Oral Questions

1. to the Minister of Finance: What reports has he seen on how New Zealand’s economic recovery has been influenced by the Government’s approach to COVID-19?

The economic recovery is not just happening of its own accord. It is a result of the hard work and sacrifice of New Zealanders and this Government’s decisive actions to protect our people and halt the spread of COVID-19. Over the weekend, I read a report from the New Zealand Herald’s business editor, Liam Dann, who wrote that the Government’s quick roll-out of fiscal support to limit job losses during COVID-19 had worked better than anyone dreamt. This was in response to job figures from Stats New Zealand last week, which showed the unemployment rate had dropped to 4.9 percent. That drop, from 5.3 percent in the previous quarter, reflects our decisions, particularly through the wage subsidy, to keep people connected to their jobs and support businesses and households through the COVID-19 pandemic.

💬 Barbara Edmonds: What other reports has he seen on those employment statistics?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: In its assessment of the household labour force survey, ASB Chief Economist Nick Tuffley said the number of job losses had been mercifully small. He said factors such as the wage subsidy had made a difference through encouraging employers to keep people employed even as businesses had no idea about whether they would be able to continue to operate or how many people they would need in the future. We stand by our decision to support nearly 1.8 million workers through the wage subsidy scheme. The benefits of that investment are now being seen in the recovery.

💬 Barbara Edmonds: What other reports have been seen on how the Government’s COVID-19 response has helped the economic recovery?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: A report I haven’t covered previously in the House came from Stats New Zealand that showed that GDP rose 14 percent in the September quarter. That economic bounce-back was also a result of the hard work and sacrifice of New Zealanders and of the Government’s decision to go hard and early during the COVID-19 pandemic. This supported 1.8 million workers through the wage subsidy scheme and invested billions of dollars into infrastructure, training, and creating jobs. The full effects of COVID-19 are still to be felt in New Zealand and across the world, and the Government will continue to work with businesses and workers to support job retention and job creation.

Question No. 2—Prime Minister

2. to the Prime Minister: Does she stand by the declaration of a climate emergency?

Yes.

💬 David Seymour: Why does she stand by the declaration of a climate emergency but not a declaration of a housing emergency, given that homeownership rates have fallen to a 70-year low under her Government?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: The member will be aware that when it comes to the issue of climate change globally, we sit amongst 33 other countries who’ve declared emergencies, over 1,800 jurisdictions, and that’s in no small part because Governments around the world have a tradition of when we see the impacts of climate change and the forms of significant weather events, those are the kinds of things in which civil defence emergencies are declared. They demonstrate a risk to people and property, and if we are to address the source of future civil defence emergencies, it is the climate emergency that we need to address.

💬 David Seymour: What effective policies has she put in place to lower New Zealand’s emissions?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: It’s not just what we do, for instance—[Interruption] if I may?—around the biggest investments in public transport that we have seen under any Government; making sure that we have the infrastructure that supports the uptake of EV vehicles; transitioning our Public Service towards carbon neutrality; removing fossil fuel generation from, for instance, our schools and our hospitals, which we’ve put ourselves on a path to; supporting the private sector to remove the use of fossil fuels for energy generation within their business, which is a significant contributor. It’s not just those things. In order to support our long-term aspirations, we need to make sure as a country we have carbon budgets in place, and the zero carbon legislation we put in place, which I was disappointed the member didn’t support, is also key to our activity.

💬 David Seymour: Why have none of those policies worked, in light of the fact New Zealand’s emissions continue to rise under her Government?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: The member will be well aware, as the Climate Change Commission points out themselves, even with the intensity of effort that we’ll need over the next five years, the lag in the way that these are manifest through those long-life gases means we have to put in intense activity now in order to see our emissions peak and then fall. But I know the member will be aware of that, because I understand he will have read the report.

💬 Hon James Shaw: Is it true that the ACT Party did not vote against the zero carbon Act on its third and final reading?

💬 SPEAKER: Order! Order! That’s not a matter the Prime Minister has responsibility for.

💬 David Seymour: When will the Government’s policies start reducing emissions?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: If the member takes a look at page 7 of the report, in the draft advice from the Climate Change Commission, you can see the trajectory for, under our current policies, reaching the goals we have of reaching a 2050 target of net zero for carbon. It also has our biogenic methane targets, and you can see the trajectory really peaks out over the next five years and then declines. What they are suggesting, however, is that we should change up the way we reach those goals for our next generation, relying less, for instance, on forestry and making sure that we see reductions in real terms.

