Oral Questions

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

谢谢, Mr Speaker. Yes, on World Tourism Day, it is worth noting the Government’s work to reconnect New Zealand with the world. Overseas visitor arrivals exceeded 100,000 in July. There’s been a 20 percent month-on-month increase in capacity from key US destinations, with a total of five airlines flying to and from North America, offering up to 60 flights per week. By summer, that will be eight destinations, and we’ll see the return of United Airlines and American Airlines. We know Aotearoa New Zealand remains a top global visitor destination and it’s pleasing to see our hospitality restaurants, hotels, ski fields, and tourist attractions filling back up.

Christopher Luxon: Why is the Government introducing a 2.8 percent tax on all salaries and wages to fund an income insurance scheme during a cost of living crisis?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Firstly, to correct the member, he’ll well know that this work that we’re doing—alongside the Council of Trade Unions and BusinessNZ—would not be due to come into place until 2024 or 2025 at the earliest. I think also the really important point to make is that every year approximately 100,000 New Zealanders will lose their jobs. But we know in times of crisis, like, for instance, the global financial crisis (GFC), that number was 200,000. Each occasion where we have seen economic crises, rightly you’ve seen Governments of different persuasions—the National Party included—stepping in to make sure we don’t see significant economic scarring. Either way taxpayers pay, this is a way of ensuring there’s that certainty for New Zealanders around their future should we see such economic crises or, indeed, health issues.

Christopher Luxon: Does she accept that the 2.8 percent levy her Government is proposing is a tax on every Kiwi with a job, and why is she introducing a jobs tax during a cost of living crisis?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I’d be interested to know whether or not the member considers the ACC levy in the same way. And the second point that I would make is that when it comes to quantums, final decisions have not yet been made. But given 100,000 New Zealanders lose their job everywhere—and everyone in this room would know someone who has been affected through significant health conditions such as, for instance, an experience with cancer—giving them surety around their future is something that many New Zealanders would welcome.

Christopher Luxon: Why is the Government planning to rake in $3.5 billion more in tax from workers and employers every year when Kiwis are already struggling with the cost of living crisis?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: When it comes to the cost of living issues that New Zealanders are facing, as are many other citizens around the world, we’ve worked very hard to make sure that we are, through targeted spending, working hard to decrease those impacts. We’ve done that through the cost of living payment, of which there is a final payment to be made; a 25c reduction in fuel costs at the pump, through to January next year; half-price public transport; increasing the family tax credit. The difference between us and the National Party on these issues, where they’ve opposed those moves, is they would prefer decreases to the top tax rate. We do not believe now is the time for such measures; it would also be inflationary and would not benefit those who need it most.

Christopher Luxon: How is it fair that a Kiwi worker earning $60,000 will end up paying an extra $830 a year in tax under this scheme?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Again, as I’ve already said around the social employment insurance, of course we had not finalised some of the final measures around that and nor would they be set to come into play in 2024 and 2025. But this country has now experienced the economic shocks of the GFC, the Christchurch earthquake, the pandemic. On each occasion, the Government’s stepped in with taxpayers’ money in order to lessen the impact of those and lessen economic scarring. We are one of the few OECD nations that does not have a comparable scheme. This is looking to ensure that we fill that gap.

Hon James Shaw: What year did the Future of Work Tripartite Forum first float the idea of this scheme, and are there any members of this House who were members of that at the time?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: The member makes a good point. It was several years ago that social insurance was first raised, and, of course, some members in this House were part of things like business advisory councils that, if I recall, at that time did have a focus on training and support for workers. But now that Business New Zealand is involved, there seems to be some distancing from that piece of work.

Christopher Luxon: How much of the cost of the 1.4 percent tax on employers is expected to be passed on to workers through lower wages, and how much will be passed on to consumers through higher prices?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I don’t believe that most OECD nations who have a scheme such as this would draw that same comparison that the member is making. The second point I would make is that I know the member has launched a petition today, and what I would again point out is that ongoing work is still being undertaken on the final details. I would also, again, just reiterate that most New Zealanders will know someone who, in their lifetimes, will either lose their job because of issues within their workplace or because they have a significant health event. Most New Zealanders do not have things like income insurance, and so we should be thinking about what we can do to lessen the economic scarring that our economy feels through those events, but also that a worker experiences.

Christopher Luxon: Isn’t it the case that this Government’s spending is just so out of control it’s running out of new things to tax, and, with the jobs tax, Kiwi workers are just the latest victim of her finance Minister’s inability to make tough decisions?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: No. But if you want to start talking about the facts, how about debt at half the rate of Australia’s, record low unemployment at just over 3 percent, more than 215,000 New Zealanders have taken up free apprenticeships, a 61 percent increase in apprentices since the pandemic, 3,800 young people in He Poutama Rangatahi, 5,200 in Mana in Mahi, and 66,000 children lifted out of poverty? We are focused on how we can support New Zealanders and workers through hard times; that member is not.

Christopher Luxon: Is she committed to pushing through this jobs tax, or do hard-working Kiwis have a chance to stop it like they did with her KiwiSaver tax, her wealth tax, and her capital gains tax?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Again, I really question the proposition the member is putting forward, and, again, what I would also point out is that whilst that side of the House went through the global financial crisis and the Christchurch earthquakes and still chose to do nothing to fix the system, we’ve gone through a pandemic and we are determined that New Zealand will be better prepared to look after its workers in the future. That member is happy to pay out in times of crisis, but not to fix the foundations of our country; that is why National is not good for New Zealand.

