Oral Questions

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

The Government’s efforts in securing the economic recovery have led to a sharp rise in business confidence. The New Zealand Institute of Economic Research latest Quarterly Survey of Business Opinion, released today, shows that firms are more upbeat about their own prospects and the wider economy in the June quarter. On a seasonally adjusted basis, a net 26 percent of businesses recorded an increase in their own trading activity in the quarter, compared with a net 2 percent in the previous three months. They also feel positive about the next quarter, with a net 28 percent of respondents expecting a pick-up in activity, up from a net 8 percent. There was also a continued recovery in firms’ confidence about the general economic outlook, with a net 10 percent of businesses expecting an improvement in general economic conditions over the coming months.

💬 Dr Duncan Webb: What is the impact of the economy on businesses’ hiring and investment plans?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Well, according to the survey, firms are looking to expand to keep up with increased demand, which is reflected in an increase in hiring and investment intentions. A net 15 percent of firms surveyed increased headcount in the June quarter, up from a net 8 percent in the previous quarter. A net 22 percent plan to employ more workers in the next quarter. Firms are also looking to further increase their investment, particularly in plant and machinery. A net 20 percent of firms plan to lift investment in plant and machinery over the coming year. The Government is investing heavily in trades training and apprenticeship schemes and is extending the training incentive allowance, among other initiatives to support New Zealanders into work.

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

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Well, while confidence in the Government’s health response has underpinned the economic recovery, we do know that this can change quickly in a COVID-19 world, and the Government remains ready to support businesses and workers. Last week, the Wellington region went into alert level 2 for a week, allowing eligible businesses to take up the resurgence support payment to assist with one-off costs. I can report to the House that as of 1 p.m. today, 1,911 applications had been received and $2.63 million had been paid out to businesses to support them through this change in alert levels.

Question No. 2—Prime Minister

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

Yes, particularly the Government’s policies that came into effect on 1 July, last week, focused on keeping New Zealanders safe from COVID-19, accelerating our recovery, and making progress on longstanding issues such as climate change, housing, and child wellbeing. These include main benefits increasing by $20 per adult per week; reinstating the Training Incentive Allowance, which was taken away by the previous National Government, in order to support study for sole parents and carers and disabled people; preventing children being hospitalised by cold and damp homes, through the healthy homes standards, which will require landlords to provide properties with insulation, at least one fixed heating device capable of heating the living room to at least 18 degrees, and just ensuring of course that we have extractor fans in bathrooms and kitchens; increasing paid parental leave rates by 2.5 percent; security guards added to Schedule 1 of the Employment Relations Act, helping protect their employment conditions; and, of course, decisions around migrant exploitation and efforts to prevent migrant exploitation. I am proud of the initiatives that were implemented on 1 July.

💬 Hon Judith Collins: Does she agree with her Minister for social development that 4,000 kids living in motels with gang members is “not ideal but we are doing what we can”, and is this, in her view, an acceptable approach?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Of course, we want to make efforts to ensure that children and families are in the safest possible environment. I would acknowledge, and I hope the member would as well, that it was a National Government that brought in the framework where we are using hotels as temporary accommodation, and because—

💬 Nicola Willis: Four thousand!

💬 SPEAKER: Order!

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: —and because of the way—

💬 SPEAKER: It goes through here and rebounds.

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: —and because of the way it was structured, of course, that funding and that support followed the individual rather than being in a position where you were taking over, for instance, entire facilities, which allowed us to better manage who is placed where and ensure that those are appropriate decisions. We are trying to turn that situation around, and you can see that in the way that we’re operating in Rotorua, in particular.

💬 Hon Judith Collins: So when will the number of children living in motels reduce back to, and lower than, the 2017 levels that were around a third of what’s happening today?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Because then children were in cars. I do not want children living for long periods of time in motels, but I absolutely do not want children living in cars. Our goal is to move them out of temporary situations. We, of course, are building public housing and have funded public housing places to the number of 18,000. So far, over 7,000 have been built. But I will not be lectured by a member who sold those public houses, then opened motel spaces, and now seems to have a problem with the fact we’re dealing with the consequences.

💬 Hon Dr Megan Woods: Can the Prime Minister confirm that New Zealand now, under our Government, has over 4,000 permanent transitional housing spaces, more than double what there were when we came into Government?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I can, and I can also confirm that we are increasing public housing supply. The stark reality is that when you come into office having inherited an environment where a Government not only didn’t grow public housing, they sold it, we are still dealing with the consequences of that.

💬 David Seymour: How many of the 4,000 children currently living in hotels came from previously living in cars?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: We do know that, in some situations, there’s a range of issues. Some will come from violent relationships and come and leave in an emergency situation, but if the member is suggesting that none have come from a situation where the housing is inadequate, it would be wrong.

💬 Hon Judith Collins: Is she aware that, as at March this year, there were 433 people stuck on the housing wait-list who were living in cars?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Yes, as I’ve acknowledged, people have been in inadequate housing, and I would rather they be safe and housed than remain in an inadequate situation. I would also rather that they were ultimately in long-term housing, public housing; that they were in safe and stable housing; that if it’s appropriate and they need wraparound support, they’re with “CHiPS” or with NGOs. But the member’s solution seems to be to do nothing.

💬 Hon Judith Collins: Does she have confidence in the Chief Human Rights Commissioner, Paul Hunt, after he donated $200 of taxpayer money to the Mongrel Mob Kingdom? Will she ask for his resignation?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: In answer to the last part of the question, no.

💬 Hon Judith Collins: Is she concerned that changes to civil hate speech provisions will open the door for advocacy groups to take civil legal action where people express an opinion they disagree with?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: No.

💬 Hon Judith Collins: What does she say to people who are concerned that her $55 million Public Interest Journalism Fund, which includes numerous criteria for media to adhere to, is influencing the editorial decisions of media outlets in New Zealand?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I would absolutely reject that. But, better yet, I would put the question to the media, and ask whether they agree with that sentiment.

💬 David Seymour: What, then, would happen to a media outlet that received money under the fund and wanted to report a story deemed inconsistent with the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi, which is one of the requirements to adhere to?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I absolutely reject the idea that there is political influence in broadcasting and media.

💬 David Seymour: Point of order, Mr Speaker. The question was: what would happen? I don’t think that’s been addressed, other than a very generic comment about media. This was a question about what the conditions are under this fund and how it operates, and we didn’t hear that addressed at all, other than a bland, generic statement.

💬 SPEAKER: The member might regard it as a bland, generic statement, but I think it answered the question.