💬 David Seymour: If she stands by the declaration of a climate emergency, will she declare a public order emergency in response to gangs recruiting twice as fast as police and shooting people on an almost weekly basis?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Whether or not it’s housing, whether or not it’s child poverty, or whether or not it’s issues of community safety, the declaration of a climate emergency does not lessen the other challenges this Government faces and, in many cases, inherited after decades of inaction. So the member would be misinterpreting the act of a climate emergency if he takes the view that it means these other issues, many of which we have included as Government priorities, are somehow less important.

💬 David Seymour: If the point of a climate emergency is to support future generations, why has she not declared it an emergency that New Zealand students’ test scores have fallen in nearly every international comparison all of this century?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: We traversed this issue a little bit yesterday. Firstly, I’d again say in no way does a climate emergency lessen the urgency of ensuring that every child has access to high-quality education. What we have seen in our education system, unfortunately, is the aftermath of a failed experiment on national standards. What we have done as a Government is make sure that we have put into our assessment regime measures that will allow us to see the progress of children in those critical areas where we know their success will be determined by meeting basic levels of numeracy and literacy.

💬 David Seymour: Is the reason she hasn’t declared emergencies in public order, education, or housing that when she declared one in climate, it made absolutely no difference to the situation whatsoever?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: No.

Question No. 3—Education

3. to the Minister of Education: What reports has he seen about how enrolments in vocational education are faring since the establishment of Te Pūkenga - New Zealand Institute of Skills and Technology?

I’ve seen some very encouraging reports. The Waikato Institute of Technology has reported its domestic enrolments are up around 23 percent higher than at the same time of last year. Unitec has reported a 25 percent increase in domestic enrolments, with especially big increases in construction and business courses. Other institutions, like Ara and the Eastern Institute of Technology, report more modest but still positive growth of around 6 to 7 percent. But I was particularly taken by the Manukau Institute of Technology (MIT) subsidiary who have advised their enrolments were more than 70 percent up compared to the same time last year.

💬 Marja Lubeck: What reasons have been put forward to explain this strong growth?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I did see some advice from a very well-known commentator who will be respected by many across the House—a report covered on Radio New Zealand, including the quote that “the growth was driven by factors including the government’s targeted funding scheme that waived fees for many trade courses”, and it goes on to then say that the opening of the institute’s new trade campus in Manukau also contributed. That was from MIT’s very well-respected Sam Lotu-Iiga.

💬 Marja Lubeck: Have numbers of New Zealanders training via an apprenticeship also increased?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Yes. Since we made apprenticeships free in July last year, over 15,000 Kiwis have started an apprenticeship nationwide in the second half of 2020. That’s up from nearly 7,000 over the same period in 2019. That’s an increase of 125 percent.

Question No. 4—Environment

Before we get to the next question, I want to apologise to the House. As a result of an oversight of mine, when the question was transferred, I omitted to transfer the gender, and I’ll ask the Leader of the Opposition, as she asks the question, to get the Minister’s gender right. Thank you.

4. to the Minister for the Environment: Thank you, Mr Speaker. By what date does he expect a new Natural and Built Environments Act to become law, and does he believe this new Act will make it easier to build houses?

The Government announced today that an exposure draft of key provisions of the natural and built environments (NBA) Act will be presented to a select committee in May. We expect the bill of the full NBA and the strategic planning Act, incorporating the outcomes of the select committee inquiry, will be put before Parliament by the end of 2021, to be passed by the end of 2022. For the second part of the question: yes, but it is no substitute for the action we’re already taking, including building more houses—public and private—than have been built for decades, thousands more apprentices, more infrastructure, and directions to council under the Resource Management Act (RMA) to make room for growth up and out, as well as fast-tracked consenting.

💬 Hon Judith Collins: Does he believe the concept of ensuring new development is within biophysical limits will make it easier to build houses in New Zealand?

💬 Hon DAVID PARKER: Yes, because the problem with the current RMA is that it doesn’t just put priority on protecting biophysical outcomes; it tries to protect amenity values, which are more often subjective, detached from biophysical values, and are a crutch upon which nimbyism lies.

💬 Hon Judith Collins: What does “ensuring new development is within biophysical limits” mean?

💬 Hon DAVID PARKER: The biophysical limits are intended to cover all of the domains such as water and air quality, and indigenous biodiversity. The Randerson report upon which the legislation is based recommends that the gaps in those are filled in, that national direction is consolidated, and that that consolidation resolves some of the internal contradictions between different national direction, and so there’s more certainty in the system, which will in itself enable clearer investment signals to the private sector as to where development should proceed more quickly.