Hon Chris Hipkins: Has the Prime Minister seen reports that the last time New Zealanders faced a cost of living crisis the Government of the day increased GST, hiked up ACC levies, increased fuel tax, and started taxing KiwiSaver contributions?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Yes, that’s right. In fact, they increased quite a few taxes and never ever told the electorate about it. When it comes to the work that we’re doing, we’ve quite openly said this is going to take time, it won’t likely be in place until 2024/25, and we are quite happy to have the debate with New Zealanders about how we can best prepare to support them in the future.

Question No. 2—Finance

2. to the Minister of Finance: 谢谢 and Talofa, Mr Speaker. What recent reports has he seen on the New Zealand economy?

Activity in the manufacturing sector is expanding at a faster pace in the last month. The BNZ-Business New Zealand Performance of Manufacturing Index rose to 54.9 in August—its highest level of activity in over a year, and above the long-term average of 53.1. BNZ’s economists said the result suggested an improving tone around underlying growth.

Barbara Edmonds: What does the report say about the drivers of growth in manufacturing?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The pick-up was led by new orders at 59.2, the highest level in this area since July 2021, while production at 54.6 was at its highest point for 2022, and employment expanded to 53.6.

Barbara Edmonds: How does this level of activity compare globally?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Internationally, expansion in manufacturing slowed in August to 50.3, from 51.1, so New Zealand’s expansion at 54.9 compares well. It compares with 51.1 in the US and Japan, while manufacturing actually contracted in August in the UK, China, the EU, and Australia. It is tough times for many people out there but there’s every reason to be optimistic about the New Zealand economy.

Barbara Edmonds: What enactions has he seen of activity in other sectors and its impact on the economy?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Activity in the services sector has also picked up pace. The BNZ-Business New Zealand Performance of Services Index rose to 58.6 in August, and above the long-term average of 53.6, with significant growth in sales and new orders. Combining the activity levels for services and manufacturing sectors, the composite suggests annual GDP growth of up to 5 percent in the September quarter. On that basis, BNZ’s economists have upgraded their forecast for GDP in the September and December quarters. Again, every reason to be optimistic about the New Zealand economy going into summer.

Barbara Edmonds: What other reports has he seen on the international context for the New Zealand economy?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The OECD’s latest interim economic outlook has revised downwards its forecast for global growth due to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. It now expects global growth to slow to 2.2 percent in 2023, from a forecast in June of 2.8 percent. Inflation is expected to ease but will remain at high levels for longer. Our economic plan is working for New Zealanders to make sure that we are well placed to respond to the volatile and uncertain global environment. Unemployment is near record low levels, exports are rising, the economy is bigger than before the pandemic, and our debt levels are among the lowest in the world. There’s every reason—

Christopher Luxon: They don’t feel it though, eh?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: —to be optimistic about the New Zealand economy, Mr Luxon.

Question No. 3—Prime Minister

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

Yes.

David Seymour: Does she believe her Government has done enough to curb the cost of living when the Reserve Bank reports that inflation expectations are for inflation to be at 4.86 percent a year from now and ANZ have increased their peak official cash rate forecast to 4.75 percent?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: You will have seen that this Government has taken a number of measures to try and ease the impact of inflation on households. At the same time that we’ve done that, we have been very focused on ensuring that that support is both timely and targeted so as to ensure that we don’t exacerbate inflationary pressures.

David Seymour: Why aren’t these policies working?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Of course, the reasons that inflation has increased in the way that we’ve seen are many and, for the most part, tend to be international factors. The fact that we are in amongst the lowest set within the OECD is testament to that. When you look at, for instance, the impacts in the UK, the United States, those we compare ourselves to, they’ve seen much higher rates of inflation. That doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t do what we can to ease the pressure on households.

David Seymour: Does the Prime Minister agree that a higher official cash rate (OCR) will mean higher mortgage rates, and is she aware that nearly all banks are now offering fixed-term rates over 6 percent, floating rates headed for 7 percent—a point and a half more than Australians are paying?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I am aware of the impacts of the increase in the official cash rate. I’m also aware that many other economies like ours are seeing their central banks increasing their OCRs.

David Seymour: Does she stand by her Government’s announcement of an income insurance scheme, and is she aware it will cost a worker on the median wage of $59,000, $1,634 per year on top of those other costs they’re currently facing?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: To answer both parts of the question, firstly, as I reiterated in my first answers, whilst we’ve been working on an income insurance scheme, the final details have not at this stage been finalised. The second point: the earliest we would see implementation is 2024-25. We are looking to be well beyond some of the impacts we’re seeing in inflation right now.

David Seymour: Is she aware that such a worker on the median wage with a partner in part-time work, children, and paying a typical rental or average mortgage, would get about $780 a week from the Ministry of Social Development right now, and would also get $780 from income insurance, meaning that families dependent on the median wage are no better off but pay an extra 2.8 percent tax?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I come back to my last answer, around the final details of a social insurance scheme, but a broader point that I would make is that that same family could be amongst the 100,000 to 200,000 people that lose their jobs in times of economic crisis. At the moment, we all acknowledge that we have a system that for those, for instance, who have been in work, the significant economic scarring of job loss, the economy and those individuals feel deeply and for long periods. That is why most OECD economies we would compare ourselves to have some form of scheme that is similar. The second point that I would make is that, God forbid, any family member ever experiences job loss where the main household income earner, for instance, experiences a prolonged medical illness like cancer. At the moment, we do not have levels of protection other than the safety net of our benefits scheme, and for many that leads to significant hardship. We are trying to improve that but also the worker insurance we have as well.

