANDREW LITTLE: As I said in answer to the previous question, the Government has continued to support the further roll-out of Rangatahi Courts. The iwi justice panel are actually an initiative of the police, and we have continued to support that. We now have a significant number around the motu, and we will continue to support that because of the effectiveness that that is achieving. In terms of other initiatives to work more closely with Māori for the benefit of both rangatahi and Māori offenders generally, we know that one of the most significant challenges in our criminal justice system is the gross overrepresentation of Māori in that system. That is why we’ve engaged in the most comprehensive community engagement over the future of our criminal justice system. That’s why we had a dedicated hui Māori: to engage with Māori iwi and with other Māori organisations on what we can do that is more effective to deal with Māori offenders in the system, to reduce offending amongst Māori and across all offenders, to reduce the number of victimisations, to reduce the number of victims, and to have safer and better communities.

10

Question No. 17—Rural Communities 17. MAIA RAHURAHU (Youth MP for Hon Todd McClay) to the Minister for Rural Communities: What plans, if any, does the Government have to enhance the living for Rural Communities will take his seat. Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Minister for Rural Communities): Sorry, sorry, Mr Speaker. SPEAKER: The Hon Damien O’Connor—he’s one of the most experienced members of the House; he should know better than that. Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: That’s why I listen to the Speaker, Mr Speaker. The Government believes that all New Zealanders, no matter where they live, should have the ability to live, to work, and to run businesses and to fully contribute to each part of New Zealand society. So we have about 600,000 New Zealanders living in rural communities and we aim to assist them in every way we can. We formed the rural communities portfolio, coming into Government in 2017, to recognise the importance of these communities, and we’ve undertaken a number of initiatives, the first one being rural proofing, which runs a rural lens over all policy being developed by Government officials— that is, they have to assess the potential impacts of that initiative on rural communities, not just on the implementation in the cities. The second thing, of course, is to continue with the expansion of rural broadband initiatives to ensure that the latest technology like wireless is utilised, not just relying on the major providers like Vodafone, so expanding the broadband into the smaller and more challenging areas of New Zealand rural areas. There’s an improved focus on rural mental health, where we have a lot of people living in more isolation dependent upon the services of rural mental health providers, but, actually, initiatives are getting out first and ensuring they’re connected and preventing some of the more acute issues as part of that. Rural support trusts have been a core part of responding to adverse events around the country, and we have boosted the support for those rural support trusts. Of course, through Budget 2019, we have put aside $229 million to support the rural industries to transition to a lower carbon economy and to a position where they are supporting better, high quality water in New Zealand. TE MANA TIAKIWAI (Youth MP for Hon Peeni Henare): What plans, if any, does the Minister have to ensure living standards are improved for rural communities that are rebuilding infrastructure following natural disasters? Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: As I said before, the first thing that we have to do is get on the ground very quickly, and so with the new agency that combines all the efforts across fire and across civil defence, we’re in a better position to respond to those events. We have boosted the support for rural support trusts. These are the people who are often—they might be retired farmers or they’re active in their communities, and they’re able to get alongside the individuals who may be more acutely affected by fires, by floods, or by drought. So we’re very mindful of that and, as I said before, ensuring that the mental health services are up to speed and can intervene in a way that is required, and sometimes they have to work more actively with the communities. Question No. 18—Trade and Export Growth 18. MATTHEW PENNO (Youth MP for Hon Gerry Brownlee) to the Minister of State for Trade and Export Growth: What steps has he taken, if any, to maintain New Zealand’s policy on free trade despite rising protectionism, security threats, and the potential end of the Supreme Court of the World Trade Organization when it loses a quorum of three judges in December 2019? Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Minister of State for Trade and Export Growth): This Government recognises the importance of trade for our country. Over 85 percent of what we produce is sold, and that’s the way we generate wealth for our country. Since the WTO was set up in 1995, there have been two assumptions that we’ve lived by up until recently. One is that there would be decreasing barriers to trade and that liberalisation of trade and enabling us to trade goods would, in fact, improve. The second one is that, of course, we would have a rules-based system and that we’d all abide by the rules in a fair and balanced way. Unfortunately, events more recently have challenged those two assumptions, and so we have embarked upon a six-point strategy to move ahead. The first one is to defend the rules-based system—to advocate to every country that 11 we connect with and meet with that it’s important to have fair rules across trade in the world, that we don’t just leave it open to the biggest player having all the say and small countries like New Zealand having no say. The second is embedding New Zealand in the emerging regional economic architecture. Of course, we negotiated CPTPP and we had to refocus that whole agreement to get people over the line and to be a part of that. Unfortunately, the US stepped back and is not a part of it. We are actively engaged in RCEP, which is the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership, with over half the world’s population. That is the ASEAN countries—with China, India, Japan, New Zealand, and Australia—and we’re currently negotiating an agreement that we hope will reach some fruition by the end of this year. We are advancing flexible and open negotiating approaches so we’re not locked into a position, and we’re prepared to be very flexible and accommodate the changing and the different conditions of other countries. Some of them are developing. Some of them need some protection; they don’t have the same expertise in e-commerce. So we have to be flexible as we negotiate with them. Then, of course, there is developing a “trade for all” agenda. Some of what we’ve seen in recent times in Europe and in the US is too many people thinking that trade doesn’t benefit them; too many people thinking that trade is just for the companies that do the trade and the benefits don’t flow down. Even in New Zealand, we had a lot of people thinking that trade wasn’t good for us all. So we’ve embarked upon a process of explaining how trade does benefit everyone within New Zealand, committing—in Europe in particular—to an agenda on trade that allows their people to benefit through their whole economy as well, not keeping the benefits for just a few of them. Of course, the last one is intensifying economic diplomacy—so working with people at a ground level; not just working through the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade but at every level, whether it’s negotiations and partnerships to agriculture in the EU or in Thailand, where it enables us to build support for the trade agreements from the grassroots up. JOY ZHANG-MITCHELL (Youth MP for Clayton Mitchell): Is he confident that he can ensure New Zealand maintains stable trade relations in a bilateral trading order dominated by large powers and economies should the international climate make multilateralism untenable? Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: Look, it’s a very good question and, for a country of only 4.5 million people, some say, “What influence do we have?” New Zealand has a reputation for being honest, for being forthright, and we continue to act in that way at all international trade forums. So while we may be very small in terms of our total economic output, people listen to us. We have the benefit, I guess, of a Prime Minister who’s been on the international stage speaking out, speaking her mind, speaking on behalf of all of us in the wider world; so that has enabled us to have more respect. So in advocating for fair rules of trade, it’s fair for both parties, not just for us, and in advocating for trade for all, we understand the benefits—then we think that our influence is way beyond the 4.5 million people and the one country that we represent. We have some wonderful officials who do that work, and we have some politicians like myself and my colleague the Hon David Parker and the Prime Minister and other Ministers who travel offshore who continually advocate for a fair, rules-based system and trade that indeed benefits the whole of the world. SPEAKER: Just before we go to the next question, I’m going to reiterate the fact that we’re running quite a long way ahead of time, and like people do when they’re trying to fill in time, one gets ideas. One suggestion that I am going to make is that people who have not asked questions but have a question that they’d like to ask a Minister—and we’re going to abandon some of the strict areas; no Ministers are allowed to leave. We’re going to abandon some of the strict rules about format and about responsibilities. So they might be questions about more personal things—about what it’s like to be a politician. They might be areas around the way the Parliament works or they might be on policy areas, as we’ve had now. So if people think about a question that they’d like to ask, then we will have the opportunity for a few people to do that, and then I will allocate people to answer them.

12

Question No. 19—Transport 19. SHAYE WITEHIRA (Youth MP for Hon Iain Lees-Galloway) to the Minister of Transport: What programmes or strategies, if any, are being put in place to decrease the amount of deaths on our roads? Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Associate Minister of Transport) on behalf of the Minister of Transport: That’s a really excellent question. Road safety is a top priority for this Government in our transport policy and funding. That’s because, from 2013 to 2017, deaths and serious injuries on our roads increased by 50 percent, much faster than the rate of driving and the number of cars on our roads. New Zealand is now in the bottom quarter of OECD countries—other developed countries that we like to compare ourselves to. Our road death rate per population is much higher than it is in countries we’d like to compare ourselves to, like Sweden, Norway, Ireland, Canada, and even Australia. So if New Zealand had the same road death rate as Sweden, over 200 fewer people would have died last year than did. So deaths and serious injuries on our roads are preventable, and we need to make it a priority, and we’re doing that in a number of ways. The first one I’ll talk about is the Safe Network programme. This is a record amount of investment across our road network—$1.4 billion over the next three years up to 2021—on life-saving improvements like median barriers, side barriers, curb straightening, and wider centre lines. So these sorts of relatively small improvements need to be made across a large portion of our road network in order to make a difference. New Zealanders drive all over the country, not just in a few places, and so we’ve really got to spread that investment out and put in place things like median and side barriers, which can save lives. That’s just the beginning. There are other things we need to do, like make sure there are safe and appropriate speeds on our most dangerous roads, make sure that the vehicles that people are driving are safe, and make sure that we have minimum standards for safety—we already do have some standards but those are evolving—and, ultimately, ensure that the environment in which people are driving is more forgiving when they make a mistake. That is how we can prevent more deaths and serious injuries. ELLA MARTIN (Youth MP for Hon Tracey Martin): Does she believe the results of the average speed camera and warning sign trial in the Waterview tunnel and Southern Motorway in Auckland are compelling enough to roll them out nationwide; if so, does she think this will significantly affect the road toll? Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: Tēnā koe. I thank the member for that question. It’s true that we could do a lot more with safety cameras, and I think one of the key findings of the trial that the member’s referring to in the Waterview tunnel is that it didn’t just take a snapshot at a particular moment in time; it looked at the average speed while people were within the tunnel. So if we were to apply that sort of approach on the most dangerous stretches of road, the goal is very much to change behaviour and ensure that people drive at a safer speed, not to ping them with infringement fines just for the sake of it. I believe that if we are to increase the number of safety cameras around the country, it’s vitally important that they are well sign-posted and that people know that they are there, so they can change behaviour. We know that approach has worked in Sweden. LILY LEWIS (Youth MP for Alastair Scott): Does the Government, then, support community initiatives like rider and driver mentoring and plan to nationalise it if so? Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: I thank the member for the question. I can’t speak to the specifics of the programme that the member’s referred to, but we certainly do want to support programmes that help improve people’s driving. I can speak about one recent initiative that the New Zealand Transport Agency and the Ministry of Social Development have collaborated on, and that is over $5 million to help young people who otherwise may not have had the resources to get their restricted licence, to ensure that they are able to access the driving training that they need. In some cases, they don’t even have access to birth certificates. We know that people who have their full driver’s licence and are unrestricted are less likely to be involved in fatal or serious-injury crashes, and so we want to make sure that price and economic status is not a barrier to people accessing that training and that experience of getting their unrestricted licence. 13

BRADLEY WHITE (Youth MP for Stuart Smith): Does the Minister agree that the road improvements being laid out across the country are effective in the areas such as the Weka Pass— there have been safety improvements there—and that, in terms of the number of car crashes before safety improvements were laid out, there have been more crashes after they were put in place? Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: I thank the member for the question. I can’t speak to the specifics of the Weka Pass, but if the member puts a question down to me in writing, I can certainly answer that. I can speak to the effectiveness of some safety treatments, like on Centennial Highway or over the Brynderwyns, where median barriers were put in place. There used to be one or two fatal crashes on those roads almost every year and, since the median barriers have been put in place, there has not been a single fatal crash. Oftentimes—dozens already, I think, in one recent installation—people hit the median barriers but it hasn’t resulted in a fatal crash, and that’s why those sorts of cost-effective safety improvements are so effective. People do make mistakes, they hit the median barrier and they bounce off it, but it doesn’t result in a fatal head-on collision. SAMUEL TAYLOR (Youth MP for Todd Muller): Supplementary question— SPEAKER: I don’t have everyone’s names in my head so if people can introduce themselves as they ask for a supplementary. JAMIE HARPER (Youth MP for Hon Nathan Guy): Has the Minister taken any measures to ensure that pedestrians are safe when sharing footpaths and roadways with electric scooters? Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: That’s an incredibly important question, and the Government is mindful that we need to have in place infrastructure that enables the safe movement of people through their towns and cities no matter how they’re travelling—whether they’re on foot, on electric scooters, on bicycles, or in motor vehicles. The first thing that we need to do is ensure that there’s more separated cycling infrastructure that can be used by electric scooters or by people on bicycles that separates them both from pedestrians and from cars and trucks. That makes it much safer. We have a few examples of that so far, but it will take a bit of time to roll it out right across the places where people are trying to move around. The other issue is that we need to make sure that when people are using the footpath or a shared path that involves pedestrians and electric scooters or any other vehicle, we have safe speeds and rules in place so people know how to use that space in a way that’s going to be respectful of the users and not endanger pedestrians. SAMUEL TAYLOR (Youth MP for Todd Muller): Considering the proven economic and safety benefit of major highway upgrades, what does the Minister say to communities, like those of Ōmokoroa in the Bay of Plenty, who have had major road upgrades like the Tauranga Northern Link on State Highway 2 cancelled? Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: I thank the member for the question. It’s an excellent question. The issue with the Tauranga Northern Link is that it would have been a $400 million project. At the moment, the number of deaths and serious injuries occurring on that length of road are less than 1 percent of the deaths and serious injuries happening around the country in any given year. So the issue is that if we spend that much money on that short bit of road, we don’t have that money to improve thousands of kilometres across the rest of the country to prevent deaths. So, really, it comes down to what is the most effective use of the transport budget to save lives. The previous Government put the majority of the new capital spending from the transport budget into just seven highways. It took them over 10 years. Most of those highways were in urban areas—they were north of Auckland, south of Auckland, north of Hamilton, and north of Wellington, and around Christchurch and Tauranga. So the rest of the country missed out on life-saving improvements to their roads because we were pouring so much money into just a small number of projects. So while it’s tempting to believe that we could build four-lane, grade-separated highways everywhere in New Zealand, the reality is that to do that we would have to increase petrol tax tenfold, and I don’t think that’s something that New Zealanders are prepared to put up with. What we want to do is use the transport budget in an effective way that’s going to save lives where people are driving, where they are dying, and that’s right around the country.

14

ANDREW CHEN (Youth MP for Hon Nikki Kaye): How many kilometres of median barriers has this Government delivered so far, and what plans, if any, do they have to deliver more roading improvements for safety? Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: I thank the member for the question. Now, one thing about the transport budget that is, well, frustrating for me but is necessarily the case is that it tends to be programmed several years in advance. So this Government came in at the end of 2017. The transport budget from 2015 all the way through 2018 was already allocated, and so it wasn’t until 1 July 2018 that our new transport budget could start to be rolled out. So it’s not yet been a full year, and we do have to complete, and we are completing, many of the roading projects that were contracted under the previous Government. So one doesn’t yet see, in the previous year, the full transformation of the focus on road safety, but it’s starting to roll out. So far, I think we’ve delivered around 50 kilometres of median barriers in the last year, and the goal is to deliver about 200 kilometres by the end of 2021, but in the next 3-year transport budget we can deliver safety improvements, including median barriers, on a far greater portion of the network. And the Safe Network Programme, which I referred to in response to an earlier question, actually will improve safety on several thousand kilometres of State highways and local roads, but not all of that is median barriers. Question No. 20—Women 20. VERITY BROGDEN (Youth MP for Hon Damien O’Connor) to the Minister for Women: What actions is the Government taking, if any, to resolve the issue of Period Poverty with regard to gender equality and the mental wellbeing of young women in New Zealand? Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Minister for Women): Tēnā koe; I thank the member for her question. It is a really important issue to me; it’s something that I’m very passionate about. I believe that all women and girls in New Zealand should have access and the ability to deal with their period, and they shouldn’t have to be disadvantaged or not able to access or attend their work or school or sport because they don’t have the finances to pay for sanitary products. So what we are doing is I’ve asked the Ministry for Women to work right across the Government with several other ministries, including the Ministry of Health, the Ministry of Education, and Sport New Zealand, to come up with a programme that we can implement that will address the issue of period poverty. AZARIA HOWELL (Youth MP for Hon Eugenie Sage): My question is to the Associate Minister of Health and asks: does the Minister have plans to subsidise treatment for endometriosis, considering that it is a health issue which one in 10 women face? Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: Thank you. I think it is a really important issue, endometriosis, that has been overlooked by the health sector for some time. There is an endometriosis action plan, and we are working through those recommendations and working with specialists across the health sector to understand how we can have a better response in primary care and how can we ensure that women’s needs are taken seriously; whereas in previous times, sometimes, their complaints about pain have not been taken seriously by their GP and they haven’t had access to the sorts of treatment that they should have, ut right across the health sector, we are dealing with increasing demand and we are dealing with the consequences of nine years of underfunding by the previous Government. So we cannot solve all of the problems overnight, but we certainly have an intention to—we know how important it is to New Zealanders that they have equity and that they have high-quality health services available to meet their needs. JENNIFER PRAPAIPORN THONRITHI (Youth MP for Anahila Kanongata’a-Suisuiki): Are there any solid targets that are currently placed to be met; if so, how would it affect the increasing rate of period poverty? Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: I thank the member. We are currently in the space of understanding the extent of the problem, and figuring out the best mechanism to deliver services and products to people. So already there are some charities like KidsCan and others who are working to provide sanitary products to those who need them. One of the things that I’m particularly interested in is ensuring that it’s not just single-use products. I’ve asked my ministry to 15 explore more environmentally sustainable solutions too—some products that are sustainable for the environment, such as period cups and pants can also provide long-term savings to women. JENNIFER PRAPAIPORN THONRITHI (Youth MP for Anahila Kanongata’a-Suisuiki): If the Minister is aware and has been aware of the disparity in poorer communities, why is period poverty still an issue? Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: Again, I would say that it’s 2019, and we have been in Government since the very end of 2017. It’s not just in transport—but particularly in transport—but right across the Government’s spending, it takes time to allocate funding and it takes time to design institutions and programmes that can be rolled out. We’re very mindful of the problem. Some of the other changes that the Government has made should ensure that there are fewer families and fewer women in dire need—so things like cancelling the tax cuts that would have primarily benefited higher-income earners, and instead putting in place the Families Package, raising the minimum wage, and tackling some of the issues around housing. The Government has to work right across to ensure that all New Zealanders have incomes that enable them to live good lives. And then the other side of the issue is making sure that there are affordable and environmentally sustainable sanitary products that women and girls can have access to, whether that’s through schools or other delivery mechanisms. WILLIAM WOOD (Youth MP for Ian McKelvie): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. As this the only opportunity for youth MPs who have been allocated a question to speak in the House, may we also be permitted to ask additional questions? SPEAKER: I have already indicated that we will have a little bit of time at the end for some additional questions—the member will resume his seat, now—but what we’re going to do first is give the members who want to ask a relevant supplementary question the opportunity to do so. So the heat’s on you, Christian Dennison! CHRISTIAN DENNISON (Youth MP for Hon Chris Hipkins): Does the Minister believe that Government-funded sanitary products for women, especially young women who are unable to afford these, would be of greater benefit or importance than Government-funded contraception; and, if so, what do they plan to do about this divide? Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: I think they’re both really important, and we have made progress on long-term contraception—they are called LARCs—and there is additional funding to ensure that women with a community services card and women in some areas of high deprivation have free access to this long-term contraception, but personally I think we’re lagging behind on the access to sanitary products. So that’s the thing that I am hoping to make much more progress on in this year so that in the next Budget, we can have a really clear package that goes further than the current Government-funded community initiatives that are out there for access to sanitary products. Question No. 21—Justice 21. ELLA MARTIN (Youth MP for Hon Tracey Martin) to the Minister of Justice: Does the Minister know if this Government is intending on making abortions more accessible? SPEAKER: What I’m going to do is I’m going to rule that our standard question period has now finished, and that is the first of the new questions, and I think Andrew Little, as the responsible Minister, will now be keen that he’s no longer sitting there. So I’m going to ask Julie Anne Genter to answer the question. Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Minister for Women) on behalf of the Minister of Justice: The Government has undertaken a significant piece of work, in part because of the recommendations from international organisations advising that our current legal approach and framework for abortion was not consistent with the human rights - based approach and not consistent with supporting the health needs of women. So a lot of work has been done: the Law Commission has made some recommendations, and, ultimately, when this comes before Parliament, it won’t be a Government issue; it will be a conscience issue. So rather than having the Government having one policy on it, any proposed legislative changes will come to the House as a bill and

16 members will likely be able to vote for it on their conscience. So you won’t see the vote come down on party lines—except in the case of the Green Party, where we will bloc vote in support. Question No. 22—Health 22. MIA WRIGHT (Youth MP for Hon Nicky Wagner) to the Minister of Health: What support, if any, is the Government offering to cancer care campaigner Blair Vining and his bill for better cancer care for all New Zealanders, stewarded by a national cancer agency; if none, does the Minister acknowledge that changes need to be made to cancer care? Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Associate Minister of Health) on behalf of the Minister of Health: I can’t speak with absolute specificity, but if the member puts the question down in writing, we can get an answer to her. But, absolutely, cancer care is a priority for the Government. We understand that there are some things that need to change, and in particular we’re focused on equity of access to services, because we know there are some populations in New Zealand who are much more vulnerable to cancer and much less likely to receive the treatment they need. That is true of cancer, but it’s true right across the health system, and it’s something that this Government is absolutely committed to addressing. Question No. 23—Climate Change 23. NISHITA JITESH GANATRA (Youth MP for Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi) to the Minister for Climate Change: What plans, if any, does the Government have to help individuals reduce their carbon emissions? SPEAKER: I think Julie Anne Genter—we’ll keep her. I think Ms Genter will get a medal after this. She’s answered more questions and harder questions than the rest of the Ministers put together. Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Minister for Women) on behalf of the Minister for Climate Change: I thank the member for her question. It’s vitally important that we respond to climate change, and a big part of that is ensuring that we’re supporting individuals, households, and communities to make changes in their everyday lives that will reduce dangerous climate pollution. One of the policies that I have most recently announced consultation on is our clean-car standard and clean-car discount. Those policies are aimed at ensuring that there is a much bigger supply and greater variety of cars, utes, and vans that use less fossil fuels. That includes electric vehicles and hybrid vehicles, but it also includes very efficient petrol cars in the first few years. The second part of it is ensuring that there is a discount for those vehicles that are cleaner burning, and we fund the discounts not through general taxation, because we don’t think that would be fair. When cars are coming into New Zealand—they’re either imported brand new or second hand—from Japan, we want to make sure that the cleaner cars get a discount, and that’s funded by fees on the most gas- guzzling cars. So this will make it easier for households to access a vehicle that would use less fossil fuel—make it easier for them respond to climate change. Question No. 24—Immigration 24. BENJAMIN PRINCE (Youth MP for Darroch Ball) to the Minister of Immigration: What measures has the Minister taken to reduce the negative effects of migration on New Zealand society and the New Zealand economy? SPEAKER: Order! I’m going to give the member a chance to rephrase his question. There’s an assumption in the question, which you’re not allowed to make. You might want to say “if any” in there somewhere. BENJAMIN PRINCE: My apologies. What measures has the Minister taken to reduce any possible effects of migration on New Zealand society and the New Zealand economy that could potentially be negative? Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Minister of Immigration): Speaking to the economic part of the youth member’s question, the impact of immigration on GDP is generally held to be a balanced one. It’s neither positive nor negative. But, of course, the impact that it has on the labour market is that it provides people and skills that we need to be able to grow our economy. In terms of our 17 society, I think it’s a generally held view—perhaps not a view held by absolutely everybody in New Zealand—that a more diverse population is a stronger one, a more tolerant one, a more outwardly facing one, and one which makes New Zealand better able to compete on a world stage. So, overall, the Government’s view is that immigration is positive. We need to have good, robust immigration policies. We need to have an immigration system that ensures that immigration is working well, that it’s delivering the people that we need with the skills that we need to grow our economy, to make our society more diverse and more vibrant, and that we do mitigate—well, that we ensure that the Government is also doing the things that we need to support population growth. That means investing in housing. It means investing in transport infrastructure. It means investing in health, hospitals, schools—all the things that we need to support a growing population. Those are the things that Government needs to do to make sure that immigration works well. Question No. 25—Earthquake Commission 25. FREYA CHAMPION (Youth MP for Dr Duncan Webb) to the Minister Responsible for the Earthquake Commission: What plans does the Government have, if any, towards restricting the amount of time New Zealand citizens affected by natural disasters such as earthquakes can be left negotiating with EQC and insurance companies regarding just payment? SPEAKER: Ha, ha! I’m going to allocate Iain-Lees-Galloway. There’s a pretty standard answer to this. Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Minister of Immigration) on behalf of the Minister responsible for the Earthquake Commission: What did I do to deserve this, Mr Speaker? Don’t answer that. Ha, ha! SPEAKER: The member will resume his seat. Every now and again when you’re in Parliament, especially by way of a supplementary question, when a Minister is acting for another Minister, they get a question which they just cannot answer—they’re not across the facts. What I advise Ministers to do—they don’t always take this advice—is not to make it up as they go along but to say that they don’t know the answer and to say that if the member wants to do a direct written question or put a question down on another day to the Minister responsible, then at that stage they’ll get a proper answer. I’m going to just rule the question out, because I can see that I have three Ministers here, none of whom could follow my instructions in that way. Question No. 26—Economic Development 26. WILLIAM FORD (Youth MP for Andrew Bayly) to the Minister for Economic Development: Does the Minister not agree that when the minimum wage is raised firms have to actually incur this extra cost, hence they have to raise their prices and then, therefore, this decreases individuals’ purchasing power to a similar level as before the wage was actually increased, thus making raising the minimum wage largely useless? SPEAKER: I’ll get the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety to answer the question, because I think he might be the Minister responsible. Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): Yes, that question would be better directed to the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety; luckily, he’s in the House. The evidence around the minimum wage, again, is mixed. Yes, it certainly does, in some instances, mean that businesses increase their prices to be able to cover the costs of the minimum wage, but overwhelmingly that money goes into the pockets of people who are on the lowest incomes, who spend a large proportion of their income. They overwhelmingly spend that money in their own communities, in their local economies. That is actually good for business. There’s a lot of evidence now that increasing the minimum wage actually creates jobs, because people are more likely to spend that money at their local shops in their local community, thus allowing businesses—you know, increasing turnover for businesses, allowing businesses to add jobs. So it is a balancing act and Governments do this. We take into consideration what the impact might be on job growth overall, what the impact might be on the Consumer Price Index overall. But we also look at what we need to do to make sure that people on the lowest incomes are getting a fair 18 deal—that they are able to enjoy the benefits of a growing economy as much as anyone else. The member might be aware that the current Government has accelerated the rate of the increase to the minimum wage. In 2019, it’s anticipated that there will still be job growth of around 58,000 new jobs net, despite the increase to the minimum wage at a time when actually the greatest concern that employers have is finding people to fill the jobs that we have right now. So it’s not just about job growth and it’s not just about costs; it’s actually also about the quality of jobs and people actually being able to make ends meet through work. Hon Members: Mr Speaker? SPEAKER: Order! When I stand you sit—a pretty standard rule. That concludes the time for oral questions. I think what we’ll do before I ask for the karakia is ask members—it’s pretty unusual to thank the Ministers who have made themselves available for, what I would say, earlier was questioning and later it was interrogation. Thank you very much. [Applause] Rebekah Okeroa Raihania will now close with the karakia. E tū. KARAKIA REBEKAH OKEROA RAIHANIA (Youth MP for Hon Meka Whaitiri): Kia īnoi tātou. Kia tau, ki a tātou katoa, te atawhai o tō tātou ariki a Ihu Karaiti, me te aroha o Te Atua me te whiwhinga tahitanga ki Te Wairua Tapu, āke, āke, āke. Āmine. [We now pray. May the grace of our lord, Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the unity of the Holy Spirit be with us all, now and always. Amen.] The House adjourned at 12.40 p.m.

