Oral Questions

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

on behalf of the Prime Minister: On behalf of the Prime Minister, yes, and especially this week.

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: Why is it her Government’s policy to allow foreign investors to buy large tracts of land in New Zealand?

That is not the case, which was the—

💬 Hon Louise Upston: Unfettered—unfettered.

That was not the case. Let me finish, because, in this case, we are informed, unlike that member over there, shouting out before the answer has even reached four words. The reality of the matter is that unlike the previous administration, which had no controls at all, we specifically relate this to investors in forestry where there is added value in the growth of exports and jobs in this country.

💬 SPEAKER: Before we have the next supplementary, I don’t know if there’s something infectious about the seat that Mr Ball is sitting in, but if he could turn his volume down, please.

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: Did her Ministers not grant a standing consent to Pan Pac Forest Products to make up to 25 transactions covering 20,000 hectares of land in the next three years?

Yes, but you’ll remember that the National Party gave numerous consents when they were in office to Pan Pac, including allowing their owner, Oji Oceania, to buy Carter Holt Harvey in 2014 for $1 billion.

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: Is the Prime Minister aware of Winston Peters’ statement from 2017: “Last year, 465,000 hectares of land was sold to foreigners. We in New Zealand First are going to stop land sales to foreigners.”?

In this case, we have stopped the sales of 440,000.

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: Why is it OK for foreign investors to buy farmland to convert to forestry but not OK for foreigners to buy farmland to farm or to convert to horticulture or vineyards?

On behalf of the Prime Minister, again that is fake news and scaremongering. There’s been no such undertaking, but there is some marginal land in this country that would be more appropriate in forestry. The National Party used to know that in the old days; why don’t they know that today? But here’s the point: 460,000 hectares was the sale that was happening under their Government and now, just because of a 20,000-hectare thing, he’s complaining.

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: Is he saying that forestry is the only industry that can benefit from foreign investment?

Again, on behalf of the Prime Minister, of course we wouldn’t make such an absurd suggestion.

💬 Hon Dr David Clark: Is the Prime Minister aware that this consent will support hundreds of jobs, including in the high-value forestry area and that—no, that’s enough, actually; is the Prime Minister aware of that excellent job support that will come from this initiative?

On behalf of the Prime Minister, I want to thank that member for putting his finger on the reason why this is a wise decision. But, more importantly, this is a company that’s in this country for the long haul; not here today and gone tomorrow on a policy of speculation.

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: Why was her Minister’s decision to pre-approve purchases of up to 25,000 hectares of land by Pan Pac kept secret until after last weekend, the weekend of New Zealand First’s annual conference?

On behalf of the Prime Minister, whilst it is true that New Zealand First is a very compelling force in the politics of this country, that is somewhat inflating their importance.

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: What advice has she received on the consequences for rural communities and jobs if farms are converted to forestry on a large scale?

On behalf of the Prime Minister, the scaremongering done by 50 Shades of Green is just scaremongering. The reality is that we need a combination of rural employment and rural enterprise and rural exports, and this is a very sound investment on behalf of forestry in this country—added value, exports, and hundreds and hundreds and thousands of jobs.

💬 Hon Michael Woodhouse: Where was the answer?

💬 SPEAKER: Well, the question was “What advice?”, I think there was a hell of a lot of advice just—

💬 Hon Member: Repeated.

💬 SPEAKER: —repeated. It didn’t say “From whom was advice received?” If the member wants a specific answer he should ask a specific question.

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: Regarding her statement yesterday that the DHL export barometer showed some 50 percent of Kiwi exporters experienced an increase in exports over the past year, why, then, does she think growth is still running at 0.5 percent per person?

On behalf of the Prime Minister, this has been enormously illuminating—that all of a sudden, one political editor in this country has discovered income per capita. For the nine years they were there, it was a foreign country, but all of a sudden it’s their only defence because they know when it comes to GDP growth this country is a world leader, not matched by the USA, not matched by Australia, Japan, the whole of the EU, but we are way up in front as the IMF recently reported, and that’s why our opponents have resorted to a different measurement—because they can’t win on the former measurement.

Question No. 2—Economic Development

2. to the Minister for Economic Development: What new rules and guidelines has he announced to help protect construction companies and their workers?

Along with the building and construction Minister, the Hon Jenny Salesa, I announced this month that new Government procurement rules and guidelines have now come into force. These are aimed at helping to keep construction companies afloat by promoting better practices when awarding multimillion-dollar construction contracts. The new rules move away from the lowest price model, that causes a race to the bottom and hurts the industry, to a broader outcome model which has to take into account the financial health of the construction company, the health and safety of its workers, and the environmental health of the building.

💬 Dr Duncan Webb: How will the new rules require Government agencies to change their procurement practices?

💬 Hon PHIL TWYFORD: The new rules require that Government departments move away from least-cost procurement, and choose contracts that offer the best public value—including these broader outcomes—over the whole life of the goods, services, or works. These broader outcomes explicitly include investments in trade training and improving the conditions of workers.