💬 Hon Judith Collins: Does she agree with Labour MP the Hon Nanaia Mahuta, who in 2010 said, on the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, “why have New Zealanders been prevented from participating in a debate on an issue that has a profound impact on the future … The Government has taken care to recognise that this document is aspirational and non-binding”? So why is her Government now consulting only with iwi, and not having the debate with all New Zealanders?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: That statement is incorrect. We are consulting with all New Zealanders. We set out how we intend to do that. I note that not only do we intend to discuss the signing of the declaration and the implementation plan with all New Zealanders but that is in stark contrast to the National Government, who consulted no one and then did nothing.

💬 Hon Judith Collins: What does she say to businesses across New Zealand who are now being asked whether they identify as Māori-owned businesses and are now unsure if they receive Government contracts based on their skills or to fill a quota?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I would say that the current Opposition doesn’t quite know which issue they think is most important to them right now, based on this line of questioning at question time, first of all. Secondly, I would say that procurement policy that that member has raised has been announced in public for some time now. It was lifted from what has been done in Australia. It’s been very popular there, and I don’t consider it to be particularly groundbreaking in that regard.

💬 Hon Judith Collins: So what is her definition of the legitimate use of a ute?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: We have not set out anything that requires there to be a definition.

💬 Hon Grant Robertson: In light of the previous questions from the Leader of the Opposition, does the Prime Minister have any views on weather forecasts, what might happen in the next couple of weeks in New Zealand—anything like that?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: All I can say is that, clearly, the caucus discussions in the Opposition have been clearly unfocused of late.

💬 SPEAKER: I think neither the question nor the—no, I shouldn’t have let the Prime Minister answer it. And I will let the—in fact, insist on the Deputy Prime Minister apologising.

💬 Hon Grant Robertson: I withdraw and apologise.

💬 Chris Bishop: Point of order. Well, that was a fairly unedifying exchange. But in the circumstances, are the Opposition going to get any extra supplementary questions, given the deep use of irony in the Deputy Prime Minister’s supplementary patsy question?

💬 SPEAKER: And what’s the point of that point of order?

💬 Chris Bishop: To ask for more supps.

💬 SPEAKER: Well, I’m sorry; I witnessed the House a couple of weeks ago where there was a very clear indication from the Opposition that they didn’t like increasing or reducing supps.

💬 Hon Michael Woodhouse: No, no, that wasn’t what they didn’t like.

💬 Chris Bishop: No.

💬 SPEAKER: And the members just interjected—both of them—while I’ve been on my feet. The Hon Michael Woodhouse will stand, withdraw, and apologise.

💬 Hon Michael Woodhouse: I withdraw and apologise.

💬 SPEAKER: I’m not going to insist that Chris Bishop does, but I am considering, now, taking him at his word and applying the reductions which I didn’t apply last week because I wasn’t applying them.

💬 Chris Bishop: Point of order. I think the point, sir, is we just want to know what the rules are. When you were not here, sir, Deputy Speaker Rurawhe did not apply the up-and-down rules. If it is now the case that you’ve moved away from the up-and-down system—for want of a better phrase—when it comes to the order in the House, that’s fine; we will take that on board. But if it is the case that you’re going to continue to apply it, we’d like to know that. We just want to know what the rules are.

💬 SPEAKER: Right. Well, what I’ve been doing for the last week, in case the member didn’t notice—which I’m slightly surprised at, as shadow Leader of the House—is that I was making a note of whether or not numbers would go up and down, but not applying them. If the member wants me to apply them, as he has insisted, I will, but it will result in a net loss to his side. Thank you.

Question No. 3—COVID-19 Response

3. to the Minister for COVID19 Response: What recent progress has been made on New Zealand’s COVID19 vaccine immunisation programme?

Very good news. I’m pleased to report that on Sunday afternoon, we received the largest delivery of Pfizer vaccines to date. The shipment of 150 doses touched down in Auckland on Sunday, two days earlier than expected, and staff worked very quickly to make sure that they were unpacked and repacked and distributed to district health boards and vaccination centres around the country. I’d like to pass on my thanks to all those involved in doing that. The vaccination programme continues to ramp up.

💬 Dr Anae Neru Leavasa: How will this delivery support DHBs with the roll-out of the immunisation programme, and when can DHBs expect to receive them?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The vaccine deliveries that we have received over the weekend mean that we’ve now got sufficient vaccine stock, together with the deliveries that we are expecting in each week of July, to enable us to scale up and continue to confidently deliver vaccinations over the next four weeks. The first deliveries of the new doses started last night, with the consignment dispatched to the South Island on a 7 p.m. flight last night. From this morning, these doses have been arriving at vaccination centres right across the country. As I’ve mentioned before, the Government is planning to have vaccinations out of the freezer and into people’s arms as quickly as possible. This latest shipment will allow us to continue to do that.

💬 Dr Anae Neru Leavasa: What other deliveries are we expecting from Pfizer in the coming weeks?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: More good news. This is the first of four shipments that we’re expecting to get over the month of July. We know that the quantities in the scheduled deliveries over the next month will continue to increase. I understand the next delivery will be similar in size to the one we received on Sunday, and then the other two deliveries we’re anticipating will get us to the 1 million doses that we’re expecting to receive in total this month.

Question No. 4—Finance

4. to the Minister of Finance: What concerns, if any, have businesses raised with him around the economy and their ability to operate over the next 12 months?

A very timely question given the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research Quarterly Survey of Business Opinion today showed “a sharp improvement in both business confidence and demand in firms’ own business.” in the June quarter. Over recent months, businesses I’ve engaged with have highlighted the benefits for them from the Government’s approach of going hard and early against COVID-19 and the investments that the Government has made, such as the wage subsidy scheme. However, given the negative tone of the member’s question, I can report that businesses do have concerns linked to the stronger than forecast economic activity we are seeing. These include labour supply issues, global supply chain issues, and whether the stronger than expected economy might lead to earlier than expected interest rate rises. The Government is aware of these concerns. We are working with businesses on them, and we are supporting businesses in the next stage of the recovery, including through initiatives such as free apprenticeships and targeted trade training. Having said that, the largest concern among businesses remains the potential impact of COVID-19, which is why we continue to take a strong and careful approach to the border and our elimination strategy.

💬 Andrew Bayly: Why is the Government not using the 2,000 managed isolation and quarantine (MIQ) rooms that are reportedly sitting empty each day to bring in workers that businesses say they desperately need to continue to operate?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: In reference to the first part of the question, that should be directed more to the Minister for COVID-19 Response—

💬 Hon Chris Hipkins: It’s also wrong.