19

WEDNESDAY, 17 JULY 2019 The Speaker took the Chair at 10:15 a.m. KARAKIA LUKE WIJOHN (Youth MP for Chlöe Swarbrick): Whakataka te hau ki te uru. Whakataka te hau ki te tonga. Kia mākinakina ki uta. Kia mātaratara ki tai. E hī ake ana te atākura he tio, he huka, he hauhunga. Tihe mauri ora. [Prepare for the westerly winds. Prepare for the southerly winds. It will be ice cold inland. It will be ice cold on the shore. The dawn rises with red on the ice, on the snow and on the frost. I sneeze; it is the breath of life.] SUSTAINABLE ENERGY BILL Passing of Bill LARA ALBERT (Youth MP for Hon Paul Goldsmith): I move, That the Sustainable Energy Bill be now passed by the House. This is the second draft of my speech. I had a brilliant one last week, but unfortunately Minister Julie Anne Genter delivered it on the 9th to RNZ news. I rise today to stand firmly in favour of the Sustainable Energy Bill. This bill is a progressive piece of legislation that addresses—indeed, requires action on an issue of great importance to New Zealand, which is preserving the environment in which we live. The bill does this through strong and defined targets—for example, targets on electric vehicles. Long-term targets propose an increase in the number of electric vehicles in the New Zealand fleet, aiming for them to make up 2.125 percent by 2025. This is doubling the goal under current policy settings. Furthermore, interim targets look at putting 15,000 new electric vehicles on the roads every single financial year. Considering that in December of 2017 we had approximately 30,000 electric vehicles on our roads, putting 15,000 on our roads every year is a strong target. It’s serious. These targets are hard, they’re concrete, and they’re going to be measurable. We are going to know how many electric vehicles are put on the roads in the next financial year. The Government will be held to account, and this is what we need in a bill that focuses on something as critical as the environment. Furthermore, if done right, increases in the number of electric cars will be an effective win-win policy for all. I mean, look at California: the introduction of subsidies caused a great increase in demand. The more electric vehicles sold, the more are manufactured and the quicker the price will go down, benefiting all. Demand increases investment. Competition and economies of scale drive down prices. Also, an electric car costs one-tenth of a conventional car to run and requires nowhere near as much maintenance. More to the point, they do not emit any carbon dioxide. The targets on electric vehicles, alongside other targets in this bill, encourage the focus of the public and private sectors on the sustainable use of energy and are necessary to navigating climate change. These targets are ambitious enough, and with an adept strategy, these goals are achievable. This bill isn’t perfect, but it’s more than a statement—it is action. We do not have to wait for disaster to strike until we act. We have sufficient information to act now, and acting now means mitigating losses and fostering growth through the reorganisation of our economy. This is our chance, as a collective Youth Parliament, to require action on the most important challenge facing human kind today: to be ahead of the game on climate change. The technology is here; all we need is the political will. Thank you. NERIDA BATEUP (Youth MP for Tim van de Molen): Tēnā koutou. As New Zealanders we are passionate about the environment that we live in. We are caretakers of the land and must do our part to ensure its survival. We need to all work together collaboratively to make change for the future generations. I support sustainable energy. However, I cannot support this bill in its current form, because of the unrealistic goals for electric vehicles. My reasoning for this is: number one, the target of 15,000 new electric vehicles by 2020 is unrealistic. The current number of electric vehicles

20 on our roads is only two-thirds of this expected growth. Number two, the incentive to own an electric vehicle is not great enough. The additional cost to purchase an electric vehicle compared to a petrol vehicle is roughly 10 times greater than the cash-back subsidy provided from the policy intervention. Number three, the infrastructure is lacking. There is a lack of charging stations nationwide and the time taken to charge leads to frustration. To encourage the use of electric vehicles, there needs to be an easily accessed, reliable network throughout the country to keep these cars charged in a timely manner. If people have to wait to charge their cars, they will soon lose interest in sustainable energy vehicles. And, lastly: what to do with the batteries at the end of their lifetime? At this point in time we don’t have the technology to recycle or dispose of old batteries in an environmentally friendly manner. So these new-found problems must all be considered. Overall, I am in favour of the concept of sustainable energy and electric vehicles. However, it needs to be done in a realistic time frame to lessen the initial cost to the public. We need to do more research into all forms of sustainable energy; for example, hydrogen cars, wind turbines, and hydro dams. We are lucky to have these resources that create renewable energy, which we should be utilising to their full potential without impacting our environment. We also need to be careful that this does not create a financial burden on our economy. I support ideas that lower carbon emissions and help mitigate the effects of climate change, which is the way we need to head to look after our environment for future generations. But before this bill is passed, I believe it needs future development and research. Mr Speaker and fellow Youth MPs, thank you for giving me the opportunity to share my views on this bill, which I cannot fully support in its current form. Therefore, I will be voting against this bill, and I encourage you to do the same. MELISSA BONILLA CASANAS (Youth MP for Hon Michael Woodhouse): I rise today to stand firmly against the proposed Sustainable Energy Bill. Firstly, I can securely say that the purpose stated within the bill and the content in the bill don’t go hand in hand. The bill itself talks distinctly about political accountability and transparent reporting, but how effective can accountability be without any sort of penalty if targets are not met? Furthermore, New Zealand has made numerous climate change commitments, and I would argue that it would be much more effective not only to uphold these commitments but to go beyond the bare minimum that has been agreed. Government accountability is such a peculiar issue when thinking about it from the Government’s perspective. On the one hand, MPs represent the views of their party, but more so their electorate, but on the other, it’s really up to them how much is actually done, if at all. As shown in this bill, in clause 3(b), it states that the purpose of this bill is to “facilitate political accountability”, but the mere fact that the Minister, as stated in clause 11, can simply amend or change the bill through the targets and strategy shows how little liability this bill is proposing on something as important as not just our planet and environment but our future. As has been debated when discussing the zero carbon bill, the targets that have been set in this Sustainable Energy Bill are outright toothless. The “bark but no bite” concept fits perfectly with the so-called accountability in this bill. I can agree that New Zealand needs to shift further to sustainable energy sources, including our modes of transport, but our climate crisis is not going to be fixed by a stand-alone aim that a mere 2.125 percent of our vehicles will be electric by 2025. The proposed political accountability doesn’t actually call for any action to be taken. As described in clause 17(5)(a), the targets do not create any legal right enforceable by law. The only thing it creates is a public front of action to climate change and a scapegoat through further paper work, which, we have learnt over the years, is a pretty common doing by members of Parliament. For these reasons, it’s fairly evident to me that the purpose stated, concerning political accountability, doesn’t align with everything that is composed in this bill. Additionally, if there’s no political accountability anyway, at least set the targets through the roof. We need to go to literal infinity and beyond if we want to have any chance in giving the future

21 generations of New Zealand an earth that can somewhat resemble the one we know today. Hence I cannot support this bill as it stands. Kia ora. WATENE MOANA CAMPBELL (Youth MP for Rino Tirikatene): Tuatahi ake, tēnei au te mihi ki koutou mā e aku rangatira, e aku mātāwaka, e aku hau maha, koutou mā kua tae mai i raro i te whakaaro kotahi, tēnā koutou. [Firstly, I would like to acknowledge the leaders among us, the ancestral canoes among us, and those from the four winds. To all of you who have gathered here today for one cause, greetings.] Kaitiaki tēna tātou Te Whare. My name is Watene Moana Campbell, currently acting MP for the Tai Tonga region and also a huge Black Caps supporter—up until last Sunday, anyway. I am drawing upon the great words of arguably the greatest activist of all time: I have a dream. I have a dream that, one day, seeing masses of endangered species will not be the norm. I have a dream that, one day, tikanga Māori will be incorporated into all ways of sustainable living. I have a dream that, one day, not having a ban on the use of plastic bags will be seen as nothing less than outrageous. Exponential rises in sea level and in temperature, complemented by diminishing freshwater sources and persistent droughts, completely destroy economies—islands who fully rely on the agriculture process, such as our Pasifika brothers and sisters. So here I stand before you all today, echoing the call to address the overarching matters at hand to bring cultural recognition to the forefront of thinking. Our goal to capitalise on sustainable energy needs to be mixed with the idea of cultural sustainability. E te iwi, since 1990 our national emissions have increased by 23.1 percent—23.1 percent! Now, let’s talk about that. Twenty-nine years will define how a whole generation will play out, 29 repetitive years of denial and refusal, 29 years of planning but zero years of doing. If drastic changes aren’t taken soon, then the war we are fighting will be for nothing. Imagine a world flourishing with native flora and fauna. I imagine a world where my children and theirs after them can experience and feel the rich sense of belongingness with who they are and where they come from. So to be very honest with you, Mr Speaker, while I do agree in principle with the Sustainable Energy Bill and will, by any means, continue to fight for what the bill envisions overall, I do not believe this bill quite cuts the mustard and, therefore, I cannot support it. With the long-term target, from clause 8(1) in Part 2, stating that there will be a 5 percent decrease in emissions from the energy sector, a goal of 90 percent renewable electricity and energy, and—what is it?—2.125 percent of all vehicles being electric, I personally believe we won’t achieve our goal of giving our world to the next generation. And although the bill provides political accountability with achievable and necessary targets, we aren’t aiming high enough. It may be my youthful arrogance speaking right now but, if not ambitious, what’s the point? Kei te kapunga ō tātou ringa te oranga tonutanga o te ao Tūroa. The future of our world lies in our hands. Whatu ngarongaro te tangata. Toitū te whenua, tēnā tātou. [Man will disappear but the land will remain forever.] SEAN CHEN (Youth MP for Chris Penk): Legacy, that’s what we are remembered for. For our generation, leaving behind a liveable environment is our legacy. Thus, an increased effort and focus on the use of sustainable energy is most appealing to everyone; thus I support this entirely and, wholeheartedly, I want to vote for the bill. But I question the manner this bill deals with these concerns and I reject the way this bill executes this cause. Here are some questions. What’s the impact on business and households of electric vehicles? Blatantly, it’s bad. The bill proposes to subsidise electric vehicles, and no doubt this comes from the taxation of fuel and diesel vehicles, proven by the “feebate” scheme. So who does this affect? The low-income families who already struggle to put gas in the car, and now we add on more taxes that are effectively severe and insurmountable. Low-income families may overuse their vehicles, fearful of replacement as both petrol vehicles and electric vehicles are too expensive. Additionally, businesses that use heavy vehicles, especially diesel vehicles, would be hit with high taxation that would restrict the manner in which they can operate as well, leading to downturns in production in many major industries. Two-thirds of our new vehicles bought are trucks and

22

SUVs. Why? They are reliable and useful for many of our industries. High taxation in these areas would be horrendous. Next, we need to address what the bill actually addresses. A target is established, but how do we actually achieve these targets? All that is said is that the Minister will approve a strategy—sick! How do we know this strategy is not the same as before—reliance on ETS schemes leading to people gaining profit off selling carbon credits, and the price of these credits inflating by thousands of percentages at a time, or perhaps yet another carbon tax that has proven to be ineffective? I believe the bill fails to address the matter of how we solve the glaring issues we know exist. Thus, if the bill was passed in reality, what is the next step? Finally, how does the Government ensure that people adhere to the targets that the Government proposes? The bill is extremely ambitious, and the conclusion, if the bill is effective, is A1 awesome, yet there is no pressure, no incentive, to adhere to the bill. With no legal mechanism, the most the Government could do is public pressure, which, in this extremity, will do absolutely nothing. With no reinforcement to the claim, how is this any different to just telling a child to do their homework but it’s optional? The agricultural revolution, the industrial revolution, the technological revolution—they didn’t care about the consequences of what they were doing. Those before us had one goal and didn’t consider the mess they left with their creations. Honestly, we can’t blame them. They achieved everything. But this bill does not help change the environment. KELLY DING (Youth MP for Raymond Huo): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise today to stand firmly for the Sustainable Energy Bill. I’d like to begin with a newspaper headline: “It’s official: Auckland has [declared] a climate emergency”. This concerns me, but it also doesn’t surprise me. We all know that climate change is the most important threat facing planet Earth today. At the heart of this issue is our dangerous over-reliance on non-renewable energy. We are over-dependent on fossil fuels that heat our homes, drive our cars, and light up our offices. New Zealand has the fifth- highest level of emissions per capita in the OECD. Unless meaningful action is taken to lower New Zealand’s emissions of greenhouse gases, storms, droughts, and fires will continue. So the challenge for our generation is to lower carbon emissions to keep global warming well below 2 degrees, as we promised when we ratified the Paris Agreement in 2016, so that we can pass on New Zealand in a good condition to our future generations. Change is hard, and the progression to clean energy will take time, but to quote Obama, “We can’t drill our way out of the energy and climate challenge we face.” I believe that we have to act now. While the task in front of us is urgent, advances in technology today have already allowed for greater reliance on sources of renewable energy. Renewable sources are plentiful, environmentally friendly, and, literally, at our disposal. The opposite of this is fossil fuels that are diminishing every day and releasing carbon directly into our environment as they are burnt. Producing renewable energy does not demolish big tracts of vegetation. It does not produce further pollution. It will not suffocate our atmosphere with heat-trapping gasses that harm our health. Shifting to renewable energy will also create a large number of jobs. My point is that renewable energy can provide the same functionality, the same support for New Zealand’s economy, and better reliability than fossil fuels can. New Zealand can reduce its dependence on foreign suppliers of oil and gas, improve local air quality, and protect the climate. You can probably tell my stance on passing this bill is that it’s a no-brainer. The reality is that New Zealand needs legislation like this that encourages the sustainable use of energy and reduces energy-related greenhouse gas emissions through transparent targets. This bill takes a step in the right direction towards a country powered by cheaper, cleaner, and smarter energy. This House exists to improve public policy for New Zealanders, and that is what this bill does. It is an ambitious plan, because that’s what the scale of this climate change issue demands. In the face of such environmental devastation, passing this bill is the responsible course of action. This bill will accelerate New Zealand’s shift to clean energy. So for the sake of generations to come, for the sake of the health and safety of all New Zealanders, it is paramount that this bill is passed, which is why I’m very happy to be voting in favour of the Sustainable Energy Bill. 23

JOSH DOUBTFIRE (Youth MP for Melissa Lee): First of all, I’d like to acknowledge the work done by my MP, Melissa Lee, to get us broadcast on Parliament TV for the first time, live this year. Climate change is our nuclear-free moment, but it may well end up an apocalypse, not because of inaction, but because of the action of this bill. The bill’s “long-term” target includes changes in the percentage of sustainable energy, electric cars, and greenhouse gas emission reductions by 2025—only five years away. Five years is not long term. Some of us plan holidays more further in advance. New Zealand is already signed up to the Paris Agreement, Copenhagen conference, and Kyoto Protocol. Even these treaties have more of a backbone to combat climate change than this bill, with actual long-term goals until 2050, and include agricultural emissions. Haste is not always a virtue. Having more ambitious, attainable, and more thought-out goals over a longer term is the answer. This bill will not please those in the House who believe the poles are melting and will be underwater in 12 years, because it is not ambitious enough, and it will also trouble those who worry about any negative changes of a climate bill. How are we to tackle climate change when this bill has no focus on agriculture and waste emissions, and a dull aim for transport? Trying to achieve this change in only five years will hurt New Zealanders. The increase in renewable energy does not take into account the extra demand in the power capacity required for tens of thousands of electric vehicles this bill requires. If KiwiBuild showed us anything, it’s that Government construction is rather relaxed, so increasing power station capacity might prove to be a struggle. A Government forcing through fuel taxes and restrictions on non-electric vehicles to meet quotas will cause regional inequality for those who do not have access to electric vehicles or their charge points. Overall, this bill is flawed to the bone, too fuzzy around the edges, and will not address the issue of climate change in any meaningful way. This bill is all bark and no bite, and I urge the members of this House not just to vote because you want a climate bill passed but because you want the right climate bill passed. I cannot support this bill, not because I don’t back the cause but because it will create problems for New Zealanders while not solving the very problem which is the issue of climate change. MOLLY DOYLE (Youth MP for Hon James Shaw): Our planet is in a state of emergency. Our environment is suffocating around us. The biggest issue facing us here today is political inaction on climate change. Today we sit in this Chamber, in the seats of our members of Parliament, the members that will determine what our futures will look like. Today we are also continuing to exploit our planet’s resources, contributing to the rise in average global temperatures. Yet Youth Parliament members sitting here in this House choose to oppose the proposed bill. The Sustainable Energy Bill we have in front of us is simply a mock bill for conversation. However, this mock bill sets a legal framework to encourage the use of sustainable energy sources within New Zealand, done by reducing reliance on non-renewable energy sources. This bill forms measures that will ensure the facilitation of political accountability against the sustainable energy targets created, energy reports, and, lastly, the governmental and societal focus around the use of energy. It’s a small step in moving towards a low-emissions economy. However, the long-term and intermediate targets for reducing emissions in the energy sector of this bill are weak and could be more ambitious. This bill is simply not enough. Currently, our platform and privilege, sitting in these seats, means we have power. We have a say in how we want this to progress and go forward. This bill does lack ambition when you know that there are an estimated one million animals and plant species on our Earth that are threatened with extinction. This bill does lack ambition when you know that the global sea levels are rising, destroying homes and taking away land from communities. However, voting for this bill is a step in the right direction; a step in combating the crisis that we as a collective now have on our hands. This bill simply is nothing. By no means is this bill enough to help face the issues our generation will need to solve together. However, it is a statement. Passing this bill sends a clear message of the understanding we have as a collective.

24

Today, the exploitation of the environment in the benefit of self-interest still fuels our economy. This youth body has a chance to send a clear message: we all know climate change is killing, destroying, and taking what’s important to us. This tokenistic bill has value and it has a voice. We are the voice; we speak for many—so use your voice right. Voting on this bill is more than a vote in Youth Parliament; it’s a vote for youth voice. It’s a vote for change. It gives leverage for actual change to be made in the real political sphere. I am voting for this bill. I am voting for our environment. DAZHONAVAH SIAIFOI FAAUMU (Youth MP for Hon Carmel Sepuloni): Malo lava le soifua maua ma le lagi e mama. Malo le onosai. Malo le faamalosi. Malo lava mo le avanoa. [Greetings and good health to you. Well done for being patient. Well done for being resilient. Thank you for the opportunity.] I utilise this time to adhere to my ancestral mother tongue because this bill offers a glimpse of hope that maybe our islands in the Pacific will be not entirely ravaged by the effects of climate change—an effect this bill seeks to mitigate. I speak with candour and integrity that I support this bill. I trust this bill with my support in safeguarding our current and future generations against climatic catastrophe. The Sustainable Energy Bill provides clear research on New Zealand’s emissions between 1990 and 2017—a study put into place to assess what interim and long-term targets are required to reduce Aotearoa New Zealand’s reliance on non-renewable energy sources. Aotearoa New Zealand’s greenhouse gas emissions have increased, grossing 23.1 percent since the Kyoto Protocol base year in 1990. A principal concern of this bill targets a maintaining goal under clause 2 of our bill. Almost 30 years on, and five Solomon Islands underwater later, we are now third in the OECD for renewable energy sources, with 82 percent of Aotearoa New Zealand’s energy coming from sustainable sources. We are leading a revolution. Aotearoa New Zealand acknowledges, alongside many other nations, that we have 12 years to act. Sea levels are rising. Corals are bleaching. We are starting to see the life-threatening impact of climate change on our health, through air pollution, heat waves, and risks to food security. Our Pasefika Islands are estimated to be underwater by 2050. This bill is effective and credible. However, these plans cannot address vegetation alone—they must show the way toward a full transformation of economies, in line with sustainable development goals. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change pointed out that the longer we wait to reduce our emissions, the more expensive it will become. This is our world. This is our future. We must prioritise our whenua for our rangatahi. I commend this bill. We have 12 years to gather, maintain, and take significant action in reducing climatic catastrophe. Otherwise, ka kite to the land of milk and honey. Thank you. ARIE FABER (Youth MP for Jan Logie): When a crisis reaches a tipping point, we require a fundamental shift in our status quo. What this bill presents in its introduction is, undoubtedly, the grounds for radical change; but its incremental strategy does not signify any shift to the status quo. It does not meaningfully reflect the capital emergency we have found ourselves in. Its long-term goals only stretch to 2025, when we require sustainable policy with plans not just for five but for 10 and 20 and 50 and 100 years into the future. I will support this bill in so far as it has the potential to incrementally lower Aotearoa New Zealand’s carbon emissions. But I will unambiguously support this bill and other future climate legislation when they provide the transformational and fundamental shift in the status quo that we require. It is so frustrating to debate a bill that is so cowardly in its attempt to combat an international emergency. It is so frustrating to see a bill so minimal in its scope be shut down by those across the aisle when we should be standing in solidarity to send a collective message for, literally, the future of our generation. Aotearoa New Zealand cannot continue to set such unambitious climate legislation and claim to be genuine partners with our siblings across Te Moana-nui-a-Kiwa, while their ancestral lands sink under rising sea levels. Aotearoa New Zealand cannot continue to pay lip-service to rangatahi 25 voices without action that secures meaningful futures for us. Aotearoa New Zealand cannot continue to invest in transport policy that does not put ambitious decarbonisation strategies front and centre. Aotearoa New Zealand cannot continue to promote free-market solutions to problems aided and abetted by free-market capitalism in which businesses and corporations are able to profit off the destruction of Papatūānuku. The more inaction on this problem, the higher the costs of solutions become. In light of what is objectively an emergency, we must put people over profit. We cannot continue to put financial burdens of sustainable energy ahead of the future of our planet when the risk in this risk-benefit analysis is, literally, planetary extinction. Thank you. RAYMOND FENG (Youth MP for Dr Parmjeet Parmar): Thank you, Mr Speaker. We know that climate change will be irreversible in less than 11 years. By then, climate change would have seen the flooding of many coastal cities, and weather changes that make lands infertile and unfit for produce. This bill we have here today does not stop this. This bill does not mitigate climate change or its effects or better prepare New Zealand for it. This bill that we have in front of us today fails at its core purpose and will end up hurting the most vulnerable New Zealanders the most. What does this bill actually look like? It looks like hundreds of millions of dollars of investment into energy infrastructure—infrastructure that is already making New Zealand one of the lowest carbon- emitting countries in terms of electricity generation. This goal of 90 percent sustainable production by 2025 specifically, whilst realistic, comes with a massive marginal cost and it’s a cost that just isn’t worth what little benefit it hopes to bring. During winter months, energy usage by Kiwi families increases significantly. Right now, that energy shortage is supplemented through relatively affordable natural gas and imported fuel sources so that New Zealanders, at the end of the day, can have warm and healthy homes. This heavy cost for eight extra points of sustainability is a cost that someone has to pay for. Regardless of whether it’s through public or private investment, at the end of the day it will cost families more to run their heaters. The people hurt most by this are predominantly the poorer, the less socio-economically well off, and the most vulnerable Kiwis. Winter is already a tough time and this regressive bill will only make it worse. In fact, this bill doesn’t even go so far as to reduce our carbon emissions to the extent where the purposes under clause 3 are satisfied. The consequences that climate change has 10 years down the road are not going to change because of this bill. Preparing New Zealand and putting Aotearoa in a position to respond quickly to climate catastrophes and risks across the economy is what the Parliament’s top priority should be right now. This Parliament would serve the public’s interests much better if we were to prioritise funding towards research and development into actually reducing carbon in the atmosphere through extraction and under ongoing experimentations, of which New Zealand is currently a world leader. For this, I cannot support this bill. I urge other members of Parliament to also vote against it today. Thank you. JAMAL FISO (Youth MP for Paul Eagle): Lumen accipe et imperti. That motto is the basis for why I agree and commend to the House this bill, which aims to tackle sustainable energy. “Lumen accipe et imperti” is the motto of the school that I attend, the mighty Rongotai College. The motto is shared by two other schools in my electorate who I feel I must acknowledge, those schools being Wellington East Girls, as well as Wellington College, the former school, actually, of Youth MP Mr Clement Kong. This heart-warming motto translates to, “Receive the light and pass it on.” I mention this phrase in the House today because to me this bill encapsulates the idea of receiving the light and passing it on to generations after us—that light being a clean, green Aotearoa New Zealand, unlike the catfish country we currently are. I personally believe the Black Caps were screwed over on Monday morning, and for the cricket fans in my electorate I would hate to deliver any more devastating news to dampen their mood than that I voted down such a vital bill. That is why this Sustainable Energy Bill is designed to ensure that we live in a country that takes climate change seriously, by legislating both the private and public sectors. It provides political accountability with ambitious, achievable, and necessary targets, such as the long-term goal of ensuring that the light that we pass on to our tamariki is created from

26

90 percent renewable electricity. This legislation sets out appropriately how we should report our progress, as outlined in Part 4 of the bill. I support this bill because it ensures that the light that my generation passes on to our children is brighter than the light we ourselves received from the decades of taking from our environment while neglecting its need for nurture. The light that we pass on should not be stained with the same dirt and coal which the light we received was stained with. To finish, I would like to tell you a little bit about the past week of mine. I’ve been home alone with a cat and nobody else. To fill the lonely void of time I’ve been watching a lot of Netflix and a lot of movies. This bill reminds me, actually, of a song contained within a Disney movie I watched recently—Aladdin—because ultimately this bill would create a whole new New Zealand and: A whole new world A dazzling place I never knew But when I’m way up here It’s crystal clear That now I’m in a whole new world with you Let’s vote for this bill to create a whole new world. Thank you. SARAH FRASER (Youth MP for Hon Stuart Nash): Kia ora koutou. When I heard that the mock bill topic was going to be sustainable energy I was thrilled because there is no doubt in my mind that New Zealand is in desperate need of some solid legislation around the environment. But the question I kept coming back to when reading this bill was: is it the answer? Will this bill meet its goals of emissions reduction? The short answer is yes. I believe that this bill is extremely sound and is a step in the right direction for New Zealand’s climate goals. When looking at legislation on the environment one must consider whether it is a positive advance for a country’s role in the reversal of climate change. Does it capture the country’s view of a better environment in the future? Does it account for the reality of climate change in that particular country? My belief is that the bill fits all of these categories. It sets goals to meet targets and be held accountable for those targets. If put before Parliament as a real bill, I feel sure that it would be a highly positive contribution to New Zealand’s environment-related legislation. I love a good speech on the environment, and I have delivered many such speeches to my various English classes over the years. They are part of a somewhat unsuccessful attempt to awaken my peers to the importance and sad reality of climate change. I find it highly interesting when I step back and look at our generation’s response to this issue. There are those who speak up and take action, whether by attending the schools’ Strike for Climate or speaking about the topic in the debating chamber during Youth Parliament. Then there are those who listen to impassioned speeches about it in English class but stop thinking about it the moment they walk out the door. We are allegedly the generation who are fighting for politicians to do something about climate change, yet I feel this is a skewed view of what our response really is to the issue. In reality young people are either involved with politically driven campaigns, like we are, or don’t really want to know. While we are a generation that is making our voices heard more than ever, our peers watch us from backstage and aren’t granted the same voice. I have always felt that the people who are interested in something enough to want to be an advocate for it are the ones who are handed opportunities for their voices to be heard on a plate. But the people who don’t know how to express their interest in something are passed by. The greatest thing about this bill is that it is related to the biggest issue facing our generation, and that is great because those of us who are debating it today are here in Parliament representing not only our mentor MPs but our friends, our whānau, our schools, and our communities. So we are representing those who are passed by. To me that is the most important thing about being involved in politics, and many of us debating this bill today may have included the input of those who we are surrounded by. Many of us have been able to bring the voice of others into this bill.

