Oral Questions

1. to the Minister of Education: Has he received any reports on future options for Māori-medium and kaupapa Māori education in the past six months?

Yes.

Chris Baillie: Does the Minister agree with his officials who, in an August briefing to him, argued that the Government should “progress towards package four”, which means the Government would “establish an independent statutory entity to lead and steward the Māori-medium education and kaupapa Māori education system”?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The Associate Minister and I have not yet taken our proposals to Cabinet based on that advice; although the Minister and I have both previously said that we do not support the establishment of an independent Māori education authority.

Chris Baillie: Has the Minister requested any further policy work on developing package four, such as preparing a paper based on package four to take to Cabinet?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: As I indicated in my previous answer, we are in the process of preparing further advice to Cabinet on the future of Māori education, and the way we will administer that. We’ve not yet done so, but, of course, that does involve preparing advice. But, as I also indicated in my previous answer, the establishment of a Māori education authority is not part of that.

Chris Baillie: In light of that answer, will the Minister rule out the current Government developing a separate statutory entity to manage Māori-medium education and kaupapa Māori education, alongside the Ministry of Education?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Well, that was a waste of a question, given I’ve just said that twice now.

Rawiri Waititi: Why has the Minister ruled out the establishment of a Māori education authority?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Because there are better ways of achieving the Government’s objectives.

Rawiri Waititi: What are those?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Well, as I’ve indicated, we haven’t made decisions yet, and I’ll let the member know as soon as we do.

Chris Baillie: In light of that answer, if the Government wants to give Māori a greater say over education of Māori students, why doesn’t he use an established, successful idea that was supported by the Iwi Chairs Forum—partnership schools, also known as charter schools?

SPEAKER: There’s an assertion to that.

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Well, there’s a huge assertion in that question. We don’t believe that Māori should have to adopt a privatised model of education in order to have a greater say over the future of Māori students.

Chris Baillie: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I’d like to table a report from the Ministry of Education on Māori-medium kaupapa Māori education options for a new framework, which was sent to the Hon Kelvin Davis, Chris Hipkins, and the Hon Jan Tinetti.

SPEAKER: Is it publicly available?

Chris Baillie: No.

SPEAKER: Leave is sought for that purpose, is there any objection? There is none. It may be tabled.

Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.

Question No. 2—Children

2. to the Minister for Children: What recent announcements has the Government made about stopping children re-offending?

Earlier today, Ministers Hipkins and Sepuloni joined me in announcing the Government introduction of a circuit-breaker response aimed at quickly addressing the repeat offending of a small group of children and young people. While the justice system can act as a circuit-breaker for young people aged 14 to 17, there is a small number of children aged 10 to 13 who continue to reoffend at a high rate.

Terisa Ngobi: Why are these changes necessary?

Hon KELVIN DAVIS: At the moment, when police make an arrest, children often end up placed back in the community with little support and few limitations on their behaviour until a more comprehensive plan is in place. This can lead to reoffending again before the process for the first offence even begins. By taking this approach, fast tracking it and applying it to a small group of 10- to 13-year-olds who are serious and persistent offenders, we can help address the recent spike in offending and continue to see the number of ram raids come down. Already, we’ve seen a reduction of nearly 80 percent over the past three months.

Terisa Ngobi: What impact will these changes have?

Hon KELVIN DAVIS: The new response will mean that when a child is identified or apprehended by police for offending behaviour, that information will be shared with Oranga Tamariki within 24 hours, with an agreed plan on how to deal with and support the young person confirmed in 48 hours. Approaches like this work. They are already used in various parts of the country, sometimes led by the community organisations and often in partnership with police.

Terisa Ngobi: What other actions is the Government taking to address youth offending?

Hon KELVIN DAVIS: We’re also going to expand part of that package, Kotahi te Whakaaro, to include 14- to 17-year-olds in South and West Auckland. This programme alone is seeing promising results, so far providing 104 children and 197 of their siblings with the support they need. In South Auckland, of the young people referred after committing a ram raid or other vehicle offence, just 14 percent have reoffended. We’re also doubling down on our efforts and supporting locally led solutions in Te Tai Tokerau, Tāmaki-makau-rau, Bay of Plenty, and Waikato. Support will be provided through regional Public Service leads to expand on or continue delivering services that are targeted at high-needs children and young people, as well as those apprehended as a result of ram raids.

