Oral Questions

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

The Government’s swift and decisive efforts to keep people connected to their jobs and to support businesses in response to COVID-19 has been reflected in New Zealanders’ overall wellbeing. A new report by Statistics New Zealand on wellbeing shows that while the COVID-19 pandemic has had a major impact on the country, New Zealanders have remained resilient. While there were small changes over the year to March 2021, most New Zealanders remain satisfied with their lives overall, with a rating of eight out of 10, where zero is completely dissatisfied and 10 is completely satisfied. They also continued to find things they do in their life worthwhile, with a rating of 8.2 out of 10. Statistics New Zealand said that while the pandemic clearly had a major impact on the country, most people remained “happy, healthy, and satisfied with their lives, despite the challenges.” The report shows, however, that levels of satisfaction among groups were uneven and there are still ongoing challenges from the pandemic.

💬 Dr Duncan Webb: What impact has COVID-19 had on New Zealanders’ financial wellbeing?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The Government’s efforts to provide cash flow and confidence was a crucial factor in underpinning financial wellbeing during an unprecedented time. The wellbeing statistics released by Statistics New Zealand show that financial wellbeing remained at similar levels over the year, though some New Zealanders still struggle. Some 70 percent of New Zealanders said they had enough or more than enough to meet their everyday needs, while 23 percent said they only just had enough, and 6.4 percent said they did not have enough money. These statistics show we cannot afford to be complacent. The Government is working to keep people safe and accelerate the recovery, including targeting to support where it is needed most—and I note that, this week, on 1 July, we have the first round of the benefit increases and the reintroduction of the training incentive allowance.

💬 Hon Member: Oh yeah, that’ll help the economy.

💬 Dr Duncan Webb: What other reports has he seen on the New Zealand economy?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: In response to the interjection from opposite, the export sector continues to support the recovery. Statistics New Zealand reported on Friday that exports of goods in May hit their highest ever monthly level, at $5.9 billion. That’s an increase of 8.5 percent on the previous month, and an impressive 28.2 percent increase on the same period a year ago. The main contribution came from dairy products, with gains in prices in sales of milk powder and fresh milk. Forest product prices and quantities also rose in the month. [Interruption]

💬 SPEAKER: No? David Seymour.

💬 David Seymour: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I’m assuming you’re calling question 2?

💬 SPEAKER: Yes—yes.

💬 David Seymour: Oh, OK.

💬 SPEAKER: I’ve sort of got to that point that I—

💬 David Seymour: OK. I’d hate to be premature, Mr Speaker.

💬 Hon Grant Robertson: For a father and son, you don’t communicate very well.

💬 SPEAKER: No, grandson, grandson—just get there, you know. David Seymour, question 2.

💬 David Seymour: Thanks, “Grandad”.

Question No. 2—Prime Minister

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

Yes, in particular I stand by today’s announcement that this Government will continue its ambitious child poverty targets for our next three-year target period. Today, I announced that our next set of child poverty targets are to reduce child poverty by 2023-24 to 10 percent under the before-housing costs measure, 15 percent under the after-housing costs measure, and to reduce material hardship to 9 percent. Achieving our next set of three-year targets will keep us on track to meet our long-term 10-year targets, and would result in up to 80,000 fewer children living in poverty since we came into Government. Under this Government, all nine poverty measures have already gone down since 2017 and 2018, and we’ve exceeded our first three-year target ahead of schedule for the after-housing cost measure, by lifting 43,300 children out of poverty—but there’s more to do.

💬 David Seymour: Which of her Government’s policies is more on track out of KiwiBuild and the vaccine roll-out?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: We’ve had now over a million doses of vaccine delivered to New Zealanders, and when we take into account fully vaccinated New Zealanders, that brings us ahead of, say, the likes of Australia. If the member is looking for good base comparisons for where we are relative to other countries around the world, I would point not simply to a measure of income, as the member has done previously, but a measure of how well we’re doing relative to other countries with the same rate of COVID infection and death. We should also be looking at the developing world. It is simply not good enough that the vaccination rates continue to be persistently low in those places, because if we are going to be safe, we must all be safe.

💬 David Seymour: When she became Prime Minister, did she ever think she’d be reduced to saying, “Hey, we’re doing better than Africa.”?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: When it comes to global health and wellbeing in a global pandemic, how countries like those in Africa are performing is relevant to us. And, as a country who has a stake in the wellbeing of all nations, including developing ones, I imagine that’s a consideration most New Zealanders would be proud to take.

💬 David Seymour: Does she stand by Chris Hipkins’ statement that New Zealand would be “At the front of the queue” for receiving COVID-19 vaccines; and if so, how did we get from the front of the queue to the bottom of the OECD?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I absolutely refute the premise of that member’s question, as we have secured the vaccine required to vaccinate our entire population within this year. I would also point out to the member there are very few countries that are also in the position to be able to roll out a single vaccine, which does present not only the benefits of a vaccine that’s holding up well in terms of its efficacy against variants but also reduces some of the logistical challenges. We are such a country. Israel is one of the other few countries who have access for a whole population against that vaccine.

