Oral Questions

1. to the Minister of Finance: What recent reports has he seen on the New Zealand economy?

The Government’s efforts to secure the recovery have been reflected in the latest employment figures. Statistics New Zealand reported that seasonally adjusted filled jobs grew 0.4 percent in May 2021 compared with a month earlier. The number of jobs is now 0.6 percent above its pre-COVID peak. On an annual basis, the biggest gains have been in the health, social assistance, and construction sectors. The sectors that had been affected by the closure of the border in response to COVID such as hospitality are still down on pre-COVID levels. Westpac bank commented that “The overall demand for labour is strong at the moment, as demonstrated by the sharp rise in job advertisements in recent months. The monthly employment indicator, along with the decline in Jobseeker Benefit payments, suggests that those positions are being filled.” The Government is playing its part in supporting businesses and workers, including through Budget 2021 boosting skills and training initiatives to allow people to transition more easily into different types of work.

💬 Barbara Edmonds: What other reports has he seen on the economy?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Well, the primary sector is supporting the recovery strongly, and the latest Rabobank Rural Confidence Survey found farmer confidence rose for the third consecutive quarter, to remain in positive territory. The number of optimists outnumbered pessimists, with a net 10 percent of farmers expecting the rural economy to improve in the next 12 months, mainly due to rising prices for New Zealand’s agricultural products. Farmers’ expectations about their own farm performance also rose, increasing to a net 16-plus percent from 7 percent in the previous quarter.

💬 Hon David Bennett: Nothing about the Government, though.

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The optimists are on the farms, Mr Bennett; clearly, not on that side of the House. Rabobank commented that prices for New Zealand’s key agriculture exports are expected to remain strong, moving into the second half of the year. Farmers do continue to operate in a volatile market, and growing outbreaks of COVID around the world mean that the environment does remain uncertain.

💬 Barbara Edmonds: What is the Government doing in response to the economic impact of the alert level rise?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The short-term absence payment and the COVID-19 leave support scheme remain in place for the businesses and workers at whatever level New Zealand is at. The extension of the alert level in the Wellington region to alert level 2 has meant that eligible businesses nationwide can now take up the resurgence support payment. In order to qualify for the payment, businesses must show a 30 percent drop in revenue over a seven-day period. The payment includes a core per-business rate of $1,500, plus $400 per employee, up to a total of 50 full-time equivalents. That is a maximum payment of $21,500. Sole traders can receive a payment of up to $1,900. Businesses will be able to apply for this resurgence support payment from 8 a.m. this Thursday via the Inland Revenue website.

Question No. 2—Prime Minister

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

Yes, and I include in that our response to COVID-19, that includes a swift move to alert level 2 for the Wellington region and responsive contact testing and tracing. With over 12,000 negative tests in the greater Wellington region, and successive days of negative waste-water tests across various sites, we have a level of assurance that allows Wellington to return to alert level 1 this evening. We ask, however, that people continue to stay home and get a test if they have cold- or flu-like symptoms, and this remains critical to our ongoing vigilance against COVID. I also stand by our decisions to move swiftly to pause quarantine-free travel with Australia over the weekend, in response to increasing cases across a number of Australian states. And I also stand by this Government’s decision to deliver the Pfizer vaccine, with over a million doses administered to date. COVID-19 remains the most significant risk to New Zealand. This Government will continue to make the prompt decisions needed to keep our country safe.

💬 Hon Judith Collins: What is her definition of “hate speech”?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: It’s set out in the provisions of the proposals that we’ve been debating over the last few days. It includes, for instance, intentionally inciting, stirring up, or maintaining hatred. So it’s not just enough to have an opinion that someone considers to be abusive or threatening; there must be the intention to incite. I point to the fact that the proposals are contained in a discussion document called “Proposals against incitement …”—which is critical. The second point I’d make is that we already have extreme-speech or hate-speech provisions in New Zealand. We’ve had them for the last 50 years. They were implemented by a National Government. However, at the moment, they only apply to issues around race and ethnicity. So, substantively, the proposal is whether they should be expanded to different groups. I welcome the Opposition’s views on that matter.

💬 Hon Judith Collins: What is the threshold for inciting hatred in her hate-speech law changes?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: The member will see, if she has read the chapters from the royal commission in particular—

💬 Hon Judith Collins: I have.

💬 Chris Bishop: She has.

💬 Hon Judith Collins: I have.

💬 SPEAKER: Order! Order!