Question No. 3—Prime Minister

3. to the Prime Minister: Does she stand by all her Government’s statements and actions?

on behalf of the Prime Minister: Yes, particularly the Government’s decision to increase the medicines budget by 43 percent since we took office, enabling Pharmac to make more than 200 medicines available for thousands of people. In addition to the announcement about the funding for Trikafta made at the weekend, Pharmac has also enabled funding for Spinraza for people under the age of 18. Spinraza is the first medicine for spinal muscular atrophy to be funded and has the potential to make a huge difference to the lives of the young people who receive it. Pharmac has also announced today that it is widening free access to the meningococcal B vaccine to include babies and young people living in places like hostels where they are in close contact with other people, and has confirmed it will fund other drugs to treat lung and breast cancer as well as some non-cancerous growths. This shows what a difference Government funding can make. When we came into office, the medicines budget, like other parts of the health system, had been starved of investment despite record population growth. In 2020, we promised that we would increase Pharmac’s budget by $200 million over four years. We’ve not only kept that promise but put in additional funding this year on top of that.

Nicola Willis: Did Cabinet agree on 30 May this year “that the Water Services Entities Bill should not entrench the privatisation provisions in the bill”, and is she satisfied that the Minister responsible for that bill acted in accordance with the Cabinet instructions?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: On behalf of the Prime Minister, yes and yes.

Nicola Willis: Can she explain how the Minister in charge of that bill explicitly endorsing its entrenchment provision in this Parliament after the Cabinet instructed that that provision should not be included in the bill is not a breach of the Cabinet Manual?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: On behalf of the Prime Minister, this matter was covered yesterday. The bill as introduced did not include that; an Opposition Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) to do so did.

Nicola Willis: Is it the Government’s position that it’s fine to contravene Cabinet decisions as long as it’s through voting for another party’s SOP?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: No.

Nicola Willis: Well, then why did the Government vote for an SOP that explicitly contravened the instruction given by Cabinet?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: On behalf of the Prime Minister, as has been covered numerous times in the House, the Government has acknowledged a mistake was made; the mistake was corrected. I note that the bill has now been passed without an entrenchment provision in it. I continue to invite the member and her party to commit to not selling off water assets, like they’ve done with other things.

Nicola Willis: Was the decision to vote for this entrenchment provision, described by her as a mistake, an accident or was it a deliberate decision by the Government, which they now regret?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: On behalf of the Prime Minister, as I have described before, it was a mistake.

Nicola Willis: Was Minister Mahuta correct to blame this situation on the Labour Party members of the Finance and Expenditure Committee—Barbara Edmonds, Ingrid Leary, and Anna Lorck—for being aware of the proposed entrenchment but not telling the Minister how to vote according to Cabinet instructions?

SPEAKER: I’ll just warn members, first of all—reminding that questions are asked in silence.

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: On behalf of the Prime Minister, the member is mischaracterising the comments of the Minister. On behalf of the Prime Minister, I have confidence in the Minister, because today she has shepherded through legislation that will mean New Zealanders will have clean water, more affordable water, and we will take on a problem that members over there have been part of kicking down the road for years and years. I know the member has decided to abandon the people of Karori, but she might want to notice the partially treated waste water notice that’s been issued today for the treatment plant going into the Karori Stream.

Nicola Willis: Why is the Prime Minister proud of a bill that has the support of no other party in Parliament, that confiscates local assets against the will of communities and councils, and that introduces a Byzantine co-governance scheme for which there is no mandate?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I disagree with all of the member’s characterisations, and the reason I am proud of this is that New Zealanders finally have a Government that takes seriously how much they’re going to have to pay for water in the future, the quality of the water that they get, and that those assets are well managed. This is a Government that doesn’t shy away from challenges or kick the can down the road. The member still can’t tell the House what National would do.

Nicola Willis: In a friendlier spirit, does she agree with Minister Michael Wood, who earlier this year stated that he wishes to see improvements made to New Zealand’s paid parental leave system, and, if so, will she commit to supporting my bill, the Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Shared Leave) Amendment Bill, drawn from the ballot today, which would modernise New Zealanders’ paid parental leave entitlements?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: On behalf of the Prime Minister, I am yet to have the opportunity to read the member’s bill.

