Oral Questions

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

on behalf of the Prime Minister: Yes, particularly the emissions reductions plan released yesterday. The plan sets out a work programme that meets the Climate Commission’s independent emission reductions targets and supports our transition to a high-wage, low-emissions economy that provides greater economic security. The plan is backed by a $2.9 billion investment to fund the next steps in our emissions reductions work, the largest investment in climate initiatives ever made. New Zealand trades on its environmental reputation; it’s the key to the ongoing security of our primary exports and tourism—two of our main export earners. Reducing our reliance on fossil fuels will also shield households from the volatility of international price hikes while reducing transport and energy bills. The plan sets out practical ways to cut power, transport, and other costs, and ensures that the early heavy lifting is done by the Government in partnership with business, and seeks to take the pressure off Kiwis by providing choices and options for tackling climate change.

💬 Christopher Luxon: Does she believe Kiwis paying 17c per litre at the pump because of the emissions trading scheme (ETS) should be subsidising large corporates to the tune of $650 million to “reduce their exposure to carbon price risk”, when the entire point of the ETS is to deliver a price signal so businesses make those investments themselves?

On behalf of the Prime Minister, what I believe is that it’s really interesting to hear the National Party advocating for higher costs on businesses and higher costs on Kiwis by doing absolutely nothing. There has always been a place in New Zealand politics for business and Government working together—for example, Air New Zealand being provided $18,000 from the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority to support filters in their Auckland Airport lounge during the period around 2014, 2015, 2016.

💬 Christopher Luxon: Does she accept that the Government is creating a perverse incentive for businesses who now know that if they just delay action, the Government will turn up with more taxpayer money to bail them out?

No, because the Government Investment in Decarbonising Industry fund that the member seems to be so obsessed with and getting so wrong actually requires businesses to contribute. It actually means that they are contributing up to 50 percent of the costs and it means that we’re actually supporting businesses to get on with the job of decarbonising. Sure, we could take the National Party’s approach and sit on our hands; on this side of the House, we want to support New Zealanders, including businesses, to decarbonise.

💬 Christopher Luxon: Why did the emissions reduction plan include policies like changes to NCEA, income insurance, or merging polytechnics? How will these changes reduce our emissions?

I think that betrays the complete lack of understanding of the complexity of the issue of climate change. If the member doesn’t understand that climate change is going to mean that New Zealanders need to change jobs, move into high-wage jobs, be supported to do that through an education system—that New Zealanders might actually lose their jobs through climate change and be supported by an income insurance scheme, it just shows how out of touch the National Party is on the significance of this issue.

💬 Christopher Luxon: Is she concerned by reports that the majority of actions listed in the emissions reduction plan are actually plans to make future plans; and does she think announcing a series of working groups will be enough for New Zealand to achieve our ambitious emissions targets?

I believe that these plans—and this is backed up by the science of the climate budgets—will mean that we can meet the goals of our zero carbon Act. There are a range of initiatives that are happening now and things we need to investigate. Mr Simpson just got up and said that we need to be working around methane inhibitors—that would be investigating it, Mr Luxon, that would be researching it. That would be making sure that we actually do the work now so we can implement this into the future. This is a plan for the here and now and for the next 15 years.

💬 Christopher Luxon: What is her response to the Employers and Manufacturers Association (EMA) CE who said, “It’s not unreasonable for the business sector to expect the Government to make policy in a more coherent way”?

I would say to the EMA, and to others, get on board with a Government that has got a plan to make sure we meet our emissions reduction plans. And, actually, the reaction from businesses has been strong, because they know that when the Government partners with them, we do well. In fact, a former senior businessman said, “companies [here] should be part of [actually] strengthening the place, working alongside Government, working alongside community leaders to do that.” I suggest to the Leader of the Opposition he talks to Christopher Luxon circa 2019.

💬 Christopher Luxon: Does she accept that Kiwis expect more from their Government than just spending announcements; they actually want a Government that can get things done and deliver better outcomes?

What New Zealanders expect is a Government that actually takes climate change seriously, that steps up with a plan, rather than an Opposition who have not put out one idea about how to make sure we actually deal with one of the most serious challenges facing our planet.

Question No.2—Finance

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

Mr Speaker, kia ora anō. Westpac’s latest economic review has noted that the health-led response to the pandemic has resulted in a resilient economy, with economic output tracking close to where Westpac’s economists thought it would have been, had the pandemic not occurred. They said, “That’s a striking result given the loss of international tourist dollars and the sharp downturn in population growth.” They also say, in recent years, that households’ disposable incomes have risen by around 5 percent a year, outpacing increases in the cost of living. There has also been a rise in household saving rates; combined, that is providing households with a buffer from the factors that are crimping their discretionary spending. While 2022 will undoubtedly be a tough one around the world, due to the hard work of businesses and the actions of the Government, New Zealand finds itself in a strong economic and financial position to deal with the ongoing challenges that are thrown at us.