💬 David Seymour: Was it a mistake to rely on one vaccine, because we no longer have a diversity of suppliers; and if so, will the Government reverse that position by sourcing vaccines from other suppliers?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Again, the member is wrong in the premise of his question. We do still have supply from other vaccines. Those vaccines—AstraZeneca, Janssen, and others—continue to go through the Medsafe approval process. That process will only happen as quickly as those pharmaceutical companies provide the data that Medsafe requires. That’s the first point I’ll make. The second is that other countries who do have a mixed programme of vaccines—the likes of Australia—you’ll notice have had to change up some of their direction around who is able to access that vaccine; it does not necessarily mean their roll-out is faster. The third point: all pharmaceutical companies have been ramping up their supply in the latter part of the calendar year of 2021; the first half of the year, for most vaccine suppliers, has always been constrained.

💬 David Seymour: How much vaccine—or how many doses of the vaccine—are currently on shore in New Zealand; and, at current rates, how many days does the Prime Minister expect that supply to last?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: We do have some limitation around incoming supply, in terms of what we’re able to say, from the pharmaceutical companies; they have some requirements on us on what we say about our delivery schedule. However, for a long time, a number of weeks, we have been very open about the fact that we are currently, because we have outstripped our targets—the DHBs have outstripped the targets—if we maintain our current trajectory we will be able to continue to deliver vaccines for those who are booked, but if there is any slippage in the delivery schedule, there is likely to be constrained supply. But that is, at this stage, only if our pharmaceutical company does not deliver as they intended to.

💬 David Seymour: Does the Prime Minister have a schedule of the dates and volumes of scheduled delivery from that pharmaceutical company, and will she publish it for the benefit of the House and all New Zealanders?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Yes, but we tend to get them about four weeks in advance, rather than out to eight weeks or so on. That’s been something that’s been consistent all the way through, and we’ve been public about that. As I just said in my last answer, though, we have been open about the fact that we have some supply constraints, but Pfizer have been reluctant for us to give exact numbers around delivery schedules—that’s part of their commercial arrangements.

💬 David Seymour: Is the Prime Minister concerned that modelling shows New Zealand would need to get to 97 percent of the population vaccinated to protect against new COVID-19 variants; and is she confident that New Zealand will reach 97 percent vaccination rate if that’s the case?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I’m really pleased in the change we’ve seen in New Zealanders’ willingness to be vaccinated. So over time, as we’ve been measuring and asking New Zealanders how they feel about being vaccinated, we’ve steadily been seeing that hesitancy reduce. So we’re up around rates of 80 percent of New Zealanders willing to be vaccinated. When it comes to the modelling, it is early days for some of that modelling, and I think we’ll continue to see those researchers do that work. Some of the modelling doesn’t take into account any other form of protection against the pandemic—you know, the use of, for instance, testing at the border or contact tracing and how that can reduce down risk. I expect the scientific community will continue to undertake that modelling for us—we’ve talked with them about that—to help inform our decision making. But my message to New Zealanders is: if we want to reduce the use of restrictions like lockdown, then the best thing we can do is get as many people as possible vaccinated.

💬 David Seymour: Does the Government see its obligation as ensuring everybody has had the opportunity to receive a COVID-19 vaccine or ensuring New Zealand reaches herd immunity; and, if the former, then will the Government continue with the elimination strategy after every New Zealander has had the opportunity to have a COVID-19 vaccine?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I see our obligation as keeping New Zealand and New Zealanders safe. The best way that we can do that is to ensure as many people as possible are vaccinated. Now, I do see that we have some obligation because many people actually are just seeking more information in order to make a decision. We can provide that, we can provide that encouragement, so can experts in the field, and so can other members of the community. But what I’d also say about an elimination strategy: elimination does not mean that there will be zero incidents of COVID, and we already know that; it means, when it arises, you stamp it out. We already have infectious diseases in New Zealand where we take that approach, we use contact tracing; public health measures; and, in this case for COVID, measures at the border. I anticipate we’ll continue to use those in combination with the vaccine programme.

💬 David Seymour: Point of order. The question was quite specific. Now, the Prime Minister has described why it’s important to be vaccinated, she’s described the technical definition of “elimination”, but she hasn’t said whether the Government would change from an elimination strategy if vaccination was to reach herd immunity level or what she would do if it hasn’t. It was quite a specific question, and a lot of people would like to know the answer. The Prime Minister hasn’t actually addressed it.

💬 SPEAKER: I’ll refer the member to Speaker’s ruling 183/3.

Question No. 3—Prime Minister

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

Yes, particularly the Government’s work around three waters. In our proposal to establish four publicly owned entities to take responsibility of drinking-water, waste-water, and stormwater infrastructure across New Zealand, the data released today shows that our reforms will save ratepayers thousands of dollars, create thousands of new jobs. These changes are one part of a package of proposed reforms following the inquiry into the Havelock North drinking-water outbreak. We want to ensure that we have safe water infrastructure across the country to avoid situations like the campylobacter outbreaks we had in Havelock North, and this is crucial to that goal. As we undertake our economic recovery, these new entities will upgrade infrastructure for our most precious natural resource, which will not only help rein in increasing costs for households but provide local jobs while contributing to regional economies.

💬 Hon Judith Collins: What is her response to Dr Bryce Edwards, who yesterday wrote, “It seems neither [the Prime Minister nor the justice Minister] have a good understanding of their own reforms, and their statements suggest that the proposed laws might have a chilling [effect] on society and political activity” in relation to her hate speech laws?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I would absolutely reject that statement.

