Oral Questions

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

Yes, particularly this Government’s economic recovery plan. This afternoon, the Minister of Tourism is releasing the first phase of the Tourism Industry Transformation Plan at the Tourism Export Council of New Zealand’s annual conference in Nelson. While the tourism sector has been particularly hard hit by COVID-19, we’re starting to see the industry begin to recover. In the week to 26 July, 43,600 people travelled from Australia, and travellers from the UK and the USA continue to increase, with their card spend already back to 2019 levels. There is a long way to go and significant challenges to overcome. However, we are well positioned to deal with the global economic uncertainty and disruption, and we will continue to work along with industry as we recover.

💬 Christopher Luxon: Does she stand by her statement on welfare: “Let’s focus on the reality and the evidence, rather than the politics”, and, if so, can she confirm there are over 50,000 more people on the jobseeker benefit today compared to when she became Prime Minister?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I do stand by my statements, and I also stand by the figures that I provided yesterday, including that we’ve seen a record level of young people move off benefit and into work, with over 35,000 young people aged 18 to 24 moving off benefit and into employment last year. I also stand by the statements I’ve made that we should focus on removing barriers into employment, training, and education. That is exactly what we have done as a Government. And I stand by my statement that that should be, I would hope, the focus of everyone in this House, rather than labelling young people as taking a free ride.

💬 Christopher Luxon: That’s not right. When she said in relation to the high number of job seekers, “We haven’t made changes to what sanctions are available there for use”, does she accept there is a difference between sanctions being available and sanctions actually being used?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: The point that I was making is those sanctions continue to be available to the extended number of front-line workers that we now have, because, when we came into office, we recognised that the amount of time they were spending on job placement had gone from 50 percent to 14 percent. That is the problem with the Opposition: when they call the front-line workers who are placing people into work “bureaucrats”, that is exactly why the National Party, when they were in Government, ran those numbers down, and why we had to build them back up to make sure that we get ourselves into a position where we now have young people going into jobs rather than sitting back, dropping the numbers, and then blaming young people for their unemployment.

💬 Christopher Luxon: Should people on the jobseeker benefit who don’t take steps to make themselves employable have their benefit reduced?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: As I’ve said, the policy remains the same. It would also be worth reflecting on what has occurred to our employment numbers, because the member seems to be implying that simply because we have increases in jobseeker, that means we have somehow a massive change in attitude and our young people don’t want to work anymore. I disagree. What we have is an economic crisis, and, in the wake of the global financial crisis, we saw a similar increase for young people impacted and on benefit, as we have seen with the pandemic. What has changed is that that member believes that it is the fault of young people rather than what we’re experiencing in the economy.

💬 Christopher Luxon: We care about them. [Interruption] Why was the number—

💬 SPEAKER: Order! Now, the member should not be interjecting on her own leader.

💬 Christopher Luxon: Why was the number of sanctions applied in the June quarter this year 50 percent lower than the same period in 2019, despite the number of job seekers being 25 percent higher?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Because they would have been fulfilling obligations rather than taking “a free ride”. Again, 35,000 young people went into work and off benefit. We have now 215,000 people since we’ve been in Government who have taken up apprenticeships. We have 3,600 young people in employment and training through He Poutama Rangatahi, 5,000 in employment with Mana in Mahi. When I see a reduction in sanctions, my assumption is it’s because young people are fulfilling their obligations, rather than the National Party’s assumption that young people are suddenly being given a free ride.

💬 Christopher Luxon: We care about them—we care about them! Does she support enforcing the existing—[Interruption]

💬 SPEAKER: Order! Order! Order! Right. The member shouldn’t have reacted that way; he should have asked his question. The Government member shouldn’t have reacted to the inappropriate reactions, so we’ll sort of square it all off as even and we’ll start again and we’ll behave ourselves, if we can.

💬 Christopher Luxon: Does she support enforcing the existing benefit sanctions regime?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: The sanctions regime has remained the same, and we continue to support our Ministry of Social Development workforce to utilise them. Again, rather than simply making the assumption that young people are not fulfilling their obligations, it would be worth the member’s while in looking at what the barriers are to work for our young people. That is why we, for instance, have funded driver licences for the 70 percent of entry level jobs that require them. It’s why we’ve made the first year of trades training and education free, to try and get young people into training opportunities. It’s why we brought back the training incentive allowance, which the last Government got rid of. And it’s why we’ve increased the amount of part-time work you can do so that you can support that transition. The member immediately assumes that all our young people are useless. I disagree.