💬 Dr Duncan Webb: What reports has he seen on the resilience of the economy?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Activity in the manufacturing and services sectors is continuing to expand. The seasonally adjusted BNZ-Business NZ Performance of Manufacturing Index for April was 51.2, down 2.5 points from the previous month. New orders, however, remain positive, while production contracted mildly due to staff absenteeism from the Omicron outbreak. Activity levels in the services sector remained steady in April, with the seasonally adjusted BNZ-Business NZ Performance of Service Index at 51.4, down 0.1 points from March. Again, new orders and sales remain positive, as the easing of restrictions boosted sectors such as the cultural, recreational, accommodation, cafe, and restaurant sectors.

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

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Statistics New Zealand reported last week that food prices had edged up 0.1 percent in April compared with March, and are down 2.7 percent from January. On an annual basis, food price growth moderated from 7.6 percent in the March year, to 6.4 percent in the previous year. That is a similar drop from 7.9 percent in the year to July 2011 to 6.6 percent in the August 2011 year. While food prices remain elevated, it is important that the Government gets alongside New Zealanders and supports them through this, as we have done through our 1 April changes that have lifted main benefits, student allowances, superannuation, and also the introduction of the winter energy payment from 1 May.

Question No. 3—Finance

3. to the Minister of Finance: Does he stand by all his Government’s statements and policies in relation to the Budget?

Yes, in the context in which they were given.

Brooke van Velden: What will be different about this Budget compared to the Budgets delivered over the past four years, over which time countries including Slovenia, the Czech Republic, and Lithuania overtook New Zealand in productivity per hour worked?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: What this Budget will do is carry on the work that the Government has done to strike a careful balance by investing in services, investing in the long-term drivers of productivity such as skills, and making sure that we get better transport networks. But what we’ll also do is make sure that we have one of the lowest debt levels in the OECD, that we’ll make sure that we continue one of the lowest unemployment levels in the OECD, and make sure that New Zealanders have a Government that looks after the future as well as the here and now.

Brooke van Velden: What will be different in this Budget compared with the last four Budgets delivered, where Israel and Estonia attracted more than twice as much foreign investment per capita?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: This Budget will continue the Government’s approach of making sure that we invest in New Zealanders and support them through a range of strong public services. This includes making sure that we lift the minimum wage, making sure that we provide for the winter energy payment; this is making sure that we support all New Zealanders, especially those from vulnerable communities—all things that would be undermined by the ACT Party’s policies, which the National Party are yet to rule out.

Brooke van Velden: How will this Budget be different from the last four, during which time the median Australian wage increased $6,600 faster than the median New Zealand wage?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: One thing that will be different as this Budget goes through is that the Fair Pay Agreements legislation that the Government has introduced, mirroring what happens in Australia, will be passing through, and that will lead to a lift in wages—something everyone in this House, I’m sure, would support.

Brooke van Velden: How will this Budget tackle the cost of living crisis—if the Government believes there is a cost of living crisis—for those who pay tax but do not receive a benefit or tax credit from the Government?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The member will have to wait until Thursday to see exactly what the Government is doing in this Budget, but what I can say is, for example, when it comes to a sector like the supermarket sector, where New Zealanders are paying too much—where New Zealanders of all incomes are paying too much—that’s why we set up the Commerce Commission inquiry and it’s why we’ll be responding swiftly to its recommendations.

Question No. 4—Finance

4. to the Minister of Finance: Does he stand by his statement that “The Government is investing in New Zealand’s economic security by ensuring climate change funding moves away from short-term piecemeal responses”; if so, can he commit that every dollar of the $2.9 billion in spending committed in the Climate Emergency Response Fund for emissions reductions will deliver maximum value for taxpayers’ money?

Yes, I do stand by my statement, and, in fact, I went on to say, “Increasingly businesses and households are facing the costs of inaction. We’re ensuring the early heavy lifting is being done by the Government in partnership with large businesses as we deliver the reductions needed to meet our targets. Our climate investments will take pressure off Kiwis by providing choices and options for tackling climate change.” In answer to the second part of the question, the Government is committed to achieving the goals of the emissions reduction plan with actions and investment over a number of Budgets, including this one. And, as with all spending that the Government engages in, we’re focused on getting value for money for those investments.

💬 Nicola Willis: Will he confirm the statement made in this Budget document, which states that the $678 million Government Investment in the Decarbonising Industry fund will “help businesses cut energy costs, allowing them to become more profitable off the back of their climate action.”, and does he think Kiwis struggling with a cost of living crisis would agree that a priority for climate action should be making businesses more profitable?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: It’s an interesting day in the House when the National Party opposes profit, but we’ll carry on from there! This plan is an integrated plan, and part of that is making sure we get to the sources of the things that are polluting in New Zealand. Industrial heat is a big part of that. We could sit on our hands, wait for the carbon price to climb up over $100, over $180, before the emissions trading scheme would do what the member thinks it would do, or we could partner with business, making sure that we actually do see initiatives come forward. Minister Woods has already indicated today, in the ministerial statement, just how much private sector funding got crowded in by the Government Investment in Decarbonising Industry fund. That will carry on in the future.