💬 Hon Judith Collins: Why does he believe the proposed purpose of the new Act could “be perceived to have unintended consequences for how development is enabled”?

💬 Hon DAVID PARKER: The Randerson report has included a draft of key provisions for the replacement legislation, including a replacement for Part 2. There are concerns that have been expressed by some, including the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, that, inadvertently, the drafting has brought back amenity values into too great a focus. Those issues I’m wanting to work through with other political parties, as well as through the select committee process, so that we gain the objectives—which I think we all want—which are protection of natural values but the enabling of development.

💬 Hon Judith Collins: Has he provided the Hon Eugenie Sage any draft segments of the bill, and, if so, on what date were they provided?

💬 Hon DAVID PARKER: The materials that I provided to Scott Simpson, the Māori Party, and the ACT Party at 9 a.m. this morning, I handed to our partners in the Green Party, I think, at about 8 p.m. last night, but in addition to that, none.

Question No. 5—Social Development and Employment

5. to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: What announcements has she made about engaging more Māori in employment, education, and training?

Today, I announced a $2.65 million funding boost for three programmes supporting rangatahi to overcome barriers to employment, education, and training. This funding will help up to 165 young people in Wellington, Porirua, and Christchurch gain the skills needed to sustain long-term employment, education, or training, building on the success of previous He Poutama Rangatahi investments across regional and urban areas in New Zealand. Eighty-eight percent of rangatahi engaged in He Poutama Rangatahi are Māori or Pacific, and He Poutama Rangatahi has proven that it helps Māori prepare for the workforce and navigate the pathways towards aspirational, secure, and sustainable employment.

💬 Dr Emily Henderson: How does He Poutama Rangatahi help to support pathways into employment, education, and training in our regions and urban centres?

💬 Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: The programmes receiving He Poutama Rangatahi funding focus on a broad range of interventions, including extensive one-on-one pastoral care, mentoring, pre-employment training, financial literacy, CV and interview coaching, time management and workplace communication, te reo language learning, kapa haka, and performing arts. In our regions we’ve supported over 2,000 rangatahi into employment, education, and training, including over 700 in Northland; in the Bay of Plenty, we’ve supported over 400 rangatahi into employment, education, or training; and in Tai Rāwhiti East Coast, we’ve got 298 rangatahi enrolled and have supported 165 rangatahi into employment, education, or training.

💬 Dr Emily Henderson: How does this announcement align with the Government’s wider focus on improving Māori employment?

💬 Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: While unemployment is lower than expected, we know that there are areas where Māori and Pacific unemployment, for example, remains high, which is why we need to remove barriers for rangatahi to get into employment, education, or training. The Government is committed to continuing to work to lift Māori income, skills, and opportunities into employment, education, or training. This announcement complements the Government’s support for employers to take on and retain apprentices, including targeted support for Māori apprentices. This will help ensure we have a skilled workforce available to support New Zealand’s economic recovery.

Question No. 6—Finance

6. to the Minister of Finance: By what percentage has annual core Government services expenses increased since he became Minister of Finance?

Core Government services expenses, as outlined in table 5.8 of the Half Yearly Economic and Fiscal Update, represent less than 6 percent of overall core Crown expenses. In the 2017-18 year, core Government services expenses were $4.67 billion, or 5.8 percent of core Crown expenses. In the 2019-20 year, which is the latest for which we have audited accounts, core Government services expenses were $6.063 billion, or 5.6 percent of core Crown expenses. So while the core Government services expenses have increased $1.39 billion, or 30 percent, they now represent a smaller proportion of core Crown expenses than in the 2017-18 year.

💬 Hon Michael Woodhouse: Does he believe that increasing core Public Service costs by nearly $2 billion since he became Minister is appropriate at a time when families and businesses are having to tighten their belts?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Two answers to that question. The first of those is, as I said, that as a percentage of the Government’s overall expenses, they’ve actually gone down. Secondly, during this period of time, the Government has come in having to deal with the mess left by the previous Government, which required significant investment across a range of Public Service entities. I also note for the member that this class within the Budget includes overseas development assistance, which has also increased significantly given the need in our region—in the Pacific, particularly.

💬 Hon Michael Woodhouse: Does cleaning up that mess, as the Minister says, require more than 1,240 bureaucrats to be earning over $200,000 a year, and 19 Government departments now with average salaries exceeding $100,000 a year?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: To start with, I welcome the member’s acknowledgment of the importance of cleaning up the mess that his Government left, at the start of his answer. What I would say is that under this Government, we have made very clear our expectations as part of public sector pay rounds that we will focus on lifting the pay of the lowest-income earners. That is not something we saw in the previous nine years.