💬 Dr Duncan Webb: Why are these new rules and guidelines so important?

💬 Hon PHIL TWYFORD: The reason is that the new guidelines help address some of the key concerns raised through the Construction Sector Accord, recently negotiated between the Government, industry, and unions. We’re helping boost the resilience of construction companies by being more transparent in contracting about what risks exist in a project and who is liable for managing them. This allows for fairer pricing, fairer margins, and less likelihood of unexpected financial shocks. It considers the whole life of value to the public of the construction project, not just the upfront costs. This industry produces around 7 percent of our GDP, it has more than 62,000 firms, more than 242,000 workers, and we know that we have to step up.

💬 Dr Duncan Webb: What reaction has there been to the new rules and guidelines?

💬 Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Well, there have been many in the industry who have been very supportive of this move by the Government to tackle what is a long-term challenge for New Zealand. Nick Collins, the chief executive of Metals New Zealand, said that the “building and construction sector will gain much-needed stimulus and support in building a skilled workforce”. The New Zealand Institute of Building chief executive, Malcolm Fleming, said the rules were a “positive signal from the Government”. And David Kelly of Master Builders said the new guidelines had “the potential to significantly improve the quality and consistency of how Government construction projects are delivered”.

Question No. 3—Social Development

3. to the Minister for Social Development: Is she satisfied with the high-level trends published in the September 2019 Ministry of Social Development fact sheets?

All figures need to be considered in context. I am satisfied that exits into employment are up 13.3 percent, the percentage of the working-age population on a main benefit is lower than it was five years ago under the previous Government, our unemployment rate of 3.9 percent is at its lowest in over a decade, NEET rates and youth payment and young parent payment are continuing to decrease, we are investing in upskilling and training people, expanding our public housing supply, and bolstering our work-focused, front-line staff to help more people into long-term employment. Is there more to do? Yes, of course there is, but I am confident that our Government is on the right track.

💬 Hon Louise Upston: How many more Māori and how many more Pacific people are on the jobseeker support benefit, compared to when this Government took office?

💬 Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: I don’t have the exact figure in front of me, but what we do know is that those young people not in education, employment, and training—including Māori and Pacific—have reduced under this Government.

💬 Hon Louise Upston: Would she consider incorporating the policies of the previous Government when developing her Pacific people’s strategy, given that in the last three years of the National Government there was a reduction in the number of Pacific people on jobseeker support?

💬 Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: There’s very little from the previous Government that I would think of adopting on this side of the House. We do need to keep in mind that following the big welfare reforms that were adopted and implemented by the previous Government, what we actually saw was this massive churn—within 18 months of people going off the benefit, they were back on it. We are much more aspirational for New Zealanders than what they were.

💬 Hon Louise Upston: Is it aspirational to accept that 40 percent of people on the dole are Māori, and that this is the highest proportion in over five years?

💬 Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: The reality is that for far too long Māori have been disproportionately underserved by the welfare system. We have implemented a very robust strategy with respect to how the Ministry of Social Development works with, and for, Māori. There is long-term work that needs to go on in this space; we are on the right track, and I am confident about that.

💬 Hon Louise Upston: How does she explain that the number of Māori on the dole increased at twice the rate of New Zealand Europeans, and Pacific people increased at three times the rate?

💬 Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: The member is being disingenuous, because, actually, the outcomes with respect to employment, the way in which the welfare system worked or didn’t work for Māori, under the previous Government was no better, and I think that the member needs to acknowledge that. I will acknowledge that at the moment, I think the number of New Zealanders on main benefit is just under 300,000. I think, at their peak, it was about 350-something thousand.

💬 Hon Louise Upston: Does she stand by her statement in this House that, and I quote, “If Māori and Pacific are better off, so is New Zealand.”, and does it follow that where Māori and Pacific are worse off on the dole, so is New Zealand?

💬 Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: What I stand by is the fact that, as a Government, we are focused on making sure that all New Zealanders have access to long-term, meaningful, and sustainable employment. We’re not taking the approach that the previous Government took, which was to just kick people off benefit with no regard for the fact that a large proportion were back on within 18 months. We know that moving forward as a country, we need to make sure that New Zealanders are equipped with the skills to be able to take up the work that is here now and the work that will be here in the future, which is why we are putting such an investment into upskilling and training through programmes like Mana in Mahi. We have a real vision for New Zealand and New Zealanders. It’s a pity that for nine years there was none under that side.

💬 Hon Louise Upston: Why is she not doing more to get Mr Jones’ nephs off the couch?

💬 Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: I don’t personally know Mr Jones’ nephs that are on the couch, but what I do know is that the vast majority of young people in New Zealand want to work and need a Government that have faith in them. So, unlike the previous Government—and can I refer to the Prime Minister of the time—we will not be giving up on young people. We will not be making speeches at public events where we say that young people are “pretty damned hopeless”. We are investing in upskilling and training in all of the ways I’ve discussed in the House. We will continue to do that, and I am unapologetic for that investment and that focus.