💬 Nicola Willis: Why has the Government allocated $18 million to develop an energy strategy framework and road map, and what exactly will that money pay for that can’t be done by the 5,300 people already working at the Ministry for Business, Innovation and Employment?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Firstly, the climate commission advised the Government to do such a strategy. Secondly, if the member doesn’t understand the potential of the hydrogen economy for New Zealand, I can’t really help her. We need an energy strategy that actually works for the next 20, 30, and 50 years, and that’s what we’ll deliver.

💬 Nicola Willis: Does he stand by his decision to allocate $16 million “to fund a programme to co-design an equitable transition plan”, and why can’t some of the 648 staff at the Ministry for the Environment do that work with existing funding?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Again, this betrays the fact that the National Party simply don’t understand the significance of climate change. There are going to be huge shifts in the kinds of jobs that New Zealanders do and the impact on households. The National Party doesn’t seem to think we should have a fair and equitable transition to climate change. I probably shouldn’t be surprised by that.

💬 Nicola Willis: In light of his spirited defence of millions being spent on strategies and plans, can he tell the House how many additional public servants, if any, he anticipates will be hired to work on commitments funded from the Climate Emergency Response Fund?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: This fund and this plan are designed to make sure that New Zealand’s GDP lifts in the future. It’s designed to make sure that we have a transition that supports New Zealanders. It will mean New Zealanders will be better off. What will make New Zealanders worse off is inaction and absolutely no plan by the National Party. That will increase costs on households.

💬 Nicola Willis: Well, can he explain how action 3.3.1 in the Government’s emissions reduction plan to “develop an income insurance scheme”—that is, introducing what is sometimes described as a “jobs tax”—will reduce—

💬 SPEAKER: Order! Order! The member will rephrase her question.

💬 Nicola Willis: Can he explain how action 3.3.1 in the Government’s emissions reduction plan to “develop an income insurance scheme” will reduce greenhouse gas emissions?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I know, on the National Party’s side of the House, it’s 1950, but actually, over on this side of the House, we understand that, when you have a climate transition, people will change jobs and they actually need to be supported when they lose their jobs. The New Zealand Income Insurance Scheme will do that. The National Party can live in the 1950s for as long as they like.

Question No. 5—Energy and Resources

5. to the Minister of Energy and Resources: What action is the Government taking to accelerate the decarbonisation of New Zealand’s industrial and manufacturing businesses?

Yesterday, the Government announced significant new investment to supercharge the decarbonisation of industrial and manufacturing businesses as part of the landmark emissions reduction plan. Emissions from our energy and industry sectors make up 27 percent of New Zealand’s total emissions. So that is why we’re investing $650 million over four years to massively increase funding to the Government Investment in Decarbonising Industry (GIDI) fund. This investment will slash emissions and accelerate the move to a renewable electricity system. Over the first three rounds of GIDI, $69 million in funding has been invested, which has unlocked $117 million in private sector investment. This will be replicated in the expanded GIDI programme, with the potential to unleash hundreds of millions of dollars in private sector investment while reducing emissions—1.6 million tonnes in the emissions budget period 2022 to 2025; 9.5 million tonnes, 2025 to 2030; and an additional 7.4 million tonnes from 2030 to 2035.

💬 SPEAKER: Before I have the supplementary, I’m just going to remind people in the gallery that it’s a requirement that you wear masks in the gallery. They’re not necklaces. Thank you.

💬 Anahila Kanongata’a-Suisuiki: How will the Government’s expanded decarbonisation fund differ from the existing programme?

💬 Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: The first iteration of GIDI has been a success, having helped accelerate 53 major industrial decarbonisation projects estimated to save 7.46 million tonnes of carbon, equivalent to taking 134,800 cars off the road. It was previously targeted to medium and large businesses and focused on process heat decarbonisation. This will continue to be covered, but GIDI 2.0 will now also support small to medium businesses to upgrade to more energy efficient equipment. The funding will go beyond industrial process heat use by supporting replacement of inefficient industrial and commercial equipment and decarbonising commercial space and water heating. Another focus will be on investing in fuel supply infrastructure to enable switching to low emission fuels. This new fund will open in June, allowing businesses to apply for contestable funding.

💬 Anahila Kanongata’a-Suisuiki: How does GIDI support the Government’s goal of decarbonising industry and further accelerating preparations for a sustainable, more resilient future?

💬 SPEAKER: Order! Which member was that? Well, the member will stand, withdraw, and apologise.

💬 Nicola Willis: I stand, withdraw, and apologise.

💬 SPEAKER: No, the member will—the member knows how to do it. She’s been around these buildings for a very long time and she is running the risk of now quite a serious punishment for her party, rather than a minor one.

💬 Nicola Willis: I withdraw and apologise.

💬 SPEAKER: Anahila Kanongata’a-Suisuiki will have the supplementary again.