Question No. 4—Energy and Resources

4. to the Minister of Energy and Resources: What has the Government’s Warmer Kiwi Homes programme achieved?

Since the launch of our Warmer Kiwi Homes programme in 2018, the Government has now delivered over 100,000 insulation and efficient heater installations in homes throughout New Zealand—100,000 retrofits in four years shows there was real need in the community. It’s fantastic that so many more New Zealanders are now enjoying warmer, dryer, healthier homes while reducing their energy costs.

Dan Rosewarne: How will these retrofits be helping Kiwis struggling with the cost of living?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: Warmer Kiwi Homes directly assists low-income households to manage cost of living pressures. Motu’s independent evaluation of the Warmer Kiwi Homes programme released this morning found that heating retrofits reduced recipients’ electricity use by around 16 percent in winter. This kind of saving can be a game-changer for many families.

Dan Rosewarne: How are these retrofits improving health and wellbeing outcomes?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: Low-income families, young children, and older Kiwis are especially vulnerable to the impacts of living in cold, damp homes. Warmer Kiwi Homes reduces risks of respiratory illness, and contributes to fewer doctors visits and hospitalisations being required. The evaluation found savings of over $15 million per year in avoided hospital costs. It’s good value for money. For every dollar spent in the Warmer Kiwi Homes programme, there is $4.36 of wellbeing and energy benefits. For heat pumps specifically, the evaluation found a return that is even higher, at $7.49.

Dan Rosewarne: Are these grants still available, and how can people access them?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: There is plenty of funding available for eligible homeowners, through until June 2024. The grants are available to low-income owner-occupiers and are targeted in this way to ensure that Government funding is allocated to those where it will have the greatest impact, to those households in greatest need where there is the most significant benefit to be realised. I encourage people to apply.

Dan Rosewarne: How many Canterbury homes have been upgraded through the Warmer Kiwi Homes programme?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: Over 9,400 homes across the Canterbury region are warmer, drier, and more efficient as the result of this Government’s programme. In Canterbury, there have been over 7,000 insulation retrofits and over 2,300 heating upgrades.

Angela Roberts: How many installations have there been in Waikato?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: Nearly 14,000 Waikato households have benefited from this programme since 2018, with over 9,600 homes receiving insulation upgrades, and over 4,300 getting an energy-efficient heat pump installed.

Tangi Utikere: How many installations have there been in Manawatū-Whanganui?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: Over 9,600 households across Manawatū and Whanganui have received support through the Warmer Kiwi Homes programme, with more than 7,100 insulation installs and 2,500 homes receiving heat pumps.

Tāmati Coffey: How many households in the Waiariki - Bay of Plenty have access to the Warmer Kiwi Homes programme? [Multiple interjections]

SPEAKER: Order! Yeah, silence, please. Thank you. I want the question asked in silence.

Tāmati Coffey: How many households in the Waiariki - Bay of Plenty have access to the Warmer Kiwi Homes programme?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: Over 10,700 homes in the Bay of Plenty have been upgraded since 2018, with over 7,000 insulation retrofits and over 3,600 heating upgrades.

Question No. 5—Justice

5. to the Minister of Justice: What does the Ministry of Justice advice dated 11 April 2022 on entrenching sections of the Water Services Entities Bill that she received on 28 November 2022 say, and did she seek any advice on entrenchment in that bill earlier?

I’m advised that the Ministry of Justice provided advice on this matter to my predecessor. This advice was provided verbally in a meeting on 11 April 2022, and then in a written aide memoire on 12 April 2022. On 28 November, I sought key points from the Ministry of Justice on the entrenchment issue prior to Cabinet, which were received alongside a copy of the 12 April 2022 advice from the ministry. On entrenchment, the Ministry of Justice advised that they did not support entrenching provisions in the Water Services Entities Bill to protect against privatisation of water service infrastructure because it would have the same constitutional purpose as the existing entrenched provisions in the Electoral Act and Constitution Act.

Chris Bishop: Did the Minister of Local Government consult her about the entrenchment provision in Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 285 on the Water Services Entities Bill, given the Cabinet Manual requirement to consult the Minister of Justice on all proposals affecting constitutional arrangements?

Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: I did not have any discussions with the Minister of Local Government with respect to these provisions.

Chris Bishop: Has she expressed concern to the Minister of Local Government about her failure to consult her about the entrenchment provision in SOP 285, given the Cabinet Manual requirement to consult her as Minister of Justice on all proposals affecting constitutional arrangements?

Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: I haven’t had that discussion with the Minister, but I have had it clearly be stated in this House that it was a mistake to enable that SOP to go through. We collectively took responsibility as a caucus for that mistake, we fixed that mistake, and, earlier today, that bill went through without the entrenchment provision.

Chris Bishop: On what date and at what time did she first learn about the Minister of Local Government’s comments in support of entrenchment during the committee stage of the Water Services Entities Bill, and what did she do when she learnt about them?

Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: I don’t have a clear recollection of the exact time or date of those discussions. But what I do know is that when it became apparent that we were going to be having those discussions, I sought advice on 28 November, prior to Cabinet.

Chris Bishop: When did she first become aware of the 11 April 2022 advice to her predecessor about entrenching provisions of the Water Services Entities Bill?

Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: On 28 November 2022.

Chris Bishop: Will she ask the Ministry of Justice to make a submission to the Standing Orders Committee inquiry into entrenchment?

Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: I certainly wouldn’t be opposed to that. As the Prime Minister has said this week, and last week as well, there is a need for a discussion about the use of entrenchment provisions. We look forward to that discussion being had at the Standing Orders Committee.

Chris Bishop: Will she now, as the Minister responsible for New Zealand’s constitution, be the first Minister in this Government to be upfront with the public about how this constitutional cluster of epic proportions actually came to be?

Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: I reject the assertion of that question.

Question No. 6—Dr Tracey McLellan—

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Wow, eight supplementaries there.

SPEAKER: Order! Carmel Sepuloni, stand, withdraw, and apologise. That’s the second time you’ve interrupted a question.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: I withdraw and apologise.

Question No. 6—Health

6. to the Minister of Health: What recent announcements has Pharmac advised him of in relation to funding more medicines for New Zealanders?

I’m pleased to say that, further to Pharmac’s announcement last Sunday—and, indeed, the Deputy Prime Minister’s answer to a question earlier today—Pharmac is commencing consultation over the funding of Trikafta. Pharmac has today confirmed that, following the consultation, it would be funding other important medicines. Firstly, Spinraza will be fully funded for New Zealanders under the age of 18. Spinraza is the first medicine to be publicly funded for the rare disorder spinal muscular atrophy. Secondly, access will be widened for babies and young people to receive the meningococcal B vaccine for free. Thirdly, a new chemotherapy treatment will be funded, too; this will benefit hundreds of cancer patients. [Sits and stands] Sorry, I haven’t finished yet.

SPEAKER: Well you have, actually. When you sit down, you’ve finished.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: He didn’t quite get down.

SPEAKER: No, he’s—you can ask another supplementary if you want.

Dr Tracey McLellan: What will the announcement on Spinraza mean for those suffering from spinal muscular atrophy?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: The funding of Spinraza will help those who suffer from spinal muscular atrophy and help improve their quality of life. Spinal muscular atrophy is a rare genetic disorder which affects babies through to adults and can cause disability and even early death. Treating young people with this rare disorder will enable some parents and caregivers of those affected by spinal muscular atrophy to remain employed and not have to provide around-the-clock care.

Dr Tracey McLellan: What will today’s announcement mean for those undergoing cancer treatment?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: From 1 May next year, people with various cancers will have access to oral vinorelbine, a type of chemotherapy treatment. It’s used to treat lung cancer and breast cancer, as well as some non-cancerous growths. This will allow people to receive treatment from their community pharmacy and take their treatment in their own home, rather than having to travel to a hospital for intravenous chemotherapy. Making vinorelbine available as an oral treatment will be a real benefit to rural people in particular, who often find it difficult to get to places where intravenous treatments are offered.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Why did Pharmac grant an exclusive to Patrick Gower from Newshub before informing cystic fibrosis patients and when it was a public health announcement?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: The way, as Minister, that my relationship with Pharmac works is that I have no control over the decisions they take nor of the timing or manner of their announcements. They made those decisions; I have provided feedback to Pharmac about some aspects of their messaging of their announcements in relation to Trikafta.