David Seymour: Which of the things the Prime Minister just said make any difference to the basic fact that, under her proposed scheme, someone on the median wage will pay $1,634 in additional levies and if they lose their job, or in the horrible situation of getting cancer, as the Prime Minister mentioned, they would get the same $780 that they’re already entitled to on a benefit?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Many of those family members wouldn’t find themselves eligible for a benefit. Secondly, like ACC, it would allow them to receive, for instance, as was currently proposed, up to as high as 80 percent of their lost income. That is a significant difference to what’s available to them now. But, as I’ve said, I’m happy to discuss and debate the finer details once they’ve been resolved and finalised.

David Seymour: Does she stand by Grant Robertson’s statement this morning, “The mood of the boardroom has never exactly been a Labour Party love fest”? And, if so, why does she think business leaders rate her and her Government so poorly?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Of course I support the Minister of Finance and the statements that he’s made. I also support the decisions that he’s taken that have seen us, despite having experienced a one-in-100-year economic shock, having some of the lowest unemployment we have on record, a stronger economy than before we went into COVID, a lower percentage of people on benefits than after the global financial crisis, more apprentices, a reduction in child poverty—the things that we measure ourselves against.

Question No. 4—Finance

4. to the Minister of Finance: Is it Government policy to introduce an income insurance scheme; if so, how would this scheme be funded?

The Government is committed to the introduction of such a scheme, although final decisions on the scheme’s design have not yet been made by Cabinet. But the earliest that the scheme would be introduced is in the 2024-25 financial year. We are one of only a few countries in the OECD that doesn’t have a scheme of this nature, meaning that when redundancy or health conditions and disability results in someone losing their job, as occurs for more than 100,000 New Zealanders a year, they get far less support than those in practically any other advanced country. The scheme was developed at the urging of Business New Zealand and the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions to provide an enduring solution to protect people and the economy after job losses like those seen in the Canterbury earthquakes and COVID-19. In answer to the second part of the question, the set-up costs of the scheme are being met by the Government while payments to New Zealanders who lose their jobs and to operate the scheme, will be funded by levies on employers and employees.

Nicola Willis: Well, does he agree with the Salvation Army, who said of the Government’s proposed scheme, “It will result in a two-tiered approach to welfare that is more likely to increase inequalities than reduce them.”?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: No, I do not. What I think the scheme will do is fill a gap in our social security system, a gap that Governments of all shades have had to fill with ad hoc measures in the past. More than 100,000 New Zealanders lose their job every year. Not everyone has redundancy agreements. Not everyone can afford income insurance. This is about making sure that social security in New Zealand is provided for all. And on the other part of the member’s question, I’d say in this House we’re proud of the fact that we’ve increased benefits in 2020, 2021, and 2022. The member’s crocodile tears on that don’t work because National opposed that.

Nicola Willis: How much would the levy remove from the pay packet of a worker earning $60,000 a year?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I don’t have those numbers with me. But what I can say is for a person earning approximately that much, they would pay around $16.12 a week in levies. And if they lost their job or if they got cancer, they would receive $928 per week in insurance payments. This is about making sure that every New Zealander is protected from the worst thing happening in terms of redundancy or getting a serious illness.

Nicola Willis: Why does he want to force New Zealanders to pay more tax when we already have a welfare system and when they’re already struggling with rising prices and mortgage payments?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: What I want to make sure is that New Zealanders are protected in the event that they lose their job through redundancy or a health condition. The member’s own party did this in the wake of the Canterbury earthquakes. We did it in the wake of COVID. It is better to have a long-term scheme, as almost every other country in the OECD does, rather than an ad hoc scheme.

Hon Michael Wood: Can the Minister confirm that one of the reasons that a social unemployment insurance scheme has been supported by both Business New Zealand and the Council of Trade Unions is that in addition to providing income protection, the scheme as consulted upon would also provide supports to assist workers who have been displaced to get back into the labour force, thus preventing long-term unemployment?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: That is exactly correct and it is one of the driving reasons for the support for this scheme in other parts of the world. Active labour market policies are an important part of the scheme. People do have obligations under the scheme to be able to take up work and take up training opportunities. This is done all over the world because it is the right thing to do to protect people in the event of the worst thing happening at their work place.

Nicola Willis: Is the Minister aware that New Zealand is experiencing record worker shortages and does he understand that, in that context, the last thing New Zealand workers and businesses want is to pay yet another tax to pay for a gold-plated welfare scheme?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: As I said in my primary answer, the Government does not intend to introduce this scheme until at least 2024-25. And I’ve got a prediction for you that, when we get to that point, the National Party will do just as they did with KiwiSaver, just as they did with the super fund, just as they did for Working for Families: they criticise it in opposition, they vote against it, and then they keep it. And they would do exactly the same thing if, God forbid, they got into Government.

Nicola Willis: Why is the Minister’s answer to every challenge to ask New Zealanders to pay more tax and to make a grab on pay packets that are already going backwards in real terms?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I repeat again for the member: the scheme is not designed to be introduced until the 2024-25 financial year. What we have done is work with Business New Zealand, work with the Council of Trade Unions, to come up with a scheme that supports people when they lose their job through redundancy, that makes sure they’re looked after if they get cancer and they can’t work, and that helps people retrain. This is a conventional social security measure used all over the OECD, and I think it is the right thing for New Zealand to do.

Question No. 5—Education

5. to the Minister of Education: 谢谢 and talofa, Mr Speaker. What action is the Government taking to target resources more effectively towards schools with greater educational challenges?

