Oral Questions

1. to the Minister of Conservation: Does she consider 18 percent marine protection areas is adequate for the Hauraki Gulf; if not, will she work with iwi and hapū to increase protection to 30 percent as called for by Forest & Bird?

The Revitalising the Gulf strategy we released in June last year responds to the call for action we received in the 2017 Sea Change - Tai Timu Tai Pari Hauraki Gulf marine spatial plan, and has been designed with input from mana whenua, local communities, and industry. It’s a piece of work that will help us protect the long-term health of the Hauraki Gulf. As proposals currently stand, we will see the marine protection within the gulf increase from just over 6 percent to 18 percent. The proposals have been designed to protect the gulf, and I do consider that they will help us achieve this goal. However, the proposals are currently being consulted on and are subject to final decisions by myself and the Minister for Oceans and Fisheries. Submissions close at 5 p.m. tomorrow and I encourage everyone with an interest on this piece of work to make a submission.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Does she agree with retaining trawling corridors in the Hauraki Gulf, or does she consider that the marine conservation value of the gulf requires it to be closed to trawling?

Hon POTO WILLIAMS: As I have said, we are in a process of taking submissions on this, and final decisions will be made by the Minister for Oceans and Fisheries and myself, and we look forward to people with an interest on this matter making submissions.

Chlöe Swarbrick: How, then, will the proposed protections interface with the many rāhui that iwi and hapū have placed in efforts to protect Tīkapa Moana?

Hon POTO WILLIAMS: As I said in my primary answer, we have worked alongside iwi to ensure that the proposals we have put in place are fit for purpose, and we encourage people with a view on this to make those submissions.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Does the Government plan to continue to allow mining and dumping outside of the high-protected areas of the Hauraki Gulf in any special legislation to establish the areas, despite knowing full well that its ecosystem is “on the brink of collapse”?

Hon POTO WILLIAMS: In regards to mining, the proposals within Revitalising the Gulf, which bring marine protection of the gulf up to around 18 percent—these protected areas will prohibit bottom trawling and harmful bottom contact activities. This includes a complete prohibition on mining, including sand mining. This will protect some of the most vulnerable ecosystems from harmful human activity.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Point of order. The question was about whether mining and dumping will be allowed to continue outside of those high-protected areas.

SPEAKER: I’m pretty sure the Minister addressed that.

Chlöe Swarbrick: The Minister addressed what’s to occur inside of those high-protected areas.

SPEAKER: Yeah, I don’t think there are any Standing Orders that say that you can argue with my ruling.

Hon Eugenie Sage: Is she actively considering changing the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Act to give the Hauraki Gulf Forum substantive decision-making powers so it can do more than chart the ongoing decline in the health of the gulf?

Hon POTO WILLIAMS: In relation to the work that the Government is doing, the Government has already taken a number of actions to protect our marine environment. We’ve established an oceans and fisheries portfolio, we’re requiring cameras on up to 300 commercial inshore fishing vessels by 2024, and the work to restore the health of the Hauraki Gulf is part of the Revitalising the Gulf initiative. This includes establishing 19 new marine protected areas and restricting trawl fishing to selected corridors.

Hon Eugenie Sage: Point of order. The question was about the Hauraki Gulf Forum. The Minister didn’t address that at all.

SPEAKER: Can you repeat the question for me again.

Hon Eugenie Sage: Thank you. Is she actively considering changing the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Act 2000 to give the Hauraki Gulf Forum substantive decision-making powers so it can do more than chart the ongoing decline in the health of the gulf?

SPEAKER: Yeah, there are three parts to that, and it’s definitely been—at least one part of it was addressed.

Chlöe Swarbrick: If the feedback from public consultation, to which the Minister has referred throughout her answers this afternoon, demands that the Government increases its ambition in the Hauraki Gulf, will the Minister increase protected areas to 30 percent in line with international consensus on ocean protection?

Hon POTO WILLIAMS: We will consider the submissions as they are presented to us.

Question No. 2—Social Development and Employment

2. to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: What announcements has she made about the social sector in New Zealand?

Mālō ni, Mr Speaker. Today, the Government launched our Social Sector Commissioning Action Plan. The action plan represents a new chapter for more than 18,000 social service providers across Aotearoa New Zealand. Improving how Government commissions and works with social services was one of our key manifesto commitments. Our response to COVID-19 showed us how much we can achieve when Government works alongside providers to deliver outcomes for our people and communities. This action plan provides a pathway for how we can roll out this relational approach across the motu. This will fundamentally change the way we work with social services to better support them to help our communities.