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: —that it gives some commentary around the existing law as it stands. And it points out that we’ve had one successful prosecution, and on those that have not been successful, the test around incitement has not been met. And you’ll see that in the proposals by the royal commission, which we have mirrored in the discussion document, seek, actually, to “more narrowly express than the current section of the law does”. So the claim that somehow this widens or lowers the threshold, I would argue, is not correct. And the royal commission itself is of the view that it would be more narrowly expressed than the current provisions. That is, in particular, because the current provisions refer to hostility, ill will, contempt, and ridicule; they have replaced that word with “hatred” alongside the requirement to improve intentional incitement.

💬 Hon Judith Collins: Does she consider the potential speech crimes more serious than assault on a child? If not, why is she proposing a longer maximum prison sentence for the speech crime?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: So the view of the royal commission was that the current penalties were not sufficient. And the Ministry of Justice, in canvassing other like-minded international jurisdictions who had similar provisions, was, likewise, that the current penalties were not sufficient. So the proposal includes three years. I would point out that in the UK a similar provision attracts a penalty of seven years. If the member is of the view that the criminal penalty is too high, I would welcome a submission from any member of this House. Ultimately, I want these provisions to last as long as the last provisions, which are broadly similar and were introduced 50 years ago. So if the member would like to submit, I welcome that. I would point out that, at the moment, the member’s critique of these proposals actually demonstrate that she doesn’t support the current law, and so I would seek some clarity from the members on that, because this is seeking to narrow some of these provisions. If it’s simply that the member does not believe they should be expanded to people based on religious grounds, by all means take that view, but I would be interested in whether or not you currently support the existing law as well.

💬 Hon Judith Collins: Does she consider her hate-speech law changes to be in line with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, that states, “Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference”, and why?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I would. In fact, again, the royal commission also traverses the different international obligations that New Zealand has and takes the view that the as-expressed provisions here are in keeping with that. They state, “There is a strong tradition in New Zealand (as in many … countries) that religious belief systems are open to debate, and that this can be rigorous.” However, their view is that that is not without limits. And our existing law covers that, too. I would also make the point that the member herself seems to believe that freedom of expression is not without limits. I supported the Harmful Digital Communications Bill. That currently creates a criminal penalty for anyone who uses communication that is offensive or indecent, for example, and attracts a penalty of up to three months of imprisonment. That member introduced that bill. So that suggests to me that the member herself does not view freedom of expression as being without limitation.

💬 Hon Judith Collins: Is she concerned that her Minister of Justice is not adequately informed about the proposals and does not have a thorough enough understanding of civil and criminal law?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: No.

💬 Hon Judith Collins: Is she concerned that she doesn’t have a thorough understanding of civil and criminal law, nor of her own proposals, as she showed yesterday on television?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: No, but what I can say to the member is at least I’m consistent on my views. Hers seem to have changed rapidly over the period of being Minister of Justice and now being the Leader of the Opposition.

Question No. 3—Energy and Resources

3. to the Minister of Energy and Resources: What steps is the Government taking to strengthen the decommissioning regime of oil and gas fields in New Zealand?

We’re moving to reduce the risks to taxpayers of having to pick up the tab of decommissioning petroleum fuel exploration and mining activities, through the introduction of the Crown Minerals (Decommissioning and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. After the Tui oil fields owner, Tamarind, went into receivership and liquidation in December 2019, the responsibility for decommissioning the Tui oil field fell to the Crown and to the taxpayer. We made changes in 2019 to close the loopholes that allowed a poorly resourced company like Tamarind to buy a New Zealand asset. This latest bill includes provisions to further strengthen the petroleum sector’s financial and legal responsibility for decommissioning.

💬 Glen Bennett: What penalties will there be for failing to fund and carry out decommissioning?

💬 Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: The bill contains an explicit obligation on petroleum permit and licence holders to carry out and to fund decommissioning. Failure to fulfil the obligation will result in a civil pecuniary or criminal penalty, depending on the circumstances, which could be a fine of up to $500,000 for an individual, including directors, and $10 million for a body corporate.

💬 Glen Bennett: And how will the bill increase the Government’s ability to monitor decommissioning liabilities?

💬 Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: The bill provides the Government with more powers to carry out more effective monitoring. It is designed to enable us to build a more accurate picture of a permit holder’s decommissioning liabilities and the financial plans in place to meet these. A permit holder’s financial position can change, and better monitoring means that we can work with permit holders and better understand current, or anticipate emerging, risks.

Question No. 4—Justice

4. to the Minister of Justice: Does he stand by all of his statements and policies on his proposed hate speech law changes?

💬 Hon Grant Robertson: Free speech for Simon!