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: —and he informs me in the House, somewhat loudly, that the member is wrong. In answer to the second part of the question, we have brought thousands of critical workers in through our MIQ system.

💬 Andrew Bayly: Supplementary.

💬 SPEAKER: Order! Before I let the member go on, there are some rules and understandings around authentication which are applied very strictly to primary questions, but there’s also a reliance, when a fact is asserted, that it can be substantiated if asked. If the member has the evidence, that’s fine. Actually, there was no need to put the number in the question. The question would’ve stood on its own without the number. Again, if I was interfering more than I currently do, I would’ve asked the member to rephrase the question. So I’m just going to ask the member now to ask his next supplementary.

💬 Andrew Bayly: Just a point of order, Mr Speaker. So, two things, just in response to that: first of all, I used the word “reportedly” quite deliberately. That was in reference to a One News article only published on 3 July, and I took that figure directly from that article. So that’s why I used the word “reportedly”, and I was very clear about that.

💬 SPEAKER: OK, right, well, the member can ask his next question, but I’ll just reiterate: none of that was necessary for the sense of the question.

💬 Andrew Bayly: What does he say to restaurant operators in New Zealand who are switching off their lights today in protest at the Government’s failure to use the large number of empty MIQ rooms to address the critical worker shortage?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Well, obviously, I reject that part of the question that the member is using there at the end. What I do say is I know how hard hospitality businesses in New Zealand work. Many of them have had a very tough time over the last year. The Government has been proud to stand alongside them and support them, to the tune of, for example, from the wage subsidy scheme, over $1.3 billion. We continue to work with them, including extending the 10,000 working holiday and supplementary seasonal worker visa holders’ time in New Zealand. We’ve given open work rights to those supplementary seasonal employer work scheme visa holders, many of whom work in the hospitality industry, and we have increased the duration of the Essential Skills Work Visa for jobs paid below the median wage from six months to 12 months. So we are working with that sector, within the constraints of COVID. I do note that the Government’s response to COVID has enabled those hospitality businesses to be open during periods of time where their equivalents in other countries have not been able to open.

💬 Andrew Bayly: Is it fair that in areas where the Government is the employer, like education, labour shortages are dealt with by allowing 300 teachers in, but despite the large number of empty MIQ rooms, businesses are forced to shut up shop for lack of workers?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I’ll repeat what I said to the member in an earlier answer. We’ve had around 17,000 critical workers come through MIQ. Part of that is in the education sector, but large parts of that are in other parts of the economy as well.

💬 Andrew Bayly: What is he doing to address the Employers and Manufacturers Association’s concern that the piecemeal way the Government is handling labour shortages is making it difficult for businesses to operate and plan to grow their businesses?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I just think the member needs to consider what he’s asking. The New Zealand economy is now operating at levels higher than before COVID. These are the problems of growth. I thank the member for highlighting the growing economy under this Government. We will keep working with all sectors of the economy to bring the labour that they need into New Zealand while training New Zealanders at the same time. But we do have to remember: the thing that’s got us to the point of a growing economy is being careful about making sure COVID-19 doesn’t get in. That still remains the number one issue that businesses raise with me.

💬 Hon Chris Hipkins: Can the Minister of Finance confirm that there has been record growth in the number of apprentices under this Government, that will help to ease the skill shortages businesses and employers are facing?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Absolutely, and this is a genuine partnership with the business sector—over 135,000 people benefiting from free apprenticeships and targeted trade training. This is about getting the balance right, making sure we protect New Zealanders from COVID-19 and support businesses to have the skilled staff they need.

Question No. 5—Social Development and Employment

5. to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: What announcements has she made regarding the regional skills leadership group?

Last week I announced the first set of appointments for the permanent Regional Skills Leadership Groups (RSLGs). The first step in setting up the groups was to appoint an iwi Māori co-chair and a co-chair selected through an expression of interest process for each region. By mid-August, the co-chairs will be joined by regional stakeholders from iwi, Māori, businesses, unions, and their communities to form the membership of the groups. They will continue the work of the interim groups to identify and support better ways of meeting future skills and workforce needs for each region. This is an important strategic initiative: Government working with the leaders in our regions to address the regional labour force needs.

💬 Angie Warren-Clark: What feedback has she received on the work of the interim Regional Skills Leadership Groups?

💬 Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: Last week I visited Nelson, where I met the chief executive of the chamber of commerce, Ali Boswijk, who has just been appointed as the co-chair of the permanent Nelson Tasman RSLG, alongside Justin Carter. Ali was highly positive about the work of the interim group and highlighted the success of initiatives like Pick Nelson Tasman, a campaign the group contributed to that helped fill jobs in the region’s horticulture and viticulture industries. I’d like to thank the members of the interim groups, who have provided a great deal of support to the Government over the last year. The quality of the interim group members has been recognised, with nearly half of the permanent co-chairs being chosen from the interim groups. The permanent set-up will now take us forward.

💬 Angie Warren-Clark: What will the permanent Regional Skills Leadership Groups do once they are fully operational?

💬 Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: The permanent groups will initially be focused on projecting labour supply needs in the regions and identifying local activity that addresses those needs through the regional workforce plans. The plans will inform Government activities and decisions across the education, welfare, and immigration systems, including investment decisions. They support the Government’s joined-up approach to regional economic development and labour market planning. As we look to reposition our economy through improving tertiary and vocational educational outcomes, reducing reliance on low-skilled migrants, and strengthening employment support, the role the permanent groups will play is more important than ever.

Question No. 6—Justice

6. to the Minister of Justice: Does he think it is acceptable for the Chief Human Rights Commissioner to give a $200 donation to the Mongrel Mob, and does he have confidence in the Chief Human Rights Commissioner?

on behalf of the Minister of Justice: The Chief Human Rights Commissioner has an explicit duty set out in the Crown Entities Act to be independent and free from the direction of Ministers or Government policy. Section 19 of the Human Rights Act also requires that the Human Rights Commission act independently in performing its statutory duties and functions. It would be inappropriate for the Minister of Justice to exert political influence on the Chief Human Rights Commissioner in exercising those responsibilities. To do so could have a chilling effect on the role, given the commissioner’s legislative responsibilities to independently promote human rights.

💬 Simeon Brown: Point of order.

💬 SPEAKER: Order! No, I’ll deal with it now. I think if it’s a different point of order—there are two parts to the question; the second part.

In answer to the second part, I believe it would be inappropriate for me to do so.

💬 SPEAKER: To express confidence, right?

💬 Simeon Brown: How can he not either express or not express confidence in the Chief Human Rights Commissioner after he gave taxpayer money to an organised criminal group which was recently caught up in a trans-national police operation targeting organised crime?