Angie Warren-Clark: What change will New Zealanders in need see from the action plan?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: This action plan is part of our welfare overhaul programme and is one step towards modernising our welfare system so that social sector organisations can support New Zealanders to live with dignity. This means people will be provided with the support they need when they need it, without providers having to cut through unnecessary red tape along the way. Over time, this transformation will mean New Zealanders know where to go for assistance, and the support available to them is community-led. Their experiences will also help to inform further improvements to the delivery of social services that are responsive to their needs.

Angie Warren-Clark: How will the action plan change the way social service providers work with Government?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: Our COVID-19 response made it clear how effective our social service providers can be with more certainty and flexibility to respond to the unique and diverse needs of those accessing their services. For our social services, these changes mean they can be more sustainable, less focused on paperwork and competition for funding, and more focused on supporting their communities. The approach has started, with more agencies receiving longer-term contracts, which provides them with the certainty to plan ahead. This is also a mammoth coordination task between Government organisations; 15 have been mandated to take this approach and work more effectively in collaboration with social services.

Angie Warren-Clark: How will the action plan support a Te Tiriti partnership?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: Underpinning this action plan, and the starting point for transformation, is Te Tiriti o Waitangi and the need for us to recognise and give practical effect to Te Tiriti. Māori-Crown partnerships must be at the heart of effective commissioning. This action plan will support iwi, hapū, and whānau to create their own solutions. It will support equitable access, experiences, and outcomes for Māori who work in the sector and apply tikanga in a way that benefits the provision of support. Our social sector commissioning kaupapa is not just about improving Government practices; it’s also about strengthening the ties that bring together Government, the sector, iwi, Māori, and communities to support people in their whānau, including disabled people, people experiencing mental illness, Māori and Pacific peoples, and rainbow, rural, and ethnic communities.

Question No. 3—Prime Minister

3. to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all of his Government’s statements and actions?

Yes. I particularly stand by the Government’s statements and actions yesterday, which saw the passing of the historic Fair Pay Agreements Bill. This bill unwinds a 30-year failed experiment to erode the pay, rights, and conditions of hard-working New Zealanders. The bill is about stopping the race to the bottom for the workers in this country who have, for too long, had minimal bargaining power. Those workers are among the likes of our cleaners, bus drivers, supermarket workers, and security guards—the people who keep our economy ticking and looked after us through COVID. The legislation is also positive for good employers, as it seeks to stop the race to the bottom from other employers who are not so well-minded. I am proud to be part of a Government who backs fair pay and conditions for these workers. These are the type of policies that will make a difference to the lives of Kiwis doing it tough right now.

Nicola Willis: Well, can he confirm that, despite talking the talk on wages, the fact is that real wages have declined by 3.5 percent since Labour came to office?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Unfortunately, the member is wrong. She is using the adjusted labour cost index, which most experts would tell you is not actually a good reflection of the actual take-home pay. [Interruption] It’s important to learn lessons, Mr Bishop, in life. And I would refer the member to the fact that, in fact, in every year in our forecast—in every year—between 2017 and 2025-26, average earnings are forecast to grow faster than inflation, with the exception of the year just gone. In the four June years from 2019 to 2022, wage growth, measured by the best estimate of ordinary-time hourly earnings, averaged 5.1 percent a year, compared to inflation averaging 3.5 percent.

Nicola Willis: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek leave to table the Parliamentary Library’s real-wage index, which the Minister of Finance doesn’t appear to have access to.

SPEAKER: No—the end comment was unnecessary. Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There appears to be none. It may be tabled.

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

Nicola Willis: Will he rule out adjusting tax brackets in the 2023 Budget, and, if so, why?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The Government has been very clear about our policy that the tax work programme that we’ve had, which included lifting the top rate of tax from 33c to 39c, is the extent of the programme of tax for this Government in this term. In terms of Budget 2023, the member will be well aware that that has not yet been finalised.

Nicola Willis: Does the Prime Minister believe that ploughing billions of taxpayer dollars into a merger of TVNZ and RNZ, Tesla subsidies, backroom bureaucrats, and Government consultants is the best use of money in a cost of living crisis?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Among the man assertions in that question is the continuation of the National Party’s description of the front-line workers who got New Zealand through COVID as “backroom bureaucrats”. Once again, the National Party is running down the role of the people who work very hard every day to deliver things like the wage subsidy scheme, to make sure people are looked after in our health system—that is typical of the attitude of the National Party towards working people.

Nicola Willis: [Holds up graph] If extra spending is the answer to every problem, then why, under Labour, has the number of people getting timely emergency department care plummeted, while it stayed consistently high under National?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: As the member knows, and as we traversed in the House yesterday, this has been an extremely difficult winter for our emergency departments. We have seen tens of thousands of people a week showing up to emergency departments seeking care in a period of time, through COVID, when there were staffing shortages as well. There are many graphs that I can hold up about the health system, but two spring to mind: the failure of the previous National Government to fund health to keep up with inflation, year on year on year, and the two years where the National Party decided that it was appropriate to put zero dollars into health capital and health infrastructure. That is the graph the member should be showing.