Yes, because they are informed by the royal commission of inquiry. I stand by the approach the Government is taking to respond to the recommendations of the royal commission, because we are taking the proposals and giving New Zealanders the opportunity to have a say on them. The member is well aware that there are vigorously held views on the issue, and those views should be fully expressed to inform the Government’s further deliberations on the issue. Given the strength of feeling, it is important for the member to note that the proposed changes do not lower the existing high bar for something being considered hate speech. The threshold for incitement remains as high as it has been since 1971, when the National Government of the time put the regime under the Race Relations Act and when a subsequent National Government consolidated the provisions of the Human Rights Act. What we are asking the public for feedback on is whether more groups beyond race, nationality, and ethnicity should be protected under these provisions, also whether we should strengthen the penalties for inciting hatred against these groups, and refining and modernising the language and the wording of the offence provisions.

💬 SPEAKER: Order! Order! Before we do that—I didn’t want to interrupt the Minister while he was replying, but there was a clearly out of order interjection from the Deputy Prime Minister, who will withdraw and apologise.

💬 Hon Grant Robertson: I withdraw and apologise.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: Hasn’t he in fact set the legal tests or bars for criminal and civil liability much lower than incitement to violence so that, potentially, many more New Zealanders will be captured than would otherwise have been the case?

💬 Hon KRIS FAAFOI: No.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: Does he accept that by setting those legal bars at what is in his document merely insulting and what is merely incitement to discriminate, off-colour jokes about, say, ethnicity or sexuality may potentially land an ill-considered Kiwi in court, and does he really seek to penalise that?

💬 Hon KRIS FAAFOI: The member is misinterpreting the changes that are proposed by the Government. I will remind him of comments made by the royal commission where they said, “The language of hatred and calls for violence”—that came about from the royal commission after the March 15 attacks—“that we propose would catch only extreme speech. We do not see the reframed offence as engaged by microaggressions, and so on. Nor would it be [the] mechanism for criminalising the vigorous expression of opinion on controversial issues”.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: Would an off-colour joke about, say, Israel Folau, a Christian, or Laurel Hubbard, a member of the transgender community, under his proposals potentially see someone penalised civilly or criminally in court, with huge consequences for them?

💬 Hon KRIS FAAFOI: Every case is different, but I will remind the member of the proposed changes around the four elements that are needed for incitement of hate speech provisions within the provisions to be a criminal offence: first, the intent to intentionally incite, stir up, maintain, or normalise hatred towards; second, a specific group that is protected under the Human Rights Act; and, third, the method, through threatening, abusive, or insulting communications, including inciting violence—and it can be done any method of communication, including electronic. That is not the intent of the proposal—to talk about the kinds of cases that the member has outlined.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: How can he say his proposals would only penalise “at the extreme end of the spectrum” when mere insults or discriminating speech that is treating a group differently to others would be captured, and isn’t he opening up an Orwellian Pandora’s box that we as New Zealanders have generally been smart enough to steer clear of to date?

💬 Hon KRIS FAAFOI: The member might be smart enough to actually read the discussion document. I would reiterate for the member and those who oppose the changes that came out of the royal commission about the comments from the royal commission: “The language of hatred and of calls for violence that we propose would catch only extreme speech. We do not see the reframed offence as engaged by microaggressions, and so on. Nor would it be a mechanism for criminalising the vigorous expression of opinion on controversial issues”. That is the approach that the Government is taking, and I welcome the member’s submission to the discussion document.

Question No. 5—Finance

5. to the Minister of Finance: Does he agree with the Secretary to the Treasury that “with debt servicing costs at historically low levels, there is greater headroom for high-quality investments”; if so, will the Government increase “high-quality spending to tackle longstanding challenges”?

Yes, and we have already increased spending in the areas noted by the said Treasury Secretary in her speech. I’ve also flagged that these issues will be the focus of increased spending in future Budgets.

💬 Hon Julie Anne Genter: Has the Treasury advised him to spend more than what they’ve already committed to on longstanding challenges like climate change, inequality, and the housing crisis?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: It possibly won’t surprise the member that the answer to that question is no.

💬 Hon Julie Anne Genter: Why is he equally balancing keeping a lid on debt with extra spending on addressing climate change and inequality, when the Secretary to the Treasury says it is “important not to have an excessive focus on debt levels as an end objective in and of themselves”?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Because it remains an important balance for New Zealand to look at the long-term impacts of all of our policies. That includes the level of debt we have, but, equally, it includes the level of investment that we need to be making in areas like infrastructure or child wellbeing and so on. So making sure we get a balance right about that doesn’t contradict the statement of the Treasury Secretary.