Question No. 4—Transport

4. to the Minister of Transport: What criteria, if any, will Cabinet use to decide between the two competing approaches for Auckland light rail, and will it still make the decision in February 2020?

Cabinet will decide which of these two approaches it prefers, and, of course, value for money will be central to that decision. The Government has also agreed the following objectives for the project: improved access to employment, education, and other opportunities through enhancing Auckland’s Rapid Transit Network and integration with Auckland’s current and future transport networks; optimised environmental quality and embedded sustainable practices; enabling of quality integrated urban communities, especially around Māngere, Onehunga, and Mount Roskill; and a high-quality service that is attractive to users with high levels of patronage. As noted in the proactively released Cabinet paper, I will report back to Cabinet in February 2020 with the findings of the parallel process with a view to Cabinet then taking decisions on its preferred delivery model.

💬 Chris Bishop: Do both the NZ Infra and New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) proposals for light rail involve a direct service to Auckland Airport?

💬 Hon PHIL TWYFORD: That is certainly the intent of the process that’s been set out, but the parallel process is under way, and I haven’t as yet been briefed on the plans that they’re developing.

💬 Chris Bishop: Will light rail, as proposed by NZ Infra’s approach, be able to carry 11,000 commuters per hour, the equivalent of four lanes of motorway, which is one of the claims he has repeatedly said about light rail?

💬 Hon PHIL TWYFORD: The details of both approaches that are being developed are being developed, and that process is under way, so it would be premature to comment.

💬 Chris Bishop: So why, when he spoke to the Building Nations Symposium in Rotorua in August to announce that there would be a parallel process involving the NZTA proposal and the NZ Infra proposal, did he say that light rail will be able to carry 11,000 commuters per hour?

💬 Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Because light rail rapid transit, whether it’s a streetcar model or a metro-style model, is generally capable of carrying 11,000 people per hour, which is the equivalent of four lanes of motorway, but it has the added advantage of being able to carry large numbers of people through some of the most built up parts of our urban centres.

💬 Chris Bishop: Is it correct, as the then chair of the New Zealand Transport Agency board has said, “The market has advised NZTA that the current approach is seriously impacting the integrity of the New Zealand procurement process.”; if so, how?

💬 Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Sorry, could the member repeat the exact phrasing of the question?

💬 Chris Bishop: Is it correct, as the then chair of the New Zealand Transport Agency board says, “The market has advised NZTA that the current approach is seriously impacting the integrity of the New Zealand procurement process.”; if so, how?

💬 Hon PHIL TWYFORD: No.

💬 Chris Bishop: Is it correct that the NZ Infra proposal has the potential to compromise the market’s confidence in Government infrastructure procurement, derail the Government’s housing initiatives, and—

💬 SPEAKER: That’s two. The member’s had two questions.

💬 Chris Bishop: It’s a quote, Mr Speaker.

💬 SPEAKER: Well, no. You said, “Is it possible” and then you—

💬 Chris Bishop: I said “Is it correct”. Do you want me to—

💬 SPEAKER: Or, “Is it correct.” So—[Interruption] The member can have another supplementary if he wants to try again or the Minister can answer the question, which was completed.

💬 Chris Bishop: I’ll use the supplementary. Is it correct, as the then chair of the New Zealand Transport Agency board wrote in an email to fellow board members, “The NZ Infra proposal has the potential to compromise the market’s confidence in Government infrastructure procurement, derail the Government’s housing initiatives, and invalidate the Puhinui connection.”; if not, why not?

💬 SPEAKER: No. The Minister can answer any one of the four questions.

💬 Hon PHIL TWYFORD: No. None of those assertions are correct, and I would note for the member that the private sector infrastructure community often asks that we be willing to entertain innovative financing and funding and procurement approaches. Our willingness to seriously consider the NZ Infra unsolicited proposal and an open-ended engagement with the infrastructure community around other ways of financing and funding and delivering this project is evidence of our commitment to doing precisely that: a commitment to be ambitious about infrastructure and open to innovative new approaches.

💬 SPEAKER: Just to make it clear, because I saw some glances from members opposite when I interjected just before the Minister answered, if someone’s asked a question, even including a quote, which says “is it correct” and within the quote has three different issues—if the Minister can answer “yes, no, yes” or “yes, yes, no” or “no, yes, yes”, that is three.

💬 Hon Michael Woodhouse: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

💬 SPEAKER: That is an ongoing matter. There have been previous rulings on that area and—

💬 Hon Michael Woodhouse: Mr Speaker, there was only one question, and that is: is the quote correct? Now, the—

💬 SPEAKER: No, no. It’s not the question “is the quote correct?”; it’s “is what’s within the quotation correct?”. The Minister can’t be responsible for whether it is an accurate quotation.