💬 Hon Michael Woodhouse: Does he accept that the increases now mean that core Public Service salary costs have grown over 35 percent since he became the Minister?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I would need to check those figures because, not unlike, perhaps, the arrival of a homeless man in a hotel, we always have to check these things out.

💬 Hon Michael Woodhouse: Why are there now more than 10,000 more people employed in the core Public Service than when Labour took office?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The reason why we have public servants working is because we believe that providing strong public services to New Zealand matters. We saw the damage done when public services like health and education were undermined by underfunding. That was the record of that Government. We’re investing in public services to support New Zealanders.

💬 Hon Chris Hipkins: Can the Minister of Finance confirm that amongst the education front-line public servants that have been employed are a number of additional specialist staff that support some of our children with the most special needs, and that they are counted in the core Public Service numbers?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Yes, I can confirm that, and I can say that across the board, across public services in New Zealand, we saw nine years of neglect. Investing in those public services now is part of making sure that we provide New Zealanders with security and opportunity.

💬 Hon Michael Woodhouse: Can he name any steps that he’s taken to ensure core public services don’t continue to escalate at such unprecedented rates, given the eye-watering levels of debt he’s currently taking on on behalf of the New Zealand taxpayers?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I refer the member to my primary answer. The percentage of core Government services that expenses make up has gone down, Mr Woodhouse, under this Government. The economy is growing. We’re supporting strong public services.

Question No. 7—Environment

7. to the Minister for the Environment: What progress is the Government making on reform of the Resource Management Act?

Today, the Government confirmed that the Resource Management Act (RMA) will be repealed and replaced with new laws this parliamentary term. The three new Acts will be the natural and built environments Act, the NBA, to provide for land-use and environmental regulation—this will be the primary replacement for the RMA; the strategic planning Act, to integrate with other legislation relevant to development and require long-term regional spatial strategies—this Act will integrate functions under the NBA, the Local Government Act, the Land Transport Management Act, and the Climate Change Response Act to enable clearer and more efficient decision-making and investment; and the climate change adaptation Act, led by the Hon James Shaw, to address complex issues associated with managed retreat and funding and financing adaptation.

💬 Rachel Brooking: Why is the Government repealing and replacing the Resource Management Act?

💬 Hon DAVID PARKER: Urban areas have struggled to keep pace with population growth and the need for affordable housing, water quality has deteriorated, biodiversity has diminished, and there’s an urgent need to reduce carbon emissions and adapt to climate change. The new laws will improve the natural environment, enable more development within environmental limits, provide an effective role for Māori, and improve housing supply and affordability. Overall, planning processes will be simplified and costs and times reduced.

💬 Rachel Brooking: How will the replacement for the RMA simplify consenting processes?

💬 Hon DAVID PARKER: Key changes include stronger national direction and one single combined plan per region. As I said earlier, there will be more focus on natural environment outcomes and less on subjective amenity values that favour the status quo. Nevertheless, better urban design can also be pursued. The existing 100-plus RMA council planning documents will be reduced to about 14. New spatial strategies will enable everyone to plan better for the future, and this will aid investment decisions by central government, local government, and, perhaps most importantly, the private sector and housing markets.

💬 Rachel Brooking: How will the replacements for the RMA improve housing affordability?

💬 Hon DAVID PARKER: Urban areas hold 86 percent of our population; 99 percent of our population growth occurs in urban areas. Despite that reality, instead of cities responding to population growth, we’ve had some poor-quality and restrictive planning rules contributing to unaffordable housing. Now, we know that housing problems are a complex mix of demand, infrastructure, financing, home supply, training of apprentices, etc., so there’s no silver bullet—

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: You used to say KiwiBuild was the silver bullet.

💬 Hon DAVID PARKER: Well, it actually has helped, and it built more homes than that member ever built in nine years in Government. This reform will help further by improving central and local government plans for housing and urban development. It includes better coordination of future infrastructure with land use, development, and urban growth, and these changes will build on the updated National Policy Statement on Urban Development that already directs councils to make room for growth both up and out.

💬 Hon Scott Simpson: How many years after the eventual passing of the Minister’s legislative suite will it take for local government to actually implement change?

💬 Hon DAVID PARKER: That’s actually, I think, a very good question, because one of the reasons the RMA went wrong was that it was passed but then no work was done on its implementation until after it was passed, so it took many years to produce new plans under the RMA, the appeal courts were just overrun with plan references, and there was no national direction. We’ve got all those things covered this time, and we’re actually going to be doing all this contemporaneously, including drafting a model plan for a region as we reduce those plan numbers from over 100 to around 14.