Dr Tracey McLellan: How will this announcement help safeguard young people’s health?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: The confirmation of widened access to the meningococcal B vaccine would be beneficial for more young people, including infants. From 1 March next year, all babies up to 12 months of age will receive this vaccine for free. Young people aged 13 to 25 in close living situations, such as hostels, will also receive the vaccine for free. Meningococcal disease has had an inequitable impact on Māori and Pacific children in particular. This widening of the eligibility has the potential to eliminate ethnic inequalities in meningococcal disease in New Zealand. Widening access to this vaccine will help save Māori and Pacific lives.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Is part of the increase of Pharmac’s budget by 43 percent the transfer of the hospitals medicine budget of over $160 million?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: Pharmac has been responsible for the hospitals medicines budget for some time; it’s the combined pharmaceutical budget. It’s that budget, whether it was held collectively by the district health boards or by Pharmac—the increase is on that aggregate amount.

Question No. 7—Transport

Point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek leave to ask my question to the Minister of Finance, as lodged, as it is about a statement that he made that has financial implications.

The Government can transfer questions to the Minister they think best appropriate to answer that question. So that’s what’s been done.

7. to the Minister of Transport: Does he stand by the Minister of Finance’s statement about half-price public transport, “this is a very expensive policy. And what it does is, it robs the fund that funds our roads”; if so, why?

I agree with the statement in its full context, which refers to the need to balance the benefits of our policies with the costs. Within that, our Government has focused strongly on maintaining the roading network, increasing investment in maintenance by nearly 50 percent after it was frozen by the previous Government. But, at the same time, we have invested hugely in public transport, lifting the National Land Transport Fund contribution to public transport from $1.9 billion in the 2015-18 period to $3.1 billion in the 2018-21 period, and $5 billion in the 2021-24 period. As the member will be aware, we have also committed to a permanent investment in the Community Connect scheme, which will provide permanent half-price public transport fares for the lowest-income New Zealanders from 2023.

Hon Julie Anne Genter: Does he, then, agree that the reduction in fuel tax and road-user charges “robbed the National Land Transport Fund to a much greater extent as that costs ten times more that half-price public transport”?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD: I would not agree with that assessment, because as part of the policy to reduce fuel excise duty and road-user charges to provide financial support to New Zealanders, the Crown provided supplementary funding to ensure that the National Land Transport Fund is able to move forward on a fully funded basis.

Hon Julie Anne Genter: Does he stand by the Minister of Finance’s comment that the half-price public transport policy is expensive, when its annual cost is less than 3 percent of the total annual transport budget, a tiny fraction of the money being spent on roads?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD: It’s expensive to the extent that it’s likely to cost on an annual basis approximately $130 million to $150 million per year, so that is the kind of investment that we need to consider carefully. Again, I note for the member that the total public transport expenditure that is occurring under the current National Land Transport Fund is $5 billion over the current three-year period. Fare subsidy is not the only part of the public transport system that we put investment into, and we do need to balance those investments across the different needs in public transport. Yes, fares have a role to play and that’s why we’re moving forward with Community Connect. It’s also why we’ve invested $61 million in bus drivers’ pay and conditions—because there’s no public transport without bus drivers. That’s why we’ve invested $350 million, as we announced at the weekend, to make sure that more Kiwis have access to public transport in their communities though the Transport Choices package. So we will keep making those investments, including making sure that fares are struck at a fair and appropriate rate.

Hon Julie Anne Genter: Does he agree that reducing public transport fares benefits not only those users during a time of high fuel costs and other high costs of living but also other road users because it helps reduce congestion and our emissions from transport?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD: I thank the member for her question. I agree with that assertion to the extent that reduced fares do play a role in achieving mode shift—that is, encouraging more people on to public transport. We do have to be rigorous and based on the evidence when we’re making these assessments. The evidence that Waka Kotahi has assessed through the course of the half-price public transport programme, which has been important in terms of addressing cost of living pressures, is that it may have increased public transport patronage by around about 7 to 8 percent, with roughly half of that coming from private vehicle users and half of it coming from walkers and cyclists. So, as we move forward and make challenging financial trade-offs and decisions, that is the kind of evidence we need to consider in terms of assessing whether that is the best investment for the public transport dollar or whether there are other parts of the system that are better placed to receive that investment.