Nicola Willis: Will Labour heed the call of emergency doctors calling for the return of health targets which delivered results under National, or will it stick to its no-targets, no-accountability, no-results approach?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The approach that we will stick to is the one that’s seen more than a 40 percent increase in the funding for health, a 20 percent increase in the number of doctors, and a 20 percent increase in the number of nurses. We are actually investing in the health system. We are, in part, making up for the failures of the last nine years, and we’ve had to deal with a small matter called COVID. The New Zealand health system and the dedicated professionals within it deserve this Parliament’s support—and not being run down by that member.

Nicola Willis: Is he concerned that only 2 percent of New Zealand’s decile 1 students achieved the numeracy standard in a recent NCEA assessment, or does he share the Associate Minister of Education’s view that the assessment wasn’t culturally appropriate?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: With respect to the second part of the question, I have sat through the House and listened to the Associate Minister carefully, and she was reflecting the view of experts with respect to that last comment. More broadly, when it comes to the way in which we choose to assess our students, I back the Associate Minister of Education any day over the Opposition when it comes to what is best for students within our schools.

Nicola Willis: Will his Government continue to listen to the excuses of experts, or will it reassert its view—or the view it should have—that New Zealand students, no matter their socio-economic or cultural background, should be equipped by their schooling with the literacy and numeracy skills needed to succeed in modern life?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: It’s an interesting phrase, “the excuses of experts”. That tells you a lot about the National Party’s view about evidence and the National Party’s view about what actually works in the education system. What this Government’s going to keep doing is investing in our education system, making sure teachers are paid properly, and making sure that they’ve got the support in their classrooms; not going down the failed experiment of national standards which many of the people within the education system blame for the issues that might be there today.

Hon Stuart Nash: Under National’s tax proposal, how much money would a McDonald’s worker on the minimum wage get?

SPEAKER: No. He’s not responsible for that.

Question No. 4—Foreign Affairs

4. to the Minister of Foreign Affairs: What decisions, if any, has she made from her review of New Zealand’s position on deep-sea mining in areas beyond national jurisdiction?

This morning, I announced Aotearoa New Zealand’s call for a conditional moratorium on deep-sea mining in areas beyond national jurisdiction. This means that New Zealand will oppose all commercial seabed mining in areas beyond national jurisdiction until strong environmental rules can be agreed and backed up by robust science. The deep sea contains some of the least-understood ecosystems on the planet, and our scientific knowledge of it remains extremely limited. Without adequate knowledge and environmental protections, we do not believe it is safe for mining to take place.

Ingrid Leary: Why has the Government taken this position?

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: We’ve recently reviewed the progress made, to date, through the International Seabed Authority (ISA) to develop a mining code for the deep sea. Given the lack of progress, to date, it’s our view that the ISA process is unlikely to produce a mining code with adequate environmental safeguards to protect our oceans before its July 2023 deadline—that risks mining going ahead without any environmental protections. New Zealand would caution against such an approach. We’ve also listened to the concerns raised by a number of Pacific Island countries about the potential impacts of deep-sea mining on Te Moana-nui-a-Kiwa and the livelihoods it supports. We share their ambition to protect our oceans, and I’d like to acknowledge their leadership on this issue. New Zealand is therefore calling for a conditional moratorium to protect our shared ocean, to care for the marine environment and its unique biodiversity.

Ingrid Leary: What steps will New Zealand take at the upcoming ISA negotiations to promote a conditional moratorium?

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: It’s important for New Zealand that we continue to engage in the ISA negotiations—it’s the best way to get international agreement for our position of a conditional moratorium. At the upcoming ISA negotiations, we’ll argue that a conditional moratorium on deep-sea mining in international waters is necessary to ensure the effective protection of the marine environment until strong environmental rules can be agreed and backed up by robust science. New Zealand will work to proactively identify and promote steps that can be taken by the ISA to give effect to a conditional moratorium. We’ll work with other like-minded countries to progress the position of a conditional moratorium on deep-sea mining.

Hon Eugenie Sage: What contribution have civil society groups and Pacific parliamentarians made to the thinking which informed the Government’s decision to support the moratorium in international waters?