The Chief Human Rights Commissioner is independent. The decisions they make are independent of the Government. They do not answer to the Government for each of the individual positions that they take or who they meet with.

💬 Simeon Brown: Will he be asking for the Chief Human Rights Commissioner’s resignation, and, if not, why not?

The grounds under which the Human Rights Commissioner could be removed from office would include that the Governor-General would have to be satisfied that there was just cause, which would include misconduct, inability to perform the functions of office, neglect of duty, and breach of any collective duties of the board or of the individual duties of members. This Government follows the law.

💬 David Seymour: Does giving taxpayer money to a criminal organisation meet any of those thresholds or is it hakuna matata?

The Chief Human Rights Commissioner acts independently. If the member wants to have a legal opinion on whether or not the actions of the Chief Human Rights Commissioner is fulfilling their legal responsibilities appropriately, then he can get one.

💬 David Seymour: Point of order. The Minister just gave the statutory conditions that must be met. Cabinet issues directions to the Governor-General. How can the previous answer be in order if he’s not accountable for whether an action meets that threshold? He’s just evading the question.

💬 SPEAKER: Well, the member did ask for a legal opinion. It’s very clear under the Standing Orders that there’s no obligation to give one in the House.

💬 Simeon Brown: What message does the Chief Human Rights Commissioner’s donation to an organised criminal group send to victims who’ve suffered harm at the hands of gangs?

As I’ve already indicated in my answers, the Chief Human Rights Commissioner is independent of the Government of the day. The positions that they take will sometimes be positions that the Government of the day disagree with, and the members opposite should think carefully if they want to end up in a position where the Chief Human Rights Commissioner can only express views or take actions that the Government of the day sanctions.

💬 Simeon Brown: Has he met with the Chief Human Rights Commissioner to discuss the appropriateness of giving a donation to an organised criminal group, and, if not, why not?

In answer to the second part of the question, I refer the member to all of the previous answers I’ve just given.

💬 Rawiri Waititi: Does the Minister think that the Opposition’s interpretation of donation is very different to the interpretation of koha—

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: No, he can’t ask that question.

💬 Rawiri Waititi: —is the first part of my question. The second part is: Don Brash sitting on an educational trust with the Mongrel Mob; does that sound like hakuna matata? [Interruption]

💬 SPEAKER: Order! I’m just trying to work out whether the member—

💬 Rawiri Waititi: It’s a wonderful phrase.

💬 SPEAKER: No, no. The member doesn’t interject when I’m on—I’m just trying to work out whether he was deliberately breaching Standing Orders, and I think he was. I think he knew that that question was out of order. I think he’s been here long enough to understand that. Now he will stand, withdraw, and apologise.

💬 Rawiri Waititi: Withdraw and apologise.

💬 SPEAKER: And can I just say to the Hon Mr Brownlee, getting running advice on me intervening, from the second most senior person in the House, is not helpful.

💬 Rawiri Waititi: A point of order, Mr Speaker. The first part of the question actually was a very genuine question around the—

💬 SPEAKER: Yeah, yeah. Well, just hard luck—hard luck! You know, you had maybe a good question—there’s a bit of debate around that—and you tossed away the opportunity.

Question No. 7—Environment

7. to the Minister for the Environment: Will the Government’s plan to clean up Aotearoa’s rivers and lakes within a generation include setting a dissolved inorganic nitrogen limit of 1 milligram per litre or lower; if not, why not?

Last year, the Government agreed to “reconsider the possibility of a [dissolved inorganic nitrogen] bottom line of 1 mg/l (…likely with exceptions” and, in doing so, revisit the environmental and economic implications. When making a recommendation on a dissolved inorganic nitrogen (DIN) bottom line to Cabinet, I will be considering the expected effect of current policy requirements, the marginal environmental benefit of a DIN national bottom line, the marginal economic impact of such a DIN national bottom line, and whether the science behind a national bottom line of 1 milligram per litre of DIN has become clearer since May last year, when we last considered the question. I would also note, as I have done previously, that the periphyton attribute, carried over to the current National Policy Statement on Freshwater Management, effectively provides for a DIN level below 1 for gravel-bottom rivers. The outstanding issue is muddy-bottom rivers, and I don’t want a DIN of 1 to effectively become a target for gravel-bottom rivers.

💬 Hon Eugenie Sage: What is his view on recent research by Dr Adam Canning, Professor Russel Death, and Dr Mike Joy, which suggests that to support macroinvertebrate diversity in rivers, “suitable nutrient criteria would set median dissolved inorganic nitrogen concentrations at ~0.6 mg/l”?

💬 Hon DAVID PARKER: Those are the sorts of issues that I’m taking advice on, but I would note that there’s already a lot in the National Policy Statement on Freshwater Management relating to excessive nitrogen contamination, including requirements that council plans prevent further decline of the water quality or ecosystem health, direct management of nitrogen concentrations in rivers to 2.4 milligram per litre or less of nitrate, setting specific targets for dissolved inorganic nitrogen and phosphorous in rivers to ensure that bottom lines are met, and to achieve health in the macroinvertebrate index.

💬 Hon Eugenie Sage: For what reasons, if any, is he considering not setting a dissolved inorganic nitrogen limit, when he has acknowledged that the regulation of nitrogen in muddy-bottom rivers is an outstanding issue and his own Ministry for the Environment recommended a DIN limit of 1 milligram per litre last year?

💬 Hon DAVID PARKER: The balance of reasons would be as described in the answer to the primary question.

💬 Hon Eugenie Sage: What does he have to say to the residents of Dunsandel, where recent testing found that water in four local bores has nitrate nitrogen levels above the maximum acceptable value of 11.3 milligrams per litre, and 75 percent of samples were above the level that a Danish study has linked to potential risk of bowel cancer?

💬 Hon DAVID PARKER: I would say that the matters relating to human health are for the Ministry of Health and the responsible Minister, Dr Ayesha Verrall.

💬 Hon Eugenie Sage: Has he received advice about the impact on farmers, growers, and fertiliser companies of setting a DIN limit of 1 milligram per litre; if so, what did the advice say?

💬 Hon DAVID PARKER: I received advice on that last year, before we took our decisions in respect of the National Policy Statement on Freshwater Management.

💬 Teanau Tuiono: Does he agree that there should be greater Government funding available for farmers to transition their farms to regenerative and organic practices, which use less synthetic nitrogen fertiliser and actively restore degraded land and water?

