Oral Questions

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

Yes, particularly recent milestones in the Government’s economic recovery plan. Yesterday, international tourism and business travellers from around 60 visa waiver countries were welcomed back as part of the Government’s reconnecting plan. Our tourism destinations are amongst the world’s best, and as thousands of passengers touched down yesterday on around 25 flights at Auckland, Wellington, and Christchurch international airports, it is clear New Zealand is open for business. Our reconnecting plan is about even more than reuniting family and friends; it is a crucial part of strengthening our economic recovery, and I know we are all pleased to welcome our visitors back.

💬 Christopher Luxon: Why, with inflation at its highest level in 30 years—raising an extra $12 billion in revenue annually—is the Government now expecting to delay the return to surplus by another year?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I would point out to the member that even with a return to surplus in the year 2024-25, that brings us back into surplus within a shorter time frame than we saw under the National Government in the recovery from the global financial crisis (GFC). I stand by our economic response to COVID-19. It means that our economy is one of the strongest performers in the OECD. We have some of the lowest unemployment on record, at 3.2 percent. We have an economy that has a higher rate of activity than what we saw pre-COVID, and, yes, while we do see households going through the impacts of high inflation that is being experienced around the world, this is a Government who is focused on doing what we can to support New Zealand households. We got New Zealanders through COVID and we will get them through the economic recovery of COVID.

💬 Christopher Luxon: Why has she opted for another year of deficits instead of reconsidering plans for the biggest-spending Budget in New Zealand’s history, which would help lower inflation?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Well, firstly, I would question the member’s rationale on that last point. But I would also then ask the member the question: what was it of the support that we put into New Zealand families and businesses that he would choose to cut, because even with a return to surplus sooner than what we saw under National in the GFC—and yet the economic crisis we’ve experienced has been worse—the member seems to suggest that, instead, we should not have invested in businesses to keep them afloat with the business support scheme, that we should not have ensured that people’s incomes were covered through those income supports, and that we should not have had the extra support through the winter energy payment or benefit increases, all of which have contributed to the lowest unemployment we have seen in New Zealand, at 3.2 percent. So, instead, my question to the member is: what would he have cut? Because it would have left our recovery far worse.

💬 SPEAKER: Order! I just do want to remind the Prime Minister that she can’t ask the Leader of the Opposition questions.

💬 David Seymour: Can the Prime Minister name, or is she aware of, any country at any time in history that borrowed and spent its way out of high inflation?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Again, if I want to reflect on the periods where we’ve had inflation that has, for instance, outstripped wage growth, it was actually under National’s Government. If I also reflect on a time where we had a period where Government took on more debt because of economic crisis, it was during the GFC, and, again, I would reflect, at that time, that even then, as a percentage of GDP, we have taken on a similar increase in debt levels. When it comes to the impact that that extra spending has on inflation, the member well knows that it depends on the nature of that spending. If the member is arguing that income replacement—income replacement—was inflationary, that’s a matter for the member.

💬 Christopher Luxon: In light of her answer, does she agree with her Minister of Finance that “The path for returning to surplus also puts downward pressure on inflation.”, and, if so, why is she committing to another year of deficits?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I do agree with the Minister of Finance. I also agree with the proposition he’s put around, for instance, talking about the longer term, the commitment we are making as part of the fiscal rules to ensure that over a period—a defined period—we are running surpluses but, at the same time, ensuring that when we are taking on debt, it is for investment in infrastructure that New Zealand desperately needs. We have for too long seen a complete deficit approach to investment and much-needed infrastructure like pipes for our water, preparation for houses to be built, hospitals and health services, and schools that we need. We have paid a price for that as a nation. We are still recovering as a Government with investment in those areas. The rules we’ve set out today return us to surplus but also ensure long-term investment.

💬 Christopher Luxon: Will she rule out introducing any new taxes to pay for her Government’s record new spending?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: We’ve already introduced our tax policy, and I note that the member has chosen to promote the idea of reversing it. Our tax policy included putting in a new top tax rate at $180,000, or more, of an individual’s income. The National Party has proposed dropping that. Just at a time when Kiwis are experiencing cost of living issues, he wants to ensure tax cuts for those at higher incomes—they’re at $180,000—and wants to reverse the work that we did to make the playing field more even for first-home buyers. A billion dollars’ worth of tax breaks for speculators—that’s his policy; it is certainly not ours.

💬 Christopher Luxon: Is it still her policy that she will never implement a wealth tax while she is Prime Minister?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I’ve said repeatedly, I stand by all my statements that I’ve made, and I made the statement in 2020. The question I have is: whether the member stands by all of his? In recent times when we’ve been talking about the experience of New Zealanders right now in a global crisis, we’ve heard that he wants to remove public holidays, no subsidies for public transport, raising the retirement age—

💬 SPEAKER: Order! Order! The Leader of the Opposition’s statements are not part of the Prime Minister’s responsibility.

💬 David Seymour: Is the Prime Minister seriously arguing in her earlier answers that the Government which gave New Zealand KiwiBuild and the ongoing Auckland light rail fiasco are the right people to deliver quality spending on infrastructure?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: We are the Government that has invested in new school builds; that is investing in hospitals; that is investing in the infrastructure that we need in order to produce housing, including water infrastructure. So the proof of course is the fact that we ended up with a housing crisis because the last Government—supported by ACT—did not invest in those things.