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: I’d like to acknowledge the role that civil society groups in New Zealand have played and their continued advocacy. I have met with NGOs four times in the past 12 months to discuss perspectives and options on deep-sea mining, including most recently this morning. I expect New Zealand officials will work constructively with NGOs at the upcoming ISA negotiation to help push forward the call for a conditional moratorium. I know that there are a range of views on deep-sea mining in the Pacific Islands and an ongoing dialogue in many countries. In our review, we took stock of the views of Pacific Island countries, and I’ve also taken the time to discuss the issue in a number of my recent bilateral meetings across the Pacific. We will continue to engage with Pacific Island countries across the full spectrum of views on seabed mining. NGOs have an important and constructive role to play across the Pacific, and I also acknowledge the advocacy and expertise in this regard.

Ingrid Leary: Does this moratorium apply to countries’ exclusive economic zones (EEZs)?

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: The International Seabed Authority deals with international waters beyond countries’ territorial waters and exclusive economic zones. Our call for a conditional moratorium, therefore, does not include areas within States’ national jurisdictions such as our own EEZ. For waters within national jurisdiction, we respect the mana of each country to manage its kaitiaki responsibilities to protect the ocean, consistent with the international legal obligation they have to protect and preserve the marine environment and its ecosystems.

Question No. 5—Conservation

5. to the Minister of Conservation: Why has the Department of Conservation reportedly given full support to Tūhoe Te Uru Taumatua’s plan to remove 48 DOC huts from Te Urewera, and what date, if any, has she been given for their replacement?

Tēnā koe e te Māngai o Te Whare. Under the Te Urewera Act, much of Te Urewera National Park ceased to be a national park and became a legal entity in its own right. The legislation outlines that huts owned by the Department of Conservation (DOC) may be removed or demolished by either Te Uru Taumatua or the department in a manner that is consistent with the management plan and the annual operation plan for Te Urewera. Under this framework, the Department of Conservation is supporting Te Uru Taumatua to decommission 44 huts, many of which required significant maintenance work and did not meet health and safety standards. In answer to the second part of the member’s question, I understand that Te Uru Taumatua is working towards a time frame of between two to three years to replace some of the huts with fit for purpose facilities.

Nicole McKee: Can the Minister commit to ensuring the health and safety of Te Urewera hunters and trampers that replacement or temporary huts will be built before winter 2023, and, if not, is this what New Zealanders can expect from this Government’s co-governance model?

Hon POTO WILLIAMS: Public access remains fully available across Te Urewera, and visitors will continue to have access to Te Urewera whether they be there camping or in one of the Great Walks huts—or, in future, a fit for purpose facility.

Nicole McKee: Does she think taxpayers, who are contributing $2 million per year for the maintenance of huts and tracks in Te Urewera, will see the burning of these huts as a successful outcome under the co-governance model?

Hon POTO WILLIAMS: To be very clear, the legislation put in place by the National-ACT Government of 2014 set up the legislation which allows Te Urewera to be managed in this particular way, where Te Urewera Board has day-to-day control of Te Urewera. Let me also be very clear: there was no burning of huts. Under the Department of Conservation process, huts were dismantled, roofing iron taken off, and timber salvaged for reuse. There are some rotten boards, which have been burnt. However, it is not correct to say “the burning of huts”. That is blatantly incorrect.

Nicole McKee: Does DOC value the safe haven that backcountry huts give their users, and, if so, why have they enabled the destruction of their huts without alternative temporary accommodation being constructed first?

Hon POTO WILLIAMS: We value health and safety, which is why we have supported Te Urewera Board in ensuring that those huts which were not fit for purpose are being replaced. In addition, Te Urewera Board are making decisions about fit for purpose facilities, which will provide a Te Urewera experience for visitors into the future. It is not fair to say that these huts are being destroyed. There are three heritage huts which are being relocated, and many of these other facilities, which will be built, will be in a far better state to cope with, and cater for, visitors into the future.

Hon Kelvin Davis: Does she think that this would be an issue if DOC had a programme of replacing these huts, or is it just an issue because Te Uru Taumatua is replacing these huts?

Hon POTO WILLIAMS: I think that is probably a question for the ACT Party, but it seems very clear to me—

SPEAKER: No, the question is to the Minister, and the Minister should address it.

Hon POTO WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr Speaker. It is my view that the ACT Party should honour the commitment they made by supporting this particular legislation—

SPEAKER: No, I’m on my feet. You need to sit down. That does not address the question. The question is to the Minister. It’s not about her opinions about the ACT Party or the former Government. It was a very clear question. I’m going to give Nicole McKee an extra question and she can examine it.

Nicole McKee: Thank you, Mr Speaker. If the chair of Tūhoe Te Uru Taumatua, Tāmati Kruger, says, “I don’t see it as a final destination. I don’t see co-governance as the answer.” and continues the “scorched earth policy” that one protester has described, is the Government confident with their co-governance model?

Hon POTO WILLIAMS: There is no scorched earth policy.