💬 Hon DAVID PARKER: I agree that some farmers have been applying excessive levels of synthetic nitrogen. It’s one of the reasons why the Government regulated a limit of 190 kilograms per hectare per annum, compared with the practice in some areas of over 300 kilograms per hectare. I also agree that it is appropriate that the Ministry for Primary Industries continues to support research into regenerative agriculture.

Question No. 8—Government’s Response to the Royal Commission’s Report into the Terrorist Attack on the Christchurch Mosques

8. to the Lead Coordination Minister for the Government’s Response to the Royal Commission’s Report into the Terrorist Attack on the Christchurch Mosques: What progress has been made on the recommendations of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into the terrorist attack on the Christchurch mosques?

Al salam alaikum, Mr Speaker. We’re at the start of a long process in terms of implementing the royal commission’s recommendations, but I can report to the House that significant progress has been made to date. This has focused mainly on three key areas: supporting our diverse communities, tackling harmful behaviour and discrimination, and keeping New Zealand safe and inclusive. In this respect, I can report, for example, that we have established Kāpuia, the Implementation Oversight Advisory Group, which had its first meeting last week. We’ve established the Collective Impact Board, that operates from Christchurch and provides ongoing support to victims of the mosque attacks. We held He Whenua Taurikura, New Zealand’s first hui on countering terrorism and violent extremism. My colleague the Hon Priyanka Radhakrishnan launched last week the establishment of the Ministry for Ethnic Communities, and next week we’ll also see the Ethnic Communities Graduate Programme kicking off with a first cohort, and the New Zealand Police have established Te Raranga, The Weave programme for reporting hate-motivated crime. All of this is alongside a range of other measures, including reviews of legislation, as recommended by the royal commission.

💬 Ibrahim Omer: What role will Kāpuia, the ministerial advisory group, play in the Government’s response?

💬 Hon ANDREW LITTLE: Kāpuia, the oversight advisory group, has been established in response to recommendation 44 of the royal commission’s report. That group will provide independent advice to me as the lead coordination Minister for the Government’s response. The group’s work will include advice on work programme priorities. Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu chief executive Arihia Bennett has been appointed chair of the group, which currently comprises 28 people. The group membership includes affected whānau, survivors and witnesses of the attack, representative communities, civil society, local government, and the private sector. The group also has representation from all New Zealand’s diverse communities.

💬 Ibrahim Omer: What does this progress mean for New Zealand and New Zealanders?

💬 Hon ANDREW LITTLE: The royal commission, when it was doing its work, spoke to many minority faith and ethnic communities, and reflected on the extent to which many expressed the view that they are not always made to feel welcome in Aotearoa New Zealand. The work we are doing is about creating a New Zealand where all people feel safe, have equal access to opportunities, and do not experience discrimination, where all New Zealanders are valued for what they bring to our rich and diverse society.

💬 Jan Logie: Given the Federation of Islamic Association’s report last week, showing that not all victims and families are getting the help that they need, will the Minister support extending ACC to cover all victims?

💬 Hon ANDREW LITTLE: No—and two parts to my response to that question. First of all, we’ve established the Collective Impact Board in Christchurch, which was one of the recommendations of the royal commission, and that is about ensuring that the various forms of support that can be provided by Government agencies continues to be provided and is coordinated and is overseen by a group that includes representatives of the victims’ families and the wider Muslim community. And I just make this point: that member’s question I would take a little more seriously if the Green Party had actually sent along just one representative to one of the 33 hui that we held earlier this year to engage not only with the Muslim community in Christchurch and around New Zealand but every other ethnic community.

Question No. 9—Prime Minister

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

Yes.

💬 David Seymour: What advice has she received from the Strategic COVID-19 Public Health Advisory Group, chaired by Sir David Skegg?

💬 SPEAKER: Order! Order! The member has asked a very general question, and I’m going to let it run, but I’m going to ask him in future to relate his supplementary questions to his primary question. That one doesn’t, but we’ll take a British approach and let the Prime Minister answer it.

💬 David Seymour: Point of order, Mr Speaker. Establishing the group is a Government policy. I don’t understand why I wouldn’t be able to ask a question about it.

💬 SPEAKER: That’s right, and if it was about setting up a group, it would have been fine, but it wasn’t; it was about the advice from the group.

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Again, in keeping with what Mr Speaker has outlined—that that is a group that’s been established and is undertaking work commissioned directly by Dr Ayesha Verrall—when it comes to the advice that we’ve received, that is something that I intend to share publicly once it’s gone through a bit more of a fulsome process amongst Cabinet colleagues. But very much we’ve been of the view that as we work towards reconnecting New Zealand, as we work towards changing up our settings, at every point we discuss not only the scientific advice, research, and evidence that we receive and that form the basis of our decision making; we also allow the public to have good notice of the decisions we’ve made and why.

💬 David Seymour: Has she seen Australia’s national plan to transition Australia’s national COVID-19 response, which ends with Australia managing COVID-19 consistent with other public health management of other infectious diseases, and if so, when does she expect her Government to produce an equivalent plan?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Yes, I have. I’ve also seen the Canadian Government’s recent decision to open up to those who are vaccinated without quarantine. I’ve also seen the UK Government’s decision to lift all of their restrictions that they’ve had in place from 19 July, and statements that Boris Johnson has made telling the public to prepare for upwards of 50,000 cases a day as a consequence. Everything that we’re seeing around the world at the moment is experimental. At the moment, we don’t necessarily have an evidence and research base to draw on. Countries are trying new things as vaccines are rolled out. The advantage New Zealand has always had is that we’ve looked outwardly to the world, drawn on that evidence, and made decisions in New Zealand’s best interests. My final note would be we actually set out some of our views around reopening prior to the Budget. I note that Australia’s plan and the phase that the member has spoken to they haven’t put a date around, but, obviously, based on what they have said, they’re looking into well beyond mid-2022 for their decisions.

💬 David Seymour: What is it about Scott Morrison’s Government that allows it to produce and share with the public such a plan while her Government can’t?

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

💬 Hon Chris Hipkins: Did the Prime Minister set out in a pre-Budget address some of the thinking that the New Zealand Government has been doing about re-opening, and would she encourage members of the House to read it?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Yes, I did. That was, in fact, in May. We also at that point pointed out that as new research and evidence emerges, we will continue to draw on that. That is why we created the group that Professor Skegg chairs, and as we see some of that new and emerging evidence around the difference that both a combination of the vaccine and a change-up in public health measures will make, we will share our view on how that will change up our border settings. We won’t be in the current state that we’re in for ever. It will not be the case that we have 14 days of managed isolation for every single traveller. However, I’m not in a position right now where I would hedge our bets on the way that New Zealand will definitively manage it, beyond, for instance, getting in place our vaccine roll-out, which is the most important thing we can do to change up border controls.