💬 Hon Judith Collins: What is her response to Tova O’Brien, who wrote—[Interruption]

💬 SPEAKER: Order!

💬 Hon Judith Collins: What is her response to Tova O’Brien, who wrote, “Jacinda Ardern is wrong about her own hate speech law. Completely and utterly wrong. Not only is the Prime Minister wrong about the basic facts of the proposal, she [is] wrong to shut down debate on hate speech”.

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I also disagree with that statement and I also, as it happens, disagree with the member’s statement on Twitter that somehow it will become illegal to call someone a Karen. That is absolutely incorrect—and, I apologise, that means these laws will not protect that member from such a claim. [Interruption]

💬 SPEAKER: Order!

💬 Hon Judith Collins: Point of order. Sorry, I really meant to say—I’ve decided actually not to ask that point. I thought it would be cruel to ask it, so I won’t. I’ll just ask a supplementary, if I may?

💬 SPEAKER: Well, I think Chris Hipkins has the next supplementary.

💬 Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I wonder, if it’s acceptable to ask the Prime Minister what her response to a range of public comments is, whether it would be acceptable to ask her what her response is to a number of public comments made by Christopher Finlayson in the last 24 hours?

💬 SPEAKER: Well, she has about the same level of responsibility. If Mr Finlayson was describing matters for which she does have responsibility—I think the quotes so far do relate to areas where the Prime Minister has responsibility. And I just do want to warn the Leader of the House: the more I think about it, the more I am considering the possibility that he might have known that his point of order was not one. I’ll be—

💬 David Seymour: Overestimated.

💬 SPEAKER: Who said that?

💬 Ian McKelvie: Point of order, Mr Speaker.

💬 SPEAKER: No, I’m sorry. I’ll stand up so I’m—David Seymour might have been accurate in his interjection, which was inappropriate. I’m going to make the assumption now there was no mens rea involved, otherwise I would have taken it seriously. Supplementary question—

💬 Ian McKelvie: Point of order, Mr Speaker.

💬 SPEAKER: I’m sorry—a point of order.

💬 Ian McKelvie: Could I ask you to reflect on the last couple of minutes in the House over the next 24 hours and report back to us tomorrow on whether you think the debate has been constructive in any way to forming order in the House.

💬 SPEAKER: Well, I think—the answer is: no, it hasn’t been. But I would look slightly to his right or a couple to his right and forward, I would look into the front row of his own bench and consider whether their behaviour on earlier questions, and actually their reaction while his own leader was asking—her questions were being answered, did, in fact, wind the situation up as well. So the answer is: I decline his invitation to report back to the House on behaviour. I will say, though, that I have had in the last—yesterday and on Wednesday last week, significantly more public reaction to misbehaviour in the House than I’ve had for some time.

💬 Ian McKelvie: Point of order, Mr Speaker.

💬 SPEAKER: A further point of order.

💬 Ian McKelvie: Point of order, Mr Speaker. With due respect, I, like you, have selective hearing, and I did not hear the issues you’re asking me to talk about. So maybe we should go through that again?

💬 SPEAKER: I want to say to the member that my hearing aids are working very well at the moment. My hearing problems are sometimes selective, but they’re not selective today.

💬 Hon Judith Collins: So what is her response to Audrey Young, who wrote, “She and Faafoi would have a much better chance of persuading the public if they a) got the facts right and b) were prepared to discuss hypothetical examples so the public had a good idea of what is intended by the proposals.”?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: And I think also the most persuasive thing we can do is anchor this entire debate in why we’re having it in the first place, and that is because the royal commission has rightly pointed out to this House, and to us generally, that currently our existing laws, which have been around for 50 years, do not include reference to religious organisations or those with religious beliefs, and does not provide them the coverage that our current hate speech laws do. So these proposals intend to extend that; we’re seeking public views on how widely. And, at the same time, we have narrowed some of the scope of the provisions, and I would welcome a good debate on whether or not that meets the public’s and this House’s expectations.

💬 Hon Judith Collins: Does she agree with the section in the royal commission report which says, “Further restricting and criminalising hate speech would be misconceived, as it is likely to drive hate speech underground, where it contributes to more radicalisation.”?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I take it from the member quoting from the report, the implication that she therefore supports where they landed, because so did we. That’s why we have taken the language that they propose. And I would answer by saying I also agree with their statement that “We consider that the concerns about freedom of expression are met with a high threshold for liability, requiring the prosecution to establish an intention to stir up, maintain, or normalise hatred towards members of the protected group and its specifically addressing explicit and implicit calls for violence against such a group.” And that is what the wording of these proposals does.

💬 Hon Judith Collins: What is her response to Heather du Plessis-Allan, who wrote of the Prime Minister and the justice Minister, “neither of them understand what they’re proposing to do, which means they don’t know how bad this law is. They should take a look, because many of us who have looked are not comfortable.”?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I’ll say what I said in the House yesterday: for those expressing discomfort with the current proposal, that would suggest to me that they have discomfort with our current laws, because there is (a), not only a lot of similarity in the threshold that’s required; there’s actually a narrowing of some of the language. The old language included things like “bringing into ridicule or contempt”. In the view of the royal commission, the use of the word “hatred” and the need to incite that hatred sets a very high threshold, and therefore protects New Zealanders’ expectation around freedom of expression.