27

I fully support this bill and commend it to the House. Amongst the many positive attributes of this bill, the most important aspect of it is that it allows for the response of those who don’t get the privilege of sitting in these seats, and that to me is what a good bill should be. Tēnā koutou. ETHAN GRIFFITHS (Youth MP for Hon Andrew Little): May I just acknowledge what a true honour it is to speak in this Chamber. I’ve watched sessions of Parliament religiously since I was 14 years old—quite obviously fitting the Taxpayers’ Union definition of a nerd. To be in this Chamber today representing the youth of my region is an immense privilege and something I have only dreamt of. I rise today—quite similar, in a sense, to sea levels—to speak in support of this bill. I believe this proposed legislation is a fantastic step forward in the right direction. I don’t think anyone, regardless of their political beliefs or affiliations, could conceivably argue that climate change isn’t a real threat and that New Zealanders should not be taking steps to mitigate the effects of climate change and reduce our emissions. This bill puts in place targets for New Zealand to reduce our emissions significantly, and it holds the Government accountable for these targets. These are extremely ambitious yet extremely achievable targets. For example, within the next six years New Zealand must jump from 80 to 90 percent renewable-energy electricity generation, relying more on hydro power and geothermal energy. This bill also requires transparency from the Government and requires them to put in place regimes to meet the targets set. This is an extremely valuable and much-needed step forward to put New Zealand on track to zero emissions by 2015. I do wish to raise a few concerns about this bill. These concerns aren’t related to the belief that this bill goes too far; in fact, it is precisely the opposite. One main concern is the target to make 2.125 percent of New Zealand’s vehicle fleet electric. Currently, as it stands, there are approximately 3.2 million petrol vehicles driving on New Zealand roads. That contrasts to only 15,000 electric vehicles. I do not believe that a goal to increase New Zealand’s electric fleet to a total of 2.125 percent, which is approximately 80,000 electric vehicles, is anywhere near ambitious enough and does not put us on the fastest track for overall sustainable transport in New Zealand. Currently, almost 15,000 registered vehicles are electric. Within six years, especially as vehicle manufacturers move to manufacturing significantly more electric vehicles, this target seems too low. However, I will reiterate that while I believe this bill could go further to achieve more, this bill is a fantastic step in the right direction, and I am proud to stand here and pledge my support. I commend this bill to the House. SOPHIE HANDFORD (Youth MP for Hon Kris Faafoi): Tēnā koutou katoa. Before I begin I would like to remind the House of the climate crisis we are in the midst of. I would like to remind the House that our Pacific brothers and sisters are already having to flee their homes because of the destruction climate change is causing to their shores and land. I would like to remind the House that climate change is a humanitarian crisis, an environmental crisis, and a social crisis. We are causing this crisis and we have lit our own home on fire, but we also hold all the power to put this fire out and create a better New Zealand for our people. This is a question of which side of history you want to be on. Since 1990, there has been a 23.1 percent rise in emissions in Aotearoa New Zealand. We cannot let this continue, and this huge increase shows that business as usual is not working for us and the planet on which we live. We are seeing mass extinctions, increasing weather events, and homelands being destroyed. For this reason, I commend this bill to the House and will vote for it, and I welcome the framework that it provides to go further. And we must go further, because it is our future—the future of our planet, the future of everything which we love—which is at stake here. A journey is only ever started with one step. We cannot continue on as we are—seeing ourselves as separate from the whenua on which we stand. We are a part of the environment and the land and we are digging ourselves into a hole, and we have to start somewhere. We can’t keep digging down. The time we have to act is closing and the cost of inaction is our collective future. A journey only ever starts with one step. Energy accounts for 40.7 percent of our New Zealand greenhouse gas emissions profile, just behind agriculture, which accounts for 48.1 percent. At the same time as implementing this bill, I 28 believe we need to be investing in building our renewable sector to ensure that the increased demand for renewable energy can be kept up with. We have to start somewhere. A journey is only ever started with one step. This means immediate investment in renewable energy production and reducing the need for fossil fuels in transport. We must also retrain and take action through the provision of alternative jobs in clean, sustainable industries that don’t harm the ecosystems on which we depend for survival. This must be done through meaningful partnerships with communities, tangata whenua, and youth to ensure a just transition and that no one is left behind. Climate justice—this conversation is about everything. It’s about everything that we love. It’s not just about the environment and the planet; it’s literally everything which is on the planet as well. So, for that reason, I will vote in favour for this bill and I hope that you all will do so for our collective future and the future of everything on this planet and the planet itself. Thank you. JAMIE HARPER (Youth MP for Hon Nathan Guy): I rise today as the representative for the beautiful electorate of Ōtaki to give my support to the Sustainable Energy Bill in its final reading. This is a bill that at its core seeks to provide a framework that encourages the use of renewable energy sources in Aotearoa New Zealand; a bill that aims to reduce New Zealand’s reliance on non- renewable energy sources, thereby minimising and reducing energy-related greenhouse gas emissions. The question I pose to members of this House is how could we not support a bill that seeks to aid in the fight against one of the greatest pressures facing our society? No longer, as a nation, can we rely on the energy created by the burning of fossil fuels—increasing our emissions, degrading our environment, harming our society. Set out within the bill is a number of targets, both interim and long term. These targets’ purpose is to ultimately facilitate accountability for reducing greenhouse gas emissions from the energy sector and to encourage both the public and private sectors to realign a focus on the sustainable use of energy. By 2025, it is targeted that 90 percent of New Zealand’s electricity will be sourced from renewable reserves, a target that on current tracking is entirely possible. As of 2018, 83.9 percent of our electricity came from renewable sources. I believe this target could have been much more ambitious in its intent. If this legislation was to be passed, we could easily meet our current international obligations, including both the Kyoto Protocol and the Paris Agreement. This bill would align our international obligations—obligations that Governments have previously signed up to. There are innumerable economic, social, and environmental benefits that, if this piece of legislation were to be enacted, would be created as positive consequences: employment and increased market growth, increased productivity, and competitiveness. To conclude, the question I pose to members is do we continue along the path of ignorance and inaction; do we perpetuate the continuation of decades of minimal action? No longer can we be reactive. We must be proactive and take substantive action before it’s too late. I urge members to take action. Support this piece of legislation. This bill is a step in the right direction and I commend it to the House. DAN HARWARD JONES (Youth MP for Greg O’Connor): I strongly commend this bill to the House. It takes a village to raise a child they say, but it takes a generation’s childish negligence to raise the sea levels that destroy that village. So let’s talk about saving it. What makes this bill great is the balance of the values behind it and the practicality going forward. It protects the most vulnerable today and even the most protected in future generations, who one day we will not be commending them as inspirational young leaders whilst prohibiting them from voting on the issues that are more relevant to them. But, in the meantime, we can prepare for the change they bring by setting targets with flexible ways to achieve them. Technology changes and the wants of people change, but the facts of the disaster approaching us do not. The cleaner, more adaptable future offered by 90 percent renewable energy does not either. Many of the arguments in opposition come from history, meaning that some targets have been reached poorly in the past. So for this transition to be dynamic and effective, it needs to be 29 responsive—culturally, technologically, and environmentally. We cannot rely anymore on top- down change. It has to be in-outwards change. Let’s decide these goals together and reach out to truly know how we’ll get to them. We cannot afford to alienate anyone in this, least of all those who will be hurt by climate change the most. And I firmly believe the accountability measures in this bill will help us to avoid this. So to conclude, I will vote in favour of the Sustainable Energy Bill, because it outlines bold targets with opportunity for robust public engagement. The hills and valleys of my electorate, Ōhāriu, aren’t threatened by rising sea levels like other parts, but that just helps us appreciate the security that everybody should and can feel—in our urban spaces, in our rural communities, and, as luck would have it, in our Pacific Island neighbours, because we must remember that this choice isn’t just about my beautiful electorate nor our beautiful country; it is about our beautiful planet that we must be held accountable for preserving. I’m reminded of the whakataukī: tangata ākona ki te whare, te tūnga ki te marae, tau ana. We learn and set targets here but must inspire a global awareness and commitment by spreading that understanding as far as we can reach. I think of women’s suffrage and of nuclear free, and I remember that our reach isn’t limited by oceans. It extends farthest with transparency and an open mind—those values that this bill enshrines. And with determination, an open mind can reach for the best of humankind. Kia ora. Azaria Howell: Madam Speaker. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Just before I call you, can I say kia ora tātou to the House. My name is Anne Tolley. I am the MP for the East Coast, but I am also the Deputy Speaker. I’ve spent a long time trying to get here to join you today, so I’m very pleased to see you all. Can I just remind you that interjections are reasonable. Keep them reasonable, keep them rare, and preferably witty. AZARIA HOWELL (Youth MP for Hon Eugenie Sage): Described as having stunning scenery, a wide array of native birds and fish, and being picture perfect, the Port Hills I’ve had the privilege to spend the past five years of my life on must be protected under New Zealand law. Events such as the dreadful Port Hills fire have the potential to become even worse due to the catastrophic effects of climate change. However, the current status quo, sadly, ensures the loss of some of our beautiful landscape, with unsustainable energy practices taking place across Aotearoa. We must act. We must put our foot down with courage and commitment in order to create a world which is sustainable for all of us. This bill, therefore, is a step in the right direction to protect our climate and to reduce emissions, to have a healthy earth, with respect, of course, to Papatūānuku. These aren’t just my words. Millions of young people across our globe have been taking part in climate protests. We know it’s a crisis. We know it’s an emergency, and it should be treated as such. This bill does ensure that renewable energy moves to a figure of 90 percent. It therefore should not be very difficult to set a long-term target of 100 percent sustainable energy, phasing out the uses of coal, oil, and gas over a long period of time. In the bill, a 90 percent target should be met by 2025. However, I propose that we should ensure this figure reaches 100 percent by 2030—this is possible—given the seriousness of our climate emergency. In addition, the strategy set out by the bill is crucial to its success and to the response of the public. Consultation with affected communities is paramount to the success of this bill. However, it is important that young people do not get left out from this bill. We have been the loudest generation so far with regard to climate change, and we shall not let this bill stop this. This Government announced a new subsidy for electric vehicles recently, and the target of just over 2 percent of motor vehicles being sustainable should not be very difficult to achieve, and I believe that this is unambitious. We must recognise that those who can often afford sustainable transport, sustainable energy, and an overall sustainable lifestyle are those of a higher social class, as it can often be more expensive than other methods. Therefore, we must invest in public transportation. This is quite literally a matter of life and death. Sustainable energy powers the bright future of this nation, and, even though the bill should have higher targets, it is still helping move our country 30 forward in terms of our environment and in terms of climate action. To quote Jane Goodall, “You cannot get through a single day without having an impact on the world around you.” So let’s reduce this impact, and let’s vote in favour of this bill. ANYA KHALID (Youth MP for Marja Lubeck): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Honourable Youth MPs, I stand here before you as a person who firmly supports the Sustainable Energy Bill. We are facing a global catastrophe: our planet is heating up. Forgive me for being melodramatic, but this is an important matter. The Sustainable Energy Bill gives us a chance to show the rest of the world that it is possible to have a country that uses only renewable energy. However, we have a fair way to go before we can achieve this. Presently, we have many imported vehicles that don’t necessarily comply with our current emission standards. We could legislate a higher degree of accuracy through an emissions test; however, this would not benefit our population as they are reliant on cheap vehicles as their form of transportation, and it would be unfair to victimise them. Of course, there are other methods available to our society that allow us to move in a more cost- efficient and eco-centric way. There are a number of alternative transport methods, namely public transport and hydrogen cell - powered and electric battery - powered vehicles. As part of the bill’s long-term and interim targets, we are to have 2.125 percent and 15,000 electric vehicles registered, licensed, and on the roads. But how can we ensure this? Well, we could start by subsidising the purchase and consumption of electric vehicles and provide incentives to power-producing companies to provide electrical power stations. This would also increase the market for car businesses and increase jobs in that sector. As well as increasing the subsidisation for public transport, we would be benefiting the entire system—the consumers, the carbon emissions, and the congestion on the roads. I believe that the majority of cars on our roads should be electric or be using renewable energy. It not only benefits the atmosphere and environment but it would positively affect people both on the roads and people like me, who can’t drive yet. It is imperative that we take the first step toward making New Zealand less reliant on non-renewable energy, and, for this reason, I will be voting in favour of the Sustainable Energy Bill. Thank you, Madam Speaker. MARIA KOPILEVICH (Youth MP for Erica Stanford): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I’d like to acknowledge the member in having their bill drawn from the ballot and making it to third reading today—although I’d imagine even the member must be surprised at the bill’s success to date. While this bill has the noblest intentions, good intentions do not make a good bill, and this is a very bad bill. This is a bill that not only lacks substance but has had a far from ideal process and no proper scrutiny and will fail to deliver anything short of empty rhetoric and virtue signaling. It is not hard to see when a bill hasn’t been thought through carefully enough. Essentially, this bill doesn’t achieve anything. All this bill does is says “Here are some targets we’ve got to reach.”, yet puts all the decision making into some incapable hands, with no explanation of how we’re going to achieve these targets. You know, we all claim to love working groups and love consultation, so where is it? There was huge consultation when it came to banning single-use plastic bags, and now we’re faced with this immensely important bill and yet the transport, energy, or electricity sectors haven’t even been spoken to prior to this bill. Frankly, all the power is placed into the hands of our energy and resources Minister—and we all know what our wonderful Minister is capable of. Let’s talk about the oil and gas ban in Taranaki for a second. No Cabinet paper, no economic analysis, no consultation or evidence from officials that the ban would increase global emissions— but, hey, let’s give them the power to destroy our economy with no proper scrutiny once again, shall we? I understand that this is a member’s bill and the ability for prior consultation is challenging given the lack of resources available to members. But this is not a small bill. This bill has the ability to collapse our economy, and proper process with such a bill is vital. There has been no engagement with electric vehicle companies and the transport sector and no consultation with the energy and electricity sectors. They’ve literally been left out in the cold, so to speak. 31

The truncated select committee process meant that once again, the public didn’t even get a say, and the public are the ones at greatest risk from this bill. Once again, we’re trying to get another bill through in a rush, but sustainable energy isn’t something that can be rushed. New Zealand’s electricity sector is already one of the most efficient and renewable sectors in the world, at 86 percent. We’ve got our priorities entirely wrong if one of the main focus points in this bill is increasing our renewable electricity by 4 percent. Yet here we are, with a bill trying to increase sustainable energy, knowing it’s highly unlikely that power companies even have the capability to build their capacity of renewables in such a short time frame. Investing in renewable energy is also massively expensive. Adding massive costs to the electricity sector will not only hurt our economy but will specifically hurt vulnerable Kiwis through a big hike in power prices. These are people who are already suffering from higher rents, petrol prices, and increase to cost of living. Yet there is nothing in this bill which requires the Minister to consider the costs to these people. This bill has good intentions, but the reality is that this bill is simply ill-thought-through empty rhetoric that will have the perverse effect of hurting those in our society without actually achieving the goals it sets out to achieve. We can and must do better than this. For these reasons, I will be opposing this bill today. SAM OXFORD (Youth MP for Hon Scott Simpson): As the youth member for the Coromandel, it is in my electorate’s greatest interests, as an area with over 400 kilometres of coastline that we acknowledge and address the threat that climate change poses to our homes and lifestyle. While I do believe the bill in question is taking a step in the right direction, I do not believe that it, in its current form, is taking a big enough step towards the all-important 100 percent renewable energy target that we should be aiming to reach instead of the 90 percent target that is specified. However, there are simple solutions to this that, if addressed, could remove the need to stick to an underwhelming long-term target and could allow us to realistically achieve the 100 percent target in the short term. So solution one: I believe that with a small reallocation of funds from costly subsidy deals that the Government has previously handed out to major industrial firms, we could make a meaningful dent in that final percent of non-renewable energy generation in our country. Madam Speaker, as I’m sure you are aware, located on Tīwai Point— DEPUTY SPEAKER: Don’t bring me into the debate. Don’t bring the Speaker into the debate. SAM OXFORD: —OK—lives an enormous aluminium smelting facility that is owned by a multinational corporation that last year brought in over $207 million in net profit. This facility uses approximately one-seventh of New Zealand’s power, and almost half of the $66 million yearly bill that the facility pays for its power consumption was subsidised in a messy deal by the National Government back in 2013. But there could have been another option. If the Government had, simply, halved this corporation’s power subsidy, they could have realigned the $33 million towards partially funding the installation of solar power systems in schools, removing over 1,500 gigawatt hours from the strain on the power grid, which is almost 4 percent of the nation’s power use in itself. This would work to provide clean, renewable energy to the places where the next generations will learn and grow. This could have also saved the Ministry of Education over $20 million a year in power bills that could then be reinvested into learning resources and continuing to increase the quality of education that Kiwi kids deserve. Now, I’m not going to try and pretend like I ever had a solution to it in the first place—not because this speech is limited to three minutes but because it is up to us as a nation to find the other solutions. If these are the sort of solutions that 17-year-olds can find after a few hours of googling and making phone calls, imagine the solutions that an experienced researcher, statistical analyser, or the combined brains of an entire classroom—let alone a House of Parliament—could find if they took to it.

32

While I cannot commend this bill to the House, and therefore urge you to vote against it, I do commend that you all take some time to look into potential solutions for the big-picture problems that our nation and world face. With the internet at our fingertips, and our spheres of influence only growing larger as we grow taller, we have more information available to us than ever, and, therefore, we have no excuse for not doing our part to make our nation a better and cleaner country for all. Thank you. GWEN PARALLAG (Youth MP for Hon Julie Anne Genter): Madam Speaker, I’m feeling a wee bit tired. Earlier this year I became quite disillusioned with the elected leaders of New Zealand, particularly with responses against the School Strike 4 Climate movement, and the announcement of the Climate Change Response (Zero Carbon) Amendment Bill, which falls short of the change required for our country to meet the targets and requirements of the Paris Agreement. I found solace and comfort knowing I was backed by the youth across the country. Today, I am feeling disillusioned with my own generation, upon learning that a large number of youth members will be voting against the Sustainable Energy Bill, which encourages sustainable energy usage and reduces emissions in New Zealand. I am not naive. I acknowledge that, as it stands, the Sustainable Energy Bill has underwhelming ambitions, and it is our moral obligation to go further, holding ourselves accountable by declaring a climate emergency. That said, it is incredibly discouraging to know some members can’t find it in themselves to support this climate action legislation, particularly in the context of Youth Parliament, where our actions and decisions are tokenistically used by our respective parties and the media to communicate what we think are the most pressing issues. Passing this bill is a statement that we see sustainable energy and climate change legislation as a need and necessity for the betterment of our society. We are constantly described as change-makers, risk takers, and trailblazers. Your vote today will be the judge of your character. Therefore, I commend this bill to the House. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Actually, it isn’t a judge of my character—so you don’t bring the Speaker into it. It’s one of the funny things in the House: that you address the Speaker, but you don’t talk to the Speaker, if you understand. Youth Member: You’ll be a judge of their character. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Ha, ha! OK—Matt Poša. MATTHEW POŠA (Youth MP for Hon Alfred Ngaro): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Ladies and gentlemen of the House, I stand before you today to state the reasons why the Sustainable Energy Bill, before the House at present, is one which should not be supported. Whilst the motivations behind the Sustainable Energy Bill are admirable—and ones that I personally believe this House has a duty to address in some form—I cannot ignore the fact that the paper before me today is, unfortunately, an overwhelmingly weak and substance-lacking piece of proposed legislation. Ultimately, the bill fails to deliver. Clearly, the bill presents the notion that it aims to achieve a 5 percent reduction in energy sector emissions by the end of June 2025. As we know, one of the largest contributors to energy sector emissions is fossil fuel consumption related to domestic transport—most notably road freight haulage and private passenger vehicles. Obviously, to achieve a 5 percent reduction leaves the ministry with very limited options: either move to an electric rail freight network at great expense to the taxpayer and place restrictions on commerce, or move our current domestic fleet towards an electric future, like paragraph (c) of clause 8 aims to achieve. Paragraph (c) states its aims as wanting to have 2.125 percent of all new, registered vehicles being electric—an increase in current figures, yes, but sadly another ill-thought-out aim, as the New Zealand public seemingly have a disregard for electric vehicles. Let’s be real: 2 percent of our fleet is not a game-changer. So, convincingly, I think the notion can be upheld that the target is over-ambitious and, in most respects, unachievable. Moreover, again clause 8, again subclause (1), but this time paragraph (b), attempts to make New Zealand produce 90 percent renewable electricity by end of financial year 2025, with the interim target of 2 percent increases per annum. I respectfully ask, what is the point 33 of this clause? It, in fact, highlights the rather redundant nature of the bill. Ultimately, New Zealand currently produces roughly 83.9 percent renewable electricity, a number that has increased year upon year since 2005. In fact, we saw a whole 2 percent increase in the period between 2017 and 2018 alone, conveying that left to its own devices, this sector is making the move to renewable energy at the same pace as the bill aims. Therefore, the question can be answered. There is no point to this clause, and, unfortunately, there is no point to this bill. Convincingly, it is clear that the Sustainable Energy Bill before the House mustn’t pass, ultimately because there is no need, there is no point, and there is little want. Let me be clear: this bill does not represent climate justice, as some members of this House will have you believe. So I absolutely implore this House to unequivocally oppose this bill. Thank you. MEGHSHYAM PRAKASH (Youth MP for Matt King): All right. Tēnā koutou, and thank you, Madam Speaker. I’d like to say that I fully support the idea of the Sustainable Energy Bill, and its aims are what we should be striving for in this country. This bill shows accountability, variability, and, most importantly, gives measurable targets, which are achievable. However, like bills that have been presented to Parliament before, I believe that this bill has the bark, but no bite to produce an impact on our current situation. For instance, New Zealand is already 82 percent renewable according to the most valid and irrefutable source: Wikipedia. Now, with 82 percent renewability, an increase of 8 percent is going to be providing little impact to our carbon emissions, according to the Paris Agreement. The only really non-renewable energy source that we hire is the Huntly power station, which only serves as a backup when demand becomes too high. Now, I’m not arguing that we shouldn’t be changing our energy sources to cleaner, more efficient energy. But the rate which is stated is not high enough to cause much effect to our carbon emissions. We need to be aiming higher, with bigger time frames. I do applaud our regions which tap into our natural, renewable energy resources. For instance, in Northland we have a geothermal station known as the Ngawha Power Station in Kaikohe, which is currently undergoing expansion and has the ability to power my region’s needs 90 percent of the time. This massive undertaking shows the true power of renewable energy sources, and shows that only the sky is the limit. We need to focus on increasing this goal nationwide to see the impacts from our decisions. I, however, completely support the idea of introducing electric vehicles into our ownership fleet. If we are to achieve this we would need to see massive subsidisation of the high costs that come with buying electric cars to encourage everyday Kiwi consumers to take up this cleaner and eco- friendly option without, may I add, affecting rural New Zealand farmers who currently do not have an electric option for their workloads. I wish to see an expansion of this idea into the public transportation system. Having more electric buses and trains in our cities would reduce carbon emissions immensely. As well as that, I wish to encourage the Government, and this bill, to incentivise a greater use of a cleaner public transport system; less cars on the roads, better for our environment—as easy as that. In all, this bill’s importance is massive, and if we are to see a better and brighter future for New Zealand, we should be supporting it, not only for us but for future generations. So on behalf of Northland, I commend this bill to the House, and, with the extra time that I have, I wish that members knew that there’s a thing called amendments. Thank you very much. REBEKAH OKEROA RAIHANIA (Youth MP for Hon Meka Whaitiri): I stand today to speak against the Sustainable Energy Bill, which, in essence, is supposedly based around mitigating the effects of climate change on present and future generations in Aotearoa. This Bill appears to bring about change that will benefit us all. As rangatahi Māori, we are committed to being part of the vocal rōpū that looks to bring both attention and reduction in the growing effects impacting on our climate. Globally: I acknowledge NZ has already made many climate change commitments under a number of national and international agreements, so we know we have leaders that are focused on sustainable use of energy. So what does make this bill any different? Yes—it will hold the Minister

34 of sustainable energy to account if the legislative targets have not been achieved, and this may then end up in courts, with a declaration stating that they had not met the targets. However, I would like to step this monitoring exercise up a level to that of a call to action, encouraging sustainable use of energy resources by all in our country. To assist in identifying and achieving targets, this bill needs to consider the significant role of iwi and Māori as Treaty partners. In saying that, one of the gaps I have sighted in this bill is the absence of a Treaty of Waitangi settlements clause. I for one have witnessed first-hand the signing of a Treaty settlement. This was the Ngāi Tāmanuhiri settlement led by my uncle Na Raihania, chairman, in 2011 at our marae in Muriwai, Ikaroa-Rāwhiti—my electorate. The parliamentary Ministers came onto our marae, offering an apology and declaring that we would be Treaty partners in all things affecting our region. By now, I would have expected that this bill would have included a stronger indigenous presence and consideration into the role iwi and Māori may lead in offering mātauranga Māori targets. Mātauranga Māori can be defined as the knowledge, comprehension, or understanding of everything visible and invisible existing in the universe, and is often used within the context of wisdom. In essence, it’s about measuring everything as players in the environmental space. Therefore, I would challenge those developing the Sustainable Energy Bill to understand the value of mātauranga Māori being included as a measurable target. In order for this bill to succeed it needs many partners to achieve its outcome, and its Treaty partner holds a very significant role to assist this. Finally, I support the intent of this bill and the details within it. However, I demand the Treaty partnering relationship be included to further encourage the sustainable use of energy by all in Aotearoa New Zealand, because, as Māori, we identify with our maunga, awa, hapū, and so on. Therefore, our identity is on the line here. Ngā mihi. MAETEROA REWIRI (Youth MP for Kiritapu Allan): Although I support action against climate change and I do wholeheartedly wish to save my planet, I am sorry, but I cannot support this mock bill. Sustainable energy—although it is a large issue, there is already a large part of our community that uses sustainable energy in our region. I’m not stating that most of the East Coast owns electric vehicles, but we do use other sustainable energy. So I cannot support this bill when our largest issue is trivialised. Mental health is trivialised, health itself is trivialised—and I’m sure that’s not just in my region. Through the annual provisional suicide statistics report, we know that 668 lives were lost to suicide in the years 2017 and 2018. We know that 142 of those lives are Māori. Youth Member: What does this have to do with the bill? MAETEROA REWIRI: I’m stating reasons as to why the bill isn’t going to help or benefit my region. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes, I’m aware of that. To those who interfered, actually, the Speaker is the one who decides relevancy. You can talk about other issues but you have to relate them to the bill. This is the final reading of a piece of legislation in front of the House, and you need to be relating it back to that all the time. It takes some resourcefulness, but I’m sure you can get mental health in there somewhere, as long as you relate it back to the topic before the House. MAETEROA REWIRI: The East Coast community has one of the largest Māori communities in Aotearoa. So if suicide and mental health are targeting Māori communities and we have one of the largest communities, which one is more important? We have time to target sustainable energy and saving the planet through climate action, but we don’t have time to save our people? I am here to voice the opinions of my region and my people. I am going to ensure that they are heard, and I speak for them. I hope that everyone takes my words into consideration, and that we find time to consider the mental health, and the health in general, of our people in our regions. Thank you. LOGAN STADNYK (Youth MP for Hon Clare Curran): Action is what’s needed when it comes to the environment. As a 19-year-old with a hopeful attitude towards the future, and as a proud New Zealander, I am extremely happy to be debating such an important piece of legislation 35 in the House today. The world, as we know it, is at a crucial point where we risk doing irreversible damage to our precious planet. The past trend of turning a blind eye to our dependence on fossil fuels is beginning to change because there is a new, green option. I believe that this bill reflects that. The impacts of climate change are clear, and it is paramount that we act now. Climate change threatens to drown communities and cultures; the South Dunedin community in my electorate of Dunedin South is a prime example of this. South Dunedin is seeing a rising water table due to rising sea levels which, when combined with increasingly frequent extreme weather events, is leading to severe flooding on the surface. Global warming is putting the long-term habitability of South Dunedin at risk, which is why I’m happy to support this bill. This bill will let New Zealand lead the way on renewables and emissions reductions, which is crucial if we are to minimise the impacts of climate change. When digging into the details on this bill, I was happy to find specific targets around increasing investment in renewable energy, decreasing emissions from the energy sector, and increasing the number of electric vehicles on our roads. Targets are so important when it comes to the environment, because we only have one planet. Being complacent now could mean the loss of homes for people in my electorate of Dunedin South, and the loss of homeland and culture for many Pacific communities. New Zealand prides itself on leading the way; we made the right choice when it came to women’s suffrage, and I’m confident that this House can make the right decision today. Many of the members in the House today plan to vote against the bill because it’s not ambitious enough— because action must start now and we cannot be complacent. I find it strange that many of the members’ logic is that “It’s not ambitious enough, so we’re going to do nothing”. I mean, come on! I urge every member in this House to find themselves on the right side of history, standing in the booth behind me, voting for this bill. I commend this bill to the house. FLYNN SYMONDS (Youth MP for Shane Reti): It is undeniable that New Zealand is in need of a sustainable energy bill, and I believe this can be the one we are looking for. While there is work that should have been done within the bill—my main concerns are around the economic implications of the bill; the positives far outweigh these. It is the realistic targets set out within the legislation and the detailed accountability factors that make this a bill worthy of the New Zealand people. The realistic targets laid out in this bill are exactly what this country needs to bring us in line with the goals of the 2015 Paris Agreement. Outlined in Part 2, clause 8—long-term targets—subclause (a) details a 5 percent decrease in emissions in the New Zealand energy sector, based on that of 2020. This is to go hand in hand with the long-term target in subclause (b), which aims to increase the total amount of electricity being generated from renewable sources. The culmination of these two targets has the ability to bring New Zealand to the forefront of the world in terms of sustainable energy. In addition to this, long- term target three, subclause (c), is a goal of 2.125 percent of registered vehicles in New Zealand being electric—approximately 82,000 compared to 10,000 in 2015—which will further propel us into one of the most sustainable nations in the world. In addition to this, I believe that Part 5 of the bill—accountability—sufficiently outlines specific procedures and declarations which the Government must adhere to in order to be held accountable should they fail to meet these targets, as well as explain under which circumstances they have been unable to do so. I especially commend the frequency of reports required to be presented under Part 4, clause 13 of the bill, and the insistence placed upon making all this relevant information easily available to the public. It is my hope that this will have the effect of opening the Government in question to constructive criticism from both the House and the public. If passed, the combination of effective and realistic targets, with a strong sense of accountability on the Government and respective ministries, will help bring New Zealand into the age of climate sustainability we have been trying so desperately to achieve. While I wish this was a second reading, allowing time for amendments, I believe it is time to act—to end the waiting game of: who first? And be the first. It is for these reasons that I commend this bill to the House, on behalf of the people of Whangarei.