💬 Hon Michael Woodhouse: Speaking to that point, that may be the case, but the question itself was not out of order and the only point I’m making is that there was only one question. He could have disagreed with any part of the quote and that would have been a satisfactory answer. But it gets quite difficult, accepting the point you’re making about multiple issues, when actually the question goes to the heart of the quote, not the number of things that are inside it.

💬 SPEAKER: And the point that I made to the Minister was because there were three issues inside the quote, and I think there was a tail on the quote, an “if not, why not?” or some extra thing. That is, effectively, four and a satisfactory answer can be to any one of them.

Question No. 5—Health

5. to the Minister of Health: What progress is being made rolling out the National Bowel Screening Programme?

More good news: this week, Whanganui DHB became the ninth DHB to join the National Bowel Screening Programme. Over the next two years, 12,000 people in the Whanganui region aged 60 to 74 years will be invited to take part in bowel screening. It’s expected that about 25 cases of bowel cancer will be found, and it’s very likely that these will be found early enough to ensure the treatment these people receive is as effective as possible. People who are diagnosed with early-stage bowel cancer and who receive treatment early have a 90 percent chance of long-term survival.

💬 Angie Warren-Clark: How has the bowel screening programme improved the wellbeing of New Zealanders?

💬 Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: Since it started just a couple of years ago, the National Bowel Screening Programme has screened around 180,000 people. It has detected nearly 400 cancers, and it has led to the removal of hundreds of pre-cancerous polyps. As I said a few moments ago, Whanganui is the ninth DHB to join the National Bowel Screening Programme. MidCentral DHB is expected to join the programme next month, which will mean 10 out of the country’s 20 DHBs will be offering free bowel screening to just under half the total eligible population. The nationwide roll-out of the National Bowel Screening Programme is expected to be completed in 2021.

💬 Angie Warren-Clark: How does the National Bowel Screening Programme fit with the Government’s wider plan for improving New Zealanders’ health?

💬 Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: Prevention and early detection of cancer through screening programmes is an important part of the Government’s comprehensive Cancer Action Plan, announced last month. At the same time, we’ve funded more cancer medicines and we’re purchasing 12 new linear accelerators, which deliver radiation treatment. Importantly, the Cancer Action Plan delivers on our promise to re-establish a cancer control agency. The agency will provide the strong national leadership and coordination of the cancer care sector, which was lost when the previous Government canned—

💬 SPEAKER: Order! That’s—

💬 Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: —Cancer Control New Zealand.

💬 SPEAKER: Order! The member will resume his seat.

💬 Hon Michael Woodhouse: Can he give the people of Whanganui an assurance that there will be sufficient resources to follow up on those screenings, given that the general surgery department is already overstretched and the DHB itself is in significant financial stress?

💬 Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: The Government did inherit a number of long-term challenges in health, which the previous Government failed to address. One of the biggest, which the member highlights, is a shortage of key health professionals. That resulted from the previous Government’s failure to fund the health sector properly. This Government is rebuilding our health services by funding DHBs better and giving them the means to better train, retain, and recruit key staff. We can’t undo nine years of neglect in one or two Budgets, but we’re getting on with it and we’re making good progress.

💬 Hon Michael Woodhouse: That being the case, why are things getting worse on his watch, not better?

💬 Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: They’re not.

Question No. 6—Land Information

6. to the Minister for Land Information: Does she stand by all her statements and actions?

Yes, in the context in which they were made and taken.

💬 Hon David Bennett: With the special approval to Japanese-owned Pan Pac Forest Products to purchase up to 20,000 hectares of New Zealand land for forestry, what restrictions did the Minister place on the lands that could be purchased?

💬 Hon EUGENIE SAGE: This is a standing consent under the special forestry pathway. It’s not envisaged that many of these will be used. The application was about securing long-term wood supply, and it is expected that the applicant will use this to purchase land which is already in forestry. As a standing consent, it has a very different test from the substantial and identifiable benefit test which applies to rural farmland.

💬 Hon David Bennett: Has the Minister retained the power to ensure that the right trees are planted in the right place?

💬 Hon EUGENIE SAGE: No, but this Government has invested substantially in the enforcement activities of the Overseas Investment Office, so I expect that the office will ensure that the conditions of the consent are abided by, and the office has—in some instances, where it’s taken enforcement action, the land has had to be sold.

💬 Hon David Bennett: What independent evidence did the Minister use in making this decision that Pan Pac couldn’t purchase logs from New Zealand - owned forestry blocks?

💬 Hon EUGENIE SAGE: The application was about securing wood supply. Nearly 29,000 of Pan Pac’s existing areas are Crown forest licences. Those are passing to iwi. It needs to secure its wood supply to secure 800 jobs in the regions—in Hawke’s Bay and in Otago. It is a longstanding investor in New Zealand. It has a good track record. It is our leading exporter of quality timber.

💬 Hon David Bennett: Can Pan Pac use the trees planted on these properties for purposes other than supplying its New Zealand factories?