💬 Hon Judith Collins: Does she agree with her Minister for Courts that addressing coronial inquest wait times “could take three years, could take 18 years”; if so, what is her response to distressed families who have said hearing her Minister say this shows that he has no idea about the urgency of the matter?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I reject that suggestion from the Minister—member. [Interruption] What I would also say—

💬 SPEAKER: Order! Order!

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: —from Minister Sio is that I have seen and heard him advocate for the work that we need to do to ensure timely responses for victims.

Question No. 4—COVID-19 Response

4. to the Minister for COVID-19 Response: What arrangements are being put in place to recommence quarantine-free travel with Australia?

Yesterday, Cabinet agreed, in principle, that from 11.59 p.m. on Sunday, 4 July, New Zealand will lift the travel pause to allow travellers from South Australia, the ACT, Tasmania, and Victoria to travel to New Zealand. Yesterday’s decision gives airlines, passengers, and all of those affected time to prepare flights from those green zones when the pause lifts on Sunday night. People travelling will need to get a pre-departure test. We do know how important the travel bubble is, in particular for families and for businesses, but we also want to avoid a situation where we’re having to respond to a case or cases here in New Zealand.

💬 Arena Williams: What additional measures will be put in place to help keep COVID19 out of New Zealand?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: To be eligible to fly, travellers must not have been in New South Wales on or after 11.59 p.m. on 22 June, when our pause with New South Wales commenced, or in Queensland, the Northern Territory, or Western Australia on or after 10 p.m. on 26 June, which is when our pause with the rest of Australia began. We want to ensure that New Zealanders aren’t unnecessarily barred from travelling back to New Zealand where there is little or no risk of them bringing COVID-19 with them, but we will also be requiring people to have a negative pre-departure test within 72 hours before coming home to New Zealand, as an additional layer of protection.

💬 Arena Williams: What factors did the Government consider in recommencing quarantine-free travel with Australia?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Cabinet carefully weighed up the evidence and considered that partially lifting the pause was an appropriate course of action, particularly when bolstered with the introduction of mandatory pre-departure testing. The health advice was that the spread of COVID-19 in these parts of Australia had been contained, there is robust surveillance testing and contact tracing to detect and manage cases, and adequate border controls in place to prevent the spread of new cases.

💬 Arena Williams: What will happen in the event of another outbreak in Australia?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: One of the reasons that we have allowed ourselves a few additional days is that we will be keeping a very close eye on developments in Australia between now and the end of the weekend. Detailed risk assessments will continue to be completed regularly for each state and territory, and we’ll be ready to make further decisions quickly if we need to do so. We will review the restrictions remaining in place for the other Australian states on or before next Tuesday, 6 July. Our system from here, of only opening up to the states that have been able to contain COVID-19, will help to ensure that New Zealand can remain at alert level 1.

Question No. 5—Revenue

5. to the Minister of Revenue: Is the Government committed to removing the ability for interest expense to be deducted from residential rental income; if so, what is the expected increase in annual tax payable from the 2025/26 tax year for an investor who owns a typical rental property in Auckland?

Yes, the Government is committed to this policy. It is part of our coordinated response to the housing crisis. It will ensure that first-home buyers and owner-occupiers get a fair go, and it will also head off the economic risk of an out-of-control housing bubble. Regarding the second part of the question, the answer will depend upon a number of variables, including the amount of rental income, interest rates in five years’ time, and the amount of debt, if any, an investor has over their properties. If an investor invests in new homes, there will be no increase. This is because new builds are exempt.

💬 Andrew Bayly: Does he agree with the joint advice he received from the Treasury, IRD, and the Ministry of Housing and Urban Development, dated February 2021, that under his policy a landlord with a $700,000 mortgage would face a tax increase of $9,240 a year?

💬 Hon DAVID PARKER: That would depend upon future interest rates—in respect of which, I note that upon the announcement of our policy, the New Zealand exchange rate immediately dropped because there was a baked-in expectation from the market that interest rates were going to have to be raised by the Reserve Bank to head off a housing bubble. As a consequence of what we’ve done, interest rates will be lower for longer than they would otherwise have been. I also note that Westpac reported, following their analysis, that removal of deductibility of interest would remove the 10 percent extra growth they expected in house prices over the rest of the year. So, in our view, on this side of the House, we’re actually doing something that’s working.

💬 Andrew Bayly: Is it fair that a mum and dad landlord will have to pay $9,000 every year in additional tax, after an election where the Government promised no tax increases?

💬 Hon DAVID PARKER: Well, that’s not necessarily true; it depends upon the factors that I’ve already outlined. But I would note that landlords did not decrease rents when interest rates dropped over the last decade.

💬 Andrew Bayly: Does he realise that when a landlord is faced with a tax increase of over $9,000 a year, the likely outcome is that they will either put up the rent or sell their rental property?

💬 Hon DAVID PARKER: I don’t think that’s necessarily correct.

💬 Andrew Bayly: Is the objective of this tax policy to make people sell their rental properties?

💬 Hon DAVID PARKER: No, it’s not, but if they didn’t, the house would not erupt in flames and disappear.