The Government’s delivering on its promise to introduce a new way of funding schools through an equity index, making sure that the right support is going to the schools and the students who need it the most. Last week, we released school funding for next year, and nearly 90 percent of schools will see an increase in their funding as we shift away from the old decile funding system.

Marja Lubeck: How will this change in funding benefit the parts of the country that need it most?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Schools and kura in Te Tai Tokerau have the biggest average increase of around $223 per pupil while schools in areas like South Auckland will also receive a significant average increase of around $70 per pupil. This change in the way we allocate school funding means that those schools that have the highest concentrations of disadvantaged students will get the biggest increases in funding.

Marja Lubeck: Will any schools in 2023 be worse off as a result of these changes?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: No. We are putting in place transitional funding that means that no school will receive a reduction in their per-pupil equity and isolation funding due to these changes. In future years, any reduction is capped at a maximum of 5 percent of their total 2022 operational funding.

Marja Lubeck: Will the introduction of the equity index also increase access to other Government programmes?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Yes. Around 155 schools will now be able to access additional support through the extra cash instead of school donations scheme as a result of the introduction of the equity index. If those schools and kura decide to join the scheme, the family and whānau of around 47,000 extra young people will no longer be asked for donations.

Marja Lubeck: Is eligibility to any other Government programme also increased?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Yes. The changes will also see a further 24 schools and kura join the Free and Healthy School Lunches Programme. That means that around another 3,000 children will be eligible to receive a free healthy lunch at school. This is another example of how the Government is levelling the playing field so that all kids get a fair shot at education.

Question No. 6—Police

6. to the Minister of Police: Can he confirm that there were several violent robberies experienced by members of the public over the last week, and is the Government’s approach to retail crime working?

Yes, and, like most other New Zealanders, I’ve been disgusted by the recent scenes of offending. This behaviour is completely unacceptable and it has no place in our country. The Government takes these crimes very seriously. I understand that police have arrested 14 young people in Auckland and Waikato over the weekend alone. Police are ramping up the roll-out of crime prevention schemes, and we’re putting more resources into prevention so that these individuals get on to better pathways rather than getting into trouble in the first place. Police are actively following up these events to ensure that the young people involved face the consequences of their actions.

Hon Mark Mitchell: Since announcing his policy around prevention, how many additional young people have been brought into that programme?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: That was only a couple of weeks ago and we haven’t got the latest updated numbers, but I do expect that we’ll be getting regular updates on that, so I’m happy to provide the member with the numbers when they do start to come through.

Hon Mark Mitchell: What’s his response to a retail worker at St Lukes whose husband now has to tell them to be careful at work and who says that “The whole thing is just a disgrace, the Government, … people getting away with it, … it’s just really sad in our country.”?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I absolutely think that the situation those retail workers have been put in is unacceptable; no amount of target hardening, though, is going to solve that problem. If you look at the smash-and-grab that happened in the mall in the Waikato in the weekend, it was truly horrific. A group of young people—a significant group of young people—with hammers went into a busy shopping mall in the middle of the day and undertook serious criminal offending in front of a whole lot of onlookers. There is no amount of target hardening that’s going to stop that type of behaviour. Therefore, we do have to make sure that we are doing everything we can to get these young people back on to the straight and narrow and prevent the offending in the first place, and we will ensure that those young people who have undertaken this type of offending are identified and that the follow-up action is taken and that they’re held accountable for their actions.

Hon Mark Mitchell: How many offenders for these aggravated robberies and ram raids have been convicted?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I haven’t got the numbers of convictions; I have got the numbers of prosecutions, though. So if we look at Auckland since the beginning of the year, 73 of these types of events have happened there. There have been 42 prosecutions, 43 referrals to youth aid, and seven cases remain under active investigation. In the Counties Manukau area, of the 64 events, 50 prosecutions have followed that, followed by 23 youth referrals, and seven remain under active investigation. Of the 71 in the Waikato, 40 prosecutions have followed, nine youth referrals, and 12 are under active investigation.

Hon Mark Mitchell: Point of order, Mr Speaker. My question was very specific, and the reason why it was directed at convictions is because that’s where the real consequence lies. The Minister has come to this House and he is actually unable to tell this House how many convictions there have been in relation to these ram raids and aggravated robberies. I think it’s a very basic question.

SPEAKER: Yeah, he did start out the answer—you can go back and look at Hansard, but he started out saying that he didn’t have those figures and presented other information that he thought might be helpful, I guess.

Hon Mark Mitchell: What percentage of offenders are being apprehended and charged for these offences?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Well, I just gave those numbers. If the member cared to listen to my previous answer, I went through the number of ram raids, the number of young people who have been prosecuted, the number of young people who have been referred to youth justice as a result, and the number of cases that are still under investigation.

SPEAKER: I’ll give the member an extra question.

Hon Mark Mitchell: How many of the offenders responsible for these ram raids and these aggravated robberies and the tsunami of violent retail offending in the last year—how many have been charged?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: In Auckland City, there have been 73 incidents, 42 prosecutions, 43 youth referrals—

Hon Mark Mitchell: Point of order, Mr Speaker. The original supplementary was that I asked for a percentage of how many of the offenders have been charged. He’s just giving me a number, not a percentage. That’s an important number in terms of how much offending has been going on.

SPEAKER: You can’t require the Minister to answer exactly the way you want it, and you certainly can’t do it by interrupting him, because you don’t know that he might have given that at the end of that answer. I don’t know, you don’t know, and now the House will never know, I guess.

Question No. 7—Agriculture

7. to the Minister of Agriculture: What recent announcements has he made about supporting sustainable agricultural practices?