Question No. 6—Justice

6. to the Minister of Justice: Does she stand by her statement in relation to the way the justice system operated during a recent rape case, “The last thing that we would like to see, that anybody in government or any New Zealander, would be that a victim is put off from coming forward to share their story and have somebody take accountability where they cause sexual violence and harms to victims”; if so, what changes, if any, is she considering to how the justice system operates?

To the first part of the question, absolutely. To the second part of the question, can I just acknowledge the member for the question and for providing the opportunity to talk about one of our primary priorities, which is introducing and supporting a victim-centric justice system. Through Budget 2022, the Government increased funding for the Victim Assistance Scheme and put aside significant resources for a whole-of-Government support programme for victims of crime. The Government has passed the Sexual Violence Legislation Bill, which will take full effect from December this year, and a team has recently been established within the Ministry of Justice to drive further policy change to improve the system for victims. I’m also considering currently the settings for how sexual violence is managed in the criminal justice system, particularly those that directly impact children and young victims of crime. In recent months, my officials have been consulting with experts in the field, including victim advocates and specialist service providers, to better understand what is and what is not working. I expect to receive further advice on this in the next few months.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Is she worried that a well-publicised sentence of nine months’ home detention for a conviction of four rapes will discourage young women in New Zealand coming forward to share their story, and, if so, what changes, if any, is she considering to how the justice system operates for those victims?

Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: I am absolutely concerned that any person in any environment would ever be put off by anything that takes them away from being able to share their story, and want to ensure that responsibility sits with those people that have caused harm to any individual. I refer back to my primary answer, though, that there is a broad range of settings I’m looking at right now across the criminal justice system as to how the settings for sexual violence are dealt with and with a particular focus on children and young victims.

Hon David Parker: Can the Minister confirm, firstly, that prosecutorial decisions, including recommendations as to sentence, don’t come from politicians and were not influenced in the subject case, but, none the less, the issue here was not one with sentencing guidelines; it was the decision taken by the local Crown prosecutor in that there is nothing needed to be changed in respect of sentencing guidelines?

SPEAKER: Order! That question was far too long—it wasn’t the ideal way to pitch a question like that. I’m not sure—I will take some advice from the Clerk, actually. Yes, the Minister can answer in so far as she’s responsible but that question was far too long.

Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: I can confirm that this side of the House understands the separation of powers. I can confirm that we, the executive, have the obligation to administer the legislative tools and that we understand the principles of comity and that the Solicitor-General has responsibility for anything that is undertaken by the courts in terms of prosecuting. The principle for that is because we cannot politicise the judiciary, and that is one of the fundamental constitutional principles that this side of the House believes in.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: In light of that answer, why did she say publicly that she’d asked officials about the type of training the judiciary do to ensure “that they are appropriately equipped”, and, if so, does that mean she thinks that they are not appropriately equipped?

Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: We have obligations to ensure that anybody exercising any public power function understands their duties, their responsibilities, and they will absolutely be doing that. I am not quite sure why the opposite side of the House doesn’t quite understand comity, but what I would say is that whilst the spokesperson for justice on that side of the House may not understand some core constitutional principles, the shadow spokesperson for the Attorney-General certainly does and I suggest he has a chat to him about what those principles are.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Is she concerned the justice system appears to be giving more weight to her colleague Kelvin Davis’ call to reduce the prison population by 30 percent than it is to ensuring someone take accountability for serious crimes?

Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: I have absolutely no obligations for the Department of Corrections.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Will she work with the Attorney-General to require a proper inquiry into the Crown’s handling of the Meyer rape case and the operation of the Sentencing Act?

Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: The Attorney-General has put on record that the High Court judgment and other related court documents that have been made public set out clearly what happened in that case. However, any further response falls to the Solicitor-General in terms of her oversight of public prosecutions, and he has asked her to look at whether anything further is required.

Question No. 7—Housing (Māori Housing)

7. to the Associate Minister of Housing (Māori Housing): What has the Government done to improve housing outcomes for Māori?

When we came into Government, the housing challenges were many for Māori whānau. As a Government, we are taking action, and last year’s Budget committed $730 million for Māori housing. An update on where we are at: of the 1,000 homes to be delivered, we have approved and commenced building of 824; of the 700 homes for repairs and maintenance, we have approved and delivered up to 314 across the country; of the 2,700 sites requiring infrastructure support, we have approved up to 1,200. We are also supporting 41 Māori housing providers to build their capability to ensure that they have the right tools and resources to deliver warm, dry, and safe homes for whānau.

Willow-Jean Prime: How does this partnership provide better housing outcomes for whānau?