💬 David Seymour: Why is it taking so much longer for her Government to publish a plan when, as she’s noted in earlier answers, other countries are publishing theirs and sharing theirs with the public of their countries?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: As I’ve said, I would characterise them as experiments. If the member is promoting that we have a plan like the UK, then that member is—absolutely, it is his decision to promote that as a plan. It is not in keeping with the strategy New Zealand has had. Secondly, at the moment, Australia’s decisions actually don’t have dates. They don’t have percentages for vaccines. We have since May been talking about what our intentions are, so, again, I wouldn’t suggest that somehow this is something that is particularly detailed beyond what we have already set out. The final point I would make is that at every point, that member has urged us to do something another country has done. We have carved our own path that has been right for New Zealand and, in my view, that is the reason why our economy and our health have been held in such high regard by others.

💬 Hon Chris Hipkins: Can the Prime Minister confirm that following Australia’s decision to halve the number of international arrivals they are willing to accept into their country, New Zealand is accepting, on a per capita basis, three to four times the number of international arrivals into the country?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Yes, I would point out that Mr Seymour is currently promoting a plan that does halve the number of people currently arriving in Australia, which would mean that New Zealand, on a per capita basis, currently has three to four times the number of people arriving at our border. If he is also supporting that plan, then he would be looking to the beginning of 2022 before they would restore the number of people that would be coming in under those caps. That’s actually not something we support. Our view is that we can manage the numbers we’ve had, and that is why we’ve had 150,000 people safely enter into New Zealand.

💬 Chris Bishop: Why has the Government indicated they are now looking at purpose-built quarantine facilities, having previously dismissed the idea when it has been raised by other parties and public health experts?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: When the party the member speaks of mentioned the idea of purpose-built facilities, it was seen as an alternative to what we were using at that time. The idea that purpose-built facilities at that time—which the member also promoted—be in rural, isolated areas away from a workforce would not have been able to cater for the 150,000 people we have since catered for. All we have simply said is, as we have more certainty around the way we’re likely to need to manage COVID into the future, that we will continue to look at the leasing arrangements we have into the future. That may well mean that we continue with some of our existing arrangements. It may involve more purpose-built. We’re keeping those options open.

Question No. 10—Environment

10. to the Minister for the Environment: What progress has been made on the removal of aluminium dross stored at Mataura?

I’m pleased to inform the House that all of the 10,000 tonnes of aluminium dross by-product stored in Mataura’s old paper mill next to the Mataura River has now been removed. For too long, Mataura residents have been worried about the risk of that material giving off ammonia gas upon getting wet. The last dross was removed from Mataura last Wednesday and is being stored in watertight shipping containers at the New Zealand Aluminium Smelters site at Tīwai Point pending its further treatment or removal elsewhere for treatment or use.

💬 Dr Liz Craig: How long have the issues with dross stored at Mataura taken to resolve?

💬 Hon DAVID PARKER: Far too long. Dross has been stored at the old Mataura mill since early 2010, or thereabouts. The problems were exacerbated when the contractor hired by the Tīwai smelter to dispose of it went into receivership. This left the dross stuck in Mataura, with everyone denying ownership and responsibility—and, understandably, worrying local residents. Since 2017, we have worked to achieve a solution. We’re glad it’s been resolved. The efforts of many people need to be acknowledged. I’d like to particularly acknowledge the local residents; the Gore District Council; the local MPs, Dr Craig and Mark Patterson when he was here; Environment Southland; the Environmental Defence Society; Ngāi Tahu; Inalco Processing, who’ve been helpful; as well as, in the end, the smelter, for doing the right thing.

💬 Dr Liz Craig: What are the next steps in dealing with the storage of dross and other hazardous substances?

💬 Hon DAVID PARKER: Now that the Mataura site has been cleared up, the focus will move to the removal of material stored elsewhere in Southland. We will also continue to work with Rio Tinto and New Zealand Aluminium Smelters on the disposal of spent concrete cell linings that are stored at the Tīwai site. I think, perhaps, the wider lesson that we need to learn from the Mataura dross issue is that it’s wrong for companies to be able to disavow responsibility for the by-product of their own production systems, and over the next year or two the Government will be considering whether companies should be able to contract out responsibility for disposal of their own hazardous waste. We’ll consider whether legislative change is necessary to ensure that legal responsibility for hazardous waste rests with the producers of it.

Question No. 11—COVID-19 Response

11. to the Minister for COVID-19 Response: How many doses of the COVID-19 vaccine have been delivered across each of the Government’s COVID-19 vaccine subgroups, and is he satisfied with the vaccine roll-out in New Zealand?

Across each of the groups, 759,361 New Zealanders have received a first dose, and 490,835 have received a second dose.

💬 Chris Bishop: Point of order, Mr Speaker. Firstly, the second part of the question was not addressed, and, secondly, the question was how many people in “each of the Government’s COVID-19 vaccine subgroups”—we just got a total answer for across the country.

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Speaking to the point of order, Mr Speaker. My apologies: in answer to the second part of the question, it should have been “Yes.” But, actually, the member’s question doesn’t ask about the number of people in each of the groups; it asks about the doses delivered across each of the groups.

💬 SPEAKER: The member’s right, and if it was the way the member interpreted it, I think if there are—are there four groups?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Yeah.

💬 SPEAKER: Well, that would be five questions.

💬 Chris Bishop: Well, point of order, Mr Speaker. This question has been asked previously in each of the last two weeks—including last week, exactly a week ago today—and the Minister has been able to answer across each of the seven subgroups: 1a, 1b; 2a, b; and 3a, b, and c. I don’t understand what—well, I know why he doesn’t want to answer it; it’s because he wants to announce the results tomorrow, on Wednesday, and not answer the question, the primary question on notice, today. But that doesn’t obviate his responsibility to the House to give us the answers today.

💬 SPEAKER: Well, if the member had asked the right question, it would have been fine.

💬 Chris Bishop: Well, point of order, Mr Speaker—

💬 SPEAKER: No, we’re having no further points of order on this. Does the member want another supplementary or not?

💬 Chris Bishop: Yes. Why has Canterbury, the country’s second-biggest region by population, only administered 4,400 first doses, or 2 percent, to those in group 3 of the roll-out?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: In terms of the doses administered by priority groups, Canterbury have administered 19,342 doses in group 1; 74,933 doses in group 2; 7,143 doses in group 3; and 2,081 doses in group 4.