Last week, the Government announced our participation in a new agricultural initiative with partners in Latin America and the Caribbean. This is a four-year climate-smart agricultural programme, driven in partnership by the Ministry for Primary Industries and other agencies in the Global Research Alliance on agricultural greenhouse gases.

Jo Luxton: What will this initiative aim to achieve?

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: The programme supports the region’s policy makers, researchers, farmers, and indigenous producers in their understanding and use of low-emission and productivity-enhancing agricultural systems, technologies, and practices. This Government recognises that climate change is a global issue and that we are contributing $10 million in partnership with Latin America and the Caribbean because we know our collective interests depend on adapting to and mitigating the effects of climate change on our environment. New Zealand does not exist in isolation, and it is key that we are able to share our knowledge of technology and innovative practices with other nations.

Jo Luxton: Well, how does this fit with the Government’s domestic commitments to sustainable agriculture?

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: Our food and fibre sector exports see lifting sustainability as vital to creating export value. This Government is committed to supporting that effort, given how vital the sector is to our economic security. We’ve worked in collaboration with farmers and growers, through the He Waka Eke Noa partnership, towards a pricing system for agricultural emissions and a pathway to reduce them. This is a world-first, and many other countries are following with great interest. In addition, we’ve committed $55 million over four years to establish the On Farm Support service. This is an on the ground service which will focus on reaching out to primary producers who are not currently well-linked with industry initiatives or advisers, to help them access information they need to meet incoming regulatory requirements.

Jo Luxton: What other Government support exists for sustainable agricultural projects?

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: More good news. Look, through the Sustainable Food and Fibre Futures fund, the Government has co-invested, with business, over $517 million to support problem-solving and innovation. There are now over 200 Sustainable Food and Fibre Futures projects exploring a wide range of opportunities to diversify our exports, capture value, and progress our sustainability credentials.

Jo Luxton: What projects have recently been funded through the Sustainable Food and Fibres Futures fund?

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: Just this month, in fact, we announced $17.6 million to support the Sustainable Food and Fibres Futures fund for the Whenua Haumanu project with Massey University, working with Lincoln University and many other agencies, including AgResearch. It’s a $26.1 million programme and will be New Zealand’s largest ever study on the sustainability of our farming sector. The data collected will enable farmers to make informed decisions on the financial and environmental benefits of adopting regenerative farming practices, if they should choose to.

Question No. 8—Housing (Māori Housing)

8. to the Associate Minister of Housing (Māori Housing): Is he committed to providing capacity-building and financial support to iwi and hapū to deliver housing for people in need in their rohe?

Yes. In Budget 2021, this Government made the largest investment into Māori housing, committing $730 million to deliver Māori housing supply and infrastructure. To date, we have contracted 739 houses, repaired 286 houses, enabled 1,112 infrastructure sites, and provided $8.6 million in capability funding. This Government is delivering on the promises we made to work in partnership with Māori and to deliver a better Māori housing future for our whānau.

Dr Elizabeth Kerekere: Is he aware that the Government engagement on the Te Waimana Kaaku housing programme was stopped, and, if so, what does he say to the many whānau who were relying on housing being provided through this programme and who are here today?

Hon PEENI HENARE: I say to those whānau, we are still committed to working with hapū and iwi to ensure that Māori housing aspirations are met. I’ve checked with my officials to see the interactions made between my department and the whānau involved, and I say to them—and to the member who has asked the question—the commitment is still there.

Dr Elizabeth Kerekere: What secure housing alternatives would he propose for kuia and koroua such as Hine Boynton who lost her house to a fire and Tangi and Edward Munn who live without power and sewerage, all of whom are in their 80s and all of them would have had housing provided through the Te Waimana Kaaku housing programme?

Hon PEENI HENARE: Housing aspirations right across the country, while they might have similar themes, are still different. I’ve always made the analogy that if you look towards a whare on a marae, they all look the same but the carvings inside are different, wherever you might go. Therefore, bespoke remedies to those challenges are really important, and why I say that is because, for example, in Tāmaki-makau-rau, the access to supply to be able to remedy those challenges are a bit more readily available than, say, Waimana Valley.

Dr Elizabeth Kerekere: Does he stand by his statement that “I’m committed to ensuring that we continue to partner with hapū and iwi to deliver more affordable housing for Māori.”, and if so, does this include partnering with hapū to deliver housing for mothers like Wilhelmina Waitiri Hiakita-Butler, Gemma Hiakita, and Torerenui-A-Rua Te Pau who were struggling to provide secure housing for their whānau, and two of whom lost deposits because Te Waimana Kaaku housing programme was stopped without notice?

Hon PEENI HENARE: I continue to reiterate my support for Māori housing aspirations. I want to draw the member’s attention to a particular initiative called Toitū Tairāwhiti, which brings together hapū and iwi right across the Tairawhiti to make sure that we can meet their housing aspirations. In fact, there will be even further exciting announcements with respect to that partnership in the very near future. I also want to point out to the member and this House that through Wai 2570 stage one hearing into Māori housing, it was made quite clear that Māori aren’t starting at the same pace and at the same time as every other sector in this country. In fact, it shows quite the inequities that have plagued Māori housing aspiration for many years. This Government has stood up to that challenge, made a commitment, committed dollars, and are getting on with the mahi. There is lots more mahi to do. This isn’t a perfect system, but I am still committed to making sure that Māori housing aspirations continue to be met.

Dr Elizabeth Kerekere: Will he instruct relevant Government agencies to reconsider the approach to supporting Te Waimana Kaaku housing programme so that these whānau and others can have secure local housing provided by their own hapū?