Hon Julie Anne Genter: Has he seen that not one but two polls of New Zealanders have confirmed 80 percent support for making half-price public transport permanent, and what does he say to those users who have massively benefited from this if he’s not going to extend it?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD: Yes, I have seen that poll and it’s no surprise to me that a policy that makes something cheaper for people will receive broad support, but as a Government we have to take the evidence into account and make sure that we’re getting the best value for money. We could ask in a poll, for example, for people to make the trade-off and the choice between lower fares for everyone versus, perhaps, lower fares for those who need it most and more money to deliver more services into communities that don’t have public transport. Those are the sort of real choices that we have to make with the investment we put into the public transport system.

Hon Julie Anne Genter: So can I just clarify that he’s really saying that $100 million to $120 million a year, less than 3 percent of the annual transport budget, is expensive, but that over a billion dollars subsidising petrol and driving is not and is a good and appropriate way to help New Zealanders?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD: No, that’s not an accurate characterisation of what I said. Of course, there isn’t a contention on the table from the member that we carry that part of the reductions forward, either. What I am saying is that the $130 million to $150 million estimated to carry that policy forward on a permanent basis is a significant investment and we need to consider carefully whether it is the best investment. What I’ve outlined in the course of these questions is some of the evidence we have before us. As I say, the evidence that has been put in front of me is that it achieves approximately a 7 percent to 8 percent mode shift, and some of the other evidence I’ve seen suggests that we can achieve a greater level of mode shift—that is, encouraging more people on to public transport—by better provision of reliable, frequent, and accessible services. Those are the kinds of difficult choices that we need to make, but we do continue to be sensitive to the impact of fares. That, as I say, is why we are targeting in the Community Connect scheme next year to give 1 million New Zealanders on the lowest incomes half-price public transport fares. I believe that is a good step forward. It will mean that people like me won’t get half-price public transport, but that Kiwis who need it most, will.

Question No. 8—Broadcasting and Media

8. to the Minister for Broadcasting and Media: What recent announcement has the Government made about supporting the New Zealand media sector?

The way we consume news in Aotearoa is changing, and it is critical that we support a viable and independent news media sector. I was pleased to announce, last weekend, that the Government will develop legislation to support our local media companies to be paid fairly for the use of their content online. This is about fairness. There is a power imbalance between local media and the big global players. We want to see fair negotiations and fair deals for New Zealand media companies, especially our small, regional, rural, Māori, ethnic, and Pacific media companies.

Glen Bennett: Why is the Government stepping up to support New Zealand media companies in this way?

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Online digital platforms make money through advertising and data collection, and they benefit from the content on their platforms created by news media companies. The move online has contributed to the halving of the number of journalists in New Zealand, which means that less public interest content is produced. This is especially the case for local news and investigative journalism. While some commercial agreements have been reached, the progress has been slow and uneven. It is clear that the market isn’t working and there is a role for Government to support fair negotiations.

Glen Bennett: Why is it important for news companies to be paid for their content?

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: This is about fairness and ensuring that New Zealand media companies have access to deals that are in line with what we are seeing globally. News content is expensive to make, and it is unfair that other companies profit from the work of our local media without paying. The big multinational companies have used their market power to ignore the creators of the news content that they profit from, and competition regulators around the world have acknowledged this bargaining imbalance.

Glen Bennett: What impact is this expected to have for local news media entities?

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: We’ve had huge support for this, and this is about some of the smaller players—the Northern Advocate, the Whanganui Chronicle, the Manukau Courier. It’s about helping to ensure we can keep producing New Zealand news and stories. What we’ve seen is that the big multinational players won’t come to the negotiating table. We anticipate this proposal could see an extra $30 million to $50 million annually for our news media companies, based on overseas experiences. The News Publishers’ Association, which represents a good portion of the publishing sector, has been negotiating with Google for more than 12 months and have not had an offer. The Commerce Commission has acknowledged these issues. So a regulatory backstop is needed to address the power imbalance, and this Government is backing New Zealand media to get fair deals.

Question No. 9—Broadcasting and Media

9. to the Minister for Broadcasting and Media: Does he stand by all the Government’s views and actions regarding Aotearoa New Zealand Public Media?

As I’ve said before, we need to make the change to a new public media entity so that the New Zealand public media can work in the digital age, serve all New Zealanders better, and endure. These reforms are about valuing and protecting public media in New Zealand, giving it the best possible chance of thriving, and ensuring that all New Zealanders, young and old, can continue to access trusted news and information. So, in summary, yes.