💬 Andrew Bayly: What is the message to New Zealanders who will have to sell their one rental property that they have invested in for their retirement, because he’s increased the tax bill?

💬 Hon DAVID PARKER: I think the majority of New Zealanders do not like the fact that an increasing proportion of New Zealand’s housing stock is owned by people who own many houses, and the rate of homeownership has been dropping. I also repeatedly had feedback from New Zealanders following this message that they’re pleased to have a Government that’s actually taking material steps to address the housing crisis across a number of decisions on both supply and demand side. They note that other parties call for change and then oppose every change that is proposed.

Question No. 6—Environment

6. to the Minister for the Environment: What announcements has the Government made regarding the reduction of waste?

This week, the Government has delivered on its promise to phase out problem plastics and some single-use plastics by 2025. We’ll be phasing out hard-to-recycle food and drink packaging made from polyvinyl chloride (PVC) and polystyrene and some degradable plastic products. We’ll be phasing out single-use plastic items such as drink stirrers; cotton buds; single-use produce bags; single-use plastic cutlery, plates, and bowls; as well as non-compostable plastic labels. We’ve made good progress over the last three years and there’s strong public and business support for the 2019 plastic-bag ban, which has meant that more than 1 billion fewer plastic bags have ended up in our landfills or ocean, and we know that New Zealanders are ready to do more.

💬 Tangi Utikere: Why has the Government acted to phase out problem plastics?

💬 Hon DAVID PARKER: In the case of PVC and some degradable plastics, they can’t be practicably distinguished and recycled compared with other alternatives. And so what happens in practice is they contaminate the recycling of other plastics, so we’ve got to manage them out of the system. Other single-use items often end up as waste in landfills or cause pollution. New Zealand’s not got a very good record in this regard, and we need to do a lot better. We’re one of the worst in the OECD in terms of the plastic waste per capita. We think that New Zealanders support change. We consulted on these changes, 8,000 people and businesses responded, and the vast majority supported the proposals. We think phasing out unnecessary and problematic plastics will help reduce waste, improve recycling, and move us towards a circular economy.

💬 Tangi Utikere: How will the Government support innovation and research into alternatives to problem plastics?

💬 Hon DAVID PARKER: The Government has delivered on a number of the Labour Party’s election promises at the time of the last election by launching the $50 million Plastics Innovation Fund, which will help support projects to improve how we make, use, recycle, and dispose of plastics. This will fund innovative New Zealanders to help identify the solutions that we need, and then help them to scale up so that we can get them into commercial use. The fund will find ways to use less plastic to make what we do recyclable for the benefit of the environment, but it’ll also have job benefits and support the economy. Projects designing out waste in products and packaging or to adopt and scale up existing technologies through to switching materials and developing recycling solutions not currently available can all be considered. We expect that the fund, which opens later this year, will attract a range of applicants from research institutes, businesses, and community groups. The Government’s committed to making good progress to a lower-waste, low-emissions economy.

💬 Hon Eugenie Sage: In the absence of a Government decision to phase out wet wipes, will the Minister ask the Commerce Commission to investigate misleading advertising which claims that wet wipes are flushable when they are not; and, if not, why not?

💬 Hon DAVID PARKER: I haven’t given consideration to the Commerce Act angle—I’m happy to think about that. The member is right to point out that we do have more work to do in respect of wet wipes. They’re not only causing very significant, costly problems for local government and their sewerage infrastructure, if, as I’m sure the member knows, you visit natural places and tissue paper and toilet paper degrades in rain, but these plastic equivalents last forever, and we need to eventually phase them out. I think we will eventually phase them out, but we need alternatives that are biodegradable to be readily available so that people who have legitimate uses of these can get what they need. In the meantime, people using them should not flush them; they should dispose of them in rubbish bins.

Question No. 7—Justice

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

Yes, because, as I said yesterday, we want New Zealanders to be able to have their say on the proposed changes to our incitement laws, and have been informed by the royal commissioner of inquiry. What we are asking the public for feedback on is whether more groups beyond race, nationality, and ethnicity should be protected under our existing incitement provisions, whether we should strengthen the penalties, and refining and organising the language and the wording of the offence provisions. I was surprised at the approach that the member took yesterday to hate speech, because back in 2019, when he was Leader of the Opposition, on hate speech he said, “I have no criticism of [this] … going through, albeit you have to be careful—”. That is exactly what we are doing by making sure the public can have their say through the discussion document.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: How could he say yesterday that his proposed hate speech changes do not lower the existing high bar for something to be considered hate speech, when his proposals document on page 5 makes clear its aim that any person with the intention of normalising hatred would commit a criminal offence if they merely insult a protected group?

💬 Hon KRIS FAAFOI: I disagree with the assertion by the member. The proposals in the discussion document maintained the thresholds for incitement of hate speech, as they currently stand, and look to narrow the definition of hatred. And I would welcome that the member should take the careful approach that he talked about back in 2019, as Leader of the Opposition, and make a submission to the discussion document.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: How could he say yesterday that the high bar isn’t being lowered for hate speech, when his proposals document, again on page 5, makes clear that any person will face civil penalty for inciting discrimination if they simply encourage others to treat members of a protected group differently than others?