Hon PEENI HENARE: I make the commitment to that member and to the members listening in this House that I’m more than happy to meet with Waimana Kaaku to continue to discuss their housing aspirations. But I do want to be very clear: we are committed to Māori housing aspiration. Our investment has made it clear, the way that we have continued to work makes it clear, and what I’ve asked my officials to do is look at the interactions that have all of a sudden created this perception that this has been stopped—what’s been told to me by the advisers is actually at no point in time have they seen any withdrawal of support for this matter, which makes my commitment to meet with the whānau even more solid in the House today, sir.

Dr Elizabeth Kerekere: Does he agree that the Crown has an ongoing obligation to uphold the tino rangatiratanga of hapū over kāinga, and, if so, how is the Crown upholding this obligation, with respect to Te Waimana?

Hon PEENI HENARE: Yes, we are. I want to present this particular document to you, Mr Speaker, and to the House called He Tapuae which works with Tuhoe to look towards how we can support their housing aspirations. What was made clear through this particular engagement is it was multi-Government agencies working alongside Tuhoe to realise those aspirations. In that particular document, it goes on to say that as chosen by the He Tapuae agreement, that there are commitments in Tāneatua, Te Umuroa Marae, Ruatāhuna; Ōpūtao Marae, Ruatāhuna; Papakāinga Marae, Ruatoki; Te Tōtara Marae, Ruatoki. So yes, the commitment is there to support Māori housing aspirations. And I’ll reiterate the point I made in the number of questions that have already been asked: my commitment is there, and I’m happy to meet with them.

Question No. 9—Tourism

9. to the Minister of Tourism: 你好, Mr Speaker, and 大家好 to members in the House. What reports has he seen on the tourism recovery?

谢谢, Mr Speaker. On World Tourism Day, I am happy to report, for the first month since March 2020, the number of overseas arrivals exceeded 100,000 in July, with over 130,000 overseas visitors arriving. I am very optimistic that our tourism recovery is now well under way and the outlook for tourism for the coming summer is promising.

Jamie Strange: Has he seen any reports on increased airline capacity?

Hon STUART NASH: Auckland Airport today announced that United Airlines and American Airlines will resume flights to Auckland in October, adding nearly 14,000 seats, or around 20 percent seat capacity month on month, between New Zealand and North America. Come November, Auckland will have five airlines operating direct flights to eight destinations, making it the most connected Australasian city to North America.

Jamie Strange: What reports, if any, has he seen on Queenstown’s tourism recovery?

Hon STUART NASH: Beautiful Queenstown continues to lead the tourism recovery, buoyed by a strong ski season with winter arrivals this year reaching at least 90 percent of the same period in 2019. I’m pleased that the Government has been able to provide $63.3 million, on top of the wage subsidy and resurgence support payments, to help tourism in the Queenstown region.

Jamie Strange: How is the Government supporting the tourism sector?

Hon STUART NASH: Along with providing significant support to the tourism sector to get through the pandemic, we are now helping the sector recover through a $54 million innovation programme and the draft Tourism Industry Transformation Plan which will transform the tourism sector and strengthen its workforce.

Jamie Strange: What feedback has he seen on New Zealand’s tourism recovery?

Hon STUART NASH: I note Greg Foran, Air New Zealand CEO—just back from Air New Zealand’s new non-stop Auckland to New York service—said he had never been more optimistic about the future. And I quote, “We’re seeing optimism in travel return, not just in bookings but in the joy of getting out to experience the world.” I certainly share Mr Foran’s optimism; we all should.

Question No. 10—Broadcasting and Media

10. to the Minister for Broadcasting and Media: 多谢, Mr Speaker. Does he stand by the Aotearoa New Zealand Public Media Bill?

The Aotearoa New Zealand Public Media Bill seeks to strengthen the delivery of public media services in New Zealand. The media landscape is changing rapidly, both here and internationally, with increased global competition and changing audience behaviours. The legislation supports the Government’s objective to ensure that all New Zealanders can access relevant and trusted public media content across the platforms they use. So the answer is absolutely yes.

Melissa Lee: Is he aware that the combined net worth of TVNZ and Radio New Zealand (RNZ) is less than the $370 million he will spend merging the two entities into Aotearoa New Zealand Public Media (ANZPM); if so, can he explain how spending more to merge those entities than what they are worth is a good use of taxpayers’ money during a cost of living crisis?

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Unfortunately, that member fails to understand what the problem is. The problem is not about the budgets or the numbers; it’s about what’s happening in Aotearoa at the moment. So, yes, we understand all the numbers and the figures, but the most important thing here is that we have a changing landscape in terms of the media. We have people disappearing down rabbit holes. We need to have a trusted public media entity—that’s the absolute priority—that reflects all New Zealanders. People can’t see themselves. They can’t hear themselves. They want to see all New Zealanders and hear from all New Zealanders—Māori, Pasifika, Asian, young people. It’s not just about the dollars.

Melissa Lee: What response does the Minister have to submitters to the select committee who say, and I quote, “The editorial independence guaranteed by the bill is illusionary” and that there is an unacceptable level of ministerial control that transcends anything currently imposed on RNZ and TVNZ?

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: I say those submitters are wrong. My intention is that the Aotearoa New Zealand Public Media should have extremely strong protections in relation to editorial independence. What is in the bill is intended to strengthen the current editorial independence that TVNZ and RNZ have. The Crown entities framework provides a well-tested set of mechanisms to enable entities to be set up at arm’s length from the Government while providing clear, transparent levers to hold those entities accountable for the delivery of their statutory objectives and other responsibilities. What the Opposition don’t understand is that we encourage people and agencies to give feedback. We don’t mind criticism. This nonsense about restricting everyone—say that to Ruth Harley who’s been very clear about some of her views. Say that to Larry Parr from Te Māngai Pāho. Say that to Māori Radio, who cut us no slack. We don’t mind criticism. We’re not all sensitive like that useless lot across on the other side.