Hon PEENI HENARE: We have created new pathways for Māori housing that rely on a genuine partnership between the Government, iwi, and Māori to invest in housing opportunities that more widely contribute to the overall wellbeing of whānau, hapū, and iwi. The value of the partnership approach includes delivering Māori housing to a scale and at a pace that has never been achieved before, and by Māori, for Māori approaches to support and enable iwi and Māori to succeed through partnership, co-design, and, most importantly, delivery.

Willow-Jean Prime: How are these partnerships delivering transformational change for whānau?

Hon PEENI HENARE: We are partnering with iwi Māori to get whānau into affordable homes and, importantly, to be financially independent—for example, our partnership with Ka Uruora will see 172 whānau be housed in affordable rentals across Taranaki, Tuparoa, Blenheim, Thames, and Tāmaki-makau-rau. This will be complemented with support services such as financial literacy, and encourage iwi-sponsored savings schemes. In addition, 31 whānau will be assisted into homeownership through the progressive homeownership plan. I can quote from one of the supporters and leaders of this particular initiative: “Working … with Ka Uruora and [the Government], we can offer alternative paths to owning a home and achieving financial independence. [And] Our financial education and savings programmes are great tools to help whānau realise their [aspiration]”.

Willow-Jean Prime: How is the Government’s investment in Māori housing supporting job creation for Māori and communities?

Hon PEENI HENARE: Through our partnerships with Māori, we will see more homes being built, which will in turn create significant jobs in regions—for example, our partnership with Toitu Tairawhiti will see 150 new homes for whānau who need them the most. It also has a large focus on job creation and upskilling whānau in construction. Toitu Tairawhiti is a programme in place with off-site manufacturer Built Smart to upskill a number of local people that will see them leading the building programme. This forms part of an innovative model of delivery with a mix of typologies for housing across the wider Tai Rāwhiti region.

Question No. 8—Education (School Operations)

8. to the Associate Minister of Education (School Operations): What is an example of a question in the 2022 NCEA Numeracy and Literacy pilot that she believes was not culturally “appropriate”, as she has claimed, and does she believe students should only be asked questions about things they have personally experienced?

To the first part of the question, the member is referring to a quote that was not my personal claim but referring to the views of some teachers and experts. This was in relation to the overall assessment, not specific questions. To be clear, none of the feedback from teachers and experts in the evaluation report provided to me gave examples of specific questions in the assessment. Therefore, I have no specific examples to provide the member from that feedback. And to the second part of the question, no.

Erica Stanford: Isn’t the reason for her unwillingness to give one simple example to back up her excuse as to why 98 percent of decile 1 kids cannot pass a basic literacy exam because she is desperately trying to hide from the fact that her Government has not rolled out any numeracy or literacy programmes in the last five years to ensure that these students would pass the assessments?

Hon JAN TINETTI: No.

Erica Stanford: How can she say that she will not second-guess the expert teachers when they say that the tests are not culturally appropriate, when the evaluation report stated that many of them have not seen the questions in the test, and an email to the education Minister from a principal said that “We have not seen the tests that our students sat, yet we were still asked to comment on the equity and suitability of the test.”?

Hon JAN TINETTI: I back our experts and I stand by the pilot. These results show that we need to ensure that all students leave school with fundamental maths and literacy skills fit for the modern world.

Erica Stanford: How many of the 14 participants who responded to the statement in the evaluation that the literacy reading test was not a valid and reliable assessment had actually seen the test questions, given she is relying on their expert opinion?

Hon JAN TINETTI: I don’t have those figures in front of me. If the member wanted that, she could put that in writing and our office will respond.

Erica Stanford: Why, when I asked her yesterday to give one example of the type of question in the NCEA literacy and numeracy tests that she felt was culturally inappropriate, could she only point to this child’s book and the use of the word “clue”, and isn’t the entire point of teaching and education to teach children, to help them to learn words that they are unfamiliar with?

Hon JAN TINETTI: That’s exactly the point that I was making: we need to contextualise learning. Thank you for listening to my answer.

Question No. 9—Workplace Relations and Safety

9. to the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety: Selamat siang. Terima kasih, Mr Speaker. What steps is the Government taking to improve wages and conditions for Kiwi workers?

Yesterday, the Fair Pay Agreements Bill was passed by the Parliament. Fair pay agreements (FPAs) are about the basic Kiwi value of a fair go, and turning the page on the 30-year era of a race to the bottom for many Kiwi workers. The global pandemic of COVID reinforced the basic truth that we rely on the work of many of our low-income workers, including cleaners, bus drivers, and checkout workers. We believe, in this Government, that we owe it to those people to ensure that they are treated with dignity and respect and are paid a fair day’s pay for a fair day’s work. I’d like to thank everyone who contributed to the development of the fair pay agreements framework, including the Fair Pay Agreement Working Group chaired by the Rt Hon Jim Bolger.