36

‘ALAKIHIHIFO VAILALA (Youth MP for Hon Aupito William Sio): I rise today, voting in favour of the Sustainable Energy Bill. Although flawed—like everything in politics—it’s a great start to something big, and let’s be frank: we can’t afford to be picky in a time of an emergency. To understand why this bill should be passed, you only have to look around the room. It may sound all so clichéd, but we really are the future. We will be the ones who’ll be inheriting this world, and don’t we deserve to inherit a world of quality, not a world that has been left damaged, because we’ll end up cleaning a mess that we did not create and that we are not responsible for? To add on to that, as people of the land of the long white cloud, we hold ourselves with great pride and care for our country of Aotearoa. However, since 1990, there has been an increase of 23.1 percent in greenhouse gas emissions in New Zealand. This has had significant environmental impacts, with more damage only expected to come if no action is taken against this. We often blind ourselves to the reality that will occur if we don’t take steps to protect our whenua. And you only have to look to the Pacific to see what will become of our nation if no action is taken any sooner. A number of islands are predicted to be underwater by 2050, and it is fair enough to claim that climate change is Pacific genocide, and it is only expected that New Zealand will be next. To pass the Sustainable Energy Bill will mean a chance at saving our beloved country, a country that was fished up from underwater. I support this bill, as we will reduce New Zealand’s reliance on non-renewable energy, and there are stats to prove that non-renewable energy is working, as well as providing a framework to encourage the sustainable use of renewable energy sources in New Zealand—with reference to clause 2 of the bill, where parts of the bill will be enforced at different times to meet sustainable energy targets. It’s all realistic, doable, and, after all, incredibly necessary for our futures. With this bill will come the bit of hope our generation needs for the future—to fix this imbalance that we as humans have created so that we and the generations to come can also enjoy a life of quality, just like generations before us got to live. Our right to life is currently under threat, under the effects of climate change and the effects that will come with that in future. I highly commend this bill to this House. Let this bill be the first step in tackling the issues of climate change—a cry out to people in power to remind them that our lives are at stake, because 2050 just simply isn’t good enough. Thank you. MAKAYLA WADSWORTH (Youth MP for Angie Warren-Clark): I rise today to represent the 41.5 percent of young people in the Bay of Plenty who believe climate change is the biggest issue facing them. Now, I know that sustainable energy isn’t the most emotional or controversial topic, but when I joined the tens of thousands of students all over New Zealand standing against climate change, it has come to my realisation that this is the most important issue we should be discussing in the House today. So I did a survey in my community, with 500 respondents of young people in the Bay of Plenty, and, to my surprise, 86.2 percent of respondents believe that New Zealand is not doing enough to combat climate change, which then explains why 91.7 percent of respondents support this bill. I come from a region that is both a home and a holiday destination, but we are at risk. We are at risk of extreme weather conditions and rising sea levels that can eradicate coastal infrastructure. Our farms are suffering from ongoing droughts, and the produce that the Bay of Plenty is famous for could be sacrificed by warmer winters and fewer frosts. The backbone of our economy is at risk if we don’t control our carbon emissions and pollution. Politicians have already met the wrath of students taking a stand against climate change, and I’m proud to say that I’m joined with most of them in this room. But let me clear when I say that we are going to do something about it. Whether this bill is perfect or not, we need something that is going to be a catalyst for climate justice, and that is what is most important here today. Therefore, there is no better time for me to stand up for this bill. This bill creates an incentive, and incentives are pretty important. When you have GDP growth, employment, and market growth in both private and public sectors, you do create an economic base to support sustainable energy but also support climate justice. Let our contribution to the environment go beyond our reusable coffee cups and our low-

37 energy light bulbs, and let’s look and push towards, as the future of tomorrow, a cleaner and greener Aotearoa. Thank you very much. ESTHER WALTERS (Youth MP for Hon Dr Nick Smith): Kia ora tātou, and what a privilege it is to be here today—not only representing the Hon Nick Smith in the Nelson seat but representing the community of rangatahi in Nelson that would be representing their views and opinions on why the Sustainable Energy Bill needs to be passed. I don’t think anyone reasonable can deny what we’re going through and where we’re headed because of the actions we are not taking as a national and global community—actions which could be taken now to care for our precious whenua and mitigate the wider social problems that climate change will inevitably cause. It makes perfect sense why we’re discussing this, because we must be the generation that steps up and says enough is enough—and we are. But we want good, sustainable action now, and we’re not having honest conversations around how this is going to happen. We know it’s not just young people that are passionate about ways to change our behaviour that will support a more hopeful future but it is our communities, our whānau across all of Aotearoa. However, change is not easy and it needs to be managed, supported, and hopeful, and we see these important elements in the bill. You see, I believe this bill is and should be like a tool box. A good tool box has all the right tools to help and to guide in making something or fixing something, and the bill falls short of providing the tools that we really need to enable the targets we are asking. We need to be talking about what we need to be doing now, and the bill describes the future and what we want to achieve, and it is immensely important, and I’m excited for that time, yet we do not know what is going to happen in those coming years, realistically. If we set up foundations that we can pass on through Governments so real change can happen, change that so many individuals and communities are asking for—foundations that enable large companies and communities that want to change to renewable sustainable energy because they see the benefits in the long term and not just the consequences of the present. This means we need to be having conversations that are hopeful into alternative ways that will support economic growth and still support what they are trying to achieve, where they think about the future and where we want to be. They need to be honest and helpful and they need to come from a place of vulnerability that shows the concerns of the future in our country. You see, there is hope in this bill—hope for change and hope for long-term commitments and accountability for actions. There is hope for economic growth and sustainable energy economies, innovation, and for our country to have better conversations between community and Government. These are some of the tools we fail to describe with this proposed legislation. Make no mistake though: change is not easy, and the concerns that we are not articulating through these tools well enough to enable these modest targets for companies and communities that through communication will be able to happen—the tools we have at our disposal will enable community to be vigilant and hopeful through the tough times we are facing and will face. LUKE WIJOHN (Youth MP for Chlöe Swarbrick): Kia ora, team. Can we get real for a minute? This bill isn’t real, but don’t think that just because this bill isn’t real that our power isn’t real, because I’m here to tell you: our power is real. Our power is that together, united, we have access to every member of Parliament in our country, and we can, and we must, show them that if the kids can get their act together and put dull party politics aside, then Lord knows it’s time for the adults to do the same. If we, the ones most affected by the destruction of our planet, do not want to do anything, then who the hell do we expect to do something for us? DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Just watch parliamentary language. LUKE WIJOHN: Hell is not parliamentary? DEPUTY SPEAKER: No. We try and avoid it in Parliament. LUKE WIJOHN: OK, OK.

38

I hear my mates say, “Oh, but I’m just not political.” But the thing is, if you breathe air, if you drink water, if you eat food, if you engage in society at all, then your actions have been influenced by politics. But there is hope: our generation has begun to get political. I have marched in the streets, like many of our MPs here that are sitting with us, and I did not leave those values at the door. I think, deep down, the reason why we marched is because we’re scared. I’m scared that my awa will be poisoned, that my maunga will be polluted, that my marae will be under water, and that my iwi will starve. This is our country’s future if we do not stand up for ourselves and fight to change the path we are heading down. Now, understanding the power that we have to change our country, this bill is weak, but this is a climate emergency, so I call BS on the idea that we can’t do better. Don’t listen when they or an Epsom-based MP spins a bunch of expletives and says that we can’t be better and that we can’t be the ones to lead the world into a sustainable future, because we can and we must. The science is clear. Last year the UN warned that we only have 12 years to save the planet from irreversible climate destruction. Currently, 1 million species are facing extinction, which would undermine the life support systems that all of us in this room rely on. This isn’t about pretending to be someone important or how good “Youth MP” looks on your CV or whether your old MP gives you a pat on the back for following party lines. Regardless of whether we consciously make change, change is coming. This is about what we do right now, with the cameras of the most powerful place in this country on us, and with the mandate and backing of 120 elected representatives who will make the decisions that determine whether we make change or whether we swim. Ka whawhai tonu mātou. Āke! Āke! Āke tonu atu. [We will keep fighting. Forever, forever, and forever.] TAYLA WOOLLEY (Youth MP for Hon Maggie Barry): Thank you. This is not climate justice. We demand meaningful action. This bill is not action; it’s clearly a bunch of targets that this Government is going to try and be held accountable for, and they may not even reach these targets. Then what? We still demand meaningful action. Then what? They fail again. Then what? Today, I rise to stand against this Sustainable Energy Bill. First of all, this bill aims to encourage a focus by Government and society on the sustainable use of energy. I find this interesting that this bill states this. However, our society and Government have clearly been doing this for the past 27 years. We have been using sustainable energy through protocols including but not limited to the Paris Agreement, the Kyoto Protocol, and the United Nations framework on climate change, and the statistics from 1990 back all of this up. These agreements already bind our country and our Government to work towards achieving sustainable energy targets, and as a signatory to these agreements, New Zealand is obliged to report about our actions to these targets. I strongly believe that renewable electricity should not be a major issue highlighted in this bill. We have been clearly progressing and working towards this for the last 27 years. It’s proven to be effective in our use of renewable energy sources, as we have the third-highest renewable electricity supply in the developed world, and in 2018, 83.9 percent of electricity came from renewable sources. This bill sets a target of a 5 percent decrease in greenhouse gas emissions in New Zealand. However, under the Kyoto Protocol, New Zealand has already agreed to a target to reduce emissions to the 1990 levels, so what is this bill achieving if we’ve already agreed to a target that achieves this? I raise the question: do we really need this bill to reinforce a long-term target that we are already in agreement on? Throughout the Sustainable Energy Bill, one of the long-term goals—five years away from now, I must say—is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Nearly half of New Zealand’s greenhouse gas emissions are from agriculture. However, they have only increased by 13.5 percent in the last 27 years, compared to transportation contributing 44 percent in 2017. Today, I stand firmly against the Sustainable Energy Bill, and I suggest you do your homework before you vote for it. SHINE WU (Youth MP for Brett Hudson): I stand here to firmly stand against this bill today. Let’s start with a very, very important point of agreement. All of us here agree that climate change 39 is a problem that needs to be dealt with. However, those of us that have spoken against this bill simply believe that there are better mechanisms of dealing with climate change, like improving the emissions trading scheme, that don’t have the pernicious effects on our most vulnerable communities which this bill does. I’m going to talk about two of those. Firstly, I want to talk about how this damages our crucial New Zealand industries, and, secondly, how this is incredibly regressive. On to the first: the problem with the target to reduce emissions from the New Zealand energy sector is that it does not specify the industries and the groups that the incidence of this policy will fall on to. Industries like the agricultural industry and other very prominent polluters have very strong lobbyists and unions who will resist the Government imposing restrictions on their agricultural emissions, and, as such, these groups with strong lobbyists and unions will have a greater capacity to stop the Government from reducing their emission quota. Thus, established industries like the agricultural and energy sector will be able to keep emitting at the expense of more vulnerable industries, like our postal, our construction, and our transport industries. The important thing to note here is that these vulnerable industries produce crucial goods and services for the lives of New Zealanders, so if they are handicapped by emissions restrictions, the quality of life for everyday New Zealanders will be diminished massively. Secondly, I want to talk about how this is incredibly regressive. Let’s take a couple of examples. A disproportionately high proportion of impoverished individuals in New Zealand live on the outskirts, in places like south Auckland and Porirua, or in rural communities—the outskirts of cities. These areas are relatively poorly serviced by public transport. These people need their cars to travel significant distances compared to the rest of the population, and will therefore be the group that is hardest hit by the increase in costs of operating a petrol-based car. Furthermore, a disproportionately high proportion of our most vulnerable citizens live in low-quality housing, which require wood, coal, and gas heating during the winters. If these forms of heating become less affordable, it leads to worse living conditions for our most vulnerable people, which unfortunately comprises of vast amounts of our Māori, our Pasifika, and our rural communities. As Makayla pointed out, we need a catalyst for climate change. It is simply unfortunate that she seems to want a catalyst that detrimentally harms New Zealand’s most vulnerable citizens—our rural communities, our Māori and Pasifika communities—and some of our most crucial industries. I urge you to vote against this bill. HENRY YAO (Youth MP for Hon Tim Macindoe): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s a real pleasure to be the final speaker in today’s debate on the Sustainable Energy Bill. Listening to the speeches before me, I completely agree with the youth member based in Ōhāriu. I think it’s safe to say that most members here today do agree that climate action is one of the most pressing things which we do have to act on. I think the question is, therefore, where this bill fits in, and that’s where I start to disagree with the youth member for Ōhāriu, because I do believe that the Sustainable Energy Bill is a bill which will help New Zealand play our part in combating the issue of climate change. In my speech I’d like to look at two main themes, the first of which is how this piece of legislation will impact further Government policies and actions—because, no, the targets by themselves won’t make a difference, but the actions that they will force Government to make will. Actions like investing in things like electric vehicles and in shifting away from energy sources which do harm our environment are things that we do have to do right now. As the member based in Ōhāriu mentioned, yes, these changes will be difficult to make, but they are actions which we do have to make right now if we are to save the planet. The second question I’d look at now is how the accountability mechanisms set out in the bill will impact Government transparency, because this is a bill which will help make information on the progress New Zealand is making in the area of climate action more widespread and ensure that the Government is held to account on our contribution as a country to the global effort of combatting climate change. I don’t think we need to look any further than KiwiBuild to see how effective

40 targets are in generating public discussion and pressure, which is something we do need in the area of climate change. Youth Member: But no outcomes? HENRY YAO: The outcomes will come because Governments will be bound by this and, of course, people will respond to the media, right? But the targets on KiwiBuild have been incredibly effective in causing a discussion on housing, which is what we need in the area of climate change as well. So overall, together with, of course, the zero carbon bill currently in the House, the Sustainable Energy Bill is a bill which will further ensure New Zealand contributes to global climate action. I commend this bill to the House. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is that the Sustainable Energy Bill be passed by the House. Those of that opinion will say aye; to the contrary no. The Ayes have it? The Speaker has agreed that a personal vote will be held. Ring the bells.

41

A personal vote was called for on the question, That the Sustainable Energy Bill be now passed. Ayes 72 Albert Fiso McKnight Taramai Berryman-Kamp Flannery Mika Thompson Bloomfield Fraser Nemeroff Thonrithi Brogden Gallagher Noviskey Tiakiwai Wharehinga Buchan Ganatra Palmer Timmo Champion Griffiths Parallag Vailala Chen L Handford Paterson Vili Cowan Harper Penno Wadsworth Dennison Harward Jones Prakash Walters Dhillon Hatley Rahurahu West-John Ding Howell Raman Wijohn Donald Kapao Rodger Willemstein Dorrance Khalid Satele Witehira Doyle King Sa’u Yao Duval Kotara Scarsbrook Erstich Coles Lal Sharma Faaumu Lewis Stadnyk Faber Lootah Symonds Fallow Manning Takahashi Teller: Hedge Noes 46 Bateup Kaa-Luke Prince White Bonilla Casanas Kong Raihania Wood Campbell Kopilevich Randall Woolley Chen A Lapish Rewiri Wright Chen S Macey Santhara Wu Copinga Martin Sokimi Xie Dargaville Rehua Minnear Tagi Young Doubtfire Nikora Taquet Zhang-Mitchell Douglas Oosterbroek Taylor Zhang Feng Oxford Tizzard Gammeter Perez Turner Ghuman Poša Twiss Teller: Ford Abstains 2 Barua Tewhakaara Bill passed. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Now you can clap. [Applause] Unlock the doors. Materoa Rewiri will close with a karakia. KARAKIA MATEROA REWIRI (Youth MP for Kiritapu Allan): Ka īnoi tātou. Kia whakapaingia Te Ariki, Te Atua e whakaora nei i ā tātou ki ngā mea papai i tēnei rā, i tēnei rā. Āe rā. E Te Atua, he aha rā mātou te tangata e whakarere i ā koe. Aue Te Ariki, torongia tōu ringa matau hei pou mō mātou tōu Wairua Tapu, hei whakamārama i ō mātou ngākau, ngā toto o tōu tama kotahi. Hei tahu atu i ō mātou hara katoa. Kororia ki tōna ingoa tapu. Āmine. [Let us pray. Glory to the Lord, to the God who sustains us in all the good things we do today. Yes indeed. Who are we, man, to turn away from you Lord. Please Lord, give us your right hand as

42 a symbol of the Holy Spirit and to enlighten our hearts, the blood of your one son, to sweep away all of our sins. Glory to his holy name, amen.] DEPUTY SPEAKER: So the time has come for the lunch break. The House is suspended and will resume at 1.20 p.m. Family and friends and your MPs are welcome to come down into the debating Chamber to take photos with the youth members between 12.30 and 12.40 p.m. At 1.20 p.m., the House resumes. Wait, wait, wait—can we just ask the chairs of the select committees to come back and sign off their reports, because we’re going to report those through after lunch. The process is you wait until the Speaker leaves the House. You do stand when I come in and out, and then you’re allowed to go. So the House is suspended and will resume at 1.20 p.m. Sitting suspended from 12.16 p.m. to 1.20 p.m. KARAKIA TAYLOR RENATA NIKORA (Youth MP for Adrian Rurawhe): Karanga, karanga, karanga ki ā Ranginui e tū iho nei. Karanga, karanga kia Papatūānuku e takoto ake nei. Kia rarau ngā tapuwae a tāngata. He putanga ariki, he putanga tauira. Kia ora pai ai te ara kupu mātua. Nā Rongo, nā Tāne, nā Rēhua. Ka puta ki ngā hau tapuwae ā Tāwhirimātea, ki te whai ao, ki te ao Mārama. E Rongo, whakairia ki runga ai, tūtūru-ō-Whiti whakamaua kia tina—tina. Haumie huie—Tāiki e.) [I summon, I summon, I summon Ranginui who stands above us. I summon, I summon Papatūānuku who lies below. Let the footsteps of man remain. Emerge the master, emerge the student, so that the spoken path of our ancestors will be well. From Rongo, Tāne, and Rēhua. Emerging to the windy footprints of Tāwhirimātea, to the world of light. Rongo, let it be upheld, hold fast and make it tangible, grasp it and make it manifest—Manifest. Let the threads be bound together.] MOTIONS Youth Parliament—Acknowledgment of Climate Emergency LUKE WIJOHN (Youth MP for Chlöe Swarbrick): I seek leave of the House to move a motion without notice and without debate that this House acknowledge the need for climate action. DEPUTY SPEAKER: A point of order has been called. Just to explain to the House, anyone can object to that and has the right to object, the same as any member has the right to call a point of order. So is there any objection to that point of order? There is none. LUKE WIJOHN (Youth MP for Chlöe Swarbrick): I move, That this House acknowledges the need for climate action by declaring a climate emergency. DEPUTY SPEAKER: I will put that. It will be heard on the voices, of course. Motion agreed to. REPORTS Report of the Youth Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee SHINE WU (Chairperson of the Youth Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee): I now present the report of the Youth Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee on its inquiry into how we can maintain economic growth while reducing the wealth gap. Essentially, a couple of points of context before we get into our recommendations. What we have seen is that New Zealand has experienced steady economic growth since 2012 and the wealth gap has increased rapidly from 1980. It did stabilise in the 1990s, though, and it has remained constant since then. We consider that there is a role for the Government in reducing inequality and material hardship. So with that being said, we had four main points of recommendation. The first one is surrounding housing. What we thought is that rising house prices have the biggest effect on low-income earners for three reasons. The first one is that high house prices incentivise overcrowding, which can cause health problems. The second one is that high house prices mean that there is less money left over for other necessities such as heating and food. The third one is that housing is a source of wealth. 43

So with that being said, our recommendations are threefold. Firstly, we recommend systematically reviewing the existing stock of regulations to identify any unnecessary barriers to increasing housing supply and amend these regulations where appropriate. The second one is that we recommend investigating the desirability and feasibility of accelerating the Government’s investment in building more social housing. The third one is that we would recommend implementing policies that encourage people to move into the regions where there is not a housing crisis, which is to say regions outside of places like Auckland and Wellington. The second area which we have recommendations around is regulatory systems. The chief economist at the New Zealand Initiative, Dr Eric Crampton, came to present to us yesterday, and he believes that ownership rules and regulations that prevent overseas investors and local entrepreneurs from opening businesses in New Zealand prevent competition, resulting in higher prices. This is regressive and hurts poorer people more, and as such we are concerned that some of New Zealand’s regulatory systems are no longer fit for purpose. We would recommend that the relevant Government entity review major regulatory frameworks such as the occupational licensing regime and the Overseas Investment Act, to ensure that they remain relevant and do not unnecessarily prevent economic growth or reduce consumer choice. The third recommendation we have is around the living wage. We consider it important for New Zealand to transition towards becoming a living-wage nation, and we think the Government should change its procurement policies to require Government entities to only engage in companies that pay a living wage, and, secondly, that it inquire into the feasibility and desirability of requiring large businesses to pay a living wage. The fourth area where we had recommendations was taxation. We want to introduce compulsory financial literacy education in high schools and make our tax brackets more progressive. Kia ora. Report of the Youth Education and Workforce Committee TAA RAMSAY VILI (Chairperson of the Youth Education and Workforce Committee): I now present the report of the Youth Education and Workforce Committee on its inquiry into how we can adjust our methods of teaching to better support students of all ethnicities. We the select committee believe that it is crucial for teaching methods and education in general to cater for New Zealand’s large, diverse ethnic mix. The Youth Parliament’s Education and Workforce Committee makes the following recommendations to the Government. We recommend that it coordinate the integration of New Zealand history at all ages and areas of the curriculum with local iwi and hapū which centres the voices and history of tangata whenua and is inclusive of migrant communities; that it encourage and celebrate the wider usage of Te Reo Māori through bilingual signage and school communications while building and sustaining cultural competency; that it implement continual professional development through collaboration and engagement with learners and whānau; that it develop alternative measures of individual success; that it affirm different pathways for school leavers; and that it make it compulsory for places of learning to develop and implement a diversity and inclusion strategy to ensure that all learners and their whānau feel safe, included, valued, and have a sense of belonging. Before I finish, I would like to acknowledge and thank the clerks and advisers for compiling the report, the members of the public who entered a submission, and my select committee for creating these recommendations despite the various different views and opinions. We the select committee believe that every single person, no matter their gender, no matter their colour, no matter their culture has the right to an inclusive education system that puts them first. DEPUTY SPEAKER: I call ‘Alakihihifo Vailala—you’re really challenging my language skills here. I hope I haven’t mangled that too much. Report of the Youth Environment Committee ‘ALAKIHIHIFO VAILALA (Chairperson of the Youth Environment Committee): You did well. I was the chairperson for the Youth Environment Committee, and we investigated the topic of the steps that we should be taking in order to mitigate the effects of climate change. This is a topic 44 that is very close to the hearts of many young people and it was proven during the hearings of evidence, where two passionate young people came in to present their views on the topic. They were also joined by a professor from Victoria University, who provided great scientific insight on the topic. This triggered many passionate conversations about the topic, which brought about many recommendations. Before I address these recommendations, I would like to acknowledge my fellow select committee members for their input, their etiquette, and the passion they demonstrated during the sessions. I also acknowledge the clerks and the advisers of the House, and the submitters. The Youth Parliament’s Environment Committee makes the following recommendations to the Government: (1) to establish a seat for a youth representative on the independent climate change commission, which the Climate Change Response (Zero Carbon) Amendment Bill intends to establish; (2) further investigate how to reduce the amount of methane produced by the agricultural sector; (3) phase out the New Zealand production of non-essential plastics and non 1 and 2 plastics with a ban set for 2015; (4) invest in sustainable technology and practices; (5) establish a contingency fund for climate change mitigation action, and, lastly, to ensure Māori and Pasifika consultation when considering climate change strategies. We hope the Government acts on these recommendations, as they are essential for not only the future of our country, but to the lives of the young people today and the generations to come. Thank you. MIA WRIGHT (Youth MP for Hon Nicky Wagner): Madam Speaker. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Samuel Taylor? Report of the Youth Primary Production Committee MIA WRIGHT (Chairperson of the Youth Primary Production Committee): I’m Mia Wright. I present the report of the Youth Primary Production Committee on its inquiry into how the primary industries can prepare for issues that arise from climate change. Firstly, I would like to thank the committee members, staff, and presenters. I’m sure all of the committee can agree that it was an enlightening experience filled with great discussions. I will briefly explain what we covered, but I would first like to acknowledge that the primary industries are very large, and the question of can the primary industries how prepare for the issues that arise from climate change is quite broad. After discussing as a committee and listening to our oral submitters, we decided to focus primarily on agriculture. New Zealand’s primary industries are crucial to the country’s prosperity and wellbeing as a whole, as farmers and producers contribute significantly to the country’s gross domestic product. Furthermore, we heard evidence from Dairy New Zealand that some farmers may struggle adapting to rapidly changing regulations, and their mental wellbeing could be impacted by the pace at which climate change and mitigation strategies affect their business. Our recommendation is that the Government help facilitate farmer-to-farmer conversations. This will help farmers and producers share information with one another about rapidly changing policy settings. It will also help fill knowledge gaps relating to the projected impacts of climate change on these affected groups. We also recommend that farmers and producers liaise with the Government to drive collaborative discussions between the two, helping to inform future policy emulations and generate recommendations from farmers to Government. We were advised that New Zealand currently lacks a long-term sustainable plan in regards to adapting to the impacts of climate change within primary production. We recommend that the Government facilitates a citizen’s assembly, where members of the public are informed about the impacts of climate change on primary industries and help inform policy and regulation that also uses collaborative networks and the impact of scientific experts to set a long-term goal, which can help New Zealand prepare for issues arising from climate change. We were informed that farmers and producers face a high amount of farm debt in New Zealand and that this may hamper their ability to keep up with the rapidly evolving regulatory framework. We recommend the implementation of a scheme by which farmers are financially rewarded for using land unsuited or unused for the planting of environmentally friendly crops such as hemp.

45

Farmers and producers could also receive subsidised, accessible education in order to further encourage land-use change in which areas they are interested in moving into. We were informed that there are some low-cost innovations that could be implemented to help primary industries prepare for climate change. We recommend that the Government invest more in both low cost and high cost to provide more data on the impacts of climate change and also to help mitigate those impacts. We recommend that the Government invests in research grants and subsidies for professionals and academics in science to examine the future impacts of climate change on the primary sector. Finally, we recommend that the Government should finance research into environmentally friendly crops. In conclusion, I would like to thank my committee, the submitters, and the clerks who wrote the report. Primary production will be heavily involved in future climate change resolution. Thank you, Madam Speaker. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, Mia. Can I just check my order to help me, because I can’t see your names. I don’t know all your names. I might know the MPs’ names but I don’t know all your names, and I don’t want to embarrass anyone. So you’re foreign affairs? Samuel Taylor: Yes. DEPUTY SPEAKER: So we’ve got foreign affairs, then health, then justice—is that right? MIA WRIGHT: We don’t have a list of order. Samuel Taylor: We haven’t been given an order. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Oh, OK. So you’re just standing up, are you? Samuel Taylor: Yes. Would you like us to take an order? DEPUTY SPEAKER: It would help me if there was an order, and then I would know. But I know you’re Samuel Taylor, so let’s go, and what I’ll do is I’ll call a name for the select committee. How does that work? Everyone happy with that? OK. Report of the Youth Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee SAMUEL TAYLOR (Chairperson of the Youth Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I now present the report of the Youth Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee on its inquiry into whether we should continue to seek and ratify free-trade agreements such as the CPTPP and the NZ-EU FTA. The ultimate recommendation of the Youth Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee was that, yes, the Government should continue to seek and ratify free-trade agreements such as the CPTPP and the proposed EU-NZ FTA. We had five further recommendations, and they are as follows: that the Government consider how we can ensure that foreign workers are protected under New Zealand labour laws; that the Government consider making more information available to the public during the negotiation of free-trade agreements; that the Government prioritises consideration of alternative options to the investor State dispute settlement provisions for dispute resolution in future free-trade agreements; that all free-trade agreements include a provision for the Government to be able to implement any policy it considers necessary to fulfil its obligation to Te Tiriti o Waitangi; that consideration be given to environmental policy such as carbon-neutral 2050; and, finally, that the Government engage more with the communities to help them understand how they will be impacted by free-trade agreements. The main bone of discontent, perhaps, our select committee had amongst themselves was on the question of whether or not the Government should consider making more information available to the public during the negotiation of free-trade agreements. While the ultimate view our select committee ended up resolving was that the Government should consider doing so, we had two main minority views. One minority view was that we should remove all recommendations for consideration for making more information public, to strengthen our negotiating position, and this was informed in part by our adviser from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade. The other minority view was that we should make more information accessible to the public, up to the levels that our trading partners do so.