💬 Christopher Luxon: Does she accept that if her Government was more careful when spending taxpayers’ money, Kiwis today could have lower inflation, lower taxes, and better outcomes from their public services?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: By that assertion, I would assume therefore that he is claiming every single economy that is currently experiencing inflation therefore is simply down to that question. We know the OECD average right now is 7.7 percent, we know in euro its 7.5, in Germany it’s 7.3. In Australia, they’ve seen a more rapid increase than New Zealand in the last quarter. This is a global issue caused by the simultaneous recovery from COVID-19 of all of our economies, supply chain constraints, and now a war. What I can attest to is that on this side of the House, we are working through our 1 April changes and our 1 May changes to support New Zealanders. All I’ve heard from the Opposition is tax cuts for the most wealthy.

Question No. 2—Revenue

2. to the Minister of Revenue: Does he stand by his statement on the tax system that “[many people] assume that the system is progressive overall. It isn’t”; if so, why is our tax system not progressive?

Yes. The effective marginal tax rate for middle-income New Zealanders is generally higher than it is for their wealthier co-citizens. Some wealthier New Zealanders pay very low rates of tax on most of their income. That is why the Government has supported Inland Revenue to gather information to inform the Government and the public on the effective tax rates that New Zealanders at different levels of wealth and income actually pay. It is important that discussions around tax, wealth, and inequality are informed by facts and evidence.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Does he consider it important to have a progressive tax system that can fund public services, provide people with livable incomes, and respond to the climate emergency?

💬 SPEAKER: Any two of those four questions.

💬 Hon DAVID PARKER: The four basic principles of any decent tax system are horizontal equity—people in the same economic position pay the same amount of tax—vertical equity, that people that are better off at least pay the rate that people that are worse off than them—should be progressive. It should be administratively efficient, for both the tax department and taxpayers, and it should minimise the distortions that are caused to the economy, or can be caused by improper tax systems. In respect of the principle that this most addresses, it’s the vertical equity issue.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Why, if the Minister believes that our tax system is not progressive while he also believes that it should be progressive, is he not urgently putting in place tax reform?

💬 Hon DAVID PARKER: We set out our tax policies for the country in the 2020 election, and we have followed them. We are sticking to those commitments and I would repeat what I said in the first paragraph of my speech: “Those coming here expecting announcements of new tax policy will be disappointed. None are being made. We have no secret plan to introduce a CGT, nor a wealth tax, or a deemed income tax, nor others. The IRD is not doing any work to even develop these or other options.”

Chlöe Swarbrick: Does he stand by his response, then, to my question in select committee that the Government may do “perhaps nothing”, even if the IRD finds that we have an unfair tax system?

💬 Hon DAVID PARKER: I’ve already said that we are sticking with our election policy of 2020, and it’s absolutely clear that we have been doing so. I think that answers the member’s question.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Does the advice from Treasury and IRD officials that more than 40 percent of millionaires are paying tax rates lower than the lowest earners still stand?

💬 Hon DAVID PARKER: I haven’t had an up-to-date report on that, but it does highlight the issue that I find it absolutely incredible that some people in society say that we should not be conducting the information upon which to have a fact-based debate. That seems to be the position of Opposition parties.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Does he agree with Treasury that “New Zealand’s tax system currently relies heavily on a small number of tax bases” and “there are many ways in which Governments could seek to raise additional revenue from existing and new tax bases”?

💬 Hon DAVID PARKER: In respect of the first part of that quote, yes, I agree with it. But I re-emphasise that we are sticking with our 2020 manifesto promise which was in respect of raising the tax rate on people who had a taxable income of more than $180,000, and I would notice—the Prime Minister has—that some Opposition parties have already announced their tax party policy for the next election; we haven’t.

Question No. 3—Finance

3. to the Minister of Finance: What announcements has the Government made on the fiscal strategy for Budget 2022?

This morning, I set out new fiscal rules to ensure New Zealand continues to maintain our world-leading financial position. Our economy is growing at 5.6 percent a year, unemployment is at a record low of 3.2 percent, debt is substantially below that of the countries we compare ourselves with, and we are amongst a small number of countries which have maintained a triple A credit rating during the COVID period. As we move to a new normal post the peak of COVID, it is the right time to resume a set of fiscal rules to carefully manage costs while planning for the future. The first new fiscal rule is that once we reach our operating balance before gains and losses surplus as expected in 2024-25, the Government is committing to maintaining a small surplus in the range of zero to 2 percent of GDP over time. The range is based on advice from Treasury. That means that as we enter the new normal, the spending required to operate Government services won’t be adding to Government debt. There will be allowances for significant shocks, and it is an average percentage so as to allow additional investment in a particular year if required.

💬 Dr Duncan Webb: How will debt be measured under the fiscal strategy for Budget 2022?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: New Zealand has a comparatively strong debt position, but we have been an outlier in the international community in the way our net debt is measured. I have accepted Treasury’s recommendation for a new net debt measure to be introduced to bring New Zealand closer in line with other countries. The measure is more reflective of the real state of our fiscal position so that we can accurately compare ourselves against other countries. Unlike the main headline measure that we currently use—net core Crown debt—the new measure includes a wide range of Government assets, such as the super fund, but also liabilities, including debt held by other Crown agencies such as Kāinga Ora. It gives a headline net debt figure about 20 percentage points lower than the current one but is far more comparable when assessing our fiscal sustainability against other countries. We will ensure that the Budget documents continue to publish the old measure alongside the new measure for transparency and the ability to make historical comparisons.

💬 Dr Duncan Webb: What other fiscal rules are being introduced?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: We will be introducing a debt ceiling that ensures New Zealand maintains some of the lowest Government debt in the world while giving greater room for investment in high-quality infrastructure. Under the old measure of net debt, the Treasury has recommended the ceiling be 50 percent of GDP; when we translate that to the new measure, and it is comparable with other countries, the cap is 30 percent of GDP. It is a limit rather than a target and it is, again, flexible enough to allow a buffer against short-term shocks while providing greater room for productive investment. The interaction of the two fiscal rules means that the additional debt cannot be used for day-to-day spending as that is limited by the surplus rule. This leads the debt ceiling to guide capital investments needed in infrastructure to keep our economy moving.