💬 Hon Julie Anne Genter: When he said, “We did not build enough houses in New Zealand over the last 10 to 15 years.”, does he consider that a narrow focus on debt limits by successive Governments is partly to blame for a lack of public housing supply?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: What I meant by that was exactly what I said. I think that it is important that we use the Government’s balance sheet to the extent that it is responsible and possible to be able to help us build houses. We have done that, including by increasing Kāinga Ora’s borrowing limits but also by investing across the board in things such as the Housing Infrastructure Fund.

💬 Hon Julie Anne Genter: Does he agree that the Government would be able to pay nurses and teachers more and properly fund early childhood education if there was less of a focus on debt levels as an end objective in and of themselves at this time?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Well, I guess it’s the premise of the question that I’ve got issue with. Those debt objectives for me as the Minister of Finance are part of the long-term work that we need to do to ensure the wellbeing of New Zealanders. I agree they are not an end in themselves. They are part of what we are trying to do in terms of improving New Zealanders’ wellbeing. The speech that the member quoted from in her primary question I think is an important one by the Treasury Secretary. It echoes my comments prior to the Budget that it is important that we have a conversation about debt, about appropriate debt levels, about what they mean for our investment in long-term goods for New Zealand, such as infrastructure and wellbeing. I welcome the conversation about that.

💬 Hon Julie Anne Genter: Will his Government amend the Public Finance Act to remove the bias in that legislation towards lowering debt as an end objective in and of itself and against spending on long-term challenges like climate change and housing?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The member well knows that we have a Public Finance Act reform process under way. At the moment that does not include a specific provision, as she has just articulated. But the conversation that the Treasury Secretary and myself have both begun is about talking about the place of debt targets and where debt sits in our overall work. What I would make sure that I assure the member, though, is I continue to believe that it is important for New Zealand to manage carefully its debt levels. We are a small country. We are prone to natural disasters. We often face the severe impacts of other financial shocks and so on. But I do think there is a valid conversation to be had about the place of public debt and how it supports New Zealand’s resilience and wellbeing.

Question No. 6—Social Development and Employment

6. to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: What changes to social development and employment policies come into effect on 1 July 2021?

From 1 July, main benefits will increase by $20. This is the first stage of Budget 2021 increases, which will see weekly main benefit rates increase by between $32 and $55 by April next year. These benefit increases will mean around 355,000 families and individuals will be better off. These increases build on the other significant changes we have made to the welfare system since 2017.

💬 Angie Warren-Clark: What other policies come into effect on 1 July?

💬 Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: Mr Speaker, 1 July also marks the reinstatement of the training incentive allowance. This will help sole parents on benefits, as well as carers and disabled people receiving the supported living payment, to gain higher-level qualifications and improve their future job prospects. The training incentive allowance will be expanded to include qualifications at levels 4 to 7 on the New Zealand Qualifications Authority framework, which includes, of course, degree-level study. This important change will support around 16,000 people to upskill over the next four years. Not only is this good for individuals, it is good for their whānau, communities, and the economy as well.

💬 Angie Warren-Clark: What changes to childcare assistance come into effect from 1 July?

💬 Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: From 1 July, supplementary payments, such as the accommodation supplement and temporary additional support, will no longer be considered as income when assessing people’s eligibility for childcare assistance. The immediate impact will be that 2,100 people will be eligible for more childcare assistance. It’s important to note that on 1 April 2022, we will be making further improvements to childcare assistance, by indexing income thresholds to annual average wage growth. This was stopped in 2010, and has meant that, over time, less people have been eligible for childcare assistance. Out Of School Care and Recreation and childcare assistance play a vital role in supporting parents to gain and maintain employment.

Question No. 7—Prime Minister

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

Yes, particularly the Government’s decision to phase out hard-to-recycle food and drink packaging made from PVC and polystyrene and some degradable plastic products and some single-use plastic items, including drink straws, cotton buds, single-use produce bags, cutlery, plates, bowls, straws, and fruit labels by July 2025. New Zealanders generate some of the highest amounts of waste in the OECD, and have asked for urgent change in how we use plastic, and particularly amongst our younger generation, it’s one of the most frequent subjects of letter writing from children that I receive. We’ve made good progress over the past three years, and there is strong public and business support for the 2019 plastic bag ban, that has meant over 1 billion fewer plastic bags have ended up in landfills or the ocean. Investing in reducing and avoiding waste is a key part of our moves to protect the environment, but also adds to our economic recovery as well.