Melissa Lee: Does the Minister stand by his statement that “The Prime Minister is 100 percent correct.” when the Prime Minister twice told this House that TVNZ’s revenue is “declining”?

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Again, 100 percent yes.

Melissa Lee: Can he confirm that TVNZ revenue has increased for each of the last three years and that the financial year 2022 is the third-highest revenue in the last 16 years for TVNZ?

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: I can, for the sake of that member opposite, refer her to Television New Zealand’s own statement of intent, where in their own words they acknowledge declining revenue as a major risk. The undeniable fact is that linear advertising revenue has been declining for the last 10 years. Over the last decade, the operating revenue has declined. In 2008, they made over $390 million; in 2020, they made $310 million; and in 2021, they made $341 million—still under the $390 million of 2008. So have a look at the accounts, Melissa Lee.

Melissa Lee: Does the Minister think that having the Strong Public Media programme spending $1.2 million on office leases to accommodate consultants, and another $94,000 in technology fit-outs for consultants in the last year, is an acceptable use of taxpayer money during a cost of living crisis?

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Yes.

Melissa Lee: Wow! Supplementary—sorry.

SPEAKER: You will risk losing questions.

Melissa Lee: Sorry. Does he think it’s acceptable for the Minister of broadcasting to criticise the TVNZ journalist for not helping to get Government policy passed?

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: I commented on that on Tuesday. As I’ve said, I have a few regrets in terms of that interview, and, no, I don’t think it’s appropriate.

Question No. 10—Youth

10. to the Minister for Youth: What reports has she seen on young people’s re-engagement through the Ākonga fund?

This Government remains committed to investing in our young people and supporting programmes that actually deliver results. Progress reports I have received indicate that, as of the end of term 3, over 6,200 ākonga had engaged with programmes funded through the Ākonga Youth Development Community Fund. This exceeds our original goal of 5,500 ākonga engaged with a programme by the end of 2022, with even more expected to engage in term 4. These are young people who are at risk of disengaging from education, or have already done so and are being supported to re-engage with education, training, or employment.

Tāmati Coffey: What outcomes is this fund delivering for ākonga?

Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN: Ninety-five percent of ākonga who have engaged with a programme have established strong connections with their communities. This means that these young people are now connected to various individuals in organisations that they trust, who can help them when needed; 83 percent have either gone back to school, entered some form of training, or found a job. Young people who have completed Ākonga-funded programmes tell us that these programmes have helped them develop social skills, self-confidence, a sense of purpose, and tangible skills that lead them to job opportunities and give them hope for their future. This means that they discover better pathways that give them opportunities for a brighter future.

Tāmati Coffey: What do providers attribute the success of these programmes to?

Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN: Providers have told us that there is no silver bullet and that one size doesn’t fit all. The key to success is when ākonga are central to the programmes and when they help determine the goals they want to achieve. That means programmes are tailored to their needs and are community-driven. Providers tell us it’s important they have strong connections to schools and other services so that they can provide wraparound support. There is also strong emphasis on bringing whānau on the journey with ākonga, offering opportunities for parents and carers of ākonga to participate in programmes when possible.

Tāmati Coffey: What actions has she taken to support ākonga, going forward?

Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN: We recently announced that the Ākonga fund will be extended through to the end of 2023, which will mean support for up to 2,750 additional young people and their whānau. We’re proud to have helped thousands of at-risk young people into education, training, and employment. We know it’s making a real difference to people’s lives.

Question No. 11—Local Government

11. to the Minister of Local Government: Does she stand by her statement on entrenching provisions of the Water Services Entities Bill, “There is a moral obligation of people who believe that privatisation should not occur to support that particular SOP”; if so, how does she reconcile that with a Cabinet decision made on 30 May that “the Bill should not entrench the privatisation provisions in the Bill”?

Yes, including my earlier statement today in the House that this Government is 100 percent committed to ensuring our water assets remain in public ownership and we call on the Opposition to make the same commitment to New Zealanders.

Simon Watts: Why did she say that entrenchment at the 60 percent level was a “moral obligation”, when Cabinet had already ruled months earlier that entrenchment at any level should not be included in the bill?

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: I said that because it was a novel approach to another threshold of entrenchment being held. And I note Dave McGee commented that the reason why Standing Order 270 exists is to enable by a qualified majority to have an entrenchment provision included in legislation—like the National Party did in 1990 for the Flags, Anthems, Emblems and Names Protection Amendment Bill.