Question No. 4—Finance

4. to the Minister of Finance: Does he stand by his statement that “The first surplus since the 2018/2019 year is expected in 2024/2025 … this is a year later than we set out in December”?

I stand by my full statement with its context, which was—I quote myself—“Just as the previous National Government ran deficits and increased net debt following the Global Financial Crisis and Canterbury Earthquakes, we have done the same to protect New Zealanders from the effects of COVID-19. Add in the impact of the War in Ukraine, and the ongoing supply chain disruption as a result of continued COVID responses around the world, [and] we are faced with running five years of deficits compared to National’s six. The first surplus since the 2018/19 year is expected in 2024/25. The keen-eyed among you will realise that this is a year later than we set out in December. We are not alone in toning down some of our expectations as a result of the war and ongoing supply chain issues. The IMF has said that global growth will average 3.5% over 2022, down from the 4.4% it had previously forecast in January. All that said, achieving a surplus within the next three fiscal years—at a quicker rate than National did after the Global Financial Crisis—is something I am proud to be able to do as Minister of Finance.”

💬 Nicola Willis: Why should New Zealanders believe he is spending their money as carefully as they would, when, despite introducing multiple new taxes and collecting billions more from income tax as inflation pushes people into higher tax brackets, he still can’t get the Government books under control?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Well, Mr Speaker, leaving aside some of the assertions in that question—

💬 SPEAKER: Yeah, I should have ruled it out, but I’m being liberal.

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: —I am aware that the member concerned used to work with Bill English, and I’m sure he would be concerned that she’s trashing his record so significantly today, given that it took six years for the National Government to get into surplus after the global financial crisis (GFC), and we’re only going to do it in five.

💬 Nicola Willis: How can New Zealanders have confidence in the Minister’s economic management when, even while they tighten their budgets as inflation bites, he is about to embark on the biggest spend-up in Budget history?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Once again, I take the member back to the National Government after the GFC when core Crown expenses reached 34.1 percent of GDP. For us, it’s reached just over 35 percent in the face of a greater financial crisis, and it is forecast to come down to 30 percent across the forecast period. We have invested in supporting New Zealanders through COVID-19 and we will continue to invest in supporting New Zealand’s economic recovery.

💬 Hon Chris Hipkins: Is it unprecedented for a Government to take a year or two longer to get back into surplus than they might have earlier predicted?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: No, it’s not. And, in fact, I do recall the Hon Bill English, in fact, saying that it would be more challenging to get back into surplus—and he did so in what I imagine was a very well-written speech.

💬 Nicola Willis: Does he stand by his statement in his speech this morning that “surplus means current spending is paid for from current revenues. … taking pressure off inflation”, and what impact does he think the Government’s spending will have on inflation in the current year?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I’m confident that the investments that this Government will make will ensure that New Zealanders get the public services that they deserve, that will make sure we have a good health system, and a quality education system. I also know that the kind of spending a Government does matters a lot when it comes to inflation. Targeted spending that the Government is doing is important. Spending that the Opposition is proposing, which would see tax cuts to those on the highest incomes, is not targeted spending and would likely be more inflationary.

💬 Nicola Willis: Will he rule out further tax increases to keep up with his projections of more debt and more deficits?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: As the Prime Minister has already indicated, we have implemented our tax policy. What I will rule out is adopting the member’s tax policy that would see the wealthiest in New Zealand get thousands of dollars a year in tax cuts, while those on the middle incomes get two bucks a week. I can rule that out.

💬 Hon Chris Hipkins: Has the Minister of Finance seen any suggestions over the last two years that the Government should have spent more on things like the wage subsidy and the COVID-19 response?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I have heard frequent suggestions from members of the Opposition that we should be giving more support to businesses, that we should be providing more things. I remember Andrew—

💬 SPEAKER: Order! Order! I think both members know that donkey drops for that purpose are not allowed.

💬 Nicola Willis: Has the Minister reassessed any of his spending plans in light of massive inflation, high tax takes, and plummeting business and consumer confidence, or is he determined to keep spending up large no matter what?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Every single Budget, the Government works across every part of the Budget to make sure that we are delivering value for money for New Zealanders. What I have assessed is that New Zealanders deserve a health system where the hospitals they go to work properly; where children have been educated in warm, dry classrooms; where we actually build State houses rather than sell them. On this side of the House, we are committed to a programme that lifts the quality of public services that New Zealanders get. What we’re not going to do is untargeted tax cuts that give the wealthiest New Zealanders hundreds of thousands of dollars while those on low and middle incomes are given $2 a week.

Question No. 5—Housing

5. to the Minister of Housing: What action has the Government recently taken to enable housing?

Last week, the Government announced that around 400 infrastructure projects in the Auckland suburbs of Mount Roskill, Māngere, Tāmaki, Ōranga, and Northcote will receive funding from the Government’s $3.8 billion Housing Acceleration Fund announced in March 2021. This new funding will directly enable up to 16,000 new homes on Crown-owned land—including public, affordable, and market homes—and create capacity for an extra 11,000 homes on surrounding privately owned land. The projects being funded include three waters infrastructure, including water main renewal and sewerage and stormwater system upgrades, as well as flood protection, footpath and road improvements, and site decontaminations.

💬 Shanan Halbert: What further action is the Government taking to enable more housing in other parts of the country?