46

In the end, the committee resolved on deciding that we only consider to make more information available to the public because we believe that considering New Zealand’s already relatively weak trading position as a small nation with limited existing tariffs, we need all the strength we can get going into negotiations to aid our Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade negotiators, and that’s why we decided in the end that the Government should consider making more information available to the public but not put down any hard limits. A further thing we agreed upon was the investor State dispute settlement (ISDS) system. While this is a part of the CPTPP, it is not currently looking to be in place for the US-NZ FTA, the UK- NZ FTA, or any EU-NZ FTA. That is because the ISDS primarily protects our New Zealand companies from countries with less robust legal systems than New Zealand. That is why we said that we should prioritise consideration of alternative options so that our companies still have protection without potentially putting our Government in legal jeopardy when corporations seek to use ISDS inappropriately. We also believe that community engagement is incredibly important for any free-trade agreements, as communities should be aware of how free-trade agreements will impact them, both positively and, in some very rare occasions, negatively, and we feel they deserve to have that understanding. One submission we received was concerned that people did not understand the impact of these things, so we believe that the Government should engage more with communities to help them understand. Fundamentally, we appreciate, as a committee, the critical importance of trade, especially our exports and, therefore, we present this report to the House. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, and I do apologise for the clock. It didn’t seem to faze you at all. Well done. WILLIAM WOOD (Youth MP for Ian McKelvie): I seek leave to table a document. DEPUTY SPEAKER: All right. So the member seeks leave to table a document. Would you like to describe to the House what that document is? WILLIAM WOOD: The Rangitikei Youth Charter, established by the Rangitikei Youth Advisory Group on 8 June 2019. DEPUTY SPEAKER: OK. So that’s not available—so to table a document—it’s not available publicly? WILLIAM WOOD: Yes. DEPUTY SPEAKER: OK, I take your word for that. Is there any objection to that? No, there seems to be none. You may table the document, and you’ll present a copy of that. The Clerk will collect it. Thank you. Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House. Report of the Youth Health Committee HENRY YAO (Chairperson of the Youth Health Committee): I now present the report of the Youth Health Committee on its inquiry into what we can do to lower the rate of suicide in New Zealand. Before I go into our committee’s recommendations, the committee wishes to acknowledge the harm and distress suicide causes to people across New Zealand. We hope that this report demonstrates our commitment to preventing this harm from continuing to occur, and we encourage anyone who needs support to reach out and seek help. Our first recommendation to the Government is that it should inquire into the feasibility of a programme of compulsory mental health check-ups for young people aged between 13 and 24 years, administrated by clinical medical professionals. OECD research from 2015 found that New Zealanders aged 15 to 19 years had a suicide rate of 25 per 100,000 people, the highest in the developed world. We believe that compulsory check-ups would be effective in connecting people who had unrecognised needs with the right support as well as destigmatising the process of engaging with the mental health system.

47

Our second recommendation is that the Government should extend access to gatekeeper skills training to a larger number of people both in Government and in the community. We understand that under the status quo, the Ministry of Health currently provides such support to around 1,000 Government and community workers each year to help people feel comfortable having a conversation around topics of mental health and teaching them how to recognise the signs that someone is struggling with mental health, and we believe that such a service should be made more widely available. Our third and fourth recommendations are that the Government develop a series of outcome measures for individual mental health organisations and programmes and improve oversight of these organisations, and that the Government promote better cooperation between mental health organisations and establish a series of one-stop shops where organisations can co-locate to support their communities. We hope that this will make it easier for those seeking mental health care to access the services they need at a single point of entry. Our final recommendation is to institute specific targets that demonstrate increased accessibility to quality mental health care tailored to different communities, and we believe that this will help ensure that the Government monitors the progress it makes in tailoring mental health care to different groups within our country. To finish, on behalf of our committee, I’d like to thank the committee’s clerk, clerk support, advisers, and submitters. To all of you, your support was invaluable and we really can’t thank you all enough. Quickly, I’d just like to personally thank my fantastic fellow Youth Health Committee members. It was a pleasure working with you all. Just finally, I’d like to end with a quote from US football player— DEPUTY SPEAKER: Quickly. HENRY YAO: —Megan Rapinoe: “We have to love more and hate less.” Thank you, Madam Speaker. Report of the Youth Justice Committee NOELENE TEWHAKAARA (Chairperson of the Youth Justice Committee): He aha te mea nui o te ao? He tangata, he tangata, he tangata. Tēnā kotou katoa. Ko Noelene Tewhakaara tōku ingoa. [What is the most important thing in the world? It is people, it is people, it is people. Noelene Tewhakaara is my name.] Justice—it’s not about crime; it’s about people. I am pleased to present the Youth Justice Committee’s report to the House. Our goal was to give recommendations on how we can manage our youth justice system to prevent youth from ending up as life-course persistent offenders. From the submissions, we came to the conclusion that the youth justice system needs to provide more options and restorative approaches to offenders. We also wish to integrate the same principles into the adult justice system. Hence, we recommend that the adult justice system be reformed so that it incorporates a holistic approach and restorative focus similar to the Youth Court. We also discussed why someone’s place in the community is a sacred part of their identity. Our recommendation is that legislation be introduced to remove the disqualification of prisoners from voting, and, to maintain people’s place in the community, we recommend that increased funding be targeted towards community groups that support social and sporting activities to provide a sense of belonging for young people who are at risk of offending. We are also aware that the cycle of crime can begin the second someone is born, so the best way to address youth offending is to put in place more supportive frameworks at home, particularly during early childhood, to prevent children and young people from entering the youth justice system or going into State care. To ensure we are effective in preventing intergenerational offenders, we need a cultural shift to address embedded social biases that result in disproportionate incarceration rates. Our society is giving young people more independence and more influence, but this should not take away the importance of restorative practices. To quote the Freedom Riders, “When you are 48 defending a young person in the courtroom, the battle’s already lost. The real fighting should start in the classroom and home.” As chairperson, it felt great to be present with people who have such passion and ideas and who have thought so deeply about the issues. We shared perspectives, and it really affected my point of view. I thank all committee members for their input, our submitters, and the clerk. The committee experience has been a real highlight for me. I would like to commend this report for the Youth Justice Committee to the House of Representatives to read and consider what young people have to say about the justice system. Thank you, Madam Speaker. HENRY YAO (Youth MP for Hon Tim Macindoe): Madam Speaker, could I just seek leave to make a minor correction to something I just said? DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes, you can. Again, any member, if they realise they’ve made a mistake, should seek to correct that at the earliest opportunity. Is there anyone who has any objection to that? No. HENRY YAO: Just on that quote I finished with the quote from Megan Rapinoe is actually “We have to love more and hate less.” Fantastic quote it is. Report of the Youth Māori Affairs Committee CHA’NEL KAA-LUKE (Chairperson of the Youth Māori Affairs Committee): [Uses New Zealand Sign Language] [So I’m now submitting the report from the Youth Māori Affairs Committee. We inquired into the question of how we can raise the awareness of our culture and history. We have three main recommendations as part of our report. The first one is compulsory education of accurate domestic New Zealand history for year 9s and 10s, better protection of Māori culturally significant sites, and an increase in funding for promotion of the current resources that are already out there to raise the awareness of New Zealand cultural history. Teaching New Zealand history: the reason that we recommend that is to make New Zealand historical education compulsory. Some of the submitters expressed frustration at the lack of compulsory education connected to New Zealand domestic history, specifically in terms of the Māori context. Another submitter said there was a lack of resources and recommended that that is looked into further. One submitter also identified the Treaty of Waitangi and its influence on the New Zealand Curriculum, and they would like to make sure that the role of the Treaty is able to be more prevalent in the education system so that young people can have more of an understanding of their role in regard to that. Another submitter talked about the value of having education of New Zealand history in our schools, and they’re wanting to make sure that there is the flexibility for people to be taught about their local area in terms of the history—what’s relevant to them. So we want to challenge the structures and the status quo of how things have been, because, if there’s mis- education, that can lead to ignorance and that can lead to racism. We would like to access more funding for programmes that are currently being delivered through polytechs, wānanga, and community education. So we’d like to also fund wānanga for local kaumātua to come together and be taught about New Zealand cultural history also. Also, we would like to have a place for kaumātua and others to come, and so those significant cultural sites need to be protected so that they’re able to visit those sites. Just quickly, I’d also like to say thank you so much to my committee. Thank you for allowing me to present in New Zealand Sign Language, and translated into English, because it is a different way of expressing these sorts of concepts. So, anyway, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa.] Report of the Youth Social Services and Community Committee TAYLA WOOLLEY (Chairperson of the Youth Social Services and Community Committee): I now present the report of the Youth Social Services and Community Committee on its inquiry into how can we encourage civic engagement amongst the younger generation. Over the past two days, I have had the privilege of chairing this outstanding and passionate committee.

49

Evidence has showed us that youth engage with issues that we care about, and not so much the political processes. This is reflected in low voter turnout. We identified several issues that have influenced and acted as barriers, reflected in the low voter turnouts, and engagement with civics, these being the lack of and the need for compulsory civics education in the curriculum, and accessibility to vote, especially in rural areas. We also noted that voter turnout is even lower amongst young people of Māori, Pasifika, and Asian descent, recent migrants, and people on low incomes, or of lower education levels. When young people don’t vote, politicians are more likely to direct their effort and policies towards the people who have the highest voting turnout. This, in turn, perpetuates distrust towards the political system, to the point where the few youth who do engage are seen as self-important, busybody little nerds. We recommend that the Government institutes a comprehensive civics education, based upon the successful Estonian model, as well as implementing a kōrero politics day prior to the general election, providing an opportunity to relate to politics. We recommend to reform elections of school boards of trustees, and provide local voting booths at convenient places for young people to visit, as well as provide support to community organisations that support the minority groups to be able to engage with civics in New Zealand. Lastly, our committee suggests that lowering the voting age will prove to be effective on the terms that the above conditions are met, and this will work alongside a comprehensive civics education programme, as establishing early voting habits leads to life-long voters. Thank you. Report of the Youth Transport and Infrastructure Committee NISHITA JITESH GANATRA (Chairperson of the Youth Transport and Infrastructure Committee): I’m delivering the report for the Youth Transport and Infrastructure Committee’s inquiry into how we can encourage the use of environmentally sustainable transport. New Zealand has a strong car culture, with powered vehicles used for nearly 90 percent of travel in most cities. But this culture has a negative impact on human health and the environment, causing harm to both. The Youth Transport and Infrastructure Committee came up with five main recommendations. Firstly, the Government should invest in improving public transport and promoting network use. The committee agrees that improving public transport is key to increasing the uptake of environmentally sustainable transport, reducing road congestion, and improving environmental outcomes. The committee urges central and local government to invest in New Zealand’s existing public transport infrastructure. Crucial improvements are needed to enhance reliability, frequency of services, capacity, and expand routes to areas currently not being served. Secondly, the Government should balance investment between roading and infrastructure for alternative transport, including separate cycleways and safe spaces for pedestrians. Although there have been major investments in cycle lanes over recent years, we believe more is needed. We encourage Government to plan city centres which prioritise walking, cycling, or scootering, over driving. Thirdly, the Government should develop incentives for low-emission vehicles, and penalties for high-emission vehicles. We also recommend that the incentives and penalties give due consideration to regional needs. Fourthly, we recommend that environmentally sustainable and active modes of transport are integrated into land use and planning processes, including density considerations. We agreed with the several submitters who told us that greater housing density would mean people had less distance to travel, and transport hubs could be developed around housing. We believe that making cities more compact would make it easier for people to walk, cycle, or scooter to their destinations. Lastly, the committee recommends that the Government initiates shared projects with academics and the private sector to develop ride-sharing incentives and solutions to residual, non-sustainable qualities of electric vehicles. We endorse the concept of a ride-sharing mobile application, suggested by the Greater Wellington Regional Council submitter. This application could allow a driver to connect with people looking to travel to the same, or similar, destination. The application would include features such as ratings and safety systems for passengers and drivers, and in-system 50 payment. Incentives could also be included, such as allocating users of the app preferential parking at their final destinations. Before I conclude, I would like to thank the clerks, the advisers, and the witnesses for their support. I would also like to thank my fellow committee members for giving these recommendations and discussing their views with passion. Thank you. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The reports of the select committees are adopted as part of the proceedings of Youth Parliament 2019. GENERAL DEBATE DEPUTY SPEAKER: So that brings us now to the general debate. So just a couple of things before we start: can I remind you that the Standing Orders—both yours and those of Parliament— are that this is a debate. It is an open debate, and, therefore, you should be able to do it without reading. You should be able to do it from sparse notes, but this is an open debate. Secondly, in saying that, can I remind you that you are not protected by privilege, and you are on public television, so do be careful what you say, because you don’t have that protection that MPs have. So you have three minutes each. The bell will ring at the end of the three minutes, and I have a list here, and the first speaker—are we ready to go? So—sorry I’ve got to say the words, don’t I? So would some honourable member care to move that the House take note of miscellaneous business? PUSPA WAIATA BARUA (Youth MP for Hon Shane Jones): I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business. E Te Māngai o Te Whare, tēnā koe. To the members of the House, tēnā koutou. My name is Puspa Waiata Barua, and I have dual heritage, being Māori from my mother’s side, and, from my father’s, coming from the Barua people of Bangladesh. With this unique mix, what makes my upbringing even more different is that I was born and raised in a European country called Switzerland, where I lived for the first 12 years of my life— DEPUTY SPEAKER: Without notes. PUSPA WAIATA BARUA: Sorry—a third-culture kid, so to speak, living in a multilingual, multi-ethnic, and diverse community. Such experiences have shaped my worldwide view, especially from my corner of the world now, which is Aotearoa New Zealand. Yet one of the significant issues I believe that youth face today is how we deal with difference, how we move beyond stereotypes and unconscious bias, move beyond the fears and insecurities regarding our own identities, and to examine power and privilege, and free and frank discussion. We see it all the time: prejudicial bullying at school, social media, cyber-bullying, low-level racism. They might seem small now, but they set us on a pathway; a trajectory of intolerance and discrimination, and— DEPUTY SPEAKER: I’m sorry, but I am going to say to you, it’s a very meaningful speech, but you should be doing it from the heart, not from your notes, so don’t read your notes. That is the rules. Three minutes—off you go. [Interruption] You can do it. PUSPA WAIATA BARUA: I’m trying. Sorry—if we leave this unchecked and unrefuted, it can lead to bigger problems, such as the Christchurch incident and the terrorist attack. My reasons for bringing this topic up are because I know a lot of young people, a lot of young leaders such as us are trying to make a difference, trying to make a stand, and trying to set a voice for us. I know some youth who are capable of being leaders, and that is why I believe we can do this. I believe that New Zealand, Aotearoa, is a nation capable of wanting to stand up for its identity, to stand up for this diversity. We are a changing generation, we are the future. It’s hard to be only one person when there’s so many of us. [Interruption] DEPUTY SPEAKER: You’re doing well. PUSPA WAIATA BARUA: Thank you. As the Deputy Prime Minister and our New Zealand First party leader, Rt Hon Winston Peters, said, it is “only by drawing on our strengths as a people will we prevail against the malevolent forces of intolerance and hate”. Such strength comes from our unity in our diversity. As youth we are charged with the responsibility— 51

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member’s time has expired. Samuel Taylor: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I just wondered if you could clarify— we were all asked to write speeches for the general debate; would you like us not to use those speeches that we’ve written? DEPUTY SPEAKER: I would like you to give your speech without reading your notes, yes. That’s what a general debate’s all about. Ethan Griffiths: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Can you please refer to where in the Standing Orders it states that members must not read from a speech? DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes, in these. Ethan Griffiths: We don’t use those. DEPUTY SPEAKER: I know you have your set, but the underlying set of Standing Orders— and yours mirror those—is that general debate speeches, and, in fact, most speeches, other than the Ministers’ first and third reading speeches of the bill, which are used by the courts, are generally done—this is a house of debate. So you can refer to your notes but I’d rather you didn’t read them. That’s the rule that I would apply to anyone. Leighton Thompson: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I seek leave for us to suspend the Standing Orders that allow us to not [Interruption]—to allow us to read our speeches. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Well, think very carefully before you do that. That is a major thing to do because you’re setting aside all the rules. This is a House of debate. I’m happy to move that—I mean I’m happy to put the leave, but [Interruption]—no, don’t argue. I’m on my feet. Just think very carefully about what you’re here for. The general debate is the opportunity for you to stand up and make a speech about anything you like, and you’re telling me, all of you, that you can’t do that without reading it? It doesn’t have to be word-perfect. It should be something that you feel you want to say when you have this opportunity in this House of Representatives. You want to put aside all the Standing Orders in order to be able to read a three-minute speech? I’m very happy if you were to refer to notes, but I’m asking you not to read a prepared speech. It is in our Standing Orders. Now, if you want me to put the leave for that I’m happy to do it, but that means that all the rules are gone. Do we want that? Leighton Thompson: Sorry, to clarify, I would only like to seek leave to suspend the one Standing Order—I don’t have the exact number because I didn’t know that we had to know the main House’s Standing Orders off by heart. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member is seeking leave to move that that requirement, that Standing Order that requires you to debate, not read, a speech in this House be set aside. Is there any objection to that? There is. Leave is not put, because any one member can object. So we move on. Look, you’re not going to be judged on being word-perfect; just stand up and take this opportunity to make a speech. MAIA BERRYMAN-KAMP (Youth MP for Fletcher Tabuteau): Ko Ranginui kei runga, ko Papatūānuku kei raro, ko ngā tāngata kei waenganui. Tēnei ka mihi. Ā, te korowai o ngā kaihanga a te korowai o te rangimārie kua horaina mai ki runga i ā tātou. [Ranginui is above, Papatūānuku is below, and people are in between. Greetings. The cloak of the creators and the cloak of peace has been wrapped around us.] Aroha mai te whānau for two things. Firstly, I’m very sick, so the reo might not be as good as it normally is. Secondly, I, like many of my fellow members, wasn’t aware I was supposed to have notes. This is from the heart; it’s going to happen. I will not stand here and try to convince any of you that you should follow my cause, because I know a lot of us here are very opinionated, very strong-minded, and will not move easily. Instead, I ask of you that when you look to areas of passion, think of it from a Māori perspective. We’re holistic, te whare tapa whā—spiritual, physical, social, and mental. When it comes down to whatever you’re passionate about, be it international relations, the environment, LGBTQ+ issues, think of how my ancestors would have done it—we take tikanga with us. If you’re working to pull the climate crisis to a stop, think of indigenous methods of preserving our whenua. Think of never taking more resources than you can give back, and being respectful of everything you use. If you’re 52 thinking of going into international relations, remember the tikanga of being hospitable—you know, you might know everything but you won’t know everything, so sometimes you just have to accept that things will happen that you don’t understand, and go with the flow. The LGBTQ+ community’s journey reflects that of Māori, and I believe we have something valuable to give to each other. To you, I wish you the inner strength and the perseverance that my people have fought through as we’ve aimed to be recognised by the Government, and by all of society, as equal. Be inclusive to those you don’t understand and desperately protect the ones you do, because it is hard to be a minority in this community. I would like to move on to some whakataukī, or proverbs that I believe everyone here could benefit from. He tangata ki tahi—a man who only speaks once needs to only do one thing to be heard and needs to only do one thing to make a difference. If you’re going to act, make sure that you act with the fullest of your intentions. Never propose something that you wouldn’t do, and never lead from the front—as my father has always taught me. He kai kei aku ringa—there is food at the end of my hands; utilise the basic resources and God-given talents we all have to make change. If you think you can’t do something, look at it from a different avenue. My people have always been about making the best of a bad situation, and I hope that that is something you will all take into your areas of passion. Ngā mihi nui, kia koutou ko tēnei wā. FREYA CHAMPION (Youth MP for Dr Duncan Webb): May I first just say that it’s an honour to be able to represent my community, Christchurch Central, here today. The community of Christchurch Central, particularly with the youth, has astounded me recently with the passion they have towards one particular area—climate change. It is something that has brought out the best of the youth in New Zealand, including within my community, as people are educating themselves about the state of our climate and using that information to take action. There have been two school strikes for climate in Christchurch with impressive numbers in attendance, but some people think this is just a bunch of people skipping school—not really knowing what they are fighting for. But what these people fail to realise is they are part of the problem that keeps the climate crisis alive. By dismissing the youth of New Zealand’s outrage towards the world we are being left with, they are allowing the climate crisis to continue well into our futures. They are seeing school strikes as nothing more than bunking, rather than what it is—a cry to the Government for change, the passing of the zero carbon bill, a cleaner, greener environment for New Zealand. We don’t want half a day off school; we want a country free from the climate crisis. If New Zealand ignores the pleas of the youth fighting climate change, then New Zealand ignores the pleas of future leaders—future leaders who are striving to make change in the country that they call home. Leadership will be passed on to the youth, so why does there appear to be a lack of trust in those who will come to make decisions in the future? After all, people who want to make a difference don’t suddenly wake up at 18 ready to make political decisions. They start when they decide to fight for something they believe in, and the youth of my community has decided to fight against climate change despite their ages. They shall not be ignored. Climate change not only affects us now but it will affect us drastically in the future. But the people who brushed changes, such as the zero carbon bill, aside won’t have to live with the consequences of their actions; the youth will. So we are fighting not only for the world we live in now but the world we will be left with, which is currently not being taken care of. So I ask you all here today to understand two things: that climate change is a very real threat, including here in New Zealand; and that the voices of the youth in New Zealand need to be taken more seriously. Thank you for listening to me as a voice in my community, and I hope you have taken what I have said into consideration. Kia ora. ANDREW CHEN (Youth MP for Hon Nikki Kaye): There is a teacher shortage in this country. One in six Auckland schools started this school year with vacancies still unfilled. Half of our new secondary school teachers quit their jobs within five years of first employment, so it’s hardly surprising to see schools increasing class sizes, asking teachers not to retire, and moving

53 others into unfamiliar subject areas. With nearly half of our teachers now aged over 50, this problem will only get worse. The underlying issue here is that teaching has become far less attractive as a job in New Zealand. We cannot solve this with just stopgap measures like importing teachers from overseas; we have to address problems like teacher workloads, teacher pay, and perceptions of the teaching profession. There’s a common misunderstanding that a teacher’s day starts at 8.30 or 9 and it finishes when students go home at 3. Teachers spend time running extra-curricular activities, answering emails, planning their lessons, and marking student work, and with classes of 20 to 30 students, teachers’ work does not stop when they go home. Many report working over 50 hours a week with terrible impact on their physical and mental health. Thus, we need to radically reimagine teacher workloads. More learning support frees teachers to serve students better, and also helps those with special needs. More contact time is needed for planning, evaluation, and professional development, and NCEA reforms could reduce marking and administrative work. People don’t choose teaching for the pay, but it’s now an issue that can deter people from teaching. Teacher pay has not kept up with average wages. A starting teacher now is paid 1 percent less than the median income of this country; 20 years ago, they were paid 15 percent more. This Government has indeed raised teacher pay, but issues remain. Teachers can struggle to afford rent in Auckland. In fact, some schools already feel the need to provide subsidised rent for this reason. Beginning teachers can get an instant pay rise of at least $15,000 a year by moving to Australia, or, for some, by changing professions. As a result, we’re losing talent, especially in STEM subjects. Teacher salaries don’t need to match those of our MPs, but teachers do deserve pay that represents and reflects their workload and allows for a decent life. Finally, we need to change perceptions of teaching. The wider public needs to understand and appreciate teachers more. Secondary school students currently see teaching as stressful and underpaid, and they’re not wrong. We need to make the changes necessary so teaching becomes a job that our best and brightest young people aspire to have. Few things impact our lives more than education. We all know the incredible work that teachers do already. We need more of them. It’s time to invest in teaching for our young people and our future. It’s time to fix our teaching environment. Lily Chen: Madam Speaker? Mia Wright: Madam Speaker? DEPUTY SPEAKER: I have Lily Chen—but you’re right to go for the call in a debate. It’s who gets to their feet first, and if Lily hadn’t stood up, the Speaker has to take the person who’s calling for it. So be quick on your feet. Lily Chen. LILY CHEN (Youth MP for Golriz Ghahraman): Systemic disenfranchisement does not belong in New Zealand’s democracy. According to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, “universal and equal suffrage” is regarded as a fundamental entitlement. However, the Electoral Act was amended in 2010, so that it prohibits the right of prisoners serving time in New Zealand to vote. Both the High Court and the Supreme Court ruled this piece of legislation in direct breach of section 12 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. Upon statistical analysis, New Zealand prisons are overflowing with people of colour, but most predominantly Māori. Consequently, too many Māori prisoners are disenfranchised, which is counterintuitive to the agenda of reintegration, as research indicates a clear link between civic engagement and the reduction of reoffending. Furthermore, rehabilitation requires assimilation into everyday life in a democratic society, and the most rudimentary right of voting is integral to that lifestyle. So not only does denying prisoners the opportunity to exercise this very prerogative exacerbate their sense of stigmatisation surrounding their status but it also serves to undermine their human dignity, as the status quo insinuates that their crime is a reflection of their character, which is supposedly deserving of societal alienation.