💬 Chris Bishop: How can Cantabrians have confidence in the vaccine roll-out when their DHB has stated they expect to be vaccinating group 3 until mid-September and that “most vaccinations for people in group 4 in Canterbury will start from mid-September”?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The Ministry of Health are providing to Canterbury the doses that they have asked for in order to fulfil the delivery plan that they have agreed with the Ministry of Health.

💬 Chris Bishop: Has he seen the comments of the Prime Minister yesterday in relation to 75-year-olds with health problems that “we’ve been advised that at least they have received what they can expect and when they can expect to be vaccinated.”, and how does he square that with the comments of Simon Wallace of the rest home association that in a couple of DHBs, they have not even started vaccinating on their first doses?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: All DHBs have started vaccinating group 3, and did so some time ago now. In terms of communicating with people in group 3 about when they can expect to be booked in for a vaccine, as is now well-canvassed, notifications around that went out last week to individual recipients using the records provided by their primary health provider. If people in that 65-plus age bracket have not heard about when they can expect to receive an invitation to book in for the vaccine, their first port of call should be to contact their primary health provider, their GP practice. It could be that the contact details provided are out of date.

💬 Chris Bishop: Does he stand by his comment that “New Zealand will be at the front of the queue” for the COVID-19 vaccine when, as of now, we are last in the OECD, with just 23 vaccination doses administered per 100 people?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Yes, in the context in which I made that statement. At the time, I was talking about the fact that no vaccines, at that point, had come to the market and New Zealand had advance purchase agreements with four different vaccines so that as they came to market, we would have access to them.

💬 Chris Bishop: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I want to come back to my primary question and ask: how is it acceptable for the Minister to answer in the way he did? It is very clear: it refers to the doses of the COVID-19 vaccine being delivered across each of the Government’s COVID-19 vaccine subgroups, and we did not get the numbers for each of the subgroups.

💬 SPEAKER: OK. Well, I’m pleased the member has raised this point of order, because it gives me the opportunity to indicate to him that the question he asked today was not the question he asked last week. Last week, he asked “in each of the subgroups”, and today he asked “across each of the subgroups”. There is a difference, and if the member wants a consistent answer, he should ask the same question.

💬 Chris Bishop: Mr Speaker—

💬 SPEAKER: A supplementary question, Chris Bishop.

💬 Chris Bishop: No, it’s a point of order.

💬 SPEAKER: No, no, I’ve dealt with that. I’ve had enough of this. Is there a further supplementary? No? All right. OK.

Question No. 12—Building and Construction

12. to the Minister for Building and Construction: What reports has the Minister seen regarding building consents?

I’ve seen a report from Statistics New Zealand that shows an all-time high number of new homes consented in the year ended May 2021, at 43,466. This is an increase of 17 percent from the May 2020 year and a 40 percent increase on when this Government came to office. These figures show a strong pipeline for the residential construction industry to deliver the homes New Zealanders need at levels we’ve never seen before.

Tāmati Coffey: What does this data show about high-density housing?

💬 Hon POTO WILLIAMS: Statistics New Zealand’s data shows that 1,380 townhouses, flats, and units were consented in May 2021 alone, the highest number since records began in 1990. Higher density and modular off-site manufacturing methods are key to helping New Zealand with the healthy, modern, and affordable homes we need.

Tāmati Coffey: How is the Government supporting the construction sector to deliver on these record consents?

💬 Hon POTO WILLIAMS: Just last month we saw new building laws that will support housing supply and affordability and enable the use of new, innovative, and efficient building methods, such as off-site manufacturing. The building amendment Act now allows for new certification for modular component manufacturers, which will streamline the building consent process for new and innovative building techniques that have the potential to reduce building costs while delivering high-quality, affordable homes. The construction industry is doing a fantastic job of stepping up to the challenge of meeting demand, and our ongoing work with the accord will help ensure the sector remains resilient and that we keep building on capacity and capability.

💬 Nicola Willis: Can the Minister confirm that the number of houses being consented now, which amounts to around 8.5 houses per thousand people, is much lower than the number of houses consented in 1973, at around 13.4 houses per thousand people?

💬 Hon POTO WILLIAMS: What I can confirm is that we can, from Statistics New Zealand, show an all-time high number of new homes consented in the year ended May 2021, at 43,466.

Questions to Members

Question No. 1—Regulatory Standards Bill

1. BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Deputy Leader—ACT) to the Member in charge of the Regulatory Standards Bill: What is the purpose of the Regulatory Standards Bill?

Our Parliament is on a long evolution towards better institutions for lawmaking. The first Parliament was prorogued amongst a fist fight, where the then Prime Minister actually decked a member of the Opposition; 130 years later, we had a Prime Minister who regularly suspended the Standing Orders. And it was only with the fourth Labour Government, through the Constitution Act and the Public Finance Act, that we’ve had better constitutional arrangements. However, when it comes to regulation, we still have, at best, anaemic measures for scrutinising the quality of laws and regulations made and their effect on regulations.

💬 Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. It is well and truly established in this House by previous Speakers that questions to members need to be quite concise, both in their question and in their answer. The question here is “What is the purpose of the Regulatory Standards Bill?” We’ve heard quite a bit from Mr Seymour, and he hasn’t mentioned the bill once.

💬 SPEAKER: And he’s now going to mention it, tell us the purpose—all without taking a breath!

Mr Speaker, I was just giving a little bit of historical context, but as you wish. The Regulatory Standards Bill imposes a discipline on Ministers, chief executives, and members in charge of legislation, to ensure that we are asking and answering the right questions when laws are made, and if those questions are not satisfactorily asked and answered, citizens have a direct remedy for challenging poorly made laws.

Question No. 2—Regulatory Standards Bill

2. to the Member in charge of the Regulatory Standards Bill: Why is the Regulatory Standards Bill necessary if regulatory impact statements are already produced?

That’s an excellent question. The Regulatory Standards Bill is necessary in spite of regulatory impact statements being produced, due to their poor quality. I recall, as a Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the now abolished position of Minister for Regulatory Reform, seeing—

💬 SPEAKER: Order! The member’s answered the question.

Question No. 3—Regulatory Standards Bill

3. Dr JAMES McDOWALL (ACT) to the Member in charge of the Regulatory Standards Bill: What are the principles of responsible regulation contained in the Regulatory Standards Bill?

Well, the Regulatory Standards Bill, under clause 6, sets out a series of principles for responsible regulation. That includes being consistent with the rule of law. It includes respect for persons’ liberty, personal security, freedom of choice. It includes not impairing or authorising the impairment of property without it being shown to be necessary in the public interest. It includes not imposing or authorising the imposition of a tax except by under an Act. It involves preserving the role of the courts in interpreting legislation, rather than having arbitrary interpretation by officials. It includes adhering to a series of further principles of responsible regulation-making.