💬 David Seymour: Does she stand by her statement made on the AM Show yesterday morning in relation to her Government’s proposed hate speech laws, “It’s about inciting violence.”, and, if so, how does she reconcile that with the wording Cabinet agreed to on 7 December last year that hate speech would be about stirring up, maintaining, or normalising hatred through insulting, threatening, or abusive communications?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: In the same way that the proposals we’ve put forward come from the royal commission, who themselves state, “The language of hatred and calls for violence that we propose would catch only extreme speech. We do not see the reframed offence as engaged by microaggressions, and so on. Nor would it be a mechanism for criminalising the vigorous expression of opinion on controversial issues, such as gender identity or immigration.” The example that was put to me in that interview was about simply just someone expressing an opinion. The point I was making was that the critical element of incitement needs to be included, in the same way it is in our current law.

💬 David Seymour: Does the Prime Minister then stand by her statement in the same interview, “The reason we’re having this debate is because the royal commission of inquiry said to the New Zealand Government, ‘You need to include religion.’ ”; and, if so, how does she reconcile that statement with the fact that the Government announced it would introduce hate speech laws in 2019, the Labour Party campaigned on it in October 2020, and the royal commission only reported back in November 2020?

💬 SPEAKER: The Prime Minister can reply to one of the four questions.

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: The language around the provisions in the law come directly from the royal commission, and you can see that, because, essentially, the exact proposals they have made are in the wording that is in the discussion document. The issue over who the groups of protected persons for whom extreme and hate speech should be applied to has been debated rigorously for a number of years. The Human Rights Commission, at various points, have suggested that religion should be included, at various points, and members of our Rainbow community have at various points argued that they should be included as well. So the inclusion of different groups has long been debated, and widening has been supported by us. The wording of the changes we’re discussing now came directly from the royal commission, and that is what is in the discussion document. Indeed, Cabinet only made decisions on the wording after the report was received.

💬 David Seymour: Does the Prime Minister stand by her statement in the interview from Newshub Nation that implied that political opinion was included—it is not—and, if so, how does she reconcile that statement with the fact that the discussion document calls for all grounds of prohibited discrimination from the Human Rights Act to be brought into the new law, and section 23J of the Human Rights Act says political opinion is a protected ground of discrimination?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Quite simply, the discussion document, which asked, “What will the proposals do?”—it states, “Groups experience hateful speech based on other grounds as well, including their sex, gender (including gender identity), religious belief, disability, or sexual orientation.” The Government considers that other groups that experience hate speech could also be protected by the law, and we’re interested in those views. Political opinion was previously included in that list. Cabinet removed it from that list and instead wanted the open question for the public of which groups should be included. There is a Cabinet minute that is in the public domain now that demonstrates that we explicitly removed it. But, again, we’ve no qualms around the public sharing their opinion on this. There will be some who believe, perhaps, that we should have protections for political opinion. We come at it from a New Zealand perspective, in New Zealand. We feel that, by and large, political opinion is well protected, but we also want to make sure that we’re seen to preserve the freedom of speech around political opinion, so our starting point was not to include it. There will be some in this country who have had a very different experience—perhaps refugees who have experienced persecution for political opinion. These are all things we hope will come through in the discussion document. We are very open-minded on it, but our starting point was no.

💬 David Seymour: So should the House take from that that the Prime Minister is open to including political opinion in prohibited grounds under her hate speech law?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: So, again, for any group that anyone may argue should be included, the threshold remains extremely high, as set out by the royal commission, and as is already set out in our existing law. We should be clear in this House whether or not members are actually debating whether they want to see a repeal of our existing law, because this proposal narrows it. So we had a starting point, not to include political opinion, but if the public have a different view, they are free to put it to us. But, again, the bar is still very high when it comes to meeting the threshold for what would be considered “extreme speech”, or what others might call “hate speech”.

💬 David Seymour: How should police decide when to prosecute, courts decide when to convict, and citizens decide how to follow this proposed law when the Prime Minister who proposed it has had her own understanding described as “completely and utterly wrong” by Tova O’Brien, and having shown that she does not understand them by Audrey Young?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I refute the premise of that question.

💬 David Seymour: When will the Prime Minister accept that this is a train wreck trampling on the fundamental foundations of a free society that is free speech and dump this silly proposal?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I totally disagree with the member. Again, we should reflect on why we are having this debate. New Zealand experienced a horrific attack when March 15 occurred. The royal commission of inquiry looked at some of the wider activity that sat around that event and gave us very clear direction on their view as to how our law should change to include religion alongside our existing provisions that include race and ethnicity. The member is trying to purport that what we have is a baseline of nothing. That is not true. There are already limitations to expression. The threshold to those limitations happens to be very high, and we are not proposing to lower it.