54

By design, our criminal justice system routinely criminalises the oppressed and exonerates the privileged. Therefore, mass incarceration acts as an insidious tool of voter suppression, which targets our most vulnerable. Preaching the rhetoric that suffrage should be denied on the mere basis of criminality is so reductive of the complex cycle of criminalisation, which victimises people of colour disproportionately. Living in a colonised land, we uphold a collective responsibility to preserve the integrity of our democratic system, which incorporates the multiculturalism woven into the fabric of Aotearoa. Involving the most marginalised voices in our democratic process promotes inclusion, as the diverse life experiences of prisoners are attached to ideologies of paramount importance. Allowing for such versatility in viewpoints safeguards diversity and representation on the legislative level. Curtailing the inalienable human right to suffrage is a slippery slope. In fact, it sets a dangerous precedent for the future of our democracy, and that is not a New Zealand I’m proud to be a part of. Thank you. ISABELLA COPINGA (Youth MP for Sarah Dowie): I’m here today to speak on behalf of farmers, not just from my electorate in Invercargill but for farmers as a whole in New Zealand. So I’m here to talk about their wellbeing—not about climate change or anything but about their wellbeing. See, the the dairy industry is one of the top industries in the world, and so everyone should think about why they are being left behind in this conversation, because they supply so much to our society. Well, the thing is that it’s not just New Zealand that’s leaving them behind but it’s their Government as well. There’s this thing called Mycoplasma bovis, and I know of many people that have been personally affected by it, and it really breaks my heart, because farmers are hard-working citizens in New Zealand and they deserve to be acknowledged in the society that we are in together. So Mycoplasma bovis—I’ll just tell you a bit about it. It’s this very small, little disease that the Government has decided to focus on, because why not—let’s just kill over 100,000 cows for no reason. I just want you to think about this. Imagine all that hard work trying to develop a herd of cows just to provide for the consumers and make their animal welfare much better, and then it’s just washed away by the Government. So not only do the cows experience consequences from this but so do the farmers. So, yes, this would be extremely stressful for farmers, which wouldn’t be good for their mental wellbeing. So I want this conversation to highlight how the Government, with their new Wellbeing Budget, should focus on farmers, as in the Mycoplasma bovis eradication scheme there’s only two pages which state that farmers should just talk back to the person who’s killed the cows in the first place. Having known farmers who have gone through this battle, there are few checks on mental health, and we need to stop and think about these people, because they do provide for your community and ours together. Thank you. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Don’t be too put off by losing your place in your notes and things. Just speak as you would want to speak to the House. It’s a huge privilege to stand and speak in this House. JAMES COWAN (Youth MP for Lawrence Yule): I stand here and acknowledge my youthful naivety and idealism. Yes, I have a social conscience. I want to see affordable healthy homes, easy access to life-saving drugs, our farmers to be world leaders in sustainable production, and our infrastructure to be clean and green. I also know that the only way for any of this to happen is for our businesses to thrive, improving Government funds, income, and employment to improve the country’s standard of living. Yes, the colour of the political coat many in my generation wear doesn’t resemble that of any political party—it looks more like Joseph’s Technicolour Dreamcoat— red, green, and blue. As centrist dreamers, we retain our hope for a better future. We resist being disillusioned by growing media-fuelled, adversarial political discourse—although, for many youth in my electorate, that wearing down has begun. They can’t relate to the polarising, personal, us-versus-them nature of politics, and, as a result, they’ll default to a future that looks exactly the same as their past. Media fuel both the partisan political bickering and the have-versus-the-have-nots division in society. MPs 55 clamour for the sensational sound bite that will grab that 6 o’clock headline. It’s a turn-off. If we continue to feed youth the same diet of derogatory debate this House feasts on, we will get back the same level of disengagement—same rubbish in, same results out. Today, I issue a challenge to begin changing the culture of politics in New Zealand. Firstly, to the media: you do our community a disservice when you sensationalise for ratings. You’re the information interface between our people and our leaders. Own that responsibility. To our sitting MPs, play the ball not the man. We want to know how you can make our country better. To my fellow Youth MPs, passionately debate your view, and when you enter Parliament as an elected representative, it’s up to you to embody the change in political culture that will get back the lost generation of the youth voter. Thank you, Madam Speaker. LILY DORRANCE (Youth MP for Rt Hon David Carter): I wish to raise awareness on the most pressing issue facing young people today—that being mental health and its drastic consequences, including the taking of a precious life. New Zealand’s mental health system is at a crisis point, and this is evidenced by the fact that in 2017, 20,000 New Zealanders tried to take their own lives. In fact, New Zealand has one of the highest youth suicide rates in the OECD. As you all know, no one is immune to mental illness. Mental illness does not discriminate between rich and poor or extroverts and introverts. Every person in this room will have a friend or a family member who has had or is suffering from some form of mental illness. I am particularly alert to this issue because it was only a few months ago that I lost a friend, a classmate, to suicide. According to the 2018 Government Inquiry into Mental Health and Addiction, New Zealand’s mental health system is unsustainable. It only targets the most serious problems and overlooks less severe mental health needs. Accordingly, young people lack awareness of what mental health issues can look like, and this leads to young people suffering in silence. Even a young person can identify their need for support or intervention. Unless they present as acute, access to professional help is limited and delayed. This Government has proposed a number of mental health initiatives under Budget 2019, including expanding school-based health services and introducing a national suicide prevention strategy, but I consider that these initiatives don’t go far enough. What young people really need is open communication, education, and accessible mental health and wellbeing services. This requires a system where mental health education from qualified experts is a part of the school curriculum right through year 13. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Put your notes away and tell us what you think we need. Sarah Fraser: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I’d just like to point out that I think, while I’m sure all members are aware of how a general debate usually works in Parliament— DEPUTY SPEAKER: Look, I’m sorry; I’ve already ruled on this. I’m just trying, in the last minute that she has, to get from her—rather than reading a speech—her views. I’ve already ruled; I’m not going to re-debate it. Sarah Fraser: Would we maybe be able to be— DEPUTY SPEAKER: No. No, you may sit down. So tell us what you think we need. LILY DORRANCE: OK. While health education is in schools to some degree, I feel like it should be a stand-alone subject and not meshed with other health topics. This will mean that young people will talk about it more freely and not feel so embarrassed or ashamed, as we will have a compulsory subject on its own that goes right through high school. I plead that this Government will consider this proposal as part of its commitment to suicide prevention and mental health and wellbeing. Thank you. ANNA DOUGLAS (Youth MP for Kieran McAnulty): Ko Te Āo Pūtahi te maunga. Ko Taurikaitai te awa. Ko Te Paerahi te moana. Ko Tākitimu te waka. Ko Rongomaraeroa te marae. Ko Ngāti Kahungunu te iwi. Ko Ngāti Kere, Ngāti Pīhere, Ngāti Hine-te-wai ngā hapū. Tēnā koutou. Ko Anna Douglas tōku ingoa. Ko Karen McAnulty tōku Mema Pāremata. [Te Āo Pūtahi is my ancestral mountain. Taurikaitai is my ancestral river. Te Paerahi is my ancestral water. Tākitimu is my ancestral canoe. Rongomaraeroa is my marae. Ngāti Kahungunu is

56 my tribe. Ngāti Kere, Ngāti Pīhere and Ngāti Hine-te-wai are my subtribes. Greetings to all. Anna Douglas is my name. Karen McAnulty is my Member of Parliament.] I believe there is a need for strong Government policy to support improved understanding of early bicultural history, including the Treaty of Waitangi and Māori culture. The New Zealand Curriculum states in its vision that we want young people who will work to create an Aotearoa where both Māori and Pākehā recognise each other as full Treaty partners and where all cultures are valued for the contributions they bring. However, if we do not receive a comprehensive education on New Zealand history, how can both Māori and Pākehā recognise each other as full Treaty partners? And if we do not recognise Māori values and traditions, how can we truly value Māori culture? This understanding is necessary not only in order for this vision to become a reality but for New Zealand citizens to feel a shared sense of identity. Education surrounding New Zealand history needs to be consistent. All young people in this country have the right to this information, and the Government needs to ensure that teachers have the expertise to provide a robust education on this critical topic. Information such as the Tohunga Suppression Act, which forcibly replaced Māori healers with Western medicine just over 100 years ago, cannot be left unheard of—or when subsidies were provided for Māori to attend mission schools under the condition that they did not speak Māori; or, in 1854, when the majority of Māori were not able to vote in the first Parliament. This gives context for redress that some non-Māori do not appear to understand. Secondly, in order to recognise Māori as equal Treaty partners, Māori culture needs to be integrated into the curriculum. If we are striving for a truly bicultural country, Māori culture cannot be something that is thrown in every Friday afternoon. It needs to become normal that we celebrate Māori role models in history and in the present. If we look at statues and monuments around New Zealand, how many of them are Māori? A headline from 2018 read: “Gangs recruiting bigger numbers than the army”—gangs recruiting bigger numbers than the army. Research suggests that the main cause of this influx is not due to bad people wanting to commit crime but males who are seeking a place of belonging. Through integrating Māori culture and traditions into the education system, Māori will gain this sense of identity and belonging, and non-Māori will lose their negative perceptions of what being Māori means and gain a respect for Māori culture. It is only through a uniform understanding of New Zealand’s cultures and history that we will gain bicultural identity as a nation. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you. I’m being a bit tough on you, but that was excellent. You referred to your notes but you made a speech—you didn’t read out something. So you can have notes and you can refer to them, you can have bullet points, but don’t stand up here and read a speech. This is a debate. A debate is about sharing ideas and a bit of passion, and we’ve had some fabulous speeches even though they’ve had notes. So it’s a mixture of the two. So, come on—rise to the challenge. I know you can do it. Leighton Thompson: I raise a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I was just wondering, since you are intending to enforce the other Standing Orders, if you are planning on enforcing Speaker’s ruling 16/6, “The Speaker will take issue with any member who is not dressed in appropriate business attire, whether the member is male or female.”? DEPUTY SPEAKER: Well, there is also a Standing Order that talks about trifling with the Chair, and that’s bordering on it because all I am doing is managing a general debate in this House. You have your guidelines for speaking in the House and I have those in front of me, and all I’m trying to do is apply the underlying rules, which is that this is a general debate. It is not a speech reading session. It is not related to a piece of legislation. It is a general debate. So all I’m trying to do is to get you to lift your heads up—use your notes by all means—to make your three-minute speeches. This is your chance in this House. I’m not here trying to put you down. I think we’ve had some fantastic speeches, and that’s all I’m trying to do. I’m not going anywhere near any of that other stuff. I’m just trying to get you the opportunity to say what you think whilst you have this amazing opportunity in this place. Do you want to continue on? OK.

57

RAWHITI ERSTICH COLES (Youth MP for Hon Kelvin Davis): Ngā mihi a koe, Madam Speaker. First of all, I’ll just say aroha mai; I will be referring to my notes quite a bit, but I’ll assure you that it all comes from the heart. I’m Rawhiti. In Māori my name means “where the sun rises”. Embarrassingly, my mum’s favourite, “sunshine”—I’m also referred to. But at school that means something different. As if it weren’t for the paru blacks of my feet, my name said it all, also: he’s poor and he’s dumb too. Growing up we lived on StudyLink cheques, odd jobs, and the benefit. I’d cling to my brother and my sister during fights. I squeezed tight, so tight, wishing I’d just disappear, dreaming of getting out. This is the reality for many Māori in Aotearoa. The DuBoisean concept of double consciousness explores minority groups’ inner conflict, juggling between cultural identity and the majority culture. Within our current framework, Māori need to compromise their identity in order to assimilate to Western culture just to have that agency, to succeed. The supremacy of Western culture in this country has entrenched Māori into systemic perpetual disenfranchisement and disadvantage. Ask why Māori do not pursue tertiary study and you’ll find issues with financial viability and making it in competition with students who have access to good education, parents, a roof over their head, and a brand new MacBook Pro. We don’t blame people for being poor, but you know what? Sometimes it feels like we do. The abhorrent colonial abuse of Māori has implications today. The structure of the 1800s that legitimised the confiscation of land and arbitrary imprisonment of Māori without trial in support of colonial supremacy is still in effect. The UN declaration of human rights states that all human beings are born free, equal, with dignity and rights. I wish this were true, because the shackles of generational oppression don’t feel like freedom. Being born Māori should not constitute a higher likelihood of incarceration. Being born Māori should not constitute an endemic of youth suicide because of compromised identity. Being born Māori should not constitute social inequity. The integration of Māori governance structures, tikanga, and humanisation of institutions is integral in securing the social mobility of Māori and mitigating social inequity. We as a multicultural society cannot function by monocultural governance. I am asking that our current framework is representative of the real people who live and die by it, not just cultural tokens. We too deserve to dream, Te Ao Māori, Te Ao Pākehā, and Te Ao Aotearoa. Ngā mihi nui. MADISON FLANERY (Youth MP for Mark Patterson): Each year our world population increases by 43 million. This is almost 10 times the population of New Zealand per year. Think about this for a minute and think about the effect this will have on the world you and I will be living in for the next 60 to 80 years. If we continue to live the way we do by mistreating the environment, treating people unequally, and ignoring the pay gap, all you and I will inherit is a toxic and unsustainable society. How can we change this? We need to change human nature. In other words, we need to change the habits of a lifetime and that starts with youth and education. My aim is to get the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) into the New Zealand school curriculum. These are 17 goals set by the United Nations to achieve global sustainability by 2030. This isn’t only about environmental degradation or climate change. Global sustainability covers issues ranging from equality, poverty, and clean water. If we can get the SDGs into the New Zealand school curriculum, not only would it help to achieve global sustainability but it would create leaders of the future that can further socio- economically develop New Zealand, and they’ll be able to connect with people from all different cultures. Being educated about the SDGs would allow students to link their ideas and perspectives to global issues. They would be exposed to different perspectives all over the world. This would create a sense of cross-cultural collaboration and an understanding of how different people are affected by different issues. From here, students would be able to identify how they can step up as global citizens by acting locally to help globally. The students would become connected, confident, actively involved, and lifelong learners with their education. These are the key competencies of The New Zealand Curriculum, which is why it is so important that we enforce the goals into our curriculum. Students would then leave at year 13 knowing how to 58 connect with people from all different backgrounds, as well as realising their learning isn’t only about themselves but a part of a bigger picture. No one in this room can tell me that this isn’t something we want for the future of New Zealand. In today’s climate, one of the skills we are lacking from citizens is their sense of empathy and their ability to cross-culturally collaborate with others. These two skills are crucial if we want to achieve global sustainability and save humanity. Now I ask you: what are dreams without action? Only goals. Thank you. ALI EMILY GAMMETER (Youth MP for Harete Hipango): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Give me the liberty to know, to utter, and to argue freely according to conscience above all liberties. John Milton wrote this in his famous work Areopagitica in 1644. At the time of his remarks, education wasn’t widely available to the general public. It was in most cases only those of the most prestigious and affluent families who were taught to read and write. The thought of women being able to attend university would have been considered grossly offensive or even obscene, and the substitute for a career or an education for many was a plantation. That was the status quo. The progress that we have since made can be attributed almost solely to our ability to speak. Despite this knowledge that our predecessors have fought so hard to prove, the freedoms that they fought so hard to achieve, the fundamental human right to freedom of expression is under attack all over the world. To silence those who are brave enough to stand outside of the safety of consensus is to betray the heroes of our past. In the words of the late Christopher Hitchens, “Your right to hear and be exposed is as much involved in all of these cases as is the right of the other to voice his or her opinion.” So in other words, it is not just the right of the speaker to be heard but also that of the audience to listen and be informed. So attempting to censor the unpopular voice is therefore a heinous obstruction of what could, in some cases, be quite true. I think we’re becoming more and more enticed by this sort of holier-than-thou belief that we are somehow qualified to pick and choose what speech should be allowed, that somehow we hold claim to some special knowledge of what is and isn’t moral, that we are the employed key-holder of virtue, as it were. This is a subtle but nasty and arrogant insinuation that is at the forefront of the escalating global mission to suppress our fundamental right to freedom of speech. But as every precedent has shown, we can’t draw a line. Words that sound harmless to some might sound profoundly sinister to others, and such ambiguities and subjectivities should not be the basis for prison sentences. So don’t go backwards in your call for progress. The regulation of speech is and always will be futile, and the right to freedom of speech should be defended against any attempt to do so. Thank you. NISHITA JITESH GANATRA (Youth MP for Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi): Jose Rizal, a Filipino nationalist and polymath, once said that the youth is the hope of our future. And yes, this is true—we are the future. But what else is true is some teenagers are woven into crime to the extent that it shadows not only their future but that of their families, friends, communities, and our country. Just in May this year, a 15-year-old boy was taken into police custody following a crash of a stolen car during a police chase in west Auckland. In March, an 18-year-old boy from Christchurch was sentenced to life imprisonment for murdering a 20-year-old in his sleep. Over the past few years, there have been many cases of robbery, shoplifting, and extortion caused by teenagers across New Zealand. As a teenager myself, who is going through the same phase in life as these teenage offenders, I have never understood them, but this is where I and we have gone wrong. We must understand them so that we can get them out of this criminal trap. There are many reasons why a teenager can be driven to commit crimes. According to a website called SecureTeen, these reasons include bullying, financial hardship, drug and alcohol abuse, peer pressure, and a lack of affection, communication, and social and moral training from family. But there are so many factors that can open the door of crime for young Kiwis. It is our responsibility to remove these factors to ensure a safe and secure future for them. As most kids spend most of the time at home with family or in schools with teachers, they hold the most significant responsibility for guiding children. The Government could start preparing tutorials where child and teenage psychologists can teach parents how to nurture a child. In schools,

59 just like our sex, drug, and alcohol education is provided, schools should also teach students about crime. I also believe that New Zealand should make crime laws more stringent. For example, in Singapore, the law for extortion and severe cases of theft includes caning and imprisonment. I personally don’t believe in violence as a punishment, but I do believe that New Zealand should have a longer imprisonment time. Furthermore, I feel the offenders should get a chance to rebuild their future by giving them opportunities to succeed in life. The Government can offer workshops that provide information about how young offenders can succeed in a career despite holding a criminal record. Internships, apprenticeships, and scholarships should also be offered to boost their studies and careers. The youth of New Zealand are the future of New Zealand, and a youth in crime ruins the future of New Zealand. But if the youth are removed from this path and shaped for success, they and our country will prosper. Franklin D Roosevelt, former President of the United States, once said, “We cannot always build the future for our youth but we can build our youth for the future.” Thank you. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Can I thank the speakers. You’re doing really well. Thank you. KATE HATLEY (Youth MP for Jami-Lee Ross): Thank you, Madam Speaker. New Zealand is a nation that is proud to be a safe haven for the marginalised, a melting pot, a harbour for diversity. And, yes, I agree that living in Aotearoa and aspects of my identity give me privilege to participate in democracy in ways that many around the world can’t. I am often reminded of the beauty of this nation’s heart, but we are a long way from equity. So why aren’t we seeing our valued diversity in decision-making spaces across the country, wider than central government—our DHBs, local government, and boards? If our politics isn’t diverse, we continue to enact a cycle of policies that favour one group of people. We miss the whole picture. These deep-rooted issues are not a one-size-fits-all problem. Data from Stats NZ indicates that New Zealanders rate their trust in the Government at 5.7 on average, with 35 percent of Māori having little to no trust in the Government. Why is this? Perhaps it’s because we’re not seeing policies enacted to benefit all of us. Politics can seem like an unattainable institution to so many Kiwis, with one third of Kiwis feeling like they could not influence Government decisions. This is simply not good enough. When we see people that look like or identify like us, it can be incredibly empowering. We find a sense of community. We are told that we are not alone. We are given hope. Solutions must be co- designed with individuals from across the identity and culture spectrum. Look around you. This is the most diverse Youth Parliament we’ve ever seen, and look at the amazingly progressive conversations we’ve had. New Zealanders want to see more diversity, with growing multiculturalism and desires for inclusion. There is endless research to support the claim that diversity works in favour of everyone. The diversity and inclusion strategy states that companies in the top quartile for gender are 15 percent more likely to outperform others, and companies in the top quartile for ethnic diversity are 35 percent more likely to outperform others in their industry. The same rationale can be applied to Government. The evidence is there. The desire is there. Change doesn’t occur overnight, but history has shown us that if we persist, society will eventually change. Humanity has an intrinsic desire to push for better when we perceive something to be unjust. Sometimes all it takes is a single action. The Montgomery bus boycott catalysed the civil rights movement. The Stonewall riots catalysed the gay rights movement. First-wave feminism caused the suffragette movement. The sinking of the Rainbow Warrior in New Zealand hastened the want to ban nuclear weapons from our shores. New Zealand has historically been a nation that has enacted world-leading legislation in the fight for equality. Let’s continue this legacy. Our future depends on it. Thank you. SAAKSHI HEGDE (Youth MP for Michael Wood): Thank you. Honourable youth members of Parliament, we’ve all come together today to discuss important issues that we all truly care about but also to have the full Parliament experience, including the general debate. Today I stand before you to bring to light an important issue that deeply concerns me: forced marriages. This is something that I used to read about and I didn’t think it happened in New Zealand, but, 60 unfortunately, in the recent times, I have been in a situation where I have seen this happen around me, to people closest to me. I have witnessed someone abandon their education because she had to move to the country of her husband after she found out she was pregnant after a forced marriage. Several young girls all around our country are terrified by the thought of marriage because they don’t know who they might be forced to marry. Like I said, I didn’t think this happened in New Zealand, but one of my closest friends brought this to my attention, and after hearing this from her, I was—well, to say the least, it was a rude awakening. Eighty cases have been brought to the attention of the police by a non-profit women’s organisation called Shakti, and, which is usually the case in such situations—there are believed to be many, many more. The very thought that this is happening to girls all around me, my age, makes me shudder. Marriage laws in New Zealand state that a marriage is void if it takes place under duress, and a couple of weeks ago the marriage laws have been changed, and it is great to see progress, but what about the girls who are being taken out of this country to wed? What security and safety do we offer to those girls and women? Or are we putting our hands up and saying, “Well, you’re not on our land. That’s kind of not our problem.” The UK classified forced marriages as a criminal offence in 2014, and has formed a forced marriage unit, which is a joint Foreign and Commonwealth Office and Home Office unit that operates both inside and outside the UK. So what are we doing about forced marriages? Eighty is a number that’s too big for a country like ours. Eighty is the reported number of girls that did not have the right to choose; did not have the freedom to decide what they wanted to do with their life. Eighty is the reported number of girls who did not have the opportunities that many of us in this room—I assume—take for granted. We need to act now. We need to start thinking about how we’re going to address this. This cannot remain an issue for very long, because if we’ve learnt anything from our international counterparts, this number will only grow. We need to act now. A strong message must be sent that New Zealand will not allow this to happen to our young people. We want a day where this number of 80 is brought to zero. CHA’NEL KAA-LUKE (Youth MP for Hon Ruth Dyson): Kia ora koutou katoa. Ko Cha’nel Kaa-Luke tōku īngoa. Nō Ōtautahi ahau. He turi engari he tangata noa ahau. [Greetings to you all. My name is Cha’nel Kaa-Luke. I am from Christchurch. I am deaf but I’m just another person.] [Uses New Zealand Sign Language] [If you didn’t get what I just said in Te Reo, what I said is that I’m a deaf, gender-queer person. As you can see I’m communicating in New Zealand Sign Language and Te Reo, and there’s also English in the mix with the interpreters. English is the language that’s primarily spoken in New Zealand, and the second most prevalent language would be Māori, but, then, New Zealand Sign Language is used by only a small minority of people in New Zealand—there are only 20,000 users, compared to the national population in New Zealand of 4.79 million people. So that small number—that 20,000—represents people who experience daily struggles in coping within a hearing-biased community. It’s not just locally but nationally. So I’ve surveyed a number of members of the deaf community and I’ve asked how they feel operating within the hearing community. They think that it’s time for hearing people to start to become aware of deaf people, deaf culture, and deaf issues. Did you know that here in New Zealand, we have New Zealand Sign Language Week at the start of May each year? What the majority of you might not know is that it’s also Deaf Awareness Week. We celebrate that week. We feel proud during that week. We see people trying to communicate with us. We see nations’ leaders putting messages on social media in sign language, and we see posts put up about New Zealand Sign Language. So why should this only be recognised, though, during one isolated week of the year? So I feel if the deaf community asked you to become deaf aware, I don’t think it’s too much to ask. Because, really, New Zealand Sign Language is the third official language of our country, just like Te Reo is also an official language. So if you’re able to become deaf aware, and learn New Zealand Sign Language, that should be something that can happen, which can be on par with 61

Māori culture. My assumption is that you would have some knowledge of Māori culture and values and Te Reo. So, really, it doesn’t matter which culture it is that you belong to, it should be integrated into society. So if people become more deaf aware, then I really believe that you will also become more accepting of diversity in general—including: queer people, disabled people, and also people who have different options than you—and I think that gives us an opportunity to be equal. Thank you. Tēnā koutou katoa.] FANIA KAPAO (Youth MP for Hon Phil Twyford): Kia orana tatou katoatoa. The issue that I wish to bring to the table today is the necessity for cultural preservation. The year was 1975, when a young couple came from the Cook Islands—left the white sandy beaches and palm trees—to New Zealand, with a dream to ensure that their descendants lived in a country that provides them with all the best possible opportunities; and I’m proud to say that their dream came true. I’m sure that many, if not all, members of this House have similar stories in their heritage. Today, I wish to raise the necessity of cultural preservation, because many ethnic groups call New Zealand their home and if you take a look around the Chamber, you’ll see that I’m right. More specifically, for our young, Youth MPs of Pacific Island descent, I would like to bring to the table the fact that we believe that by dressing in cultural attire today, that we bring our families with us— and we think that’s pretty cool, if you all agree. The thing with this is that we’re trying to show solidarity, because we feel that in this day and age, we try to change the way we speak, the way we look, and the way we dress in order to not be laughed at by society; that happens a bit too much for us specifically. We don’t want to be seen as another statistic, but we wear cultural attire today so that you can look at us and see how many of us stand in unity with each other. The youth of today need to be reminded that their origins—whether it be from Samoa, Tonga, Fiji, China, India, Thailand, Finland, or even Croatia—are something to be proud of. We want the youth of New Zealand—and Pacific Island youth, more importantly—to stop creating new dance trends or learning how to roundhouse kick the bottle cap off a bottle, and speak to people immersed in culture, and learn. You can walk out of here saying, “My family were taro planters but now we are policy advisers. We were coconut huskers but now we are entrepreneurs.” We went from saying, “Yes” when someone asked me what my name was, to saying, “Hey, here I am giving a speech in the debating chamber in Parliament, who would have thought?” You see, your culture can take you places you’d never believe. But if you do believe and you carry your culture, you carry your family, and you carry your ancestry, it will take you places. Basically, just to the whole Youth Parliament, you have all been great. It’s been great being here, talking to all of you, making new friends, and forging those connections. I hope that you hear what I have to say, what our Pasifika caucus has to say, and that you appreciate it, you take it on, and you learn from us and from the people around you. Meitaki ranuinui. Thank you CLEMENT KONG (Youth MP for Nicola Willis): The topics of suicide and mental health seem to have been discussed over generations and generations, and it seems like we’re beating a dead horse—beating it over and over again. It’s because despite the constant discussion that has been happening over decades, it is still a growing issue in our country. As a New Zealander, I love this country—but we aren’t perfect. There’s this constant rhetoric about how New Zealand is this amazing country, when the reality is that our foundation is crumbling. The suicide rate is at a record high of 668 New Zealanders. I’ve lost classmates and friends to suicide—and I shouldn’t have to ask who will be the next one. These are our brothers and our sisters of Aotearoa that are being lost to suicide. New Zealand has the highest suicide rates for youth, per capita, of all OECD countries. The reality is that New Zealand will never be the best country for our children to grow up in if we don’t address the issue and actually invest in prevention. There’s such an emphasis on the victims and treating mental health, but at that stage the cake’s already half baked. There should be a focus on stopping them from even getting into the cycle. It’s about creating awareness for mental health, and focusing more on wellbeing, which has been more common in our time but the extent that are exposed still isn’t good enough.