💬 Hon Scott Simpson: Would he characterise his proposed new legislative suite as an end to nimbyism?

💬 Hon DAVID PARKER: Look, people and companies have private interests, local authorities have local interests, and none of them are improper, but we have to make sure that they don’t clog the system up unduly. In that regard, I do find it a bit surprising that Government and Opposition parties, having backed the fast-track legislation, now write letters of criticisms to me and other Ministers when we allow projects through that fast-track consenting regime. Notwithstanding that, I look forward to working with other political parties to try and get this balance right.

Question No. 8—COVID-19 Response

8. to the Minister for COVID-19 Response: What did he mean when he said on 17 November 2020, “Without going into detail I think we’re in a very good place to ensure that as vaccines start to come to market New Zealand will be at the front of the queue to be getting vaccines”; and why has New Zealand not yet started to vaccinate workers at the border?

What I meant was that, without going into detail, I think we were in a very good place to ensure that as vaccines started to come to the market, New Zealand would be at the front of the queue for getting the vaccines. With regard to the second part of the question, our advance purchase agreements are for the first doses of vaccines to be arriving in New Zealand by the end of the first quarter. The first quarter has not finished as yet, and so we’ve not taken delivery of our first doses of vaccines. We will be among the first countries using a regular vaccine approval process to be administering vaccines. We are not using emergency approval processes like the countries that are doing vaccines early.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: Like Australia.

💬 Rt Hon Jacinda Ardern: They’re not vaccinating. God, read a newspaper.

💬 SPEAKER: Order! Can I just say, I think that was started by a member on my left, it was exacerbated by members on my right. None of you actually breached any Speakers’ rulings, but it clearly put off the member asking the question. So we’ll just get on with the question.

💬 Chris Bishop: I was just waiting for the Prime Minister to finish the exasperation.

💬 SPEAKER: Order! She had finished, there was a clear gap, and the member seemed to be put off. I was trying to help the member.

💬 Chris Bishop: Trust me, Mr Speaker, she doesn’t put me off.

💬 SPEAKER: Order! Order! We’ll now have the supplementary question, without the commentary.

💬 Chris Bishop: How can he say New Zealand is at the front of the queue, to use his words, when Western Australia has announced they are receiving 10,000 Pfizer vaccines on 22 February, and starting the roll-out of their front-line border workers straight after that?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: They’ve not yet received the vaccines.

💬 Andrew Bayly: In two weeks’ time!

💬 SPEAKER: Order! Mr Bayly, can you stop it.

💬 Kieran McAnulty: Don’t put him off!

💬 SPEAKER: Who said that? No, wait, the member will withdraw and apologise.

💬 Kieran McAnulty: I withdraw and apologise.

💬 Chris Bishop: When he said yesterday, “The first shipment of the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine is expected to arrive in the first quarter of 2021”, does the contract with Pfizer oblige them to deliver by the end of the first quarter, and, if so, how many?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The advance purchase agreement, I think, from memory, has us getting about 226,000 doses in the first quarter. The indications that we have had from Pfizer is that they’re confident they’ll be able to do that.

💬 Chris Bishop: Is New Zealand included in the shipment of 10,000 vaccines going to Western Australia by 22 February?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: If there are 10,000 vaccines going to Western Australia, they’ll be going to Western Australia. [Interruption]

💬 SPEAKER: Order!

💬 Chris Bishop: That’s a no. Did the Government offer to pay more in exchange for earlier delivery of Pfizer COVID-19 vaccines, and, if not, why not?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: My understanding is that that’s never been part of the discussion.

Question No. 9—Conservation

9. to the Minister of Conservation: How will Jobs for Nature funding support communities and landowners to grow employment opportunities?

On 14 January, I announced the opening of a $16 million Community Conservation Fund and an $18 million Private Land Biodiversity Fund, which together are expected to create 400-plus jobs in ecology, restoration, trapping, pest control, fencing, and project management. These funds are available to conservation groups and landowners to boost local biodiversity-focused projects as part of our economic recovery, and I encourage all those who are interested to visit the Department of Conservation website and apply before they close on 16 February.

Tāmati Coffey: What are these two funds expected to deliver for communities and landowners?

💬 Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: The Community Conservation Fund will enable the scaling up of practical projects championed by our conservationists in the community—projects aimed at conserving New Zealand’s indigenous biodiversity—while the Private Landowners Biodiversity Fund will help farmers and landowners better protect and restore rare habitats for native species. Both funds are big wins for conservation on private and public land, job creation, and for local communities as part of our economic recovery.