💬 Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: Yesterday, those applicants invited to progress to the negotiation stage of the Government’s $1 billion contestable Infrastructure Acceleration Fund were notified. This will unlock new housing development across the country in the short to medium term. Thirty-five projects are being progressed through the fund, which could unlock between 25,000 to 35,000 additional homes, pending agreement of the final proposals. There are 14 proposals for developments in New Zealand’s major urban centres—the tier 1 councils of Auckland, Hamilton, Tauranga, Wellington, and Christchurch—and the remaining 21 are in other areas throughout the country. Almost one-third of the applications going forward to the next stage are proposals that are co-led with Māori or have Māori as key partners.

💬 Shanan Halbert: How will this investment in infrastructure improve the supply of housing?

💬 Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: Decades of under-investment in housing infrastructure needed has created the national housing crisis that we are facing today. Investments of this scale in water, transport, and community infrastructure are vital to increase the pace at which we can unlock new homes where they are critically needed. Creating funding certainty for this additional infrastructure also works in tandem to deliver the infrastructure needed for intensification under the Government’s National Policy Statement for Urban Development and the medium-density residential standards. It also allows the Government to continue with its public house build progress, continuing to progress to date—such as the 9,000 public houses and 3,425 additional transitional houses we’ve already delivered—the largest delivery in many decades.

Question No. 6—Justice

6. to the Minister of Justice: Is the Government committed to the principle of equal suffrage in New Zealand’s electoral laws?

Yes.

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: Does he believe every New Zealander of voting age should have an equal say in who governs them?

💬 Hon KRIS FAAFOI: The Government is committed to every New Zealander’s right to participate in our democracy on a fair and equal basis.

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: Has he seen any advice on the Rotorua District Council (Representation Arrangements) Bill which seeks to deviate from the principle of equal voting rights, and, if so, what actions, if any, has he taken?

💬 Hon KRIS FAAFOI: I’ve obviously seen reports, since the Attorney-General has tabled his opinion on the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act process that has been undertaken on that piece of legislation. The bill itself is a local bill; it is not a reflection of Government policy. I understand that the member in charge and the local government entity involved are taking a pause, given the opinion expressed by the Attorney-General.

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: Does he agree with his Cabinet colleague the Hon Willie Jackson that “The nature of [our] democracy has changed”, and, if so, is a move away from equal voting rights part of the Government’s intended direction of travel?

💬 Hon KRIS FAAFOI: I reiterate that the Government is committed to every New Zealander having the right to participate in our democracy on a fair and equal basis. That particular piece of legislation, as a local bill, has been through a select committee process and has had a vet by the Attorney-General. That particular local body entity has taken a pause, given the feedback given by the Attorney-General.

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: Is he not the Minister of Justice in a Government that voted for a bill that seeks to remove equal voting rights?

💬 Hon KRIS FAAFOI: Yes, I am the Minister of Justice. We voted for the bill in order for it to have a select committee process. The Attorney-General has given his opinion, as the Attorney-General does with every piece of legislation. There have been some concerns raised by the Attorney-General, and it is up to the sponsor and the local body entity to deal with the challenges of that Attorney-General vet.

💬 SPEAKER: Question No.—

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: Supplementary.

💬 SPEAKER: Well, I thought from all the noise that the member’s colleagues didn’t want another supplementary.

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: Does he agree with the Attorney-General that the bill discriminates against people not on the Māori roll, and, if so, why was this not obvious to him when the bill had its first reading a few weeks ago?

💬 Hon KRIS FAAFOI: Can I say once more for the member, the bill is a local bill brought forward by the Rotorua District Council and sponsored by a member of the House who was in charge of that. Every bill goes through the Attorney-General process. The Attorney-General has expressed some concerns, which I believe that the entity responsible for the bill is addressing.

💬 Hon Chris Hipkins: Has there been a previous example where the Attorney-General has recommended against a change to voting rights with regard to a member’s bill, where the Government of the day has voted in favour of that, such as when the voting rights from prisoners were removed?

💬 Hon KRIS FAAFOI: I do recall that piece of legislation, which passed under the last National Government. There are positive things that this Government is doing in order to make sure that there are commitments to equality and fairness within our electoral system. That’s why we’re undertaking a full review—an independent review—of our electoral system. We’ve also made some proposals to Opposition parties around some things—policy changes—which we’d like to do before the next election. I look forward to a response from the member.

💬 Rawiri Waititi: What is the Minister going to do about the racist legislation that locks Māori out for eight years from participating in the general elections every three years?

💬 Hon KRIS FAAFOI: I think the member is referring to issues around the Māori electoral option. I’ve had meetings with that member and also with Opposition members about making sure that that particular aspect of our electoral law is fairer for those who are on the Māori roll. Again, I look forward to the Opposition coming back with an opinion on that proposal from the Government.

Question No. 7—Education

7. to the Minister of Education: What action is the Government taking to provide more resources to the front line and support all students to succeed?

Over the weekend, my colleague the Hon Jan Tinetti and I announced that, as part of this year’s Budget, a new regional response fund of $40 million is being established to help meet local educational needs. Funds will be provided through Te Mahau, or the education support agency, which works closely with sectors and communities to ensure that the support is getting to where it needs to be in the way that it needs to be delivered. Te Mahau was established following the review of Tomorrow’s Schools. The fund is going to have a strong initial focus on ensuring that students are going to school and are engaged in their learning.