💬 Hon EUGENIE SAGE: It can use them to provide for its operations in New Zealand, yes.

💬 Hon David Bennett: Well, then isn’t this a de facto way around the overseas investment rules for Pan Pac if it can purchase land for forestry use without needing to use that for its factories?

💬 Hon EUGENIE SAGE: The standing forestry test is about implementing this Government’s commitment to have a thriving forestry industry, to protect our climate through sequestering carbon, and to provide jobs in the regions. It’s about a thriving forestry sector and that is what this application will help achieve.

Question No. 7—Energy and Resources

7. to the Minister of Energy and Resources: Does she think New Zealand households and companies will be paying lower electricity prices in a year’s time?

The price they pay will depend on a range of factors. These factors include the amount they use, retail overheads, distribution costs, the wholesale market, transmission charges, and any other contractual terms that may apply. However, I am aware of two trends putting downward pressure on prices. We are seeing $650 million being invested in new renewable generation over the coming year, which means lower prices for New Zealanders over the long term because these have the lowest levelised cost. The Government has also started implementing the recommendations of the Electricity Price Review, which Consumer New Zealand has said could save low-income consumers $40 a month off their power bills. I am pleased to report, in the months since the interim report was released, $5 million has already been returned to the pockets of consumers.

💬 Jonathan Young: Does she think that household electricity prices can drop over the next year given the wholesale price, as she mentioned as a component of every household bill, has been, on average, 60 percent higher every day for the first nine months of this year compared to last?

💬 Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: I’d like to remind that member again that there is no reason to think that higher wholesale rates will necessarily flow through to retail rates. I remind that member again that it didn’t in 2017 when we saw prices in the $300 range per megawatt hour. I’d also like to tell that member that I am confident that we will see price drops, because as I told him in the answer to the primary, we have already seen $5 million flow back into the pockets of consumers, and the Electricity Price Review said that if all companies do away with their late payment fees, we could see $45 million flow back into the pockets of consumers.

💬 Jonathan Young: Considering, in her response, that that peak she mentioned in 2017 was for one day only, what is her response to Energy Link director Greg Sise’s comment that there is a general realisation that gas market dynamics have changed for good and the price of gas is a big driver of the price of electricity on average, so higher prices for electricity look more likely to stay for a good while longer?

💬 Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: Because he is not the only commentator out there, and there are multiple commentators that are saying that a renewable future actually is the way in which consumers will see the lowest cost of electricity.

💬 Jonathan Young: What does she say to another commentator, John Kidd of Enerlytica, who said, “Compared to two years ago, year-to-date wholesale electricity and gas prices are each 70 percent higher … While the Government has dismissed this as a short-term aberration, we are much more cautious.”?

💬 Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: What I say is that John Kidd is also saying that the right signals are being sent around the time to invest in renewable energy. That’s why I am thrilled to see that we’ve had $650 million worth of investment in renewable energy projects this year, which had the lowest levelised cost of electricity, which will return for consumers in the long run.

💬 Jonathan Young: Does she continue to deny that the gas market dynamics driven by her Government’s policies are impacting the long-term wholesale prices and that this is starting to impact the decision making of companies like the owners of Tīwai Point Aluminium Smelter?

💬 Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: That member is drawing a ridiculously long bow. If he was to listen to any of the commentary of what the smelter are saying, they are not talking about their contracted price that they have with Meridian, because, of course, they are protected by volatility in the wholesale market through their long-term contracts with Meridian. What they are talking about, in terms of their electricity pricing, is, of course, transmission.

Question No. 8—Youth

8. to the Minister for Youth: He aha ngā mahi kua mahia e Te Minita ināia tata ake nei kia tautoko i te oranga o te hunga rangatahi Māori? What actions, if any, has he recently taken to support rangatahi Māori wellbeing?

On Monday, I travelled to Ōtautahi to launch the RUIA Fund, which is a collaboration between Te Pūtahitanga o Te Waipounamu, the Rātā Foundation, Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu, and the Ministry of Youth Development. These partners have established a contestable fund with a little over $360,000 to support initiatives that will improve wellbeing outcomes for rangatahi Māori and Te Waipounamu.

💬 Tamati Coffey: He aha te whakahirahiratanga o tēnei rangapū? What’s the significance of this partnership?

💬 Hon PEENI HENARE: The partnership between iwi, a Whānau Ora commissioning agency, a philanthropic organisation, and Government showcases what can be done for young people through having a shared vision and alignment of strategic priorities and funding. The RUIA Fund is a great example of how we can come together to support rangatahi Māori wellbeing, leadership, and cultural development.

💬 Tamati Coffey: Whakamutunga. E pēhea ai te pūtea nei e whakapiki i te oranga mō te hunga rangatahi Māori ki Te Wai Pounamu? How will this funding improve the wellbeing of rangatahi Māori in the South Island?