💬 Kieran McAnulty: What other recent announcements have been made regarding regional Jobs for Nature projects?

💬 Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: What a fantastic question—in particular for our regions, because there is a lot of good news out there as we roll out our Jobs for Nature announcements. We have $816,000 of Jobs for Nature funding that has been allocated to improve the health of waterways in the mighty upper reaches of the Waiōuru catchment and Wairarapa; $2.6 million for the Te Waihora restoration nature project in Canterbury for wetlands restoration work through native tree planning and weed management; $500,000 for Waitomo-based track maintenance, pest control, and riparian planning projects to save local tourism—

💬 SPEAKER: Order!

💬 Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: —and so many more—

Order! Order! When I stand up, the member sits down. Some of us have read the press statement. We don’t need it read to us again.

Question No. 10—Local Government

10. to the Minister of Local Government: Does she agree with the statement, “Labour will ensure that major decisions about local democracy involve full participation of the local population from the outset” in Labour’s 2020 Manifesto on Local Government and Communities; if so, how is her legislation removing the opportunity for public participation through a referendum on separate Māori seats consistent with this?

To the first part of the question, yes.

💬 SPEAKER: No, no, when there’s a two-part primary question, the member must address both parts of the question. Supplementaries are a different matter.

💬 Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: To the first part of the question, yes, Mr Speaker. And to the other part of the question, the bill removes the discriminatory provision which unfairly subjects council-mandated decisions to establish Māori wards to be overturned by a 5 percent poll of registered electors. This provision is not applicable to the establishment of general or rural wards or regional constituencies. So we’re levelling the playing field.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: Does she stand by her statement that the current law allowing for referendum on separate Māori seats is racist and discriminatory; if so, why did she speak and vote for those provisions when they were legislated for by the previous Labour Government?

💬 Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: Yes, I do stand by those statements, and 19 years ago, when that legislation was introduced, that provision was put into legislation to enable councils to put on the table the creation of Māori wards. We have found that since that provision has been in place, it has been used 24 times. Only three councils have been able to establish Māori wards—two by resolution and one from special legislation. So, clearly, over 19 years, the provision is onerous, it is a high bar, and it is discriminatory. I seek leave to table a letter from the past president of Local Government New Zealand, dated 22 March 2018, highlighting their aspiration—their request—to remove this discriminatory provision.

💬 SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that document being tabled? There appears to be none.

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

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: Does the Government consider it adequate consultation to call for public submissions one day and require they be lodged by the next?

💬 SPEAKER: That is a matter which is a decision of this Parliament and has been made by this Parliament.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: Point of order, Mr Speaker. My primary question is about local government policy. My question was not specific to the submission process on the bill that does, in fact, call for submissions today and require them tomorrow. My question was: does the Government consider that adequate public process—not necessarily on that but as a matter of policy, is it adequate, when you are publicly consulting, to say, “Hey, we want submissions today but you’ve got to have them in by tomorrow.”?

💬 Hon Chris Hipkins: Speaking to that point of order, Mr Speaker, if the revised interpretation of the member’s question is in fact correct, then it’s nothing to do with the primary question. It should be ruled out of order on that basis.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: My primary question was specifically about Labour Party policy ensuring full participation in decision making that affects local people.

💬 SPEAKER: Except that it does say about major decision-making about local democracy. I’ll be generous and let the member have another crack at wording it within order.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: Does the Government consider it adequate consultation—say, for councils or other public bodies—to call for public submissions one day and require those submissions be in by 5 p.m. the next?

💬 Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: In taking into account public consultation, I have factored in 19 years of a provision which is discriminatory and several councils having local conversations with their communities around trying to establish Māori wards, which has often been divisive. I have taken on board the number of councils who have petitioned me to make a change to this legislation, and, while the select committee process is a short time frame, this issue has been around for a long time. These provisions are clearly discriminatory and need to be changed so that communities who want Māori wards can have them.

💬 Rt Hon Jacinda Ardern: Can she confirm her position that if we are to truly support local democracy, we should listen to the request of Local Government New Zealand (LGNZ) and remove a provision that is stopping local councils making decisions that they are elected every three years by their constituencies to make?

💬 Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: Absolutely, and I can also confirm that a number of councils, like the Northland council, New Plymouth District Council, South Taranaki council, Stratford council, Taranaki Regional Council, Nelson council, and Hawke’s Bay, have all—with others—petitioned this Government to remove the discriminatory provision that prevents Māori wards from being created.