💬 Hon Members: Supplementary.

💬 SPEAKER: No.

Question No. 4—Regulatory Standards Bill

4. NICOLE McKEE (ACT) to the Member in charge of the Regulatory Standards Bill: What remedies does the Regulatory Standards Bill give to citizens?

The Regulatory Standards Bill puts some real force and power behind regulatory impact analysis, which is currently often ignored by Governments. It allows members of the public or organisations that represent them to seek a remedy in proceedings where a court can issue a declaration that a Minister responsible, a chief executive of a department responsible, or a member in charge of a bill in Parliament can be declared to have failed to have adhered to the correct principles of good regulation-making, thus putting some real teeth behind regulatory impact analysis that is too often ignored by contemporary Governments of both stripes.

Question No. 5—Regulatory Standards Bill

5. KAREN CHHOUR (ACT) to the Member in charge of the Regulatory Standards Bill: Does the Regulatory Standards Bill require cost-benefit analysis to be provided on all new legislation?

Another excellent question. The Regulatory Standards Bill does indeed require cost-benefit analysis which identifies those—[Speaker stands] Point of order, Mr Speaker.

💬 SPEAKER: The member has answered the question. Question No. 7, Mark Cameron.

Point of order, Mr Speaker. For the benefit of people watching—

💬 SPEAKER: No, no.

—how is it possible—

💬 SPEAKER: No, no. Order! The member will resume his seat. The member addresses the Chair; he doesn’t address his audience. If the member wants to continue with these questions, he will let me call the next one. If he doesn’t, he won’t. Question No. 7, Mark Cameron.

💬 Hon Member: Point of order, Mr Speaker. It’s actually Toni Severin.

💬 SPEAKER: Sorry? Oh, Toni Severin. Sorry, it just felt like more already.

Question No. 6—Regulatory Standards Bill

6. TONI SEVERIN (ACT) to the Member in charge of the Regulatory Standards Bill: Does the Regulatory Standards Bill require consultation with people affected by this new legislation?

💬 SPEAKER: Well, the member knows what the question says; we’ll go for it anyway, as written.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Consultation of people affected by regulations and laws is extremely important. They often have insight into how their sector of society operates and what the costs and benefits of a particular law might be. It is therefore essential that when laws and regulations are made, people are consulted so that their insights can be acknowledged and their rights upheld, bearing in mind that under the Regulatory Standards Bill, they can seek to ensure regulations and laws are being properly made through court action. For that reason, it is certainly—and let me answer the question for you—a requirement of the Regulatory Standards Bill that before a certificate is signed by a Minister, chief executive, or member in charge of a bill, that person signing the certificate that the law or regulation has been properly made is satisfied that those people affected have been consulted. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Question No. 7—Regulatory Standards Bill

7. MARK CAMERON (ACT) to the Member in charge of the Regulatory Standards Bill: What would the Regulatory Standards Bill mean for rural New Zealand?

First of all, I want to congratulate the member on recently having his bill drawn, which would also mean a lot for rural New Zealand. But in terms of what this legislation would mean, it would mean that a numerical minority of New Zealand and yet an economic powerhouse—some would say the backbone of the New Zealand economy, rural New Zealand—have the ability to stand up to regulators, that often fail to understand the impacts of laws and regulations on their particular sector. For example, those farmers in Southland have recently had laws and regulations visited upon them, requiring them to plant their crops too early.

💬 SPEAKER: Order! Order! The member certainly hasn’t answered it, but he’s addressed it at greater length than necessary.

HansS_20210706_051780000#Q#HansDeb_20210706_20210706_14#3910

Question No. 8—Regulatory Standards Bill

8. CHRIS BAILLIE (ACT) to the Member in charge of the Regulatory Standards Bill: What would the Regulatory Standards Bill mean for small business?

Like farmers and those in the primary industries, those who operate, own, and pay the bills at small businesses are also a very small minority of New Zealanders but extremely important to the economy. They often find that employment law and other types of regulation imposed upon them is extremely costly, and they have little recourse against those costs being imposed upon them without proper consultation or cost-benefit analysis. This legislation, the Regulatory Standards Bill, would allow those in small business to seek remedies in the court, or for their representative bodies to seek remedies, when they have their rights trampled. Mr Speaker, you’re gesturing to cut someone’s head off. I don’t think that’s appropriate for the House of Parliament! This bill would allow them to seek remedies when their rights are trampled.

Questions to Ministers

Question No. 9—Regulatory Standards Bill

9. to the Member in charge of the Regulatory Standards Bill: Would the Regulatory Standards Bill prevent environmental regulations being put in place?

I had prepared what I thought to be quite an erudite dissertation with reference to the “tragedy of the commons”, outlined in Garrett Hardin’s eponymous 1968 essay; however, Mr Speaker, I feel your patience for such a dissertation may be running thin. No, you’ve changed your mind? OK, let’s go.

As Hardin outlined, the tragedy of the commons is something that occurs when, as he said, all men rush to tragedy, calculating that if they don’t consume environmental resources, somebody else will. It is a classic market failure, where all people acting independently and doing their best have a habit of bringing about results and consequences that are actually not for the collective good. A classic modern example is fishers taking all the fish—that’s why we have fishing regulations. Somebody seeking to bring about environmental regulations that solve a genuine market failure—a tragedy of the commons, such as we see in fishing; such as we see in people emitting carbon dioxide—could be solved and justified under this law.

💬 SPEAKER: Order! Order!

💬 DAVID SEYMOUR: Thank you, Mr Speaker.

💬 SPEAKER: Order!

Question No. 11 to Minister

I call on Government Order of the Day No. 1.

Point of order. In relation to question No. 11 from me to the Minister for COVID-19 Response today, the language I used in my primary question is exactly the same language as the Minister used in his answer to the primary question on the same topic last week. So he specifically said, last week, “I can’t give you the percentage”—

💬 SPEAKER: Order! Order! What I want now is, very quickly, a remedy that the member wants through this intervention, because the member has interrupted, now, another debate, and we’re not meant to go back arguing on a particular point when it was made very clear by me that the question that was asked was different; the fact that it related to an answer is actually not relevant. The member asked a different question—

No, it’s not different.

💬 SPEAKER: —and I am not prepared to entertain further discussion on this now.

Well, what is the remedy to make the Minister, who has the data, come to the House and answer the question?

Ask the same question as he did last time.