💬 Anahila Kanongata’a-Suisuiki: How does GIDI support the Government’s goal of decarbonising industry and further accelerating preparations for a sustainable, more resilient future?

💬 Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: As the Prime Minister said yesterday, we cannot leave the issue of climate change until it is too late to fix. We can’t opt out of the effects of climate change so we can’t opt out of taking action. Rather than sitting idle, we know we must take action to slash emissions and futureproof our energy system. Our actions over the past four and a half years have bent the curve of New Zealand’s emissions trajectory, and programmes like GIDI are vital to meeting the emissions budget all parties in Parliament support.

Question No. 6—Climate Change

6. to the Minister of Climate Change: Does he stand by all his statements and actions?

Yes. In particular, I stand by the actions I have taken to secure bipartisan support for clear and stable climate change policies that contribute to the global effort under the Paris Agreement to limit the global average temperature increase to 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels. I would like to acknowledge that member’s, and his party’s, support for the framework enshrined in the zero carbon Act as well as the first three emissions budgets. That bipartisan accord means that New Zealanders can now enjoy a sense of certainty and predictability about the direction of climate change policy over the coming decades.

💬 Hon Scott Simpson: Does he agree with journalist Henry Cooke, who says, of the 284 actions in the Government’s emission-reduction plan, 158 are plans to make other plans, and, if not, what is the correct number?

💬 Hon JAMES SHAW: As I said before, the emissions reduction plan contains approximately 300 strategies, policies, and actions to guide us towards a low-emissions future, which, as I said before, is about 300 more than we’ve heard from the National Party.

💬 Hon Scott Simpson: Does he stand by his statement “Ah, well, I’d need to ask the Minister of Transport that, um, but, um, you know”, after he was asked about income brackets for cars, what car age, and the availability of subsidy for the car scrappage scheme announced yesterday?

💬 Hon JAMES SHAW: I stand by all my statements.

💬 Hon Scott Simpson: Does he agree with the Minister of Transport, who, according to RNZ, when asked about the details of the Government’s scrappage scheme, said, “Ask the climate Minister.”, and does he stand by his statement, “Ah, well, I’d need to ask the Minister of Transport that”?

💬 Hon JAMES SHAW: I didn’t hear that report.

💬 Hon Chris Hipkins: If, as some have suggested, no further plans and strategies are required, has he seen any concrete proposals for how to achieve the emissions reductions New Zealand requires?

💬 Hon JAMES SHAW: At the moment, the emissions reduction plan that is going to be tabled in this House this week is the only plan that I’ve seen from anybody other than the ACT Party, which have the least credible plan to reduce emissions that I have ever seen in my entire life.

💬 Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Does he stand by his statement “There are those who will be worried that these emissions budgets do not go far enough.”—I’m one of them—and, if so, how can he have confidence that the budgets in his emissions reduction plan will meet our international emissions reduction commitments?

💬 Hon JAMES SHAW: Yes I do. One of the reasons why we set up the climate change—in fact, the primary reason why we set up the Climate Change Commission is because there is a broad spectrum of opinion about how fast and how far we should be going as a country. I am someone who has a great sense of urgency about the crisis that faces us. I think that we should be going far faster and far further than we have over the course of the preceding three or four decades that climate change has been in the political domain. But the point of the Climate Change Commission is to provide an independent, expert-led body to provide advice to this House and to the Government of the day about the stepping-stone emissions budgets that get us down to our long-term targets to 2050. That body includes people like James Renwick, who’s one of the leading climate scientists in this country, he’s an Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change lead author, and if you don’t take my word for it, you can take his word for it. And if you don’t take his word for it, the question is: whose word are you going to take for it, on what basis are you making your decisions? That was the basis upon which we set up the Climate Change Commission.

💬 Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: How can he have confidence in his plan, when it subsidises the continued inaction of the agricultural sector on methane to the tune of $710 million taken out of the emissions trading scheme (ETS), when they are still paying nothing into the ETS and given that annual methane emissions make up 42.7 percent of our gross emissions?

💬 Hon JAMES SHAW: Well, I’ve said any number of times that I’ve been quite frustrated at the extremely slow pace of change in the agricultural sector. The industrial sector and transport sector are moving far faster by comparison. Having said that, there are a number of parties and a number of environmental NGOs that campaigned on a platform in the last election of setting up support for farmers to be able to roll out emissions reductions practices, techniques, tools, and technologies on their farms. That is what the commitment of funding does in the emissions reduction plan. It doesn’t actually go as fast as some, such as Greenpeace, would have liked, who are proposing that we put a billion dollars into that. So it doesn’t kind of meet the requirement of them in that sense, but the whole point of this is not to replicate what we’ve already got, which is a number of research and science institutes, but to take the changes in on-farm practice, and the technologies that have already been developed, and to ensure that those are rolled out to the maximum extent possible around farms in New Zealand.