Melissa Lee: Does the Minister believe his statement at the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee—and I quote him: “We need them to change their attitude. We need them to understand what we want.” is exactly the sort of interference that submitters have raised concerns about—that the editorial independence guaranteed by the bill is illusionary?

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: That’s a sad statement from the member. I absolutely stand by that comment at the select committee, and what we require is a cultural change. Of course, that’s very hard because 99 percent of the Opposition haven’t got any culture, so they don’t understand what we’re talking about. We’re trying to bring together a commercial entity and a non-commercial entity, and it’s not just about the dollars, dollars, dollars, which is all about what the National Party is saying. The member has chosen to interpret my response to the select committee in a very strange, ugly, and unique way. So I’ll be much clearer to her: I’m working really collaboratively with TVNZ at the moment. I have a great relationship with its chief executive, Simon Power, whose only weakness was that he joined the National Party earlier in his life. TVNZ currently has a commercial focus while the new entity will focus on public media, which will require a shift in terms of their view. Why? Because it’s not just about the dollars, dollars, dollars. It’s about the people. It’s about hearing ourselves. It’s about seeing ourselves. We don’t just want to look at what the National Party has put up. This is about seeing the new Aotearoa, the new New Zealand that the Leader of the Opposition wouldn’t have a clue about.

Naisi Chen: 谢谢, Mr Speaker. How will New Zealand audiences benefit from the creation of the new public media entity?

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: What a wonderful question. [Interruption]—if I could just have a second here. Providing public media services is the prime objective of Aotearoa New Zealand Public Media. This isn’t just about entertainment, as the National Party would have it. Public media is also about news—independent, quality journalism—and for New Zealanders, they need entities they can trust. Our culture will be better reflected, with more accessible content and entertainment, and all New Zealanders—all New Zealanders—will be represented. Our democracy will be better supported through people being able to find trusted news and information and being better informed, and our public media system will be fairer, with a wide range of New Zealanders, including young people, having access to relevant content.

Melissa Lee: 多谢, Mr Speaker. What exactly is the New Zealand taxpayer, during a cost of living crisis, getting for the $370 million the new public media entity will cost, when the money could instead be used to clear the list of patients waiting for cancer medication, with enough left over to address some of the tens of thousands of New Zealanders sitting on the worst surgical wait-list in at least a decade?

SPEAKER: In so far as the Minister has responsibility, he may answer.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Well, we could do a lot of things with a lot of money, couldn’t we? We can’t wait for every social ill to be cured before we invest in our public media. We can’t wait. If you apply that type of rationale, we’ll shut down the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra, we’ll shut down kapa haka, we’ll shut down anything and everything till every social ill is fixed. The reality is we have to get on with life. We have to have a symphony orchestra. We have to have a great public media system. We have to have kapa haka. You have to realise there’s more to life than numbers and dollars, and so don’t pull that sort of rubbish on us.

Damien Smith: Does he agree with the New Zealand Media and Entertainment (NZME) statement on the TVNZ-RNZ merger that they have significant concerns that the establishment of ANZPM would significantly undermine the sustainability and viability of commercial media; and has any opposition voiced to the merger by NZME, Stuff, Sky, or TVNZ led to any reconsideration of the Government’s position on the merger; and does he believe that $109 million in untagged funding for the new public entity is likely, in the words of Stuff, to grossly distort the market; and what responsibility does he think he has, as Minister of broadcasting, to leave a thriving, competitive market?

SPEAKER: Any one of those, and only one.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: I think all the questions are good questions, and I’ve met with Stuff and a number of the entities. They’re fair questions, because there are some worries out there. This entity will survive with collaboration. We need to work in tandem with the different organisations. We may have to work out what is enough, in terms of the commercial dollars. Nobody wants to shut out the smaller players. I think the member asked reasonable questions. Some of those questions will be answered through the select committee process.

Question No. 11—Education (School Operations)

11. to the Associate Minister of Education (School Operations): What action is the Government taking to relieve teaching supply pressures in the primary and secondary schooling sectors?

Last week, I announced an investment to boost teaching supply through targeted recruitment packages. This investment boosts existing and proven programmes designed to rapidly fill projected gaps in the teaching workforce.

Camilla Belich: Why was the investment needed?

Hon JAN TINETTI: A combination of population growth changes, COVID-19, and border openings has indicated future pressures on teaching supply. We’re getting ahead and taking action now. We know that some students have missed crucial time in the classroom throughout the last 2½ years. That’s why we’ve funded additional teaching and tutoring services. We need teachers to deliver these catch-up learning sessions.

Camilla Belich: What initiatives have been further invested in to recruit international teachers?

Hon JAN TINETTI: To boost overseas teacher supply, we are extending two grants: the Overseas Relocation Grant and the Overseas Finders Fees. These grants compensate teachers and employers for the additional costs of emigrating or hiring abroad and make New Zealand more competitive with international counterparts. We’re also streamlining processing times, and fees are being waived for migrant teachers.

Camilla Belich: What initiatives have been further invested in to encourage New Zealanders to enter the teaching profession?

Hon JAN TINETTI: With over 27 years in the profession, I can attest that teaching is a great job. Growing our domestic teaching workforce is critical for our kids’ education, so we’ve increased the number of Career Changer Scholarships, funded an additional 100 places in school-embedded Initial Teacher Education, and expanded the Beginning Teacher Vacancy Scheme.