💬 Hon KRIS FAAFOI: Quite simply because the proposals that we have put in a discussion document come out of the royal commission of inquiry, which said itself their proposals “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.” I would also note that that member has been put in charge of his party’s response to the royal commission of inquiry. I would suggest he takes the careful approach that he talked about back in 2019.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: Isn’t it clear, given there has been only one conviction for hate speech under the current human rights law and its predecessor, and given that he’s proposing changes to simplify, lower the bar, and move the law to the top criminal statute, the Crimes Act, that this law change will result in many more police prosecutions and convictions?

💬 Hon KRIS FAAFOI: Again, I disagree with the assertion from the member. We are maintaining the threshold that is in the current legislation for hate speech, which only pertains to people around their race, colour, or nationality. Again, I would stress to the member that the careful approach that he said he’d take back in 2019 should be taken in 2021 as well.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: How can he say the Government is just following the royal commission on the terror attacks hate recommendations, when he hasn’t started implementing any of its less vexed hate crime proposals, but he is moving to change and broaden the much more controversial hate speech ones?

💬 Hon KRIS FAAFOI: It’s pretty simple. Back in early December, the royal commission of inquiry made the proposal that we should change the hate crime laws. We are following through on the commitment to those communities, who have, even this morning, expressed that they would like to see these laws changed.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: What is just one way his proposed hate speech laws will prevent future terrorist attacks in New Zealand?

💬 Hon KRIS FAAFOI: This is about hate speech and inciting hate speech towards potentially expanding that to communities that aren’t protected at the moment. I think it’s pretty simple that if you are a group that is targeted by hate speech, because someone is inciting hatred against you and that turns into an act, I would hope that would prevent the kinds of things that the royal commission was looking at.

Question No. 8—Local Government

8. to the Minister of Local Government: What information will councils have access to in order to consider the benefit of three waters reform and the impact on ratepayers?

Today’s announcement is the next step in our three waters reform approach that will save ratepayers thousands of dollars and ensure New Zealanders can have safe drinking water and sustainable stormwater and waste-water services into the future. Building on evidence released in early June, showing New Zealand was facing $120 billion to $185 billion needed to invest in these services, today I’ve released compelling evidence that shows every community will benefit from the proposed three waters reforms. The data shows that, without these changes, the average cost per household for delivering these essential services could be as high as $9,000 by 2051. Under our proposals, modelling shows that individual households across New Zealand will save thousands of dollars while enabling long-term investment in core waters infrastructure.

💬 Rachel Boyack: What feedback has she received to date from councils about the reform proposals?

💬 Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: Councils have expressed a desire to see the data and evidence underpinning the reform proposals as it relates to their individual circumstances. Now that councils have received this data, they can assess the impact of these proposed reforms for themselves and, importantly, the impact for their ratepayers. For the vast majority of councils, these reforms will provide a significant uplift in their borrowing capacity to invest in their own communities. Councils want to know what the impact of reforms will be for them and that they will not be worse off as a result. We’re working with local government on an approach to support councils through this transition.

💬 Rachel Boyack: What other decisions will help the councils consider the scale, significance, and merit of the reform proposals?

💬 Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: As I previously have said, this reform will save every household in New Zealand money over the long term to ensure they’ll have safe, reliable drinking water and support our communities to have better freshwater outcomes. In addition to scale, other benefits include balance-sheet separation from debt-constrained councils, the ability to spread cost over a larger area and population over time, operational efficiencies of larger water service entities, providing for consumer voice, introducing an economic regulator, and meeting Te Mana o te Wai obligations.

Question No. 9—Local Government

9. to the Minister of Local Government: Does she stand by all of her statements and actions in relation to the Three Waters Reform Programme?

Yes. In particular, I stand by my statement “The case for change is compelling.” The member might want to take that line! The evidence is clear that all communities will benefit from the Government’s proposed three waters reforms. Without this change, communities are going to either face very large bills for water services or infrastructure will continue to degrade, with ongoing health and environmental consequences. Both of these outcomes are unacceptable. And, as I said, wider benefits will also include greater borrowing capability, strengthened governance capabilities, procurement efficiencies, operational proficiencies, smarter asset management, a more predictable pipeline of investment.

💬 Christopher Luxon: Can she explain how there will be any efficiency or scale benefits in merging water assets on either side of the Cook Strait, other than creating a larger, more bureaucratic organisation?

💬 Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: As I say, the benefit of scale is not determined by whether or not the water entity coverage, or network, is split between two islands. The modelling has been based on catchment, population, council boundaries, communities of interest, and iwi. There are benefits in scale efficiencies. The modelling shows that.

💬 Christopher Luxon: What is her response to Waimate Mayor Craig Rowley, who called the three waters ad campaign “appalling, sensationalising, and showing a lack of respect and understanding from central government”?

💬 Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: I understand that councils may have their own views about the communications campaign. The audience is very clear: we need to demonstrate to ratepayers that the benefit of reform will extend to their household bill, and it does. The counterfactual is that the status quo situation of 67 territorial authorities delivering water that is inefficient, where we have pipes breaking down, we have intermittent water-boiling notices in various communities, cannot continue. That’s why we’re pursuing these reforms.

💬 Christopher Luxon: Are her Government’s reforms predicated on strong relationships and scale benefits, and are they at risk if councils continue to opt out, as Whangarei District Council has?