💬 Hon Scott Simpson: Does the Minister agree with the James Shaw mentioned by journalist Henry Cooke, who has tweeted today, “James Shaw tells me that yes, if the Greens held the balance of power he would have delivered a different Emissions Reduction Plan yesterday.”, and how can New Zealanders be sure that the plan released yesterday was his real, actual plan?

💬 Hon JAMES SHAW: I am the James Shaw.

Question No. 7—Education

7. to the Minister of Education: What is the Government doing to support New Zealand’s international education sector to reconnect to the world?

New Zealand is fully reopening to international students, and the Government is committed to helping to reinvigorate and strengthen the sector. We are currently in the process of refreshing the International Education Strategy to recognise that we are in a very different position to the one we were in in 2018, and as our borders reopen, that sector is going to need more support to come back even stronger than before. So we want to work with international education providers to build that new future, focused on the delivery of more high-value and innovative international education offerings for our domestic and international students onshore, offshore, in person, and online.

💬 Marja Lubeck: What policy decisions has the Government made recently that impact upon international education?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: There are 5,000 places for students to come to New Zealand right now, and from 31 July, all international students who meet the entry criteria can enrol to study here. It’s time to show the world that New Zealand is open for education and we welcome students back. The criteria for international student visas has been adjusted to help to ensure that these students are getting value for their money and that those who are staying on in New Zealand are helping us to fill skill gaps and are contributing to the New Zealand economy. The Government’s also confirmed that international fee-paying students under year 9 will be able to continue to enrol at New Zealand schools.

💬 Marja Lubeck: Why did the Government consider it was important to take these actions at this time?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: There’s no question that our international education sector has done it tough for the last few years. Bringing forward our reopening to international students shows this Government’s strong commitment to them and to the rebuild of a high-quality, world-class New Zealand international education sector. Prior to the pandemic, international education was worth several billion dollars to our country. The early reopening will be seen as great news for our universities, our polytechnics and wānanga, for our schools, our English language schools, and for our private training providers.

Question No. 8—Immigration

8. to the Minister of Immigration: How long does it currently take for 90 percent of visitor visas to be processed compared to December 2017, and is he confident that Immigration New Zealand will meet its visa processing targets?

In December 2017, our borders were open under pre-COVID settings and Immigration New Zealand were processing 90 percent of visas in 22 days. In March of 2020 the New Zealand border was closed to keep people safe and, therefore, offshore visitor visa applications were halted. Immigration systems processing capacity pivoted to processing the critical purpose visas that we needed to keep our businesses and services running, and while that process is labour intensive, those visas have been processed in an average of 12 days. The result of that reprioritisation meant that as of April of 2022, 50 percent of visitor visas are approved in 15 days, 75 percent in 33 days, and 90 percent in 71 days. As we reconnect with the world, the critical purpose visa will be a thing of the past, meaning those processing resources can be pivoted and prioritised back to the likes of visitor visas. I have sought and received assurances from Immigration New Zealand around processing times and I will watch this closely.

💬 Erica Stanford: How can he rely on the new online visa processing system to guarantee faster processing times when just 51 of the 77,000 phase 2 resident visa 2021 visa applications that use this new system have been processed in seven weeks, a rate of one a day?

💬 Hon KRIS FAAFOI: As I’ve said, I’ve sought assurances and have been given assurances by Immigration New Zealand staff that we can make sure that our process capacity will meet expectations.

💬 Erica Stanford: Can he explain why, despite having an extra 500 additional staff at Immigration New Zealand compared to 2017, every single visa category takes longer to process?

💬 Hon KRIS FAAFOI: I would challenge some of the numbers that the member has mentioned there. I’d also pointed out in my primary answer that we’ve had products like a critical purpose visa, which are a lot more labour intensive in terms of processing than traditional visitor visas, and that’s why when we no longer have to process those types of visas we’ll have more resources available when our borders reopen to do the likes of visitor visas.

💬 Erica Stanford: How is his agency delivering value for money for taxpayers when compared to 2017 he’s hired an additional 500 staff yet 100 fewer staff are actually processing visas, according to his answers to written questions?

💬 Hon KRIS FAAFOI: We’ve also closed offshore offices to make sure that we can move processing here onshore, and, again, while the border has been closed, we have been making sure the—

💬 Chris Bishop: It’s a shambles!

💬 SPEAKER: Order!

💬 Hon KRIS FAAFOI: Calm down.

💬 SPEAKER: Maybe I do need to, but I don’t need the Minister’s help with that suggestion.

💬 Hon KRIS FAAFOI: For the member’s interest, then, we have processed about 30,000 critical purpose visas over the last two years to make sure crucial workers can come through at a time when our border has been closed.

💬 Dr James McDowall: How can families waiting for visas have any confidence that new visa processing targets will be met when almost all visa types have had processing delays since 2020; can he explain to New Zealanders how—and I quote—“getting grumpy” with Immigration New Zealand speeds up visa processing?

💬 Hon KRIS FAAFOI: Well, usually when I get grumpy, things change—not that you want to find out. Can I assure the member, again, from my primary answer, that when we pivot and prioritise as our border reopens, those resources will be able to be used for the traditional types of visas that I think the member is speaking about.