Marja Lubeck: How will fair pay agreements work?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD: Despite some misinformation that I have heard in various places, fair pay agreements are not a one-size-fits-all model. They create a basic minimum floor of pay and conditions across a sector or an occupation, similar to the model that operates in Australia, which ensures certainty for workers employed in those areas but also ensures that there is protection for good employers in those sectors to not be undermined by others paying less and competing on low pay and conditions, which is the race to the bottom that we want to stop. Fair pay agreements do not preclude flexibility or competition by employers above that minimum floor but merely ensure that it doesn’t come at the expense of pay, conditions, and job security for workers.

Marja Lubeck: How will fair pay agreements support greater productivity?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD: One of the lessons of the past 30 years is that a highly deregulated labour market manifestly failed to deliver on the claims made in the early 1990s that that would deliver higher productivity growth for New Zealand. FPAs will incentivise competition based on the factors that we know contribute to productivity growth, like the quality of goods and services, innovation, and R & D; not the undercutting of pay and conditions for our essential workers. Again, we’re supporting the overwhelming majority of good employers who do want to see productivity in our country grow and do want to give their employees a fair go at the same time.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Will fair pay agreements see significant improvements in wages and conditions for McDonald’s workers in Christchurch?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD: McDonald’s workers in Christchurch have the great good benefit of being covered by a collective agreement negotiated by the Unite Union, which has seen them achieve an increased minimum wage, increased minimum break times, improved minimum hours, and better shift allowances. A fair pay agreement would allow workers more broadly across that sector to access some of those same benefits, and I think we’d all agree that’s a good thing.

Marja Lubeck: Will workers be forced to join unions under this legislation?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD: Once again, it’s important to be very clear and to correct some of the disinformation that’s heard in this area. No, workers will not be required to join unions under the fair pay agreement legislation, nor will the fair pay agreement legislation allow strikes or lockouts, and nor does it breach international labour laws. Fair pay agreements are a pragmatic and modern approach to industrial relations, which will offer outcomes similar to Australia and deliver good outcomes for both employees and employers. I’m proud that our Labour Government has delivered on this manifesto commitment.

Hon Grant Robertson: Returning to the important matter of McDonald’s workers in Christchurch, can the Minister confirm reports of McDonald’s workers on Newshub last night celebrating the passing of the fair pay agreements legislation, and was he surprised to see the Leader of the Opposition join them this morning?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD: Yes, I can confirm that I actually met with a number of McDonald’s workers, last night, who were extremely pleased about the passing of the fair pay agreements legislation. These are workers who do important work within our society. It is only decent and fair that they receive a fair go. We believe that those workers should receive fair pay for their work, and we believe that’s more important than an $18,000 tax cut for the Leader of the Opposition.

Question No. 10—Transport

10. to the Minister of Transport: What is the total amount of subsidies the Government has paid out to Tesla owners through the clean car discount scheme, and how many Teslas have been purchased through the scheme?

The Government’s clean car discount scheme has been an electrifying success. Since the discount came into effect last year, 108,000 low-emission vehicles have been registered in New Zealand; 74,800 in 2022 alone. Across the programme, we’ve supported Kiwis to purchase around 38,200 Daihatsus, Fords, Hondas, Hyundais, Mazdas, Mitsubishis, Nissans, Subarus, Suzukis, Toyotas, and Kias, making up 79 percent of total vehicles. The most popular vehicle has been the Toyota Aqua, where we have paid out 5,818 rebates, and those vehicles have cost an average of $13,900. In comparison, the discount has supported the purchase of 4,791 Teslas, less than 10 percent of total vehicles, by paying approximately $40,990,000, about 22 percent of total rebates. Electric vehicles (EVs) and plug-in hybrids make up nearly 30 percent of monthly imports of new cars into New Zealand now, compared to only 1 percent under the previous National Government, which talked a big game about EVs but delivered nothing.

SPEAKER: Supplementary—

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Five years on.

SPEAKER: Order! We have a supplementary. Be quiet.

Simeon Brown: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Does he think spending $40.9 million subsidising millionaires to buy Teslas represents good value for money during a cost of living crisis?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD: I think that the clean car discount, which has enabled tens of thousands of New Zealanders to get into a cleaner vehicle, is good for decarbonising our transport system and it’s good for all of those people, because it will save them long-run costs in terms of running their vehicles. Again, I note that our Government has increased the uptake of clean vehicles in New Zealand to one of the world’s leading levels, unlike that side of the House, which opposes every single measure to decarbonise the transport system—

Chris Bishop: We started it.

Hon MICHAEL WOOD: —our Government is getting on with the job. Mr Bishop says they started it. Clean vehicles made up 1 percent of imports under his Government; they made up 30 percent of imports last month under this Government.