💬 Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: There are a couple of questions in there. Let me go to the second part, which is the issue of opt-out. The member has already heard me say in a previous response that local authorities that opt out pose a risk to achieving the intended reform outcomes. If a large number of councils choose to opt out of the reform process, the impact on scale benefits could include a reduction in the potential to achieve operating, capital, and financial efficiencies; compromised economic viability of the reforms; some communities missing out on the benefits of reforms, especially those with a lower ratepaying base; and the creation of a patchwork quilt of three waters owners and managers within a catchment. This is, in fact, the status quo. Given that local government and councils have already accepted that there is a compelling case for change, now that we have the data analysis and evidence to support that view, it would be useful for councils to understand the information that is being released today in order to help them make their decision. I find it difficult to understand why they would pull away from this proposal.

💬 Christopher Luxon: Can she, therefore, guarantee that the three waters reforms will remain voluntary and that central government will not force or mandate councils to participate in amalgamation?

💬 Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: I can guarantee that the benefits of this reform approach are intended to reach every household, in every community across the country. It is a compelling case for change, and those councils who have made premature decisions, in the absence of having the information, may want to pause and think again, because, at the end of the day, if households are faced with the prospect of paying a tripling, doubling, or even ten times the cost for their water services going forward into the future, that is not an acceptable position to be in.

💬 SPEAKER: The member can have another one if he wants. You know, looking at me like that doesn’t get him a question; he has to stand up.

💬 Christopher Luxon: Does she agree with Auckland Mayor Phil Goff that the reforms are “complex, confused on governance, and lack accountability”?

💬 Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: No. And I can reiterate, in terms of Auckland, that we do appreciate that, under their current model, greater financial flexibility is needed in the Watercare situation to unlock greater borrowing and opportunity for secured investment rather than a continual putting off of renewals, which they are currently in under their Auckland Watercare model.

Question No. 10—Internal Affairs

10. to the Minister of Internal Affairs: What recent announcements has the Minister made to support young people to stay safe online?

Earlier this week, we released the new interactive e-book called The Inter-Yeti, targeted at children aged five to 12 to help them safely navigate the online world. This interactive tool shows our children how to deal with bullies, strangers, and content that makes them feel uncomfortable online. This is the latest series in our hugely successful Keep It Real Online public awareness campaign to help educate children, teens, and adults on how to stay safe online. The Inter-Yeti e-book was co-designed with a fantastic team of five- to 11-year-olds who helped us create the content so that it was relevant and meaningful to them. From one 11-year-old quoted who said, “This makes a boring teaching moment fun and interesting.”

💬 Naisi Chen: Why was this style of educational campaign chosen?

💬 Hon JAN TINETTI: We know that 40 percent of Kiwis have online interactions with people they’ve never met in real life. We also know that our kids are growing up in a world that is becoming increasingly digital. While this brings many benefits, there are also risks, with online harms reaching kids as young as five. It is important that we created a campaign that was engaging but could also equip young New Zealanders with the tools to rebuff negative information and provide them with support to be safe online.

💬 Naisi Chen: Where can young people, teachers, and parents access the content?

💬 Hon JAN TINETTI: Members may have already seen the series promoted through ads on TV, on YouTube, posters, and billboards around the country. But the e-book series is available now on the Keep It Real Online website for everyone to check out. Resources such as colouring-in pages and stickers will be made available through the website to help children engage with the messages. The e-book isn’t time-limited, so this will be a resource that can continue to be accessed for years to come.

Question No. 11—Education

11. to the Associate Minister of Education: What actions will she take, if any, in response to the finding in the Christchurch Girls’ High School survey on harassment and abuse that half of all students have experienced sexual harassment, and does she believe that Aotearoa’s schools have a sexual abuse culture?

I was extremely upset and concerned by the findings of this report. Sexual harassment is absolutely not acceptable in any form, anywhere in society—and particularly in our schools. I would like to take a moment to thank the young women who came forward to tell their stories, and for bringing to light the harassment and abuse they have experienced—that takes a lot of courage. In terms of the immediate actions, our focus has been on the young women affected. The Ministry of Education has made appropriate support available to the school and to all students. Ultimately, the seriousness of the issues that have been raised are a matter for the police. In regards to the second part of the question, there is no place for sexual violence in Aotearoa, but I think that this report has raised some systemic issues we must address as a country, which is why we now have a Minister for the Prevention of Family and Sexual Violence, the Hon Marama Davidson, who has been leading work on a longer-term strategy to end sexual abuse and violence.

💬 Simeon Brown: Meeting with the gangs.

💬 Chris Bishop: How’s she going? How’s she going? She’s done nothing.

💬 SPEAKER: Order! This is a serious matter, not a laughing matter.

💬 Jan Logie: Will she direct the Education Review Office (ERO) to run a nationwide survey to ensure all schools understand the prevalence of sexual harassment and violence experienced by their students?

💬 Hon JAN TINETTI: In its review programme, ERO regularly raises issues about student wellbeing with schools. ERO requires school boards to confirm that policies, procedures, and guidelines are in place around wellbeing, including providing a safe physical and emotional environment, anti-bullying initiatives, and internet safety. In terms of a more wide-reaching survey, I also know that Minister Davidson has recently launched a national engagement process around the elimination of family and sexual violence, which will be used as the foundations of a national strategy and action plan. Similarly, Minister Radhakrishnan has the first national youth health and wellbeing survey, What About Me, currently under way to look at youth wellbeing in New Zealand. That survey covers a range of topics such as self-harm, pornography, consensual sexual activity, unwanted sexual contact, and where young people go for advice and help about sex and relationships.