Simon Watts: Did she consult with Cabinet about the 60 percent entrenchment; if so, did she get support from Cabinet to deviate from the agreed position “that the bill should not entrench the privatisation provisions in the bill”?

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 285 belongs to the Green Party. The advice that I sought and accepted in relation to the advice that was provided and included in the Cabinet paper—which I accepted—noted that there was a high constitutional threshold regarding entrenchment. That is why the Government did not include an entrenchment provision in the legislation.

Simon Watts: Did she receive authorisation from Cabinet to deviate from the agreed position “that the bill should not entrench the privatisation provisions in the bill”, and, if not, why did she go against that position by calling entrenchment “a moral obligation”?

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: Given that the bill has passed its third reading, there is no entrenchment provision in that particular bill. There was a mistake that was made, but, look, there’s no constitutional crisis. There is no entrenchment clause in the water services entities law, but there is a water crisis and pipes need to be fixed.

Simon Watts: Did she consult the Attorney-General on the 60 percent entrenchment set out in SOP 285, in light of his public comments, before or after she spoke in favour of it; if not, why?

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: The matter of a lower percentage threshold for entrenchment was raised in SOP 285, debated at the time, considered at the time, and has been rectified. There is no entrenchment clause in the legislation that passed in this House today.

Simon Watts: Did she receive authorisation from Cabinet to deviate from the agreed position “that the bill should not entrench the privatisation provisions in the bill”, and, if not, why did she go against that position by calling an entrenchment a moral obligation?

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: That mistake has been fixed. There is no entrenchment provisions in the water services entities law.

Question No. 12—Agriculture

12. to the Minister of Agriculture: Does he stand by the Acting Minister of Agriculture’s statement made on 16 November 2022 that “specific mitigation technologies commercially available now include low-methane sheep genetics, the effluent pond treatment technology EcoPond, and urease inhibitor”; if so, how many commercial farms in New Zealand are currently utilising each of these technologies?

on behalf of the Minister of Agriculture: Yes. In the case of urease inhibitors, I am advised that 7,800 farms utilised this technology as of 2017. I don’t know the exact number of farms using EcoPond technology to reduce methane emissions from effluent ponds, but I suspect I know that if we asked farmers or directed them to require them to provide that information, the member would object.

Mark Cameron: How will dairy farmers be able to afford EcoPond technology, for which the first year’s cost is modelled at 14.7 percent of the average dairy farm’s net income, on top of the 6.7 percent of net income they will lose because of this Government’s emissions pricing proposals?

Hon DAVID PARKER: I’m not able to confirm the calculations that the member sets out to the House. I do note that, just in the last week or two, the Westpac NZ Agribusiness Climate Change Report predicted that outcomes from the transition to low-carbon agriculture in New Zealand include reduced on-farm production costs through resource efficiency and increased producer returns through a changing trade environment.

Mark Cameron: Why did the Acting Minister of Agriculture refer to low-methane sheep genetics as “commercially available” when, in response to written question No. 43014 (2022), the Minister of Agriculture identified that “low-methane sheep genetics are being trialled in a small number of commercial farms”?

Hon DAVID PARKER: Because the Acting Minister probably understands, as I do, that methane emissions per unit of production in sheep production have increased by around 1 percent per annum for more than 20 years, including through improved genetics, which have reduced the time to first lamb and increased twins and triplets.

Dr Duncan Webb: What are the urease inhibitors mentioned in the primary question?

Hon DAVID PARKER: Urease inhibitors reduce the volatilisation losses of ammonia from urea and so maximise the nitrogen that is available for plant uptake. This means that less nitrogen needs to be used for the same production, and there is less nitrous oxide produced, which otherwise adds to climate warming. Urease inhibitors are an example of how climate mitigation can increase farm efficiency.

Mark Cameron: Why hasn’t the Minister considered adopting ACT’s policy of tying New Zealand’s agricultural emissions price to that of our five trading partners, instead of penalising our farmers, the most emissions-efficient farmers in the world, and leaking more emissions offshore?

Hon DAVID PARKER: Because the ACT policy is barking mad and would lead to increased emissions, whereas the Labour Party policy of increasing investment in science, partly funded by farmers, will increase farm efficiency as well as reduce emissions, which is a win for farmers and a win for the environment.