💬 Hon PEENI HENARE: This fund will be led and designed by Māori youth. Ngāi Tahu rangatahi have identified principles that will guide RUIA investment and grant-making decisions to include wellbeing, identity, leadership, learning, innovation, and sustainability. The RUIA Fund will ensure it reflects rangatahi aspirations and provides rangatahi with new opportunities and initiatives that otherwise may not be available to them due to circumstance or geographic isolation.

💬 Hon Michael Woodhouse: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I didn’t want to interrupt the line of questioning—it was very good—but I wonder if you could explain to the House why it was necessary for the member to translate his own question, given the very good translation service we have.

💬 SPEAKER: It is a fair point. There is an interpretation service which is available to members. I think the member was trying to be helpful and quick, although, of course, for the Minister answering the question, it probably wasn’t necessary to have the interpretation before the Minister answered. I think in future it is better just to ask the question in one language. Thank you.

Question No. 9—Immigration

9. to the Minister of Immigration: Does he stand by all his Government’s policies and statements on immigration?

on behalf of the Minister of Immigration: On behalf of the Minister, I stand by all the policies and statements I have responsibility for.

💬 Stuart Smith: Does he agree with his fellow Cabinet Minister Shane Jones when he said, “I would just say to the activists from the Indian community, tame down your rhetoric, you have no legitimate expectations in my view to bring your whole village to New Zealand”, and, if so, why?

On behalf of the Minister, I have no ministerial responsibility for the Hon Shane Jones. However, I would note that New Zealand welcomes people from all countries. We have a rules-based immigration system and a great country to live in. That means that we can’t take all the people who want to come to New Zealand.

💬 Stuart Smith: Does he agree, then, with his fellow Cabinet Minister Shane Jones’ comments to the Indian community upset at Immigration New Zealand (INZ) not recognising their arranged marriages, when he said, “if you don’t like it and you’re threatening to go home—catch the next flight home.”?

On behalf of the Minister, again, I do not have responsibility for the Hon Shane Jones, but what I do want to say is that we do recognise that partnership visas are important, because we recognise their importance to people’s partners and to their wellbeing and to their happiness and settlement. Immigration is a rules-based system, and these rules need to be applied fully and transparently.

💬 Stuart Smith: Does the Minister believe it is fair for New Zealand citizens and permanent residents in non-resident Indian marriages to leave New Zealand in order to be with their partners who are unable to get a partnership visa as they don’t meet the living together requirement?

On behalf of the Minister, I want to reiterate what I have just said. We have partnership visas because we recognise the importance of people’s partners to their wellbeing, happiness, and settlement, but immigration is a rules-based system and these rules need to be applied fairly and transparently.

💬 Stuart Smith: Does the Minister believe that people in non-resident Indian marriages that are genuine and stable should be given the opportunity to meet the living together requirement in New Zealand through the issuing of a temporary visitor visa?

On behalf of the Minister, there are options for visas for people to apply. I encourage the member, should he have constituents who are looking to make those applications, to apply directly to Immigration New Zealand. These are matters for the Immigration New Zealand operational system.

💬 Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi: Does the Minister agree with INZ’s national visa manager, Peter Elms’ comment that Immigration New Zealand is mindful of “cultural complexities and sensitivities” with regard to applying criteria to the partnership visa; if so, why?

On behalf of the Minister, I do agree with that statement. I would like to also reinforce that there has been no change in policy in terms of Government policy for partnership visas. There has been an application to ensure that the operational requirements of this policy are being met.

Question No. 10—Health

10. to the Associate Minister of Health: Why did she tell Newshub that she was about to introduce vaping legislation that will “ban most flavours”, and when will she introduce that legislation?

Currently, vaping products and e-cigarettes are entirely unregulated here. Our communities, including parents, schools, and principals, have expressed concern that these nicotine products are being marketed directly and sold to our children and young people. Cabinet has previously agreed on amendments to the Smoke-free Environments Act 1990 that strike a balance between adults who want to stop smoking while ensuring that they aren’t marketed and sold to our children. This includes the ability to restrict flavours that attract children and young people to vaping. We’re working through some final minor and technical issues. However, it is still my intention to introduce this bill to the House shortly.

💬 David Seymour: Had she listened to those parents, teachers, and principals when she said, on 9 June this year, “Some people worry that vaping might be a ‘gateway’ to smoking for young people, but there is no clear evidence for this.”?

💬 Hon JENNY SALESA: We know from evidence that vaping is very effective, especially for adult smokers to switch from smoking to non-smoking. The evidence is still being gathered at the moment for whether or not it is a gateway for young people, but the issue that we have is vaping is not regulated in our country. Right now, the smoking rate for our young people has really, really reduced, to just under 2 percent. It is our intention to ensure that we regulate vaping but also that we ensure that our young people are not attracted to vaping if they are not attracted to smoking. We do not want our country to be smoke-free; we also want to ensure that it is vape-free.

💬 David Seymour: So is the Minister saying that youth smoking rates are at a record low, there is no evidence that vaping is a gateway to smoking, and yet she wants to regulate vaping—effectively, putting tobacco back on a level playing field with it?