💬 Jan Logie: Will any of those initiatives give individual schools the information on prevalence and how much abuse their children that they have care for have experienced to drive their response?

💬 Hon JAN TINETTI: The surveys will give us an understanding of the prevalence of this really terrible issue within this country. New Zealand State schools are required to ensure a safe and inclusive environment for their schools, and the Minister of Education and his associates, including myself, expect schools to have policies, practices, and programmes which support a bully-free environment, including programmes which give attention to the elimination of homophobic bullying, transgender bullying, and sexual harassment. Clearly, there is more work to do in this area, and these are conversations that I wish to continue with the member, but also with the Minister the Hon Marama Davidson.

💬 Jan Logie: Is she monitoring the implementation of the recommendations made in the 2018 ERO report, Promoting wellbeing through sexuality education, that depressingly found only 20 percent of schools were teaching sexuality education well; and if yes, what has changed for students on the ground since then?

💬 Hon JAN TINETTI: The results of the 2018 ERO report were very concerning, and as a direct result of that report, guidelines from the Ministry of Education on relationships and sexuality education were implemented in 2020, that expect that schools will teach and develop in students knowledge of issues around coercion, consent, and safety in intimate relationships; effective and assertive communication skills; awareness of ethics and of their own personal values; and a respect for the feelings and decisions of others. In Budget 2020, we funded 40 curriculum wellbeing leads in the Ministry of Education to support schools in delivering this part of the New Zealand Curriculum. We expect all schools to be delivering on the requirements that sit within the New Zealand Curriculum, and in particular those around relationships and sexuality. I also expect to get detailed updates in that area.

💬 Jan Logie: If Christchurch Girls’ High School has, with the Minister’s support, had to employ two more counsellors, provide additional support for teachers, bring agencies into the school to provide reporting options, and set up new reporting systems, doesn’t this suggest we need to properly resource whole-of-school responses to ensure all our students are safe and this violence isn’t tacitly normalised?

💬 Hon JAN TINETTI: This Government has increased the numbers of counsellors in schools from the beginning of this year. We increased the full-time teacher equivalent number of counsellors into secondary schools, and announcements are to be made soon about counsellors in primary schools. There is a need to ensure that our traumatic incident teams are available at any time—which I know from personal experience they are—to be able to go in to support those schools and those young people most in need. What we do need to say, though, is, given the seriousness of what this report has brought to light, that this is not something that we can expect teachers to fully address themselves. We have a responsibility, every single one of us, to change attitudes, assumptions, and cultures around sexual harassment across our society.

Question No. 12—Housing (Public Housing)

12. to the Associate Minister of Housing (Public Housing): What criteria are used to determine which Kāinga Ora homes should have first priority when ensuring State-owned homes meet the healthy homes standards?

on behalf of the Associate Minister of Housing (Public Housing): The approach in the first year prioritised homes with multiple young children, elderly, those with disabilities, and those who had been through the previous Rheumatic Fever Prevention Programme who have been referred from district health boards. There is also an escalation process whereby customers that might need healthy homes intervention sooner can discuss their concerns with their tenancy manager.

Brooke van Velden: Does she believe it is acceptable that a terminally ill man living in a Kāinga Ora home has to fight to get a heat pump in the middle of winter, when private landlords, under healthy homes standards coming into force tomorrow, have been forced to install heat pumps?

In answer to the first part of the question, do I think it is acceptable, on behalf of the Minister, no, that is not acceptable and that’s why Kāinga Ora have recognised this, rectified the situation, and apologised. In answer to the second part of the question, which seemed to suggest there was a differentiation between the requirements under the healthy homes legislation on Kāinga Ora than private landlords: of course, while for private landlords, ultimately, the last end date for compliance will be 2024, under some circumstances, Kāinga Ora has an end date, along with other community housing providers, of 2023 for compliance with the legislation.

Brooke van Velden: What does she say to the elderly woman who has been denied a heat pump multiple times and to the woman with severe asthma who has been in and out of hospital because her house, a Kāinga Ora house, isn’t insulated?

On behalf of the Minister, what I would say to those two tenants is there is an escalation process and if those cases have not been referred through an escalation process, I ask that member—as members of Parliament across this House on a daily basis do—to bring that to the attention of Kāinga Ora. But I do point the member to the fact that this financial year, 1,256 upgrades to healthy homes standards have been completed as a result of escalations either through the Rheumatic Fever Prevention Programme or escalations through tenancy managers for at-risk tenants.

Brooke van Velden: Can she guarantee that there are no other vulnerable people in Kāinga Ora homes suffering from living in a poor quality State home?

On behalf of the Minister, no. That is why this is a Government that has put in place a requirement for us finally to provide housing, whether that be in the private or the public sector, that is healthy for people to live in. It is also precisely why, as we need the time to roll this out, as private landlords have, we have put in place an escalation process, so that if we do discover people that do require quicker interventions, we are in a position to do so.