💬 Hon Eugenie Sage: Does the Prime Minister agree that so called “flushable” wet wipes made of plastic fibres cause environmental damage when they create fatbergs in sewerage pipes, and does she support action faster than 2025 to phase them out?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I do agree this is an issue, and this is something I know Minister Parker is particularly focused on as well. There are some areas where, in particular, we are looking to try and hasten the response by ensuring we have alternatives in the market as well. But in the meantime, the simple message is: none of these things should be flushed. That is a big part of the problem, people need to understand what havoc it wreaks when they are, and we also need to try and find alternatives for families as well.

Question No. 8—Transport

8. to the Minister of Transport: What advice, if any, has he received on the impact of the Clean Car Programme on the price and supply of vehicles?

I’ve received a range of advice on that matter—including this, specifically on the Clean Car Standard: “a meta-analysis of CO2 standards in OECD and non-OECD countries suggest they do not necessarily lead to noticeable price increases.” The ministry’s projections expect the price of electric vehicles and petrol hybrids to fall over the period. The risk of supply constraints and price rises is also mitigated by the design of the standard. Its design has been substantially modified from the standard that was consulted upon.

💬 Hon Michael Woodhouse: Has he seen reports that since the announcement of the Clean Car Subsidy, the price of a used Nissan Leaf at a Japanese auction house has increased by $3,000 in only three days? And does he agree that, based on this, the subsidy is, simply, going offshore?

💬 Hon MICHAEL WOOD: I’ve seen a report which makes reference to that, but, within the same report, I have seen comment from people in the sector who have a different view on the issues around price and supply. The reality is that a range of countries around the world have used a discount scheme similar to the Clean Car Discount and it has resulted in lower prices for cleaner vehicles for their consumers. And we expect the same in New Zealand.

💬 Hon Michael Woodhouse: So does he believe that a 20 percent increase in the price of a vehicle only three days after an announcement affecting that market is a coincidence?

💬 Hon MICHAEL WOOD: I think the member is extrapolating significantly from one comment in an article noting that the discount has not, in fact, come into account, so it would be impossible to say exactly what the price implication was for Kiwi consumers.

💬 Hon Michael Woodhouse: Is he aware that vehicle importers warned his officials that this was a likely consequence of the rebate scheme, and was this advice ignored?

💬 Hon MICHAEL WOOD: No, the advice wasn’t ignored; in fact, the scheme has been substantially supported by the vehicle sector. The AA and the Motor Industry Association have both come out in support of the scheme. And I quote directly from David Crawford, who said, “We are delighted that at last the Government has confirmed details of [a clean car incentive scheme].”—that’s David Crawford from the Motor Industry Association.

💬 Hon Michael Woodhouse: Will he adjust his policy if it’s apparent that people who need utes for work are, simply, being taxed and boosting the economy of Japan?

💬 Hon MICHAEL WOOD: We fully expect that the Clean Car Discount will allow more Kiwis to buy cleaner vehicles. That is what it is designed to do and that’s what we expect it to do, based on the international evidence.

Question No. 9—Environment

9. to the Minister for the Environment: What announcements has the Government made regarding reform of the resource management system?

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Today, the Government released an exposure draft of core provisions of the proposed law to replace the Resource Management Act (RMA). I intend to refer this draft and the accompanying parliamentary paper that has been tabled in the House to the Environment Committee for consideration. The Natural and Built Environments Act (NBA) covers land use and environmental protection. It will be the primary replacement for the RMA, which the Government promised at the election to repeal and replace. The proposed Strategic Planning Act will sit above the NBA to develop long-term regional spatial strategies. Improving our planning system is a priority for the Government. The current system takes too long, costs too much, has not adequately protected the environment, nor sufficiently enabled development like housing.

💬 Rachel Brooking: How will the NBA protect the environment and support development?

💬 Hon DAVID PARKER: A new national planning framework will provide clear direction on how the system is implemented. Its integrated provisions will include mandatory environmental limits to avoid irreversible harm to the environment. These will include limits relating to fresh water, coastal waters, estuaries, air, soil, and biodiversity. Development will be better enabled within these environmental limits. The national planning framework will, for the first time, include positive outcomes for both housing and infrastructure.

💬 Hon Eugenie Sage: Supplementary.

💬 SPEAKER: The Hon Eugenie Sage—I’d just say normally I would have taken the member for another one so we don’t break up the continuity.

💬 Hon Eugenie Sage: My apologies. Is the Minister considering a public consultation process for developing the national planning framework which uses a board of inquiry - style process; if not, why not?

💬 Hon DAVID PARKER: Those decisions have not yet been taken. In terms of the transition into the national planning framework of existing national direction through national planning standards and environmental standards, that’s largely a drafting exercise. I also think that it’s essential that the pro-infrastructure - and housing parts of the national planning framework be drafted before the new system comes into effect. The process that will be used for consideration of those is not decided yet. My own view is that we need to have more flexibility for the decision-making bodies to adopt processes that are proportionate to the issues that are before them, rather than the more complex processes which are always required currently.