💬 Erica Stanford: When will processing times return to the levels they were in 2017?

💬 Hon KRIS FAAFOI: Well, as I mentioned in my primary answer, once we have the resources available to us to make sure the likes of traditional visas can be used—to process those visas. When the border reopens on 31 July and when our accredited employer work visa is up and running, those resources—which have over the last two years made sure that 30,000 critical workers can come across the border—will be prioritised and pivoted to the traditional visas that we were having pre-COVID.

Question No. 9—Health

[Interruption] Thank you, Mr Speaker. My question is to the Minister of Health and asks—

Order! Order! I’m sorry. I’ve just got someone who is going to withdraw and apologise on my left and add to the problems of the National Party.

💬 Simeon Brown: I withdraw and apologise.

9. to the Minister of Health: What actions, if any, is he going to take to address the pay and employment concerns of care workers and allied health workers?

Homecare and support workers and allied health workers are two quite different groups of health workers whose current situations are also very different. With regard to care and support workers, the main terms and conditions of employment for care and support workers is set out in legislation: the Support Workers (Pay Equity) Settlements Act 2017. Ironically, given its title, the legislation does not provide for pay equity claims to be made, and, in fact, is not a pay equity settlement at all; the opposite is the case. The legislation prohibits a pay equity claim to be made for these workers until after 30 June this year; 30 June is also when parts of the legislation providing for minimum rates of pay and training obligations self-repeal. To address this, I’ve been working with unions, employers, and officials to reach an interim arrangement that would increase and protect current pay rates and training obligations and set up a process to achieve what these workers have been fighting for for more than 10 years: pay equity. I last met with unions and employers on Friday.

With regard to the allied health workforce, these workers have been negotiating for a long time to renew their collective employment agreement. They also have a pay equity claim that has not been progressed since it was lodged in 2018. There is presently an offer on the table for renewal of their collective agreement that would increase base pay rates for these workers by $5,700 a year—for most workers, because for some actually the increase would be higher—and would also provide a lump sum payment of $2,500. Late last year, the union sought to add new claims for their collective agreement to effectively get pay equity benefits in advance of an actual pay equity agreement.

One of the challenges with this group of workers is that across the roughly 10,000 of them, there are about 70 different occupations; anything from a trainee technician earning just above the minimum wage to a medical physicist on about $155,000 a year. The average base pay for this group of workers, to the extent that an average is meaningful, is about $80,000. The problem with the pay equity claim, which is about addressing sex-based discrimination and remuneration is that some, if not many, of these workers may not see much difference in their pay. It’s for this reason that the district health boards rejected the claim earlier this year for a $12,000 lump sum payment for all workers in anticipation of the pay equity claim being settled. I continue to urge the union and employers to work on trying to reach a fair and principled agreement. The member will be aware that under the Public Service Act, as well as the Cabinet Manual, employers in the public sector must manage employment matters independently of Ministers.

💬 Jan Logie: Why did the Ministry of Health pull back from an offer to allied health workers that would have been consistent with findings from the Employment Relations Authority facilitator and that we are told by unions would have addressed the concerns of this essential workforce?

💬 Hon ANDREW LITTLE: The offer contained a provision in it, which was the commencement date for the implementation of agreed pay equity rates of pay, that was contrary to an Employment Court decision handed down earlier this year that said that matters relating to pay equity claims should not be conflated with collective agreements.

💬 Jan Logie: So is the Minister saying if that clause was removed an agreement would be made?

💬 Hon ANDREW LITTLE: The member is asking a hypothetical question. The matter is a matter between the unions and employers and, indeed, the officials who are supporting them. But there was a point at which the Employment Relations Authority made a recommendation that was contrary to a piece of law handed down by the Employment Court earlier this year.

💬 Jan Logie: Why did his Labour Government not make a plan to at least maintain the value of the settlement for caregivers—initially negotiated by a National Government—when they have known for years that this legislation will expire by 1 July?

💬 Hon ANDREW LITTLE: There is a plan. The plan involved working with the unions and employers to preserve and protect the benefits of the legislation enacted in 2017—with a modest increment—so that the real work of getting a pay equity agreement, which is what these workers have been seeking for 10 years now, can get under way.

💬 Jan Logie: Why has Cabinet only mandated enough money to offer care workers covered by the Care and Support Workers (Pay Equity) Settlement Act an increase of less than 70c an hour for 18 months when an increase of around $7 an hour is needed to maintain the value of that historic deal following the Kristine Bartlett case?

💬 Hon ANDREW LITTLE: If the member is referring to a historic deal as one that prevents them from getting a pay equity deal, that is a very interesting proposition from the Green Party. I stand by the actions of this Government to protect the interests of these workers: to get them an interim arrangement so they can get on with doing what they and their forebears have been fighting for for more than 10 years and that is a pay equity agreement.