💬 David Seymour: If democracy means listening to LGNZ and certain councils, what does it mean to accept the will of electors in polls, who nearly always vote against the establishment of Māori wards?

💬 Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: Let me be very clear: councils are still able to hold non-binding polls to test the sentiment of electors on a number of issues, including the creation of Māori wards. What we’re doing is rectifying a discriminatory barrier that does not apply to the creation of general wards or constituencies. We’re evening the playing field.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: Does she agree with her officials’ statement in the regulatory impact statement that there has been minimal consultation on the bill nor sufficient opportunity to consider any policy alternatives?

💬 Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: I support the totality of the advice, which acknowledges that it is a discriminatory provision and takes into account those local body - elected members who have been tasked with addressing voter representation and want this change to occur.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: Does the Government expect councils to respect ballot-box decisions where communities have recently voted against creating separate Māori wards; if not, why not?

💬 Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: The ballot-box decision that electors make every three years, which is to choose their leaders of council, to choose their councillors, is overturned by a 5 percent discriminatory provision. Even if those councillors around the table who have been elected to represent their region want Māori wards, it can be overturned by a 5 percent poll, and that’s discriminatory. We need to even up the playing field.

💬 Rawiri Waititi: Why does the legislation not include a requirement on all councils to establish either a Māori ward or mana whenua seat by 2022?

💬 Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: Right now, we’re looking at the substance of the poll provision and the creation of Māori wards, and many members, in terms of the Labour Māori caucus and many of our colleagues, know that the changes that we went to our constituencies on and campaigned on, we’re going to deliver on that; anything else is somebody else’s decision.

Question No. 11—Finance

11. to the Minister of Finance: Can he confirm that the Treasury advised him that the use of unconventional monetary policy “can raise asset prices more directly than conventional monetary policy, creating wealth inequality”?

As I said yesterday, the advice that we received in the January 2020 report that the member is quoting was based on the scenario that was hypothetical and that also stated that there was not a case for using unconventional monetary policy in New Zealand in the near future. The COVID-19 pandemic upended that expectation, and the Government and the Reserve Bank acted quickly and decisively to counter the devastating health and economic consequences. This included the Reserve Bank adopting unconventional monetary policy. At this point, the forecasts of both the Reserve Bank and the Treasury changed and they foresaw significant drops in asset prices.

💬 Hon Julie Anne Genter: Can he confirm the average house in Auckland, Tauranga, Wellington, Kāpiti Coast, and Queenstown earned more in untaxed capital gains over the final three months of 2020 than the average New Zealander earned in pre-tax income over the entire year?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I can’t confirm that specific number, but I can obviously confirm we have seen rampant house price inflation in the last part of 2020. That is the very reason why the Government is now undertaking the work we are around both the demand and the supply side of the housing market.

💬 Hon Julie Anne Genter: So does he agree that it’s now time to respond with bold fiscal policy, including taxation, to mitigate the current wealth inequality impacts of this unconventional monetary policy?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: In the speech I gave yesterday, releasing the Budget Policy Statement, I indeed used the word “bold” in that. We are looking very closely at a range of policies in both the supply and demand side, and we’ll be releasing those very shortly.

💬 Hon Julie Anne Genter: Will he respond to the wealth inequality that is being exacerbated by this unconventional monetary policy through taxing wealth or capital gains?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The Government’s laid out the parameters for what we are prepared to consider. We have ruled out a comprehensive capital gains tax. What we asked the Treasury and the Reserve Bank to do late last year was look at our existing policy settings to see if they could be enhanced and to provide us advice on anything that they would consider would deal with the issues that the member’s raising. We’ve received that advice. Cabinet will consider it very shortly.

💬 Hon Julie Anne Genter: But don’t these exceptional circumstances merit revisiting things that have previously been ruled out, if they’re the best way to address the problem and reduce wealth inequality?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: If the member is referring by that to a comprehensive capital gains tax, no; we’re not revisiting that position. What we are doing is looking at our existing settings to see if they’re working as they are intended, and any other options. We are prepared to look at a wide range of options to address what has clearly been an outcome that was not foreseen by any economist in the middle of last year. All of them were saying that house prices would go down significantly. The opposite occurred. We are responding to that.

💬 Hon Julie Anne Genter: Does he agree that fiscal policy can help address long-term challenges in New Zealand like child poverty, while stimulating the economy, without causing or exacerbating wealth inequality, as unconventional monetary policy has done?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I absolutely believe in the power of fiscal policy to address those issues, and it’s in fact the record of this Government in the last term and our proposal in this term to use fiscal policy to address those longstanding issues.