62

Six hundred and sixty eight is the number that we lost to suicide. If that number was halved it would be good; but not good enough. If it was a quarter of what it is today it would good but not good enough. Even if it was 1 percent—that is good but not good enough. The only number that is good enough is zero for New Zealand. The truth is that I go through the vicious cycles of depression. The other New Zealanders that have gone through this understand why I’m advocating for greater change—because we don’t want others to experience what we go through. We don’t want our children or grandchildren or the generations after that to go through that pain. We don’t want them to know the pain of seeing that empty desk and thinking of the person that once sat in that chair. We don’t want them to see the shoes and think of the person that once filled them. The horse maybe already dead but the need to keep on beating it is still there, and I ask for true change for New Zealanders, for our brothers and sisters, for our friends and classmates, and for the future generations. We can make genuine change because it’s our lives and our children’s lives on the line. This is necessary change for Aotearoa. Thank you, Madam Speaker. SHANEEL SHAVNEEL LAL (Youth MP for Hon Jenny Salesa): Ni sa bula vinaka na marama kei na turaga vaka kina o kemuni na sema tiko mai ena porokaramu. [I welcome you all ladies and gentlemen and to those who are listening in to this programme.] When I woke up this morning, I didn’t look and the mirror and say, “Oops, I’m gay, better fix that.” because like any rational person, I know my sexuality was not a choice. But the years of compulsory heterosexuality have caused me so much confusion, and while we live in a system of institutionalised heteronormativity, my human rights are still not a human reality. Thirty-three years ago homosexuality was a crime. Six years ago, same-sex marriage was illegal but to this day, it is completely legal to torture someone to change their sexuality in the name of conversion therapy. To the heterosexual people in this room, how many times have you been asked, “What caused your heterosexuality?” or “Have you considered conversion therapy to overcome your heterosexual desires?” Probably never. In New Zealand, conversion therapy is not a mainstream but a pseudo-scientific treatment, and therefore there are no professional guidelines for how it is conducted. In fact, it is now widely practised by religious organisations to push forward their bigoted agenda. These people believe that homosexuality is a choice and a result of some childhood trauma. Conversion therapy included giving patients nausea-inducing drugs while showing them same-sex pornography. Recent tactics include electroconvulsive therapy, where shock is induced, causing a seizure and memory loss. Now some have turned to psychoanalysis, where young people are hammered with the idea that homosexuality is a disease and they must pray to God to heal them. I am reminded of the story of a young person named Chris who was only 16 when his church introduced him to conversion therapy. He was so ashamed and guilt-ridden, he says he prayed to God to heal him or kill him—heal him or kill him. Make no mistake: conversation therapy is not about ‘praying the gay away’; it’s about mentally and physically torturing the closet case to death. Mainstream psychologists say that conversion therapy is ineffective, unethical, and often harmful. In October 2018, Marja Lubeck—hey, hello!—introduced into the members’ bill ballot a bill proposing a ban on conversion therapy. I urge members of Parliament to get behind this bill and ban conversion therapy in New Zealand. As a politician, it is your job to alleviate the collective suffering of your people. If you allow this torture to continue, you’re failing your people. We are not broken and we do not need to be fixed. Thank you. JAMES MACEY (Youth MP for Jonathan Young): Today we all have at least one thing in common, and that is we are residents of a Western country with strong democratic principles and exemplary human rights records. Unfortunately, though, for millions of people not too far from home, the same is not true. It’s time to change that. On 1 July, 22 years ago the clock struck midnight for Hong Kong. Since then, the pillars of the city-State’s sovereignty have been eroded by continuous lashings, by waves of red. “One country, two systems” was China’s promise to Thatcher, to millions of Hongkongers, and to the world. To

63 say that the line between these two systems is now blurred is an understatement. Beijing’s behaviour in Hong Kong since then was not part of the deal. On the other side of China, in the Xinjiang province, the Government continues its persecution of the Uyghur Muslims, operating modern-day concentration camps to promote the Chinese communist party’s own morally flawed idea of the ideal citizen. In these camps, innocent Chinese citizens are subjected to Government propaganda, forced to behave contrary to their religious beliefs, and are at times subjected to unspeakable torture. Whether in Xinjiang or in Hong Kong, the actions of the Chinese Government must not be seen to be the actions of a far-away forgotten State. These are the actions of our biggest trading partner, of a Government that governs 18 percent of the world’s population, of a nation that for the past few decades we have welcomed to the world stage with open arms. Why then are so many nations so very silent? It’s because nobody wants to bite the hand that feeds them. The UN does not want to lose 10 percent of its peacekeeping budget that’s funded by Beijing. We do not want to lose 25 percent of our exports. China, though, is also an export nation. She relies not on us or Australia or Canada or the United Kingdom but on all of us. New Zealand, along with many other nations, must not be too scared to link arms with our allies, and our allies’ allies, and their allies’ allies, and take a stand against the Chinese Government. The people in Xinjiang and in Hong Kong are no less deserving of human rights and of democracy than we in this House. Thank you. JESSICA MCKNIGHT (Youth MP for Denise Lee): Madam Speaker, honourable Youth MPs, distinguished guests, and those who are watching from home; my sincerest thank you for the opportunity to speak today. Today we are youth speaking for youth. During my tenure as Maungakiekie’s Youth MP I reached out to the youth in my electorate and asked what was of greatest concern to them. Sixty-three percent said “mental health.” When asked why, more than half said “personal experience.” The response from my community led me to pose this question: when will the stigmatisation of youth mental health come to a halt in our communities? New Zealand’s youth suicide rate cannot be solved overnight, but the first step to finding a resolution is understanding the problem. When the youth of Maungakiekie said “personal experience”, they meant that there are far too many of our own friends having panic attacks in the school bathroom, resorting to drugs and alcohol to fill a void, self-harming because they feel alone, and isolating themselves because depression stops them from getting out of bed. There are far too many who have lost family members to suicide, who have thought about taking their life, and who have taken their life. However, the issue of mental health is not electorate-based but nationwide. With a nation comes community, and with community come beliefs. New Zealand youth are raised to patch themselves up. We pride ourselves on Kiwi ingenuity and the ability to keep moving forward. With this comes the classic phrase, “She’ll be right.” Granted, these three words are not solely to blame for the appalling teenage death rate our country holds but the laid-back approach that far too many are familiar with definitely does not help the problem. Social media has glamorised mental illness to such an extent that some consider it trendy to be unwell, normal for graphic self-harm images to be shared publicly, and cool to belittle others struggling. I am all for the Kiwi way, but duct tape can’t fix a chemical imbalance in your brain. Youth are scared to speak out for these reasons. Youth are dying for these reasons. More than 40 percent of the youth I spoke to said they don’t feel supported enough to reach out to their community. If this is the case, how can we expect them to reach out to an organisation? The breakdown of stigmas begins in your community with the implicit expression of encouragement from within the circles you are a part of. Kiwi kids deserve a brighter future. Even with proposed funding towards mental health services, youth are still terrified of the way they will get looked at. How can services be utilised if youth are scared to use them? Everyone always asks: what is the most important thing in the world? Well, it is people. It is people. It is people. We need to take care of our people and I am calling on the Government to lead the way. Thank you. 64

JACKSON MINNEAR (Youth MP for Hon Jacqui Dean): Are all things nuclear bad? I’ve been looking into nuclear energy recently and nuclear medication etc. and I have realised that nuclear is a fascinating study. For instance, for cancer treatment, we need nuclear isotopes to destroy the cancer tumours and to fix them. We need nuclear to kill the bacteria in the frozen food industry, which we use right here in New Zealand. What if we can have nuclear energy in New Zealand? You might say, we are a nuclear-free country, but, actually, no. We are nuclear weapon - free, thanks to David Lange many years ago, and 20 kilometres off the coast of New Zealand we are not allowed nuclear energy. However, I propose that we build a nuclear research reactor in New Zealand, as this we are allowed to do. In New Zealand we are legally allowed to possess 1 pound of uranium and 1 pound of thorium in New Zealand schools and universities to conduct experiments on. I think we need to use this opportunity to pursue a new energy source for this country. Nuclear energy is climate neutral. It does not produce any carbon dioxide emissions and this would help solve our climate problem. We have restricted fossil fuels at the moment. Solar and wind—I’ve looked into those. Solar produces more emissions than nuclear. In wind, we have many tourists come to this country. Wind will not work as an option. Electric vehicles—as soon as we expand our fleet of vehicles on the road, we need some place to charge these vehicles. We need more power in the grid. This is where nuclear can come in and be a very valuable option. As we surpass the hydrocarbon age, nuclear must be an option that we consider. Thank you. ETHAN NEMEROFF (Youth MP for Rt Hon Winston Peters): My fellow MPs, I stand here today to bring to light what is quite possibly the most important issue my town has ever faced. I have seen this issue alter my friends’ lives and, in some cases, even take them. I come from a very small town called Kaitāia, also nicknamed the suicide capital of New Zealand. Despite this title, Kaitāia is, in my view, the best town in the world, though I may be a tad biased. From my experience, Kaitāia is the only place where you can walk through town and greet and be greeted by everyone you pass by first name. Kaitāia, from my experience, is the only town where I know every single checkout worker at Pak ’N Save on a personal level. From my experience, Kaitāia is the only place with a community so tightly knit that I can truthfully call a whole town my family. But, as is the case with anywhere, it has its issues too. My town, which I love with all my heart, is disproportionately represented in our national youth suicide rates, and from speaking about this topic with my friends and my peers, one thing has become abundantly clear to me: our tamariki feel intimidated, unsupported, and unengaged, and it’s not hard to see why. If you come to Kaitāia, you will be shocked by the lack of creative productive outlets for our youth. To find a place where you can express yourself, or a place where you can go and practice your passion, is so difficult that it’s easier to just stay at home and do nothing at all. Take a guess at how many people visit the Kaitāia community youth space each week. Zero. We don’t have a community youth space. It’s no secret that growing up is scary, but when our youth are forced to grow up while simultaneously being ignored, it’s easy to see why Kaitāia’s and many of New Zealand’s youth in many similar towns are feeling hopeless. It comes down to this: everyone is passionate about something, be it music, writing, or politics, and passion is what drives a person. It gives them a purpose and something to work for, but this passion needs nurturing. It needs to be encouraged and kindled, because when it isn’t it gets lost and a person loses their drive and sense of purpose. Unfortunately, this happens all too often in Northland and many other regions. As youth are overlooked and ignored, the passion is neglected and left to burn out and these children grow up unmotivated—something which breaks my heart as I know the amazing potential these young people have. And this is happening in regional communities nationwide. I say it’s time that we shift our gaze back to the youth and focus on providing them with the support and engagement we deserve. It’s time that we replace this mindset of hopelessness and fear for the future with one of hope and excitement. It’s time we recognise that there are youth beyond the cities who are suffering every day. I want to see my town with a place where our youth can go 65 and be awhi-ed along on their journey of self-discovery. I want to see my town have people in our communities who can work with the youth to make this scary transition into adulthood a little less scary. I want to see a culture of support in my town, where every child has a place and a person they can go to when life gets hard. We, the youth, have the potential to do great things, and it’s time we are recognised and invested in as such. My fellow MPs, we sit in this chamber today, brought together by a thirst for change and a shared vision of creating a better tomorrow. But I propose to you now that we do away with our idea of a better tomorrow and instead focus on creating a better today. Thank you. TAYLOR RENATA NIKORA (Youth MP for Adrian Rurawhe): Tēnā koe e Te Māngai o Te W’are. Tū ana te kāhui maunga i te pito o te Ika-a-Māui-Tikitiki-ā-Taranga. Taka wai rā te mātāpuna me ngā kōrero, me ngā whakapapa. E rere kau ana ngā tikanga o ōku tūpuna i runga i ngā riporipo o te awa o Whanganui. Tae atu kau au ki te puna wai, ki te puna ora, ki te puna aroha ā Tangaroa. Tuturi-o-Whiti whakamaua kia tina, tina, haumie-huie—Tāiki ē. E aku nui. E aku rahi. Tēnā koutou katoa. Nōreira, me huri ake au ki tōku kaupapa. Whakarongo mai. Pīkari mai. He kai kei aku ringa. Ko tōku reo tōku ohooho. Tōku reo, tōku māpihi maurea. [Thank you to the Speaker of the House. The mountain ranges of the central North Island stand tall. The source of the water carries with it the histories and stories. The customs and traditions of my ancestors flow with the Whanganui River. All the way to the very source, the water of Tangaroa. Whiti. Draw together—affirm. To the many, to the masses: greetings to you all. I turn my focus to the substance of my speech. Listen closely. Listen attentively. I have an opportunity within my grasp. My language is my strength, my language is my treasure.] My language is my awakening. My language is the window to my soul. My reo is a unique taonga that I hold very close to my heart, with only 3.7 percent of total New Zealand population able to share this taonga with me. Perhaps that is due to the journey and struggle my reo has endured, from Te Tiriti o Waitangi to pepper-potting. Kia tika kia mihi atu ki o tātou tūpuna, nā rātou i whakatakoto te ara mō tātou, ngā uri e whakatupu. [It is only right to acknowledge our ancestors for they laid the pathway forward for us, their descendants.] In 1982, kōhanga reo were established, followed by kura kaupapa in 1985. However, kura kaupapa had to have been operating independently for three years before receiving any form of Government support or funding. These often operated on w’ānau koha and aroha for the reo Māori movement. In 1987, Te Reo Māori was given status as an official language of Aotearoa—147 years after the signing of Te Tiriti o Waitangi. Te Reo Māori has always been important to us as Māori. However, it is often perceived that Te Reo Māori has no economic value. I was told growing up that going to kura Māori had no benefit for me in the long run, that I had to learn English to get a job. But, in fact, I’ve had many successes from my knowledge and love of Te Reo Māori, tikanga Māori, and kawa. I wouldn’t be here today if it wasn’t for those things. I would not be a youth member of Parliament if I didn’t hold my knowledge of Te Reo Māori, of my love for Te Ao Māori. My Reo and love for Te Ao Māori brought me to Parliament alongside Te Wānanga o Aotearoa mid-last year. Kia ora. ISABELLE OOSTERBROEK (Youth MP for Jamie Strange): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I would like to begin by acknowledging the New Zealand Government for the stance they have taken on climate change. Introducing 64,000 electric vehicles to our roads by 2020 is hugely significant. I—and I’m sure all of us—are exceedingly thankful for this. This, the Electric Vehicles Programme, is an important initiative in New Zealand’s commitment to reducing carbon emissions, as electric cars emit 80 percent less carbon into our atmosphere than traditional fuel cars. But they are not as clean and as green as we think. Instead, it seems a key component of these cars is the product of child labour, far-from-safe working conditions, and the ongoing poverty of the people already among the poorest in the world. Cobalt forms up to 50 percent of the lithium 66 batteries that will be present in each of our electric cars, and 60 percent of the world’s cobalt is sourced in the Democratic Republic of the Congo—or DRC. It was in 2018 that Amnesty International first showed us the exploitative reality of mining in the DRC. Exposure that followed revealed children as young as seven lugging 13 to 14 kilogram packs of cobalt on their backs daily. CNN interviewed Tembu, a woman who spent 12 hours in knee-high water, grinding 10 kilograms of cobalt ore into a gravel-like consistency. She earned a mere NZ$10 for her work that day. Footage from multiple sources showed men barefoot, with no protective gear, being lowered into holes by ropes made of worn rucksacks to mine cobalt with their bare hands. The holes are held open with mere pieces of broken metal and wood. These children, men, and women—think of your brothers and mothers and cousins and siblings. Would you want them doing this? Is this what we’re about? These children, men, and women will be exploited while we drive vehicles, with a clear conscience, doing better for the environment. We are Kiwis, who pride ourselves on our sense of fair play, our commitment to equality, and our innovation. If we go ahead with this programme and don’t demand more ethical practices, a more transparent supply chain, then I cannot help but question how deep our values really go. We have not only the capacity to become leaders in this area but the responsibility to, or we are no better than those who enforce these conditions on the Congolese people, just further removed geographically. I’m calling on our Government to value the lives of the Congolese the way we care for our own. Yes, our world is precious, and it should be protected, and these electric vehicles could be the game-changer we need. But we cannot be proud of being environmentally conscious if it is at the tragic expense of others. We can work with NGOs, businesses, the Congolese authorities, and people to get actively involved in preventing this exploitation. It’s not too late, and it’s not impossible, but it needs to be done. He aha te mea nui o te ao? He tangata, he tangata, he tangata. What is the most important thing in the world? It is people, it is people, it is people. Thank you. ANARU PALMER (Youth MP for Tamati Coffey): Āe. Tuia ki te rangi, tuia ki te whenua, tuia ki te ngākau o ngā tāngata, ko te mea nui ko te aroha. Tihei mauri ora. [Yes. I connect with the sky, I connect with the land, I connect with the hearts of people, the most important thing is love. I sneeze, it is the breath of life.] Kia ora tātou and good afternoon everyone. It is truly an honour to be able to stand here and speak to you all today as someone who is not a prodigy of politics but rather as someone who cherishes the opportunity to express my thoughts on something that I feel I am passionate about and something that I would like to share. In the short time that I have to speak, I wish to acknowledge mental health, and, because it is a broad issue, I wish to shed some light on suicide. What’s led me to this choice is that within the last two days I have come to recognise the significance that this issue has had, particularly for me and my Youth Health Committee, which I acknowledge at this time for the hard work that you and our clerks and advisers have put into the report. Today, I originally prepared a speech, but now I speak from the heart because this issue I feel has not only affected those from my community but also me personally. It is quite disheartening and quite saddening to hear that many of our youth are affected by suicide, whether that be through suicidal attempts or through taking their own life. What saddens me is many of the statistics here in New Zealand—many of the suicides that have occurred—are representative of young Māori men, and they are disproportionately represented in the statistics. That’s heartbreaking to me because I’m a young Māori man, and I can’t put in to words how the fall of my brothers has taken a toll on me. Myself and fellow Youth MP Noelene Tewhakaara, back in Tauranga Moana, we are part of a youth leadership forum called Te Rangi Hau, and what we look to do is to guide our iwi into the future. One of the issues that we identified is suicide, and, personally for me, I guess no matter what actions we take, whether that’s on our own accord or through the Government, I feel it’s not so much as we need to do more to tackle this issue of suicide but we need to be more to tackle this issue.

67

In saying that, we don’t necessarily need to take a lot more action; we just need to change our hearts—be more open and be more kind—because I feel that is the best way. Considering that Noelene and I are part of this youth forum, it is also saddening that us youth are helping youth who are affected, but it is important that we all come together this time. Toitū te whenua, whatu ngarongaro te tangata—the people will perish, but land is for ever. Let us not be far apart but closer together. No reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, kia ora mai tātou katoa. Kia ora. WILLIAM PATERSON (Youth MP for Mark Mitchell): What is normal? I’ve been so immersed and engaged in the use of the word “normal”, when what is it? Is it something you strive to become or is it something you strive to not become? That’s what makes us unique, not only as a country but as a people—the striving to not become normal, as represented in this room. Unfortunately, this is having an immensely negative downside in our youth, especially in high school students across New Zealand, where being abnormal is pulled apart and belittled through something that every Kiwi has experienced—bullying, which leads to poor mental health in the form of being depressed, lonely, or anxious, and the victims struggle academically. These are just a few small effects, not even mentioning the appalling youth suicide rate we have in New Zealand. There is systematic bullying in New Zealand, across high schools, where we have significant decline in mental health among young people, which can stem from bullying in all ages and lack of acceptance of anything abnormal. But all of us here today can be the difference and support people around us and create programmes in our community to be the power to create change. I was fortunate enough to be a peer mediator and mentor at Mahurangi College, where I saw significant improvement in mental health from these anti-bullying programmes. Secondly, New Zealand has the power to meet the current Government initiative of zero carbon emissions. Electric vehicles (EVs) are an exciting prospect. With so many manufacturers coming to market, the Government not only needs to invest in cash incentives for EVs but in how Kiwi’s consume electric vehicles. Having incentives is a great start, but to make it practical for the average Kiwi and the Kiwi spirit of exploring, the Government needs to start by investing in charging stations, which have significant upfront costs, to make it practical for the average consumer, putting New Zealand in a unique position of having the only sustainable transport network in the world. Now I ask you: is that normal? So as a country, and youth, should we aim to be normal and let our differences divide us, causing even higher decline of youth mental health, or pride ourselves on being extraordinary and promoting a new, more sustainable future? BENJAMIN PRINCE (Youth MP for Darroch Ball): The New Zealand judicial system is usually an effective one; some could say a tough one. However, it has occurred to me—and it has occurred to many others with the slightest bit of brains in the New Zealand sentencing system—that there is a grievous flaw in our legislation; a flaw in our legal structures, as specified in section 103 of the Sentencing Act 2002, that in the context of murder, a prisoner may be sentenced for only 10 years in prison, at minimum. Yet it is considered a life sentence. We have seen people in prison for, at maximum, 30 years without parole as precedent puts before us. But yet, we must consider if it is enough for their crimes. I intend to be one to uphold the notion that, no; it’s not enough. Life should be life—it’s in the name. Life’s length is no predetermined number. Life imprisonment is a sentence that our courts lay down when one individual commits the most reprehensible atrocities that we can consider someone to undertake. In these cases, we must remember the core principles of why we imprison people. The first and foremost is as a deterrent, as any person with an ounce of respect for themselves would be deterred by the threat of a life sentence. Secondly, for the security of society, there is no place on the streets of the common man for such despicable individuals of whom could, at any second, wipe out another man’s life. It is my belief that someone handed a life sentence has done an act that proves that they are incapable of being a functioning member of society, and, equally, a great danger. When it comes to acts as disgusting and detestable as murder, the conniving cadavers that committed such acts 68 deserve a life behind bars for what they did. It makes no sense why we would give these people a timer, or a freedom to look forward to, when they terminated a fellow man’s soul out of pure malice. People of these mindsets cannot be rehabilitated, and they are parasites on society. You have to have a head so dense that light bends around it to be able to think that parasites have a means to contribute to society. The life sentence is called the life sentence for a reason. It’s time that we use a dictionary when we legislate. These changes would absolutely be for the betterment of New Zealand, and for New Zealanders, for the alternative is destruction. TC KOROHEKE SATELE (Youth MP for Hon David Parker): Mr Speaker, fellow Youth MPs, distinguished guests of the House, I open this general debate speech with a question: how are we supposed to succeed in a system historically built against us? We stand here today among institutions which were founded upon the bones of our tipuna. To brush off the blatant racism I, as tikanga Māori, have received is doing a gross injustice to the struggles they endured to gain equal footing in this country. In fact, it’s only over the past 100 years that we have begun to see institutionalised discrimination become undone at a systematic level. Now, this is not an arbitrary number, ladies and gentlemen; it represents the proximity we, as youth, face to a past of institutionalised oppression. But does this represent the state of our system today? Well, meeting with local rangatahi within my community leads me to believe so. In fact, on a daily basis, youth are facing ostracism within their communities on a basis of ethnicity, on an issue of race, or ethnic makeup. These are but some of many issues we face as marginalised youth in a modern-day setting. While many of these issues are pertinent to a global stage, they pertain to us here in Aotearoa specifically, as was evident following the 15 March attacks. Might I add to all our fellow members of the Muslim community who have been adversely affected by the events that have transpired this year—in solidarity, I offer a quote: . َم ْه َما تَ َص ّو َر أَ ْو َصدَّ َق َع ْق ل ا إِل ْن َسا إن َف إ َّنه َقا إد ٌر َعلى تَ ْح إق ْي إق إه “Whatever the mind of man can conceive and believe it can achieve.”, a quote epitomising how many of us have reached the stage we stand at today. Might I remind the House, and might I remind Te Kāwanatanga o Aotearoa, that minorities are not just statistical analytics on a census report. Minorities are a people with verifiable history. Although mostly censored under the lens of colonialism, we maintain our beliefs to stand equally among the majority and we preserve a hītori. Well, whoever we may be, in summation, we’re voicing them here, despite colonial efforts to suppress them. In fact, for us to even stand here in Te Whare Pāremata is testament to the boundaries we have overcome as minorities. But to succeed as a minority in New Zealand, it’s not just merited through mere recognition. Success is celebrating Māoridom. It’s giving equal opportunity for wāhine to succeed in a growing job market, and, as an ethnically diverse nation, it’s absolving Eurocentric curricula. It’s representing foreign culture in the mainstream. It’s normalising kōrero Te Reo Māori into the coming generations. So as I conclude this speech, ladies and gentlemen, I leave with the House a statement: that diversity should not become our adversity. Nō reira, tēnā koutou katoa. EPERU SA’U (Youth MP for Ginny Andersen): First and foremost, before we start, I’d like to give thanks to our heavenly father for bringing us all here today. Talofa lava. O lo‘u igoa Eperu Sau. Hello, my name is Eperu Sa’u, and I am honoured to represent Ginny Andersen, list MP representing Hutt South. Today, we face problem. It isn’t a new one, but an enduring one. That problem is poverty. Poverty affects many lives, not only around the world but here in our beloved country New Zealand, Aotearoa. There are around 682,500 people suffering from poverty, or one in seven households, including 220,000 children. But this number slowly rises. Can you believe our country is known throughout nations to be a country of second chances, of second hope, when our very own are struggling? Poverty, as we know it, is not just homeless out in the street, but rather the lack of having our everyday necessities and needs. UNICEF defines child poverty as children being deprived of material, spiritual, and emotional resources needed to survive, develop, and thrive—and I agree with this. One of my most dearest memories of my past, that I hold till this day, is living in a two- bedroom house with my six younger siblings and both my parents—yes, six younger siblings. I can 69 still recall the cold winter nights where my whole family would gather in the lounge in hopes of keeping warm. Poverty has created mixed feelings amongst our families, and, especially, younger generations. It has impacted the lives of many, both physically and mentally. Families, especially kids, should not go through the pain of not having enough simple necessities, like food to eat and a warm house to live in. Can I just say that my vision for not only here in New Zealand, but, hopefully, countries around the world, is to see a place of liberty—liberty to live life without hardship, suffering, adversity, or insecurity. A place with affordable housing, more jobs, and opportunity for everybody. Now, eliminating poverty is too big of a problem for just a minority of us to do. But there is a saying: “There is strength in numbers”, and all of us must work together to make that change we need a reality. Fa‘afetai lava, thank you. PHOEBE SCARSBROOK (Youth MP for Andrew Falloon): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Feminism—the word that seems to be like the elephant in the room, or the swear word which is too bad to use. I’m afraid to use it. I’m afraid, because if I stand up for myself in class the boys give me unusual looks and tell me, “What about us boys? Don’t we have rights too?” I’m afraid, because if I stand up for myself and for women, I’ll get asked if it’s that time of the month. And you know what? That has to stop. Feminism is not a dirty word. It does not mean you hate men. It does not mean you hate women. It means you believe in equality. I believe now, more than ever before, we need feminism. Feminism has fought no wars, it has killed no opponents, and it has set up no concentration camps, starved no enemies, or practised no cruelties. Its battles have been for education, for the vote, for better working conditions, for safety in the streets, for childcare, for social welfare, for rape crisis centres, for Women’s Refuge, and reforms in the law. Feminism has done nothing but support women wanting better. There is so much going on in the world that I cannot believe we are still fighting over—take, for instance, the abortion law in America. I cannot even begin to tell you how upset I was to hear 25 white, middle-aged men deciding over women’s bodies. It’s not like those 25 white, middle-aged men can speak from experience of having a uterus, is it? We need feminism. We need feminism because little girls are told that if a boy hits you, it means he likes you. We need feminism because boys shouldn’t be told to man up. We need feminism because a man in a room full of woman is ecstatic, but a woman in a room full of men is terrified. We are so lucky in New Zealand that we have laws implemented and institutional mechanisms that promote the advancement of women and gender equality. We have so many inspiring women to look up to, such as our Prime Minister, politicians, teachers, mothers, sisters, and the list goes on. This issue is so important to me because I am a feminist. A feminist is someone who believes in the power of woman just as much as they believe in the power of anyone else. I feel as though we should all have a little bit of feminist in us, because you don’t have to be anti-man to be pro- woman. Both men and women should feel free to be sensitive; both men and women should feel free to be strong. It is time that we see gender as a spectrum instead of two opposing ideas. We should stop defining each other by what we are not, and start defining ourselves by who we are. So here’s to strong woman—may we know them, may we raise them, and may we be them. ISHIE SHARMA (Youth MP for Priyanca Radhakrishnan): Kia ora, whānau. So I got this analogy from a professor, who got it from his daughter, who got it from the aeronautical industry. We live in a time of useful consciousness—this is the time before you faint when oxygen runs out on the plane. This is the time that we can choose to do something before we abstain, because that’s all we’ve been doing for years. Because for years we’ve chosen to neglect and deflect this subject of the greenhouse effect; because for years we’ve lived in a society of economic exploitation, where our priorities lie with the US elections and the Syrian war, while we ignore the problems that lie at our front door. Because for years we’ve been looking for social validation—scrolling our lives away, so much mindless procrastination, instead of fulfilling our aspirations of conservation. So let’s have this conversation. Global warming, climate change, sea-level rise—whatever you call it, it’s all the same. Now, the aim is not to blame but rather reclaim—reclaim the responsibility we hold as global citizens. Now, let’s define climate change in the most basic terms. It’s like putting 70 a blanket on planet Earth, which is warming up our oceans, causing ice caps to melt. Simple enough? I mean, it’s pretty basic stuff—it means the dry areas get drier and the wet areas get wetter. It means a 25 centimetres sea-level rise by 2050. How do we stop this? We reduce emissions. The United Nations have left us a mission, should we choose to accept it. It’s called Sustainable Development Goal 13: take urgent action to combat climate change and its impacts. So here’s the facts—net-zero carbon by the end of the century, because our planet has suffered one too many injuries. So it’s time for treatment, hence we agreed to the Paris Agreement. I recently read an article in The Guardian that proved the biggest threat to national security is not terrorism or biological weapons, it’s actually climate change. Now, this makes sense when 22.5 million people are forced to displace and rearrange their lives due to climate change—because no longer are our wars between the Nazis and the Zionists; they are now between our politicians and the scientists. This is not evolution and this is not the Ice Age. However, this is the age for Generation Z to come together and create, innovate, inspire, and motivate each other to deal with this fate. I refuse to accept this as our legacy, and I refuse to leave our home in such disparity. We are stealing the future, selling it in the present and calling it GDP, but there’s more to life than gross domestic product. There’s more to life than profit and revenue and supply and demand and marginal cost, what about the morals and values that we seem to have lost? We have come to a line that can no longer be crossed. So let’s look for solutions to keep our planet rather than solutions to keep our jobs, because why wait? Why wait for someone to tell us to do something? Why waste more time doing nothing? Why wait for the next natural disaster? Why wait till we’re all under water? Why wait—because we are the tanagata whenua, we are the people of this place; because we are the rangatahi, we are the youth—it is our responsibility to display kaitiakitanga. It is our responsibility to be stewards of our future. John F Kennedy once said, “If not now, when? If not us, who?” We have to see it with our emotions, just as we see it with our eyes, that we have to maximise our time of useful consciousness. BEN SOKIMI (Youth MP for Hon Simon Bridges): Well, I’ll be honest with you—I don’t quite know how to follow that. I’ve got a prepared speech here that, apparently, I’m not allowed to use, but I’m going to use it anyway. I can most certainly assure you that it doesn’t rhyme. Now, I want to start by telling you that I’ve actually been extraordinarily impressed with the quality of speeches I’ve seen this afternoon, from, sort of, nuclear stuff down there, to colonialism, to issues around climate change that the Green Party knows I’m extraordinarily passionate about. I’ve been extraordinarily impressed, as I said, by the calibre of speeches. I’m not sure if I can live up to the precedent that’s been set, but I’ll give it a damn good go. I want to start by saying I’m honoured to stand in this Chamber, I’m honoured to stand in this Parliament. I’m honoured to stand at this seat, the second-best seat in the House, the seat of the Leader of the Opposition. [Interruption] Sorry, the third-best, after the Deputy Prime Minister’s seat. I’m honoured to stand here. It’s been the seat of many political greats from the likes of the Rt Hon David Lange, to the Rt Hon Sir John Key. It’s pretty damn comfortable. Now, I just want to have a quick chat about the topic of discussion at the Youth Social Services and Communities Committee, which I sat on. It’s also a topic that’s very dear to my heart and that, of course, is the issue of youth engagement in politics. Now, it’s no secret that, broadly speaking, young people just don’t care about politics—with us excluded—and they don’t care about our democratic process. You only have to look at the stats from the last two general elections, which suggest that less than 70 percent of young people voted and even less than that voted in the local body elections. So to that I posed the following question: why aren’t young people voting? Now, to me, the answer is quite simple. But I left that, and had a quick chat with some people in my community and read some of the submissions to the Youth Social Services and Communities Committee, which were fascinating, because they basically told us what we already know—that young people don’t vote because they don’t feel they have the tools to do so. Of course, they would have the tools to do so if we actually properly taught civics. If we had a more comprehensive, more