💬 SPEAKER: Order! Order! Far too long, and the member can count.

💬 Hon JENNY SALESA: Prohibiting vaping in smoke-free areas is a precautionary measure that has already been agreed to by Cabinet. Increasing visibility of vaping is something that we think would help normalise it. We want to ensure that our young people, especially those who are now not smoking any more, do not actually take up vaping instead. We know that nicotine is in vaping. It is an addictive substance. One of the reasons why we’re introducing regulation to ensure we regulate vaping is to ensure that too many of our young people do not take up this new habit.

💬 Hon Michael Woodhouse: Will she take up the offer of the Leader of the Opposition to work across bipartisan lines in order to get robust regulations in place for vaping, and, if so, when?

💬 Hon JENNY SALESA: Yes, absolutely, and I thank the Leader of the Opposition, as well as the National Party, for wanting to work in a partnership way with this side of the House, and we will be introducing this legislation soon to the House. At the point that we introduce the legislation and prior to the select committee, we will be in a position to then work with the Opposition.

Question No. 11—Climate Change

11. to the Minister for Climate Change: What is the Government doing on climate action?

Today I have introduced the Climate Change Response (Emissions Trading Reform) Amendment Bill into the House, which will finally make the emissions trading scheme do what it is supposed to do and drive the transition to a low-emissions economy. Also today, the leaders of New Zealand’s farmers’ organisations have committed the sector as a whole to a concerted effort to cut climate pollution over the years to come. We will be working with farmers in the coming years to move them towards a farm-level pricing scheme that reduces emissions, keeping us below 1.5 degrees of global warming. For too long, politicians have passed the buck and caused uncertainty for everyone, while the need for climate action was clear. We are proud to take on this long-term challenge together with farmers ready to go, and New Zealanders right behind them, to keep our planet safe for future generations.

Chlöe Swarbrick: So what is the Minister’s message [Interruption] to the more than 150—

💬 SPEAKER: Order! Maureen Pugh, please be quiet.

Chlöe Swarbrick: So what is the Minister’s message to the more than 150,000 New Zealanders who recently took to the streets asking this Government to do more to protect the climate?

💬 Hon JAMES SHAW: Well, my message is that this Government has stopped issuing offshore oil and gas exploration permits, supporting New Zealanders to use less fossil fuels and more renewables. We are investing billions of dollars in clean transport infrastructure, and now we are committing all sections of our economy to fair emissions pricing to drive down emissions. Today’s announcement is a world first—pricing agricultural emissions. Robust emissions pricing is the start of an enduring framework for meeting the challenge of climate change, but we know that other tools are important as well and that more needs to be done.

Chlöe Swarbrick: So how will the Climate Change Response (Emissions Trading Reform) Amendment Bill, introduced today, align with the Climate Change Response (Zero Carbon) Amendment Bill just reported back from select committee?

💬 Hon JAMES SHAW: I know that most of the headlines today are on agricultural emissions pricing, but members of this House may be interested to know that the bill introduced today will also achieve other significant changes in the emissions trading scheme so that it actually does what it is supposed to do and bring down emissions. For example, it will enable the Government to align the total allowable number of units in the emissions trading scheme with the five-year emissions budgets under the zero carbon bill. This is an important fix to the emissions trading scheme, because until now we’ve had a cap-and-trade system with no cap. We’re introducing a cap which will reduce over time, driving down our country’s impact on the climate from energy and transport emissions in particular.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Will free allocation of emissions trading units to major polluters be phased down?

💬 Hon JAMES SHAW: Yes it will, starting a process that was due to begin, I think, originally, in 2011. It is important that we tackle emissions—particularly in the industrial heat and transport sectors, where carbon emissions are growing at the fastest rate. The phase down of free allocation will happen in a measured and predictable way that allows businesses to plan and make investment decisions that will reduce their emissions. All sectors of our economy will pay a fair price for their emissions, and, of course, they can reduce this by reducing their emissions.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Will, and, if so, how does, the bill make up for dodgy emissions trading practices in the past?

💬 Hon JAMES SHAW: The bill creates the power for the Government to cancel fraudulent Kyoto units—those so-called hot air credits purchased under previous Governments from dubious Eastern European sources that didn’t actually relate to any real emissions reductions. We’re serious about environmental integrity, and we’re taking steps to actually reduce emissions, not just pretend to.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: Could I ask the Minister as to whether or not it’s a fact that today’s announcement is a triumph of common sense and trust in responsible primary sector leadership?

💬 Hon JAMES SHAW: It is indeed a fact.

Question No. 12—Climate Change

12. to the Minister for Climate Change: Does he support allowing the use of all scientific technologies to tackle climate change?