Question No. 12—Prime Minister

12. to the Prime Minister: Does she stand by her statement relating to house prices, “We don’t want to see the significant increases; these huge jumps in house price growth”?

Yes. The Government is committed to acting on house prices, with urgency. Over the next three years, we’ll build on the progress made last term, but, of course, there is more to be done. We want to target supply by addressing the underlying structural issues like complex planning laws and infrastructure investment, act with urgency to tilt the field towards first-home buyers and investment in new housing, and boost direct Government building supply across all types of housing from public and transitional housing through to affordable housing.

Brooke van Velden: What percentage increase in prices is she happy to oversee as Prime Minister?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: What we do know is that it is considered unaffordable to have someone paying more than 30 percent of their income on the cost of their housing, so whether or not they’re in a rental or whether or not they’re seeking to go into homeownership, we want it to both be attainable for a first-home buyer but we also want people who are in our housing market, and in a rental as well, to make sure that they have a quality standard of living. So obviously at this price rate increase that we’re seeing right now, it is making affordable housing out of reach for many.

Brooke van Velden: What policies has her Government put in place to slow house price increases, and have they worked?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: We’ve always been very open about this being both a demand and supply issue. So in the last term, of course, we’ve made moves around closing tax loopholes. We cracked down on foreign buyers in the market. We worked to increase supply through mechanisms to support residential private development. We’ve built our own homes through public housing provision and we’ve extended on that as well. We’ve also moved into the space of progressive homeownership to support those who may not have the ability to overcome that initial deposit gap but do have a weekly income that can go towards a mortgage. Our view, though, and the reason we’ve sought additional advice, is we’ve increasingly seen that those who own multiple properties are taking up the largest portion of those homebuyers at the moment. The Reserve Bank acknowledged that we’re seeing highly leveraged speculators in the market at an increasing rate. We’ve asked for advice from Treasury on what more we can do on the demand side.

Brooke van Velden: Given last year’s increase in the median house price was $121,000, was the intention of the Government to increase house prices?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: No, but nor was it the intention, I’m sure, of Germany to see what I believe is an 11 percent increase. The UK—some of the highest prices in nominal terms that they’ve seen. Around the world we are seeing during this COVID environment significant increases in house prices, but in New Zealand we’ve seen that even further in our own jurisdiction. So despite there being advice from economists prior to the recent increases that the housing market could drop by as much as 10 percent, we’ve seen the opposite and we’re responding to that.

💬 Hon Judith Collins: Does she stand by her statement “Under my leadership, we will no longer campaign for or implement a capital gains tax—not because I don’t believe in it, but because I don’t believe New Zealand does.”?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I stand by that statement.

💬 Hon Judith Collins: Does she agree with Brad Olsen from Infometrics, who said extending the brightline test would be a “capital gains tax by stealth”; and if not, why not?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: The irony of being asked that question by the very member who was in Government at the time that the brightline test was introduced—and pushed back very hard on any suggestion that it was a capital gains tax. [Interruption]

💬 SPEAKER: Order! Order! Both sides, please.

Brooke van Velden: Does she accept that last year’s $121,000 increase in the median house price transferred more wealth from people who work to people who own than any other event in her lifetime?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Obviously, the emphasis we are putting on housing—and as I’ve said many times, the fact that, increasingly, if you have a parent who can support you into a home or if you inherit, you are more likely to be able to own a home in this country than you otherwise might. No one wants to see that kind of inequality. I’m very pleased to see the member asking questions that demonstrate you share that concern. Now I would invite you to support some of the initiatives on both the demand and supply side that will make a difference.

Brooke van Velden: Does she accept her Government is overseeing one of the largest transfers of wealth in her lifetime?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I accept that this is not a problem that emerged in the last three years, but regardless of how we got here—[Interruption]

💬 SPEAKER: Order!

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Regardless of how we got here, this whole House has a duty of care to do something about it.

Brooke van Velden: By what year does she expect the Government’s yet-to-be-drafted reforms to the Resource Management Act (RMA) will have an effect on the housing market?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: The member has previously already laid out the time line for that. However, we’ve also said that that in and of itself is not going to be the answer to everything in our complex planning arrangements in New Zealand right now. We have already expedited significant projects through a shortened RMA process, which I would ask for the member’s support of because that is one way we can get projects in this period moving. We also have the national policy statement, which puts an obligation on councils to free up development capacity within their council jurisdiction and ensure that they are catering for the population growth they have in their individual areas.