Simeon Brown: Can he confirm that in addition to subsidising thousands of Teslas, the scheme has also subsidised the purchase of more than 100 Audis, over 350 BMWs, and at least one Porsche?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD: I can confirm that the clean car discount scheme has subsidised the purchase of a range of clean vehicles, including 5,818 Toyota Aquas, 1,812 Toyota Corollas, 4,467 Nissan Leafs, and 3,183 Toyota Priuses. I note that some of those vehicles that the member has just mentioned are actually very popular trade vehicles that many small businesses are finding extremely valuable, both to reduce their emissions and as a cheaper way of running their businesses.

Simeon Brown: Let them eat Teslas. Does he stand by his decision to tax farmers buying utes so they can do their job and hand that money out for people to buy luxury vehicles like Teslas, Audis, BMWs, and Porsches?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD: Over the last six months, we have seen rural district after rural district devastated by the impacts of climate change. On this side of the House, we actually believe in doing something to reduce our emissions so that that problem doesn’t get worse. Under this Government, the average emissions of vehicles coming into New Zealand under the clean car discount scheme has reduced by 20 percent. That member may think it’s fine and dandy to ignore climate change and oppose every single measure we do to reduce our emissions, but, ultimately, that will only harm the farmers that he claims to be representing.

Question No. 11—Social Development and Employment

11. to the Associate Minister for Social Development and Employment: How is the Government delivering on its commitment to strengthen social cohesion?

This morning, I launched Te Korowai Whetū Social Cohesion, a package of tools that provides us with a shared understanding of what social cohesion means for Aotearoa New Zealand, actions that we can take collectively to strengthen it, and how we will measure progress. I also launched a community fund that will support social cohesion initiatives. This package delivers on specific recommendations made by the royal commission of inquiry into the Christchurch mosque attacks to strengthen social cohesion.

Dr Emily Henderson: What role do communities have to strengthen social cohesion?

Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN: People from different communities and sectors have contributed significantly as we developed this package, and I thank them. The aim here is for us to work collectively to create a society where everyone feels safe, valued, a sense of belonging, and able to participate, and so everyone has a role. I believe that the tools that we’ve released today will play a role in guiding action that contributes to work strengthening cohesion.

Dr Emily Henderson: How will the grant fund support community-led initiatives?

Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN: As part of Te Korowai Whetū, we’ve also launched a fund to support community initiatives that contribute to cohesion. New Zealand already has high levels of social cohesion; we rank higher than the OECD average on a number of indicators. However, we know that there’s more to do, and we know that strength lies in our communities and the initiatives that they lead that bring people together and break down barriers. This fund will support our communities to do more of that.

Dr Emily Henderson: What else is included in this package?

Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN: This package also includes a measurement framework that will provide a whole-of-population view of social cohesion outcomes across a broad range of domains and a range of indicators. It provides a consistent way for stakeholders, including Government, to define aspects of cohesion and measure progress. The package also includes specific new actions for Government, including looking at how we use the framework to analyse the impact that our legislative and policy decisions will have on social cohesion. Finally, there are information sheets to support action across different sectors and communities, and I encourage everyone to make use of them.

Question No. 12—Broadcasting and Media

12. to the Minister for Broadcasting and Media: Does he stand by all of his actions and views regarding the Aotearoa New Zealand Public Media Bill?

Yes. I particularly stand by the view that the creation of this new organisation will strengthen the delivery of New Zealand’s public media services for future generations.

Melissa Lee: What does the Strong Public Media Business Case say is the total new Crown funding required for Aotearoa New Zealand Public Media across financial years 2027-2051?

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: I’ll have to come back to the member on that.

Melissa Lee: Can the Minister confirm that Aotearoa New Zealand Public Media will require new Crown funding each year, once established, and, if so, how much will it be?

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: We’ve already committed to the next three years. There will be $109 million of new money injected over the next three years. We can commit to the next three years.

Melissa Lee: When the Minister agreed to arrange for officials to brief me on the business case for the Aotearoa New Zealand Public Media Bill, to show the cost-benefit analysis, why has it been over four weeks and I have still not been contacted by his ministry?

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: I have asked my ministry to contact that member. I will ask them again.

Melissa Lee: Does the Minister believe that the planned merger will provide an opportunity to present more programming to New Zealand viewers which reflects more Māori contact, more stories, themes, and presenters; if so, does the Minister know what percentage of content on TVNZ+, TV ONE+, and TV2 Ondemand streams currently features Māori themes, contents, and presenters?

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: I’ll answer the first part of the question. I expect there to be more Māori programming, more diversity, as well as more programming for Pasifika, Asian people, and young people. We want to see ourselves. We want to hear ourselves.