💬 Jan Logie: Does the Minister stand by his comment that “I get very disturbed when I [hear] the stories, and there have been a lot of them, of nurses and other clinicians finishing their shifts absolutely exhausted, and finding it really hard to go back to work the next day.”, and if so, will he ensure allied health and care workers get the pay increases they deserve so that the health system might be in a decent position to transition on 1 July?

💬 Hon ANDREW LITTLE: If the member thinks that in order to honour the underlying principles of pay equity and the Equal Pay Act means that we pool together 10,000 workers of such disparate arrangements and pay levels, that some for whom it cannot be established are subject to sex-based discrimination should get the same proportionate benefits as those on very low incomes who clearly are the victims of sex-based discrimination, then what she actually stands for is undermining pay equity principles, and we’re not going to do that.

Question No. 10—Agriculture

10. to the Minister of Agriculture: How is the Government supporting agriculture to meet its obligations under the Emissions Reduction Plan?

We announced, yesterday, an ambitious plan that will see Government working in partnership with New Zealand’s farmers and growers to meet emissions reduction targets in the agricultural sector while continuing to ensure New Zealand’s economic security. We’ve committed over $380 million to work alongside industry and our farmers and growers to accelerate emissions reduction and mitigation. In partnership with the ministry, we’ll establish a Centre for Climate Action on Agricultural Emissions to accelerate product development, getting tools and technology to farmers faster.

I’ll be working with Minister Shaw to implement the recommendations from the He Waka Eke Noa partnership. This will make us the first country in the world to price agricultural emissions. I’ll be working with Minister Whaitiri and our significant Māori agribusiness sector to promote tikanga-based solutions on-farm, and I’ll be working with Minister Nash to make sure we have the right tree in the right place, for the right reasons. I’m proud of this comprehensive plan that will ensure that our farmers and growers remain the best in the world and the best for the world.

💬 Kieran McAnulty: What is the anticipated impact of the initiatives in the emissions reduction plan on emissions in the agriculture sector?

💬 Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: The initiatives in the emissions reduction plan will meet the emissions reduction target, set by the Climate Change Commission, of 10 percent by 2030 and set us up to reduce our emissions by between 24 and 47 percent by 2050. The other important impact of these initiatives is ensuring that our farmers and growers can meet the increasing demands from global customers and access incentives provided by financial institutions. For example, Tesco plc is now requiring its suppliers to disclose their current greenhouse gas emissions and establish a net-zero ambition by the end of 2022. Nestlé is committed to halving its greenhouse gas emissions by 2030, which will see it prioritise partnerships with those who have reduced their emissions and improved sustainability. Last week, one of the major New Zealand banks launched a loan product rewarding farmers for hitting climate, environmental, and social targets. The signals are clear and the time to act is now.

💬 Kieran McAnulty: Does the Government have the support of industry to meet agriculture’s obligations in the emissions reduction plan?

💬 Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: Yes. This plan has strong support from the primary sector. In particular, we’re pleased that partners from across the agricultural sector are in active discussions with us on a joint venture as part of the new Centre for Climate Action, including Fonterra, ANZCO, Ravensdown, Silverfern Farms, Ngāi Tahu Holdings, and the Livestock Improvement Corporation. This is a true partnership between Government, industry, and our rural communities to achieve our emissions reduction targets and continue to have a sustainable, profitable primary sector that has been critical to New Zealand’s economic success, and will be into the future. This is the first year that we will have surpassed $50 billion in export earnings—a credit to them and the partnership that we will continue to develop.

💬 Kieran McAnulty: What examples has he seen of leadership in reducing agricultural emissions?

💬 Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: I’ve been on to farms up and down this country—in the Wairarapa, to note one of them—where farmers are getting out and doing all they can, at the moment, to put the right tree in the right place, to reduce their impact on the environment. With the new partnership arrangements, we’ll accelerate that activity. I want to thank and acknowledge all those farmers who are playing their part already, and I hope that they’ll get out and spread the good news and help others to join the club.

💬 Mark Cameron: Does the Minister stand by his Government’s statement in the first emissions reduction plan that “The most promising methane mitigation technologies are several years away from use.”; and, if so, how will his Government reduce agricultural methane emissions to meet climate change standards without slashing the national herd size?

💬 Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: The Centre for Climate Action on Agricultural Emissions is the very body that will accelerate those technologies. We have some that are in the pipeline; ensuring they get out to farmers is what we are intending to do. There are numerous examples of that. One of them is the technology from Europe he might be referring to—it’s used in housed farming systems, fed to animals many times a day; we can’t apply that directly here in New Zealand. We have to ensure that those technologies, when applied here, don’t impact on our food safety or on our international reputation.

Question No. 11—Police

11. to the Minister of Police: Does she stand by her statement, “in terms of what I am delivering as Police Minister … our people feel safer”; if so, why?