💬 Rachel Brooking: How will the new resource management system be more efficient and effective?

💬 Hon DAVID PARKER: While the RMA is not the sole cause of the housing crisis, planning rules are partly to blame. We are creating a system that will be less complex, take less time to administer, and, therefore, will be easier for participants to navigate. The exposure draft proposes that the more than 100 existing plans be consolidated to around 14. The Strategic Planning Act would sit above the NBA to develop long-term regional spatial strategies to integrate decisions under the land transport management, local government, and climate change response Acts. NBA plans will help implement them. The intention is for communities to work together to produce one NBA plan for each region, and the resultant system will be easier and more cost-effective for users to use.

💬 Rachel Brooking: What are the next steps in the process of reforming the RMA?

💬 Hon DAVID PARKER: This evening, I’ll seek leave of the House to refer the parliamentary paper that’s been tabled and an exposure draft of the core parts of the bill to the Environment Committee for a select committee inquiry. This three-month inquiry is intended to test and improve the contents of these core parts of the bill before it goes into the formal parliamentary process. I’m advised this select committee process into an exposure draft is the first of its kind, enabled by recent changes to the Standing Orders, and it provides an open process for the public and the wider Parliament to have an early say on this key legislation. During the period of the inquiry, the Government will continue to work on other elements of the NBA not included in the exposure draft, along with the Strategic Planning Act. There will then be a second and full select committee process when both bills are introduced to Parliament next year.

Question No. 10—COVID-19 Response

10. to the Minister for COVID-19 Response: What percentage of people in each of the Government’s COVID-19 vaccine subgroups have not received at least one COVID-19 vaccination, and is he satisfied with the vaccine roll-out in New Zealand?

As I indicated to the member last week, the number of people in each group is not a static number, so I’m unable to provide percentages on who’s not received a vaccine from each subgroup, but I can provide the number of doses delivered across each of those groups. Across groups 1A and B, we’ve provided 55,514 first doses and 50,743 second doses. Across group 2, 385,148 people have received their first dose; 278,669 have been given a second dose. For group 3, 201,945 have received their first dose and just over 86,000 have had their second dose. Finally, for group 4, 51,500 have been given their first dose and around 19,000 have received their second dose. In answer to the second part of the member’s question, yes.

💬 Chris Bishop: Why have 50,000 people in group 4 received their first vaccination dose when there are still thousands of border workers in group 1 who have not yet received one dose of the vaccine?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Everybody in groups 1 and 2 has had a very extensive opportunity to receive the vaccine. Therefore, if they have not received a vaccine, it will not be because they have not been offered one or had the opportunity to get one; it will be because they have not taken up that opportunity to get the vaccine. In terms of why there are people in group 4 who have received the vaccine, some of the district health boards, as has been well-canvassed, particularly when they’re dealing with smaller and more isolated communities, have taken the approach of vaccinating the entirety of the community at the same time, rather than, for example, going to a small town to do their group 3 population, and then going back to do their group 4 population later on—they’ve made the decision to do them all at once. There are also people in group 4 who were the walk-in appointments or the off-chance appointments, which DHBs have now stopped doing. In some cases they were being done that way because it was an issue of managing their inventory—they didn’t want vaccine doses to expire. Now that the shelf life of vaccine doses has been extended at regular freezing temperature from five days to basically a month, the rationale for that is no longer there, and so DHBs have stopped doing those.

💬 Chris Bishop: In light of what he’s just said around everyone who works at the border having had a good opportunity to get a vaccine, when will the Government, if ever, move to create a simple rule, which is that if you’re working at the border, you have to have been vaccinated?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The public health rationale—the public health grounds for doing so—would not be strong enough to capture absolutely everybody that works at the border. In fact, it would be likely deemed to be an undue infringement on the rights of those people, particularly those people working at the border who are working in lower risk roles.

💬 Chris Bishop: Why will no checks be carried out on the eligibility of bookings made via the Book My Vaccine system as to whether an individual at the time of the booking belongs to the correct age group that is being vaccinated at the time?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: In order to receive an invitation to book a vaccine through Book My Vaccine, the person would have to be eligible.

💬 Chris Bishop: Why did an official say last week, “if people want to front up looking like a 30-year-old when we’re [only] dealing with a 65-year-old plus … I mean that’s really up to them, but we would encourage people just to stick to the plan”, and will that 30-year-old be vaccinated when they turn up, even if they’re 35 years away from actually being eligible?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I don’t know who said that—it clearly wasn’t me.