71 widespread civics part of our curriculum, I reckon we could get those youth engagement numbers up to 80 or 90 percent. Now, the Children’s Commissioner, Judge Andrew Becroft, came in and had a chat to us at the select committee yesterday and he also did a submission—he, more or less, just spoke to the submission yesterday. He told us that a lot of young people have the will and the interest, but they just don’t quite know how to take the step and vote. We’ve seen through the climate strikes—and, you know, I have my own opinions about the climate strikes, but I do genuinely think that it’s a great thing that young people are getting out and having their voices heard on important issues. I can only dream that that will translate into votes, even if they are for parties that I personally don’t align with. That’s all right. As long as more young people are voting, and we’re having a greater cross-section of voices heard in this place, I will be happy. Thank you very much. GABRIEL TAGI (Youth MP for Agnes Loheni): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I stand here today on behalf of New Zealanders across the country to defend freedom: the freedom to express, the freedom to speak, the freedom of speech that enables us as New Zealanders to engage in free dialogue and to express our opinions without the fear of censorship, restraint, or legal penalty. Today, the very freedom that we as Kiwis cherish is being actively threatened and jeopardised by Government officials who have proposed further restrictions. We have seen this from Green Party MP Golriz Ghahraman, who has called for countless restrictions on speech, as well as from Labour MP and justice Minister Andrew Little’s review of hate speech laws, which could criminalise more of what everyday New Zealanders can say. In order for freedom of speech to thrive and for New Zealanders to think openly, we must risk being offensive, which is why it is just as an important to defend the right to offend. Everybody holds a set of values or beliefs which are often criticised by other members of society with conflicting values and beliefs. Whether we like it or not, there will always be something that offends us—it’s human nature, but it should not dictate how others ought to express their personal opinion, regardless of whether it is genuine or provocative. The freedom to express our personal opinions and ideas is derived from a long history of a uniquely Western-endorsed stance on liberty, independence, and success. As an example, the United States of America established freedom of speech in their constitution as its First Amendment, recognising its crucial role in a successful, diverse, and free-functioning society. Historically, it has had a domestic impact, but, decades later, proved to be overwhelmingly influential to many other Western nations across the globe, New Zealand included. Not only is freedom of speech of historical importance but it also incentivises more enhanced and diverse dialogue, which is key to a solid debate. The traditional democratic process recognises that every idea has merit worthy of mention, and should always be open to scrutiny and review. However, today, in whichever manner we choose to judge an idea by, we can expect it to be slammed by our politicians and slammed by our press as hate speech, often with no justification and as a result of bias and emotionally-led political agendas. Our desire to speak, be heard, and be protected by the State can only be preserved if everyday hard-working New Zealanders vote in political candidates who will protect speech and protect freedom. Diverse, free, and open dialogue is the backbone of our democratic society. It enables us and encourages us to speak out against things we deem of importance, it allows for us to defend and criticise corrupt and self-serving bureaucrats, and it exposes us to new thoughts and ideas. We have seen freedom of speech practised and utilised for decades in New Zealand by acclaimed movements such as the Polynesian Panthers during the 1970s, the LGBT community up until now, and the more pronounced climate change movement. These social justice groups praised the idea of an open platform to speak, and often, up until now, many groups that then cried social justice on the basis of free speech have become the very groups attempting to restrict our speech now. In saying that, there will always be harsh disagreements, disappointment, and great distaste in the realm of free speech, but one thing we should always agree on is granting our neighbour the right to express his or her views freely. I want to end on one quote by Evelyn Beatrice Hall, from Voltaire:

72

“I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it”. Thank you, Mr Speaker. MAY TAKAHASHI (Youth MP for Maureen Pugh): I once read, “Management is doing things right, but leadership is doing the right things.” And it resonated with me, as this is applicable to almost anything, including the reality of New Zealand’s waste disposal systems. Where does your waste go? It’s a flaw of many developed countries that their people don’t know. For Kiwis, glass, aluminium, and paper from the North Island are processed in the country, but South Island paper, along with all cardboard, is exported out. Plastic waste is also exported to international recycling. Like many in the OECD, we used to send most of our recyclables to Chinese facilities. However, when contamination issues grew in their imports, they began declining many items, including various plastics, and we had a problem. We then found countries in Southeast Asia to export to; mainly Indonesia and Malaysia, and they were not impressed, as their countries became a dumping ground, with the same contamination and waste in overwhelming volumes. Along with that came a stream of issues. Malaysian villagers still suffer health issues, as contaminated plastics were illegally burnt or buried. Agricultural lands are spoilt and polluted, while exploited workers increase in unlicensed facilities that cropped up all over to keep up with demand. So is your kerbside collection this week actually making it somewhere, or did something divert it to another fate? Waste outsourcing can work, but, right now, there is too much neglect, and a huge part of it is ignorance. Correct waste disposal, and ultimately waste reduction, requires education. And in the years I’ve been involved in my community, I have seen again and again that people do care. They want to make a change, see a difference, and feel empowered. But for that, our country needs awareness, transparency, and, most importantly, education. Shifting our attitude towards waste from managing to leading needs to start in each Kiwi household. The contamination that keeps volumes from being recycled is largely food. It seems like common sense to not put scraps in recycling, but if I’ve learnt anything in my short life, it’s that common sense is often anything but so. Around the world, the “why” for environmental awareness is growing, and there is no better time for the “how”. New Zealanders, as individuals and leaders, can do—no; must do—the right thing, the right way. Thank you. TRISTAN TAQUET (Youth MP for Hamish Walker): Mr Speaker, we as a country are more addicted to sugary drinks than ever before. It is even thought that sugar is the number one problem for nutrition in New Zealand. So in a country where one-third of our members are obese and sugar intake is six times the daily average, should a sugar tax be considered? Excess sugar consumption is directly correlated with the largest and fastest-growing health issue in New Zealand: diabetes. Diabetes is closely linked with heart disease, and together they are responsible for taking more lives of New Zealanders every year than any other disease, and many of these deaths are preventable. In the 2015-2016 year, more than 6,600 New Zealanders under the age of 12 wound up in hospital to have one or more rotten teeth pulled. Teeth extractions are costing our country over $20 million a year. The number one reason children have their teeth taken out is because of a high sugar diet, especially sugary drinks. Now, these health concerns pose issues not only on these individuals but on the rest of society, as is shown by the external costs that come along with the over-consumption of sugar. Researchers from the University of Auckland have announced that overweightness and obesity cost our country between $722 million and $849 million annually. These health problems pushed our portion of the GDP spent for publicly funded healthcare over double during the past 60 years, and New Zealand now, embarrassingly, has the third-highest rate of sugar consumption in the OECD. The Government has stated that this is a problem, they tell us it is a priority, and they tell us that they have spoken with the industry. But we have not seen any significant change. It is even contradicted by the food industry’s own figures, showing that sugary drink consumption is actually increasing. New research carried out by the University of Auckland found sugary drinks are worse

73 for us than sugar in food. It is also thought that sugary drinks are the number one source of sugar in the diet of New Zealand youth. So could a sugary drinks tax be the answer to many of these preventable health problems facing our society? The implementation of a sugary drinks tax in the UK has shown to be successful in reducing sugary drink sales by 33 percent since 2015. I believe a tax in New Zealand could have similar results and have a very strong economic, social, and personal benefit. It will play a role in encouraging a healthier diet, and at the same time raise money to deal with the rapidly rising health costs that our country faces. A sugary drinks tax will be good for the National Health Service and benefit our society, but especially the children of New Zealand, who are ranked third on the list of most obese children in the world. We need a sugary drinks tax and we need it now. Thank you very much. SAMUEL TAYLOR (Youth MP for Todd Muller): E ngā mana, e ngā reo, e ngā karangatanga maha, tēnā koutou katoa. [To the members, to the spokespeople, to the multitudes.] My name is Samuel Taylor, and I have the immense privilege of representing the Bay of Plenty on behalf of Todd Muller in this Youth Parliament. I’d like to briefly thank all those who voted for me, and especially those who helped my campaign during the selection process. Without you, I couldn’t be here. Getting civically engaged as a young person is incredibly difficult. Altogether too often we are told “You’re too young. You don’t pay rates or taxes. Go out and get some real-world experience.” when trying to have a say. I’ve been accused of being managed by the establishment for fighting to make sure that youth voices are being taken seriously in this year’s local government election campaigns and not being used as a campaign tool. But we know that the generational power balance is shifting. We need only look at events like the school strikes for climate to see that not only do youth have a voice; we have a backbone too, and we’re willing to make that voice heard by taking a stand to ensure the security of our future. I’d like to commend all those young people, and especially those members of this House, who are organising these strikes across Aotearoa—bring on 27 September. But we have to be mindful that youth engagement is a two-way process. Just as young people need to step up and exercise their right to have a voice, the older generations need to be open to what we have to say and be ready to change their minds, because there is some persuasive stuff out there. Look around you. Look to your left and to your right. Look at the youth members of Parliament who are sitting beside you—optimistic, passionate, intelligent, eloquent young people whose candles of potential have not been dimmed by the cynicism of age. Think about their speeches, their contributions over the last two days—from nuclear energy to climate change, to colonialism, to justice and sentencing, to mental health and the tragedy of suicide. We are leading the way in our communities. We are providing a voice to those who don’t have a voice. The Youth Parliament is more than 120 Youth MPs; it’s thousands upon thousands of young people who don’t understand, or who don’t want to, or who aren’t ready to be engaged in the political system. But it’s time they step up. I’d like to quote a whakataukī and a poem: Ka pū te ruha, ka hao te rangatahi. As an old net withers, another is made. And from In Flanders Fields by John McCrae: “To you from failing hands we throw the torch; be yours to hold it high.” That net has been replaced. The torch has been thrown. We as youth must step up and prove that the rangatira mō āpōpō, the leaders of tomorrow, are in fact the leaders of today. We must step up in our communities, in local government elections this year and central government elections next year, and speak loudly with our youth voice. We must step up and we must carry that torch high. Tuturu whakamaua kia tina. Tina. Haumi e, hui e, tāiki e. [Hold it firm. Say it so.]

74

Thank you, Mr Speaker. LEIGHTON THOMPSON (Youth MP for Gareth Hughes): Kia ora, Mr Speaker. Ngā mihi nui ki a koutou. Kia ora. It is with great agony that I rise this afternoon to speak about what to view as one of the greatest injustices of all time. This injustice I speak of is our horrific imprisonment and treatment of hundreds of millions of sentient beings, as recognised by the New Zealand Government. How is it that you can walk through a supermarket in Aotearoa and see an endless sea of dead chickens and pigs while rarely seeing these animals in our farms? The answer is quite simple: factory farming runs rampant here. The vast majority of animals in New Zealand are held in large sheds where they are packed so tightly together that they can barely move. The rest of them you’d normally find held in cages so small that, by design, they are unable to move. There are over 100 million chickens held indoors right now, many of these in cages no bigger than this piece of paper. Is this just? Although, sadly, direct consumption of animal products is not the full extent: we exploit animals for our own entertainment through the film industry, circuses, and sports such as rodeo, causing countless injuries and too many deaths. Is your entertainment really worth that? Practices found in rodeo such as flank straps, electric prods, rope-burning, and tail-twisting are there solely for the purpose to aggravate these animals. This causes an unnatural response that some people seem to deem as entertainment. But that is not the full extent. ACC costs related to rodeo from the years 2012 to 2017 totalled over $1.3 million. This equates to over $6,600 per claim on average. The New Zealand Labour Party and the Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand both made commitments during the 2017 general election to ban the most egregious practices found in rodeo and to take action on factory farming, but I’m yet to see any. Blatant animal abuse like this shouldn’t be tolerated in a modern country. Animals are here with us, not for us. Their pain and suffering is too often ignored. To properly address this injustice, we need an independent commissioner for animals to hold the Government and the primary sector to account, irrespective of the Government of the time. Animals will have a voice about something other than just their monetary value. Kia ora, Mr Speaker. JESS TIMMO (Youth MP for Jo Luxton): According to www.mentalhealth.org.nz, between July 2017 and June 2018, 668 people died due to suspected suicide in New Zealand—62 more than the previous year. Within that same year, one in six adults had been diagnosed with a mental illness at some point during their lifetime. As is aptly put by my sister, who is a youth worker here in Wellington, we need to stop trying to cure the problem and start caring for our people. In recent years, the open conversation around mental health has finally begun, but many are still scared to speak up and reach for help due to the stigma that continues to loom around the subject. We have created a society that is far too focused on an individualistic approach to life, causing detrimental effects to one’s wellbeing. Why is it that we believe that it’s not OK to ask for help? Why is it that we believe we have to manage on our own? Imagine the progress we can make if the mindset of our population changes. No amount of money can begin to aid this issue until we step up. With the funding and services we have in place, we are not providing the forms of help and aid that are needed. I know too many people that were turned away for help because their case simply wasn’t “serious enough”. What happened to early prevention? These people would not be admitted for help unless they were on the brink of ending their own life, and even then it was only a small possibility. Too many people in my own community have ended their life because they were unable to get the support they needed. As written in the annual provisional suicide statistics, the year between July 2017 and June 2018 saw 87 people die due to suicide in Canterbury, the highest of all the regions recorded that year—my region. I fear for those that are suffering from mental distress in my region because we, along with many others, are evidently not providing or being provided with a healthy support system. There are many incredible people worldwide that are fronting an extremely important movement into highlighting just how badly our society has been affecting people’s wellbeing. But they alone 75 are not going to be able to change the mindset of the 7.7 billion people that walk this earth. We need to stop trying to cure the problem and start caring for our people. Thank you. KATELYN TWISS (Youth MP for Hon Amy Adams): We are facing a crisis. People are suffering, sometimes blind to the naked eye; suffering because their mental health is deteriorating. I am sure I am not the only one who will touch on this topic, but I think that just truly shows how much of an issue that poor mental health is and how many of us, even at such a young age, are being affected by the impact mental health can have both on ourselves and others. I myself lost a friend only two weeks ago, when he took his own life. We can make a change. We, as young people, can change the prejudice, traditional stigmas created by generations before. I want to live in a world where mental health is not something to be ashamed of, where people can speak their truth, where people can accept their illness and get the help they need. But, most importantly, I want to live in a world where those with mental illness can walk into a doctor’s to get help, just like those with a physical illness can. Every life counts. To our Government, please help us, the people. Our people are suffering. Six hundred and sixty-eight of our own New Zealanders took their own life last year. That’s 668 people with families, with friends, and with lives. But it is not just as broad as depression, and it is not just limited to suicide. We cannot place all mental health issues under one category. This issue is our past, it’s our present, and it’s our future. It is, simply, inevitable. The stigma around mental health is not just limited to New Zealand but society as a whole. As a country, we must make it OK to not be OK. Too many people are suffering and losing their lives. We need to set the pace. All I am asking is we help solve this issue, we look after one another, we care for one another. One life lost by suicide is, simply, one life too many. But how do we do this? We break the stigma. It is not a weakness or shameful to have a mental illness. We need to set the precedent. It is OK to talk about your mind. Do not define a person by their mental health. Instead, look at their strength to be able to ask for help. Check on your friends and family, even the ones you think are strong and resilient, the ones who have a brave face, because you truly never know what is happening behind closed doors. We cannot demand help from our Government if we ourselves are not willing to help each other and look after one another. I want people to know that no matter what they are going through, no matter what sadness has clouded their mind and how hard times may seem, that they are valued and loved. If anyone listening feels they are suffering, feels alone, or feels their world is slipping away, regardless of their political stance, please reach out. Message someone you love. Call one of the many helplines. See a counsellor. There are so many people that love you—people you may not even be aware of, so please never think anything less. Please reach out for help. TAA RAMSAY VILI (Youth MP for Louisa Wall): Talofa lava, Mr Speaker. My name is, as you said, Taa Ramsay Vili, and I am a 17-year-old student at James Cook High School. I am also the Youth MP for Manurewa. As part of my tenure as Youth MP, I hosted a forum that brought together 60 young leaders from the region of Manurewa, and according to the data I collected not only from the forum but from multiple surveys and discussions, the majority of rangatahi in Manurewa face issues that either directly or indirectly relate to mental health. Mental health is an issue that is common in today’s society, and that in itself speaks volumes. The reason why mental health issues are so destructive, so dangerous, is because it’s a catalyst—it’s a catalyst for suicide, for self-harm, for depression, for so many issues that our generation face day in and day out. According to the UNICEF report, our youth suicide rate is one of the highest in the developed world. How many more people do I have to lose to suicide in order to see this problem fixed? My generation is dying—it is dying. Saying that begs the question: how do we fix this issue? What if, alongside maths, alongside English, alongside biology, we teach our rangatahi to deal with and identify issues relating to mental health, issues such as depression, heartbreak, stress? What if we gave our young people access to good-quality facilities and services and made them cheap and affordable and accessible to young people like us? What if we were to ensure that we equipped our generation with the knowledge, with the skill, with the resources to overcome mental health issues? It will not be cheap, 76 it will not be easy, and it will not happen overnight, but that does not mean we should do nothing. I will not—I cannot—stand by to see my family, my friends, and I face mental health issues without doing all I can to help. Throughout these issues, I am reminded of a fundamental Samoan proverb: Tautua nei mo sou manuia mo a taeao. Work now for a better—for a better—tomorrow. Thank you very much. BELLE WILLEMSTEIN (Youth MP for Ron Mark): Most of us are here because we are all interested in the way politics works within our lives and how it will affect us. We will all, mostly, vote and participate civically. However, when we walk through schools or universities, we come up against these problems with disengaged peers. Mine often say to me, “I don’t know how to vote.”, or “I just vote for who my parents vote for.”, or “Why should I even vote?’ This creates a huge void in our political scape. The people of New Zealand are what Parliament is here for, yet when one-third of the youth, aged 18-24, are not voting, it becomes quite a problem. This becomes a problem because the older generations are the ones making the decisions for the youth, that don’t affect them. Within our own country, decisions are being made without input from the youth, starting from simply casting a vote to put our input in for issues that matter to us. Without these healthy voting habits implemented at a young age, how are we expecting the future of tomorrow to lead us if they don’t have a clue about the system New Zealand is built upon? We need to build a relationship with the political process early on. When we leave school, we should all have a good grasp on what being a good citizen of New Zealand means. We need to have an understanding of the importance of voting as well as referendums and select committees. The laws we’re going on about should not only be the concern of those who are making them or are interested, but every citizen of New Zealand. So there needs to be a mandatory civics programme throughout schools in New Zealand from all ages; from right when we start school to right when we end school. From a young age, if we had a good grip on what values each party holds as well as other things such as humanity’s place in society, then when it came to voting time we would be able to make a much more informed decision. It should not have to be mandatory, because it is a right that we should choose to exercise rather than simply an obligation. We need youth voice more than ever, and to become a powerful political force. MIA WRIGHT (Youth MP for Hon Nicky Wagner): Today, I would like to speak on the petition Better Cancer Care for All New Zealanders, Stewarded By a National Cancer Agency brought to the House by Blair Vining on 7 May 2019. Thirty-eight-year-old Blair Vining discovered he had terminal cancer in October of last year. He was given six to eight weeks to live, without treatment. Within public care, Blair was told it would take 8 weeks to get an oncologist appointment; he only had 6. Blair had to seek private treatment, and is now hoping for another six months. Every year, more than 23,000 people are diagnosed with cancer in New Zealand. Estimates by the Ministry of Health show that more than 9,500 people die each year from cancer. That places cancer as being the leading cause of death in New Zealand. Blair needs the Government to create a national cancer agency to address New Zealand’s cancer death rates, with responsibility for oversight of prevention, early detection, treatment, and survivorship, which should be well-funded and free from political interference, and should benchmark outcomes and report to the public. The Government needs to set up a national cancer agency to oversee a cancer plan to deliver world-class cancer treatment, to reduce cancer deaths, and care for people during treatment. The agency needs to have independent funding, be free from political interference, and set clear targets that the Government and DHBs are accountable for. The UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 25 section 1 states that “Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family… including medical care.” Blair’s right for a standard of living adequate for his medical care

77 isn’t being met. He was told he had around six weeks left to live sans treatment, and was then told that an oncologist appointment within the public health sector would take around 8 weeks. If Blair had been unable to financially support his family and pay for his private medical care, he wouldn’t have been able to complete his bucket list and spend time with his family. Blair’s story is just one of the 9,500 stories. This Government needs to take responsibility for the rising cancer-related deaths. A fully-funded national cancer agency needs to be set up. This is not a case of money and economy but one of life and death for thousands of Kiwis. There is a potential disparity between those that can and can’t afford cancer treatment. We are at serious risk of creating a two-tier medical system, where those who can afford to seek private medical care have better chances of seeing specialists, increasing their chances of survival, and those who turn to public healthcare end up waiting too long to see specialists. Fellow Youth MPs, this is unacceptable in our country and potentially irreversible if we don’t act soon. The agency that Blair is suggesting would be free of DHBs and public hospitals. It would be its own sector entirely that would focus on prevention, through research into areas of cause; early detection through mandatory screening of those at risk; and research and development into detection devices and technology and treatment and survivorship through increased funding for research and increased cancer specialists. New Zealand has a responsibility for all its people to have adequate healthcare and, when these standards are not being met, it is up to us to fix it. Thank you. SALLY ZHANG (Youth MP for Dr Jian Yang): Once upon a time, someone asked me, “Have you ever resented being Asian?” As much as I hated saying it, the answer was, “Yes.” I resented being Chinese when my marks at high school were attributed to my luck of being born Chinese. I resented being Chinese when I saw people roll their eyes at my mother’s best attempts to communicate in her broken English. I resented being Chinese when I heard people berate the Chinese immigrants from coming here and taking all their houses and their jobs. But, most of all, I hated being Chinese when I threw away my language and culture in a desperate attempt to try to conform to my Kiwi friends. But soon I realised I have no way of abandoning my Asian roots or escaping the stereotypes that people have designed for me purely because of the way that I look. So there I was, stuck in this weird middle ground where I was too whitewashed to be truly accepted into my own ethnic group but also, at the same time, I was being subtly excluded from this country that I’ve called home for almost all of my entire life. That is what hurt me the most: that I have no true way of fitting in. I’m sure I’m not the only person from an ethnic minority who has felt this kind of uncertainty as to what our identity is, because of a little bit of casual racism. Now, don’t get me wrong; I think New Zealanders are really, really lovely. I know that casual racism isn’t intended to harm or offend anyone, but it is like any other form of racism: it can marginalise, denigrate, or humiliate those who experience it without you even knowing about it. And by every “Where are you really from?” that you ask, you are “othering” people, hindering people’s path to cultural integration by sending us the most subtle of messages about our foreignness in our society. It is strange to think that, despite us being praised for our “She’ll be right.” attitude, perhaps this kind of relaxed stance is what prevents us from speaking out about it, from laughing off casually racist jokes, and for people like me who are afraid to voice our true feelings for fear that we’ll be mocked for being too sensitive. Those moments when we encounter little pieces of racism and fail to speak up for it are the moments where we passively agree to it and the kind of tolerance for it. To say that those are the moments in which we help casual racism grow into extremism is not an understatement; you all saw what happened in Christchurch a few months ago. It is definitely naive of me to say that we can completely escape racial prejudice, but I am certain that we can at least reduce the impact that it brings on our lives and our other perspective people. First, it starts with being more careful about the things we say, now that we are aware of what kinds of consequences such trivial things can cause. Then it continues with filling every gap in our knowledge about all the different people that live in our community by educating the next generation about the beauty of diversity and nurturing an environment in which people feel comfortable to express their individuality despite their appearance. By learning about each other, 78 we begin to break down out ignorance about the world and discover that there is so much more to a culture, to a country, and to a person than what is portrayed by the media. By challenging our assumptions and seeking to understanding people different from us, we set the grounds for connection, for empathy, and for love, which is what the foundations of our society should be built upon. Thank you. Also, I’d like to make a point of order. I seek leave to table a document. The source is myself. It was part of my Youth MP project where I surveyed the general population of students in the North Shore and asked for their opinion on what the Kiwi identity means to them, and in there we have some proposed solutions as to how we can better improve cultural integration that Government can implement and also schools can implement. SPEAKER: The normal practice within Parliament is not to allow the tabling of documents where the members are the sources, and they are normally ruled out by Speaker; but, having said that, Parliament does, in the end, set its own rules if everyone agrees. So in a slightly unusual approach, I’m going to put the leave to the House. Is there any objection to the document that Miss Zhang has developed being tabled? There appears to be none. It may be tabled. Document laid on the Table of the House. The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed. MOTIONS Youth Parliament 2019—Thanks JOSH DOUBTFIRE (Youth MP for Melissa Lee): I seek leave to move a motion without notice or debate to thank Parliament for the live broadcast of Youth Parliament 2019. SPEAKER: Leave is sought for that course of action. Is there any objection? There appears to be none. JOSH DOUBTFIRE: I move, That the House express its thanks and appreciation to Chris Bishop MP, Melissa Lee MP, Hon Peeni Henare, Minister for Youth, the Speaker, and the Office of the Clerk for facilitating the broadcast of Youth Parliament this year. This is the first Youth Parliament— SPEAKER: OK. That goes well beyond what would normally be in a motion. We’ll stop it there, and I’m going to put the question to the House. Motion agreed to. SAMUEL TAYLOR (Youth MP for Todd Muller): I seek leave to move a motion without notice or debate thanking all those involved in Youth Parliament. SPEAKER: Leave is sought for that course of action. Is there any objection? There appears to be none. SAMUEL TAYLOR: I move, That this Youth Parliament express its thanks for the incredible hard work of all those who have made it possible for us to participate, including you, Mr Speaker, our sponsoring MPs, the staff of the Ministry of Youth Development, the Office of the Clerk of the House, and the Parliamentary Service. Motion agreed to. SPEAKER: I would just like to respond, because I’ve got the speaking rights, on behalf of those people who were thanked, to say thank you very much for the enormous contribution that this year’s Youth MPs have made. You are a tremendous group of young people. At question time, in the select committees, in the debate on the bill, in the general debate, in the reports that came in, we heard some speeches that were strong, they were heartfelt and they were caring. And while I often say to members of this Parliament that they should set a good example to the people of the country and to younger people, I think, in fact, my message should be inverted and, in future, I should say to the members in here, “You should act more like the youth who were here over the last two days.” Thank you all very much. 79

KARAKIA CHA’NEL KAA-LUKE (Youth MP for Hon Ruth Dyson): I will first kōrero in Māori and then in sign language. Kia tau ki a tātou katoa, te atawhai o tō tātou Ariki, ā Ihu Karaiti, me te aroha o Te Atua, me te whiwhinga tahitanga ki te Wairua Tapu, āke, ake, ake, āmine. [Uses New Zealand Sign Language] [May the grace of our Lord, Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the unity of the Holy Spirit. Forever, evermore, on and on, forevermore. Amen.] The Youth Parliament 2019 adjourned at 4.30 p.m.

80