Camilla Belich: How many teachers are projected to be recruited due to these initiatives?

Hon JAN TINETTI: By investing a further $24 million in these initiatives, we plan to deliver close to a thousand additional teachers. We expect to recruit approximately 700 internationally and 300 domestically. While international teachers bring a wealth of cultural diversity and experience to our schools, it’s also important that we’re building our pipeline of Kiwi teachers at the same time.

Question No. 12—Immigration

12. to the Minister of Immigration: Has he seen BusinessNZ’s 2022 survey that found that 87 percent of respondents said that it was either “difficult” or “very difficult” to fill job vacancies and 63 percent attributed their difficulties to immigration restrictions, and is he confident that the Government’s immigration work visa policies are fit for purpose?

Yes, I have seen reports from that particular survey, and some of the results are not entirely surprising, given that questions asked employers to reflect back on the conditions over the past one year. So, obviously, over a large part of that period, New Zealand’s borders have been closed to protect the country from COVID-19. Over much of that period, of course, we have also experienced record low unemployment. None the less, our border was fully open from 31 July and we’re getting on with the job of making sure that our immigration sector does support the need for skills across the New Zealand labour force. Since the accredited employer work visa (AEWV) system opened around that time, we’ve accredited over 12,000 employers, processed over 55,000 job checks, and approved nearly 5,000 visa applications. Under the residents visa 2021 programme, we have now provided residency to over 100,000 migrant workers, including 11,000 construction workers and 3,700 health workers. We’ve also approved 30,000 working holiday visas. We know that global labour shortages have created a challenging climate for international hiring, but I’m confident that the work that the Government is doing to rebalance our immigration system is helping to address skill shortages while also clamping down on migrant exploitation and making sure that workers do have fair wages and conditions.

Dr James McDowall: How does his answer to my primary question alleviate employers’ fears over chronic workforce shortages, given that top CEOs and directors responding to BusinessNZ’s 2022 survey ranked the Government’s immigration policy as one of their top concerns?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD: What we can do in respect of this is talk to the facts, some of which I outlined in my answer to the primary question, which is that the Government has now, through the job check stage of the accredited employer work visa, given employers’ permission—this is since July—to recruit more than 55,000 migrant workers. That actually is an indication of a system which is highly facilitative. Our system, under the accredited employer work visa, effectively requires two big things for employers to be able to recruit. One is that they are accredited employers, which means that there is not a record of migrant labour exploitation or abuses of workers’ rights, and I’m sure that is something that all members of the House would support; and, secondly, that there is a two-week period of advertising for a job in New Zealand to ensure that there is a New Zealander not available to do the work. Subject to those conditions and subject to paying the median wage, those employers, in large numbers, are being given the ability to recruit internationally.

Dr James McDowall: How are the accredited employer work visa and the working holiday schemes fit for purpose, with Queenstown Mayor Jim Boult stating that “The number of people on work visas dropped from 3000 to about 1000.”, in an article that also stated that immigration policy is “frustrating efforts to get overseas workers”?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD: Without reference to the time period that Mayor Boult was speaking about in that respect, I can confirm that there have been 30,000 approvals provided by Immigration New Zealand for working holiday visas. In fact, recently I made announcements which doubled the number of working holiday visa places for countries with capped schemes, which received a very strong and positive response from the tourism and hospitality sectors.

Dr James McDowall: What does he say to a business owner with four restaurants in Auckland who can only operate one at a time and at reduced hours because, like many others, he can’t get enough chefs in under the accredited employer work visa scheme unless he is granted an exception to policy on a case by case basis?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD: The member’s question is not entirely clear. Employers through the accredited employer work visa scheme are able to recruit people into those roles without a particular exception, so there may be a particular situation with that employer that the member is aware of that I am not. But I can confirm that, in that category, employers are able to recruit through the accredited work visa scheme. But what this Government does say is that through the AEWV, we are turning away from the era in which our immigration system was simply used as a mechanism to bring in as much low-wage labour as possible into the country. We do put in place a median wage requirement and I’m confident that increasingly employers are making those investments to make sure that we support our workforces.

Dr Shane Reti: Of the 3,700 health workers he just described, how many were registered nurses or midwives?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD: That is a question which I would be happy to answer if the member was willing to either put in a primary or send that information to me, I will be able to get that for him. But a relatively large number of nurses have now been approved under the accredited employer work visa scheme. The last time I checked, 301 registered nurses had been approved, and the month of August, in fact, saw the highest number of nurses given approval to enter New Zealand across both the critical purpose visa and the accredited employer work visa schemes of any month this year, which shows that we are making significant progress in this area.

Dr James McDowall: Why should businesses have confidence in the Minister of Immigration, given comments such as those by Simon Watson, New Zealand Hot House managing director, who stated in the media: “We need to free up the immigration pathways. Wellington seem to not be listening, not understanding, and clearly don’t care anymore.”?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD: Well, in amongst legitimate public discourse about the immigration system, it would be useful from Opposition politicians for them to be a little bit more specific about what they actually mean by freeing up the system. Because as I have just outlined, the Government has, in respect of working holiday visas, doubled—increased by 12,000—the numbers of working holiday visa workers being able to come into New Zealand. The accredited employer work visa scheme is a simple and facilitative scheme which has given permission to recruit 55,000 workers since about July. What we know is that the other side of the House, through their policy, wants us to take away any requirements to pay those workers a decent rate for their wages. And that is something that we do not agree with on this side of the House.