Question No. 11—Police

11. to the Minister of Police: What recent reports has she seen regarding Police’s efforts to disrupt organised crime?

I’ve seen reports that police have met and, indeed, exceeded their target of seizing $500 million in cash and assets from organised crime in just the last four years. Gangs should not be making money out of exploiting our communities. This Government is very clear: we will not tolerate organised crime and gangs, and I want to congratulate the police on their fantastic efforts to disrupt organised crime.

💬 Willow-Jean Prime: What impact will these seizures have on organised crime?

💬 Hon POTO WILLIAMS: Aside from taking over $500 million of ill-gotten gains out of the hands of organised crime, we know that this has a wider impact on gangs. For every one dollar restrained, $330 of crime is disrupted; for every one dollar forfeited, $350 of crime is disrupted—meaning that in the last four years alone, this Government has removed approximately $1.6 billion from the illicit economy.

💬 Willow-Jean Prime: What other reports has the Minister seen regarding police’s efforts to disrupt organised crime?

💬 Hon POTO WILLIAMS: I’ve seen a report regarding police ongoing Operation Tauwhiro noting that, as at 18 June, police have seized $4.18 million in cash from organised crime groups, seized 715 firearms, seized 17.74 kilograms of meth, and arrested 649 people. This is truly fantastic work from our police.

💬 Willow-Jean Prime: How is the Government continuing to support police’s efforts to disrupt organised crime?

💬 Hon POTO WILLIAMS: This Government has put a record number of police on the front line including those with a specific focus on organised crime. As a result, this investment continues to pay off. Recent weeks have seen police achieve New Zealand’s largest ever forfeiture under the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act when the High Court approved a forfeiture settlement of over $70 million.

Question No. 12—Health

12. to the Minister of Health: Why has only $13.6 million, or 3 percent, of the $438.2 million in Budgets 2018 and 2019 for 15 new mental health facilities and facility upgrade projects been spent?

A total of $24.9 million has been spent on the 15 projects the member refers to. Of that, $13.6 million has been reimbursed to DHBs and booked against the appropriations in Budgets 2018 and 2019.

💬 Matt Doocey: Why did the Minister say that he couldn’t understand why there was a delay in actually getting shovels in the ground when, for example, the Whakatāne mental health unit rebuild has stalled because the Bay of Plenty DHB and the Ministry of Health are in disagreement about the ministry wanting four fewer beds?

💬 Hon ANDREW LITTLE: The member is incorrect in relation to his characterisation of the issues about the Whakatāne mental health unit. That unit is undergoing its usual planning and design phase and negotiations about what is expected in that regard. My comment about delays is particularly in relation to the acute mental health facilities, which are facilities which were completely neglected by the previous Government and are in urgent need of rebuild and upgrading, and the planning phase is taking longer than I would desire for something that is regarded as urgent.

💬 Matt Doocey: Why, when the Whakatāne inpatient unit reported 108 percent occupancy rate last month alone and the Government has only spent 3 percent of funding for inpatient units, is there a disagreement over four beds holding up the building of that unit?

💬 Hon ANDREW LITTLE: The member continues to be inaccurate in his characterisation of these matters. As I’ve indicated, in spite of his assertions in his primary question, more money has been spent on the 15 projects that he refers to, and in relation to any capital expenditure project in the health sector, there is a time frame. The members will know that, because the single mental health capital project that the previous Government funded—which was the upgrade to Counties Manukau—was approved in 2015 and opened for business last year. In relation to Whakatāne, that project has been approved for funding, the design and planning process is under way, and it is on-track. The standard negotiations, as part of the planning process, are in train.

💬 Matt Doocey: Why did he say last week that he was extraordinarily frustrated that money was not flowing through fast enough when the master plan for a new 12-bed inpatient facility that was signed off by the Canterbury District Health Board and submitted to the Government in August is still waiting for approval from him 10 months later?

💬 Hon ANDREW LITTLE: The projects that had been a part of the 2018 and 2019 Budgets, apart from one—and that is the Tairāwhiti mental health and addiction project—are all on-track, are all undergoing the usual time frames for planning and design, and the usual approval processes that take place, and for projects over $10 million, multiple approval stages before construction begins. Those projects are on-track.

💬 Matt Doocey: When he told Parliament last week, “I have been the Minister of Health for…eight months, so we’ll get that correct”, was he referring to a recent Stuff article that said that former health Minister David Clark “wasted valuable years with indecision, inertia, and a refusal to take responsibility for the portfolio” and is “responsible for poor delivery of the Government’s mental health programme”?

💬 Hon ANDREW LITTLE: No.