Yes, I stand by my statement, and I stand by this Government’s track record of delivering for our police, including a record $562 million for Police through Budget 2022, the largest ever deployment of additional police officers—1,423 more since 2017—and the nationwide roll-out of the tactical response model, in which we will see a doubling of the current tactical training for our front-line police, will boost their intelligence capabilities, and will see the deployment of double-crewed tactical dog teams. This Government will continue to back our police by giving them the resource and tools they need to keep themselves and our communities safe.

💬 Hon Mark Mitchell: Why had the Minister not visited any shop owners or victims of shops subjected to ram raids or robberies before her Newshub Nation interview a few days ago?

💬 Hon POTO WILLIAMS: I have been working alongside Retail New Zealand, the peak body that supports small and large retailers across this country, and I’ve been working with them to ensure that we get the programme in place that they need. It’s been a very difficult time for our small retailers, so we need to make sure that we can support them to continue to operate safely.

💬 Hon Mark Mitchell: How will a seven-person retail crime unit, bollards, and planter boxes stop a 7-tonne excavator from smashing through a shop front?

💬 Hon POTO WILLIAMS: What will help is our small to medium sized retailers knowing that their Government is supporting them by putting the measures in place to ensure that they can continue to operate safely. The excavator was an exceptional matter, and that was not the five-, six-, seven-, eight-, and 10-year-olds that were involved in stealing cars and ram-raiding dairies for lollies and ice cream.

💬 Hon Mark Mitchell: Did Cabinet make a decision yesterday on her paper proposed as a solution to tackle ram raids, and, if so, are we waiting for her to arrange a suitable photo opportunity to reveal that plan?

💬 Hon POTO WILLIAMS: I think that’s absolutely appalling, when we’re here to support our small and medium sized retailers. Cabinet did make a decision—it was not on my paper; it was on the Minister of Justice’s paper—to support the funding of the programme, which will be rolled out as soon as the police have finalised some details. This is a Government that has responded to the need. The police are at the end of this problem, and they are going to act and act successfully for our retailers.

💬 Rawiri Waititi: What evidence has she seen to suggest “in terms of what I am delivering as Police Minister … our people feel safer” from white-collar gangs, whose crime is costing Aotearoa $4 billion in tax evasion and fraud, as opposed to the estimated $1 billion in the impact of ram raids and retail crime, and where’s the equivalent programmes like Operation Tauwhiro and Operation Cobalt to target white-collar gang crimes?

💬 SPEAKER: Any one of those five questions.

💬 Hon POTO WILLIAMS: People tell me more police and more visibility equals them feeling safer. We are delivering more staff, more resources, better training, better intel, better deployment, and it is working. When the district commander out at Counties Manukau tells me that the tactical response model on pilot there has meant that they have had a reduction in temporary carriage orders and that their team feels safer, I know that we are on the right track.

Question No. 12—Transport

12. to the Minister of Transport: How is the Government supporting Kiwi families to transition to low-emission transport alternatives?

Yesterday, the Government announced that we are investing into the transport sector from the Climate Emergency Response Fund to support Kiwi families to transition to low-emission transport alternatives, like public transport and cycling, and also to accelerate the equitable uptake of cleaner vehicles. While the Clean Car Discount scheme has supported the rapid uptake of over 15,000 electric and hybrid vehicles since it was launched last year, we know that for many families, the cost of switching to a cleaner vehicle can still be expensive. That’s why we’re implementing the Clean Car Upgrade. Starting with an initial trial of up to 2,500 vehicles, the programme will provide targeted assistance to low- and middle-income households to help them shift to lower-emission alternatives in exchange for scrapping their old vehicles. It will reduce emissions and reduce costs for our low-income households.

💬 Naisi Chen: What other initiatives are included in the Clean Car Upgrade that will support families to transition to low-emissions transport alternatives?

💬 Hon MICHAEL WOOD: The Clean Car Upgrade builds off the successful Clean Car Discount scheme, which is now seeing 20 to 25 percent of new vehicles coming into New Zealand being low- or zero-emission vehicles and includes the two top-selling vehicles under the discount being priced under $18,000. As well as a scrappage scheme, which I’ve already mentioned, for low- and middle-income households, we’re also funding a trial of a social leasing scheme to support low-income families to lease a safe, low-emission vehicle from a community organisation. The trial will build on the work of groups like the Ākina Foundation in Manukau and is expected to operate from early 2023 in three communities to test its effectiveness across New Zealand. This is about our commitment to reducing emissions but also about having an inclusive transition that includes all New Zealanders.

💬 Naisi Chen: What is the projected impact on emissions of the Clean Car Upgrade?

💬 Hon MICHAEL WOOD: Transport is one of New Zealand’s largest sources of emissions, accounting for 17 percent of greenhouse gas emissions, but it’s also an area where we can make a difference quickly. The transport initiatives we’re investing in through the Climate Emergency Response Fund are expected to reduce carbon emissions equivalent to taking 181,000 cars off the road between now and 2035. The Emissions Reduction Plan has set the targets, and it shows that the path towards a more sustainable transport sector is achievable. On this side of the House, we’ve set up the plan, and we have the policies in place to deliver on it.