💬 Angela Roberts: What sort of activities on the part of schools will the new regional response fund be used for?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: It’s really important that we get kids back to school and engaged in their learning, and the fund will certainly help to support that. It will provide an opportunity for schools to put extra resources into supporting those who are currently disengaged from their learning, and that will include the ability to work with family, with whānau, and with other community organisations to address any barriers to participation and to make sure that those young people who are currently disengaged are re-engaged. It will also help to ensure that schools are places where all of our young people want to be.

💬 Angela Roberts: Has the regional response been informed by experience with any previous initiatives?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Yes, this builds on the $50 million Urgent Response Fund that we put in place as part of our COVID 19-response. The Urgent Response Fund worked on a similar basis, allowing schools and communities to come up with initiatives that best meet their local needs. A survey of the Urgent Response Fund’s outcomes was completed by 871 of the recipients, and it found that the respondents reported that their learners were supported and that there were improvements in their re-engagement in learning, their wellbeing, and their cultural wellbeing. The vast majority of respondents considered that they had achieved, or would likely achieve, the intended outcomes for their learners as a result of the fund being there.

💬 Erica Stanford: Does the Minister accept that the recent increase in youth crime of late is in part a consequence of the additional 20,000 children that have become chronically absent from school since Labour took office, and isn’t his Sunday announcement too little, too late?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: In fact, if the member looks at the statistics, what she’ll find is that in the first couple of years that we were the Government, we had arrested the trend that we inherited of downward participation in schooling. Unfortunately, COVID-19 has once again shifted the dial on that, and we do have a challenge as a country to get kids back to school, and that is what the Government is responding to. I would note that there are many reasons why kids don’t attend school. In fact, the entire community needs to play its part in that, and parents also need to play their part in ensuring that their children are going to school.

Question No. 8—Prime Minister

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

Yes, particularly the Government’s decision to implement the winter energy payment, which will help over 1 million families to heat their homes over winter. Between 1 May and 1 October this year, families with children will get an extra $31.82 a week, and single people with no dependent children will get a boost of $20.46 a week. This payment will help older New Zealanders and many of our low and middle income families to cover some of the costs, which can peak during the colder seasons. The winter energy payment provides support alongside a suite of income increases that took effect on 1 April, including increases to main benefits, New Zealand superannuation, Working for Families, and the minimum wage. We’ve taken a range of actions to lift Kiwis’ incomes that together will ease the pressure for many families.

💬 David Seymour: Does she stand by her statement ruling out introducing a wealth tax on 14 October 2020, when she said, “I won’t allow it to happen as Prime Minister”, and, if so, what was the policy logic behind that statement?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: As I’ve said many times, I stand by all the statements that I have made, and, in fact, we have done exactly what we said we would do, which is implement the tax policy we campaigned on, which is the introduction of a top tax rate for those earning over $180,000—on income earned over $180,000. We made very clear at that time our view that that would create a fairer system. It did not put us out of kilt with other jurisdictions. In fact, as a percentage of GDP, the amount that is taken via tax is very similar to during the period that National were in office. I also stand by my ruling out the wealth tax policy that was put to me in 2020 for all the reasons I gave at the time. It was simply not our policy and is still not our policy.

💬 David Seymour: Is she prepared to tell Parliament today that she will not introduce a wealth tax as Prime Minister?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: That’s exactly what I said in 2020, and I have stood by that statement. We have already implemented our tax policy. The debate we are having at the moment is whether or not the National Party, should they ever become Government with the support, for instance, of ACT, would remove that top tax rate, which would mean the wealthiest New Zealanders would receive a substantial tax cut whereas those New Zealanders who are on lower incomes would get a grand sum of $2 per week. We can only assume that, at the same time, they would get rid of—if they were supported by the ACT Party—a number of other Government supports that we have put in place to ensure that low and middle income earners feel an ease against the cost of living pressures they’ve experienced.

💬 David Seymour: Does she stand by her Minister for Māori Development’s statement on Q+A that, “Democracy has changed.”, and, if so, can she explain what Willie Jackson might have meant when he said that?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I’ve not seen the entirety of the interview that the member is referencing, but as the Minister of Justice has already stated in this House, we’re very clear around ensuring that people have greater access to their democracy in New Zealand. Over many years, we’ve seen improvements to our system that have ensured that we have a much more diverse Parliament. That diversity is reflected here in this House, and I understand the leader of the National Party spoke today about the diversity that he hopes to see come into this Parliament as a result of his newly selected candidate in Tauranga, who, I notice, he said, “would bring new diversity”—

💬 David Seymour: Point of order.

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: —as a result of his candidate being “highly educated.”

💬 SPEAKER: Part of the problem is I have a point of order and I’ll hear the point of order. I’m going to find it slightly hard to rule on it because of the noise that was occurring at the latter part of the Prime Minister’s comments. I will also say to the Prime Minister that when I stand up she should sit down.

💬 David Seymour: Mr Speaker, I’m trying to ask questions and get information about the Government from the Prime Minister. It’s clearly unnecessary and unparliamentary for her to be attacking another political party the whole time.

💬 SPEAKER: Well, as I said before, there’s a bit of discretion around donkey drops. When they come from the Opposition, I think there’s more room for the Prime Minister to respond in a wider manner than it is—[Interruption] Who made that noise? Which of the two members on my left made that noise? Well, stand up, withdraw, and apologise.

💬 Chris Penk: I withdraw and apologise.

💬 SPEAKER: Take your mask off first.

💬 Chris Penk: I withdraw and apologise.

💬 SPEAKER: Has the Prime Minister finished? David Seymour.

💬 David Seymour: Mr Speaker, I wonder if you could just humour us all and explain what you mean by “donkey drops”? I asked about a Minister—

💬 SPEAKER: Oh, sorry. A donkey drop is an old-fashioned expression about, sometimes in cricket like a lollipop, an easy throw, something that can be dispatched to the boundary, and that’s what’s been delivered on occasions in this House by both the Government and the Opposition.