I support the use of all scientific technologies to tackle climate change that do not themselves also cause harm in other ways. Just because something is scientifically possible doesn’t always make it a good idea. There could be economic or brand risks or ethical risks. The member may remember dicyandiamide (DCD), which was added to milk, under the previous Government, and then had huge consequences in important export markets. The previous Government’s mishandling of the DCD issue led to significant damage to New Zealand’s brand overseas and a reduction in the value of our exports. This Government has learnt from the mistakes of the previous Government.

💬 Dr Parmjeet Parmar: Does he agree with Mia Sutherland, a Christchurch high school student and organiser of School Strike 4 Climate New Zealand, who says we need to reform the law about genetically modified organisms if we are serious about reducing our carbon emissions?

💬 Hon JAMES SHAW: In reference to the question about the use of science, I want to refer to a statement by the Prime Minister’s Chief—[Interruption]

💬 SPEAKER: Order! Can I just make it clear that everyone who makes that interjection is reflecting on me, and it’s to stop.

💬 Hon JAMES SHAW: I would refer the member to the advice of the Prime Minister’s Chief Science Advisor, who recently said that whether New Zealand is GM-free or not is a debate about New Zealand’s identity and international branding. This is a trade argument which has little to do with the science. It may be that there is a GM-, GE-free branding advantage for some exporters. It may also be that this advantage is short-lived, as the conversation moves forward internationally. There is a lack of evidence either way. These, however, are not science arguments, and need to take place in the context of mixed and shifting international regulations and consumer demands.

💬 Dr Parmjeet Parmar: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I specifically asked about whether the Minister agrees with Mia Sutherland’s—

💬 SPEAKER: Well, the member had an extensive answer to the question.

💬 Dr Parmjeet Parmar: Does he accept that if New Zealand had more permissive biotechnology laws, then we would be able to reduce our climate emissions faster and at a lower economic cost?

💬 Hon JAMES SHAW: Actually, the Biological Emissions Reference Group that the previous Government set up had a high degree of confidence that, based on existing technologies, we could reduce biological emissions by between 10 and 21 percent in the next 10 years, by 2030; and by 22 to 48 percent by 2050. The modelling stated that there was a medium to high confidence that a methane inhibitor for grazing systems can deliver a 10 to 30 percent reduction in biogenic methane by 2030—high confidence that that would be available for a 30 to 50 percent reduction by 2050. That’s a non-GE solution. There was low confidence that a methane reduction would be available by 2030, but high confidence that it would be available by 2050. There are many options. I have to actually just remember that not only was the Biological Emissions Reference Group set up by the previous Government and reported back but also it was an industry group reporting on the technologies that were available under that industry. Technologies, for example, that are currently being pursued through the New Zealand Agricultural Greenhouse Gas Research Centre, the Global Research Alliance, which that Government set up, include—

💬 SPEAKER: Order! Order! There’s generally quite a lot of latitude, when it’s an Opposition question, to reply, but I think the Minister has gone on for too long.

💬 Dr Parmjeet Parmar: Given the Minister is so interested in what we did in the last term and what we are doing now, will he support National’s proposal to update our laws so that proven technologies such as a strain of ryegrass that has the potential to reduce methane emissions by 23 percent can be field-trialled in New Zealand and used by our farmers?

💬 Hon JAMES SHAW: I’m actually not the Minister responsible for genetic modification regulations, but, for her interest, I have been advised by scientists that recent trials of high metabolisable energy (HME) ryegrass—

💬 SPEAKER: Order! Order! If the members want to hear the answer, they will be quiet. I just want to say that I’ve had a significant number of complaints recently, especially this week, from viewers who are unable to hear answers because of noise, mainly—but not only—from my left.

💬 Hon JAMES SHAW: I’ve been advised by scientists that recent trials of HME grass were inconclusive and scientists won’t know whether it will work to reduce emissions for at least another two years. I do want to caution the member: if she remembers the debacle around what happened with DCD, we have to be very cautious that just because something may be scientifically valid doesn’t make it a good idea. We have to be very cautious about introducing technologies that could reduce the value of our exports whilst we’re actually doing something to try and increase the value of our exports. The member should be very aware of the law of unintended consequences.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: So is that to confirm that in terms of agrarian science and grass growth and all the mixture of food products you might use for animals, we shouldn’t clutch at straws?

💬 Hon JAMES SHAW: It does mean that. The issue here is that whilst something may be scientifically valid, you have to be aware that there may be consequences from using it. The people who are clutching at the straw of GM ryegrass are suggesting that this is the silver bullet that’s going to solve all of our problems, and they’re ignoring all of the other existing technologies that can achieve the same result. They’re also talking about introducing a risk that “Brand New Zealand” could be devalued and the value of our exports could be devalued, even whilst they’re grasping at this magic technology that doesn’t exist yet.

💬 Dr Parmjeet Parmar: Is the real reason the Government has not done anything so far to reform New Zealand’s outdated biotechnology laws because of the ideological and anti-science opposition by Green Party MPs?

💬 SPEAKER: Order! Order! The Minister made very clear earlier that’s not an area of his responsibility.