💬 David Seymour: Mr Speaker, I’m sorry, how does it help the order of this House for you to describe a serious question about a Minister of the Crown describing the nature of democracy as—what did you say—a whole lot of insults towards the question? How does that help you doing your job?

💬 SPEAKER: No, no, I’m not attempting to insult the member at all. All I’m indicating to the member is that his question ended up being quite wide, and therefore there’s an ability to have a wider response to it. And I’ll also say that when there is loud interjection, the ability of the Prime Minister to respond to that is something which is quite clearly allowed in the Speaker’s rulings. So if the members don’t want that sort of response, they should be careful with the degree, the volume—and, frankly, the lack of wittiness—of their interjections.

💬 David Seymour: Mr Speaker, I agree, I was a victim of loud and unwitty interjections. I wonder if you’d like to give the ACT Party some additional supplementaries?

💬 SPEAKER: Well, the member with that point of order is almost certainly being disorderly, and I’ll contemplate how many I’ll remove.

💬 David Seymour: Well, Mr Speaker, I hope you don’t trespass me—supplementary question.

💬 SPEAKER: Well, the member does know that my rights within here are pretty much absolute.

💬 David Seymour: Mr Speaker, that’s untrue; you have to follow the Standing Orders like all of us.

💬 SPEAKER: That is absolutely right, and if the member reads the Standing Orders, he will know that I am responsible for order; deciding what’s disorderly; and especially deciding what’s grossly disorderly, which includes members who are deliberately being disorderly, as the member was.

💬 David Seymour: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Given the Prime Minister has said her Government is committed to inclusive democracy in her earlier answer to a supplementary question some minutes back, why did the Government decide to consult only select Māori groups about its plan to implement the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, and does she believe all New Zealanders have an equal interest in the future of their country’s constitution?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I absolutely agree that all New Zealanders will have an interest, and should have a stake, in whether we are upholding the obligations we signed up to under the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The member is wrong to presuppose, or try and imply, that all New Zealanders will not be consulted—they will be, that is part of the process.

Question No. 9—Prime Minister

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

Yes. In particular, I stand by this Government’s decision to establish a Māori Health Authority as a central element of our health reforms. For too long, Māori have disproportionately suffered poorer health outcomes due to a health system not designed to deliver to them. On average, Māori die seven years younger than other populations, and this is a situation that no one in New Zealand should accept. Progress has been swift; we’ve already worked to ensure the interim Māori Health Authority has identified $22 million in areas identified for funding to support Māori health services. With the Māori Health Authority recently receiving public backing from organisations like the Cancer Society, Hāpai te Hauora, the New Zealand Nurses Organisation, the Royal Australian College of Surgeons, the Mental Health Foundation, and many more, we know, come 1 July, we can start delivering better health outcomes to our Māori whānau.

💬 Rawiri Waititi: Does she stand by her statement on wealth tax that “I won’t allow it to happen as Prime Minister.”, or her more recent statement, when she was asked about the wealth tax, that “We have not worked on our tax policy for 2023.”?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I stand by all my statements.

💬 Rawiri Waititi: Was she made aware that her Government knows nothing about the amount of tax paid by higher net-worth Kiwi individuals?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: As Minister Parker set out fulsomely, both in his answers in the House but also in his speech that he gave last week, it is clear that we, relative to other countries we would compare ourselves to, do not have the same data that you would expect us to have on the nature of tax paid in New Zealand. Alongside work we’ve done to create more transparency around these issues, my view is that by ensuring IRD have the ability to gather that information, all parties in this House—indeed, New Zealanders—will be better off by having greater transparency and more information.

💬 Rawiri Waititi: Is she aware that 2 percent of New Zealand controls 40 percent of our total wealth, and is that the equal society that you want as Prime Minister?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: You’ll already see, reflected in the policy that we have implemented as a Government, a view that we could see and should see more of a progressive tax system, given the fact that we introduced a new top tax rate for those earning over $180,000 or more. At the same time, you have seen us increase tax credits for families on Working for Families, you’ve seen us introduce the winter energy payment, create the child payment that we have through Best Start, increase Government support for those on benefits—all of those have been efforts to ensure that we have a fairer society and that all New Zealanders can flourish.

Question No. 10—Local Government

10. to the Minister of Local Government: What recent announcement has she made in relation to the Three Waters Reform Programme?

On behalf of the Government, alongside the Minister for Infrastructure, we’ve responded to the governance working group recommendations on three waters reform. I’d like to thank the members of the working group for their sensible and well-thought-out recommendations to improve the governance representation and local voice aspects of the changes we’re proposing. We’ve accepted in full, partially, or in principle the majority of the recommendations, and, in doing so, we’ve listened and are modifying the exposure draft of the bill, and these improvements go a long way towards addressing the local government sector’s most significant concerns. Fundamentally, these reforms are about delivering clean and safe drinking water at an affordable price for New Zealanders. With the key issues now addressed, we cannot afford to wait any longer. The costs to communities and ratepayers are just too big to ignore, and we need to get on with fixing the problem that is waters infrastructure.

💬 Tangi Utikere: What assurance can she give that local council assets aren’t being taken away from them?

💬 Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: Councils collectively will continue to own their assets under the three waters reform. The working group have helpfully recommended that this assurance be strengthened through a new public shareholding structure. The shareholding structure will allocate to councils, reflective of the size of their community, one share per 50,000 people in their area—so, for example, Auckland Council will hold 35 of the 40 shares in entity A, and smaller councils with a population base of 50,000 or less will secure one share. This share structure is a tangible expression of an ongoing connection for local communities and councils to their waters infrastructure. The shares will not deliver a dividend and cannot be sold or transferred. This provides an additional layer of protection against privatisation of water infrastructure alongside co-governance provisions.

💬 Simon Court: Is the Minister aware of Treasury advice that $2.5 billion has been distributed to councils to increase goodwill and reduce political barriers for her three waters policy, and, if so, does she agree with reports that it is a bribe?

💬 Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: I don’t agree with reports that this is a bribe at all, and the member might not be aware that Local Government New Zealand, through its memorandum of agreement, agreed to the approach that we were taking, which is basically to ensure that there are incentives in the reform programme to acknowledge that no council will be worse off; in fact, they will be better off as we progress the reform programme.

💬 Tangi Utikere: What benefits does she anticipate from co-governance for communities?

💬 Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: Let me be clear. Co-governance arrangements exist at the regional representative group level, where 50/50 governance oversight between councils and mana whenua is exercised for the broader wellbeing and benefit of the whole community by setting the strategic performance expectations of the newly created water service entities. As the working group has pointed out, the benefits of joint oversight mutually reinforce the sustainability of water management and keeping public ownership of water entities as a top priority, while prioritising the benefits to all communities big and small. I’d like to also emphasise that the regional representative group make appointments to the water service entity boards that will be based on professional skill and competency. Co-governance is not required at this level and never was.

💬 Tangi Utikere: Which recommendations were not accepted?

💬 Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: Three recommendations from the working group have been noted but not taken forward at this stage. The working group recommended that the first piece of three waters legislation establish a water services ombudsman to protect consumer interest. We acknowledge the need to protect consumer interest; however, this is a matter we anticipate will be addressed with regards to the establishment of economic regulations. Also, recommendations 44 and 45 relate to funding as an ongoing role for the Crown. The Government will continue to review any need for Crown support for water services infrastructure reforms as we continue to progress our programme. The recommendations we have adopted do not change the fact that the appointments to the water service entity boards will be based on professional skills and competency. We’ve consistently ruled out co-governance at that level. In its totality, I want to acknowledge that the governance working group identified that all recommendations would need to be subject to a Standard & Poor’s test to assure that balance sheet separation can be achieved and that would best enable the advantages of scale and aggregation to finance three waters infrastructure and investment.

💬 Simon Watts: Other than the ability to vote on privatisation, can she give one example of how her proposed shareholding schemes for local councils allow them to make decisions about their water assets?

💬 Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: The decision-making process that ensures that community priorities are reflected will be at the regional representative group level and also through the establishment of sub-regional groups. It will enable communities to prioritise what is important to them, what needs to be invested in. It will be reflected on in the strategic documents that will guide the water service entities. This is a recommendation from the governance working group that will improve the current legislation that was put in the early exposure draft.

Question No. 11—Police

Thank you, Mr Speaker. My question is to the Minister of Police: is she confident that the police pursuit policy allows police to respond appropriately to ram raids, and, if so, why?

Sorry, have another go.

11. to the Minister of Police: Is she confident the change in the Police pursuit policy has not led to an increase in ram raids, and, if so, why?

The ram raid incidents we are seeing are shocking and incredibly distressing for those affected. I am confident the police are taking action by launching the new retail crime unit and by commencing Operation Pryor, which has seen over 110 arrests and more than $100,000 in stolen property recovered in the last three months alone. The pursuits policy was changed in 2020 following a number of evidence-based Independent Police Conduct Authority (IPCA) recommendations in the wake of 63 pursuit-related deaths within a decade. There is no evidence that shows the current police pursuit policy has led to an increase in ram raid incidents.

💬 Hon Mark Mitchell: Why has the percentage of arrests for fleeing drivers dropped from 41 percent in 2017 to 17 percent in 2021?

💬 Hon POTO WILLIAMS: While the police pursuits policy has changed, that does not mean that the police follow-up of those involved in those crimes has changed—it has not. Police do follow up where they have the evidence to do so. Can I just say that the change to the police pursuits policy is about saving lives, and it has worked.

💬 Hon Mark Mitchell: Point of order, Mr Speaker. It was a very direct question—

💬 SPEAKER: Yes, yes, and I probably should have ruled it out because it didn’t really relate to the question. It was a question about ram raids and the effect on ram raids.

💬 Hon Mark Mitchell: No, the original question was about the—

💬 SPEAKER: No, it’s not the original question; it’s the one that’s printed, which is the one that I’m talking about.

💬 Hon Mark Mitchell: It relates to the police pursuit policy.

💬 SPEAKER: And its effect on ram raids, not a general question about pursuits policy. If the member wanted to ask one of them, he should have.

💬 Hon Mark Mitchell: Does she think that 83 percent of drivers who fail to stop for police who are not caught is acceptable?

💬 Hon POTO WILLIAMS: What I do think is acceptable is police taking the courageous view to accept the IPCA recommendations, which resulted in no deaths after 63 pursuit-related deaths in a decade.

💬 Hon Mark Mitchell: Does she stand by her statement: “We have never had this situation where we’ve got young people challenging police in this way.”, and, if so, is this a result of her soft on crime approach?

💬 Hon POTO WILLIAMS: Can I say, let’s put this into context: youth crime has been trending down since 2017, ram raids make up about 1 percent of all retail crime, and six out of 10 times, it’s young people involved. That’s why we’re taking a targeted approach. We’ve put 109 more police officers into the youth space, we’re setting up the retail crime unit, and putting more funding into addressing school truancy. It’s easy to use throwaway lines like “soft on crime” in this space. It’s a very gendered statement that has been thrown out by not just that member but the Leader of the Opposition, who claims to be a feminist. [Interruption]

💬 SPEAKER: Order! Both sides, please.

💬 Hon Mark Mitchell: Why have we never in this country had this situation before?

💬 Hon POTO WILLIAMS: I beg to differ, and I would quote the Minister of Police in 2016 and her response to retail crime, when she said that we do not have enough cops. Now, that is why, as police Minister, I’m proud to say that we have funded record funding investment funding into the police: 1,400 extra cops; 109 are working with youth alone. If the National Party are to be believed, if they ever got their hands on the Budget, they would reduce police funding.

💬 Hon Mark Mitchell: Well, does she or does she not stand by her statement that we have never had this situation before?

💬 Hon POTO WILLIAMS: I stand by my statements, and I also stand by the police, which, clearly, that member does not.

Question No. 12—Tourism

12. to the Minister of Tourism: What reports has he seen about the impact on our largest international airport of reopening the border to visa-waiver travellers?

Yesterday, I joined representatives of Tourism New Zealand, Air New Zealand, and Auckland International Airport at a dawn event at the terminal to welcome the first air passengers returning under step four of our reconnecting strategy announced by the PM in February and alluded to by the PM in question No. 1. Auckland International Airport advises that from yesterday it was open to 88 percent of its pre-COVID markets. Thousands of passengers touched down on around 25 flights at Auckland, Wellington, and Christchurch international airports yesterday as New Zealand opened up further for business to further spur the economic recovery.

💬 Jo Luxton: What reports has he seen about the return of tourists and business travellers from our traditional Northern Hemisphere markets as aviation connectivity gears up?

💬 Hon STUART NASH: Australia remains our number one market. Historically, it always has been, accounting for 40 percent of pre-COVID arrivals. But the reopening of visa-waiver travel taps into a strong interest in this country from our traditional key Northern Hemisphere markets. These include the USA, UK, Germany, South Korea, Japan, Singapore, Malaysia, Canada, and others who can now jump on a plane and come here. Tourism New Zealand advises that international flight searches to New Zealand are running 19 percent higher than pre-COVID levels. Our tourism destinations are amongst the world’s best. The industry knows there is a rebuild ahead. International travel will be very competitive and airlines will take time to build up their schedules and routes.

💬 Hon Member: Well done, Minister.

💬 Hon STUART NASH: Thank you.

💬 Jo Luxton: What reports has he seen about international airlines restarting routes to New Zealand?

💬 Hon STUART NASH: Auckland International Airport advises, that at the start of this year, there were 12 passenger airlines operating to 20 international destinations to and from the airport; by July, it expects there’ll be 17 passenger airlines operating to 31 destinations to and from Auckland Airport. Later this year, major international airlines like Emirates, Air Canada, Malaysian Airlines, Hawaiian Airlines, and LATAM Airlines are restarting routes. Air New Zealand is also adding long-haul routes from San Francisco, Honolulu, Houston, New York, and Chicago. We have kept airlines flying here with an air freight subsidy scheme for exporters. The tourism sector can now build on that and scale up for the movement of people as well as freight.

💬 David Seymour: Did the Minister see any reports of Kiwis of Indian, Chinese, or Sri Lankan origin welcoming their non-resident families, and how long will Kiwis whose families are from non-visa waiver countries have to keep waiting till they can have the same experience under his Government?

💬 Hon STUART NASH: No.

Questions to Members

Question No. 1—Māori Affairs Committee

1. DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT) to the Chairperson of the Māori Affairs Committee: When will the Rotorua District Council (Representation Arrangements) Bill be reported back to the House?

That is a matter for the committee.

💬 David Seymour: Is the member confident that the committee will be able to ensure the bill overcomes the objections raised by the Attorney-General in his section 7 report—

💬 SPEAKER: Order! The member will resume his seat. That’s not a matter for the chair of the committee.

💬 David Seymour: Point of order, Mr Speaker.

💬 SPEAKER: These questions are very, very narrow, and the content is not the responsibility of the chair.

Question No. 2—Rotorua District Council (Representation Arrangements) Bill

2. Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National) to the Member in charge of the Rotorua District Council (Representation Arrangements) Bill: Will he discharge the Rotorua District Council (Representation Arrangements) Bill; if not, why not?

No, I haven’t discharged the bill, so as to allow time for the Rotorua District Council to consider whether possible amendments are able to address the Attorney-General’s New Zealand Bill of Rights Act analysis. It’s important to note that I’ve publicly said that the bill cannot continue in its form.

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: How can the bill be amended in such a way that doesn’t deviate from equal voting rights, given that is the entire purpose of the bill?

That’s a matter for the advisers to work through, which is why we’ve given them the time to be able to work through that analysis and provide their final advice back to the Māori Affairs Committee—we’re in a process.

Question No. 3—Rotorua District Council (Representation Arrangements) Bill

3. Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National) to the Member in charge of the Rotorua District Council (Representation Arrangements) Bill: Will he be seeking support from the Māori Affairs Committee to suspend the hearing of submissions on the Rotorua District Council (Representation Arrangements) Bill; if so, why?

As sponsor of the bill, I have publicly stated that I’ll be seeking the support from the Māori Affairs Committee to suspend submission hearings while possible amendments are considered, and I anticipate that the select committee will deal with that in due course.

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: Why doesn’t he ask the committee to report the bill back immediately, recommending that it not proceed, given that it deviates from equal voting rights for all New Zealanders?

TĀMATI COFFEY: Because we are in a process, and I’d like the process to be able to go through its process for the relevant advice to come back to the committee and for us to be able to make an informed decision together as a committee.