💬 Christopher Luxon: Did the Government tell Work and Income to reduce the use of sanctions for people on the jobseeker benefit who don’t meet their obligations to find work?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: We have used the same obligations as the last Government did, and we have seen the same increase in young people having to access the benefit after an economic shock. The starting point, on this side of the House, is how do we keep up those record level numbers of young people going into work, rather than assume that young people won’t take those opportunities.

💬 Christopher Luxon: If the Government didn’t tell Work and Income to reduce the use of sanctions, why are so few sanctions being applied, despite the number of job seekers being so high?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Is it completely impossible for the member to understand that young people actually will be fulfilling their obligations but may not have the skills required to get into those jobs? They may, for instance, in some cases, have a history that means that they are facing barriers to work. It speaks volumes that the immediate assumption by the member is that they’re not applying sanctions, rather than the fact they haven’t done anything to attract them.

💬 Christopher Luxon: Who is right: the Minister for Social Development and Employment, who has claimed National’s welfare policies won’t work, or the Prime Minister, who has claimed National’s welfare policies already exist?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Minister Sepuloni has pointed out that labelling and blaming young people for the economic circumstances we find ourselves in will do nothing to support young people. I agree with her. She has also pointed out we have job coaching; we have incentives; we also have training incentives; employment subsidies for employers; and, the best of all, record departures from benefits.

Question No. 2—Finance

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

The jobs market is continuing to show its resilience. The SEEK New Zealand Employment Report rebounded 1.3 percent in July following the previous month’s 5.3 percent decline, and it’s up 28 percent for the year. BNZ’s economist said it’s too early to say that job ads have peaked as monthly figures do tend to be volatile, but the trend measure eased for the first time since September last year in the wake of the Delta outbreak. We know that some sectors and businesses are facing worker shortages, and in response, we are continuing to invest heavily in skills and training programmes such as Mana in Mahi, Flexi-wage, and He Poutama Rangatahi, while making it easier at the same time to attract overseas workers to get the skills we need. Over 7,917 businesses have received accreditation to employ migrants since the scheme opened in late May.

💬 Barbara Edmonds: What reports has he seen on the international context for New Zealand’s labour market and its impact on the economy?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: New Zealand’s labour market compares favourably with the countries that we generally compare ourselves with. The latest report from the OECD shows for the June quarter New Zealand has the sixth lowest rate of unemployment in the OECD at 3.3 percent compared with the US in 10th place, the UK and Australia in 14th equal, and Canada in 22nd place. In terms of employment rates, New Zealand ranks fourth in the OECD, ahead of Australia on seventh, the UK on 12th, and Canada in 13th equal, and the US in 22nd equal place. The robust labour market is supporting the economy in what is a volatile and uncertain global environment.

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

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: In its latest fortnightly economic update, Treasury reported that meat and dairy production had rebounded in the June quarter. Meat processing rose 8.8 percent—

💬 Barbara Kuriger: As expected.

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: —compared with the March quarter as reduced worker absenteeism from COVID-19 enabled the industry to clear some of the backlog. Ms Kuriger will be pleased to know that milk production also improved in the June quarter: up 5.5 percent although production was down 4 percent for the year. The recovery in meat and dairy production will support GDP in the June quarter along with the expansion in the service sector that I mentioned in the House yesterday. The opening of the borders and the prospect of a strong summer tourism season will further support the recovery of sectors who have borne the brunt of the pandemic.

Question No. 3—Defence

3. to the Minister of Defence: Is he content with the state of morale in the New Zealand Defence Force, and how does he plan on resolving the increasing attrition rates across all three branches?

💬 SPEAKER: As I call the Minister, I want to indicate that I have been forewarned that this is a longer than normal answer.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. In my answer to the first part of the question, yes. However, I acknowledge that the increased levels of attrition is a challenge for the defence force, and as I have met with my counterparts from around the world, they too are experiencing the same challenges. The defence force has played a critical role in keeping New Zealanders safe during Operation Protect throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, despite the challenging nature of that deployment for our personnel. Now that the borders have opened and countries are slowly getting back to business as usual, I’m confident that we will see a corresponding lift in morale for our New Zealand Defence Force, as our people can get back to doing more of the overseas deployments that many have signed up for. In my recent travels around the country and in recent days at the Solomon Islands, I had the opportunity to speak with the contingent that I travelled with, and the morale was high. They told me that now that COVID-19 is in their rear-view mirror, they can now get back on with the mahi they look forward to and upcoming deployments.

To answer the second part of the question around what my plans are to resolve the attrition issue, my answer is that I’m keeping a close eye on these challenges, and there are a number of things under way. Through Budget 2022, we secured a significant uplift of $90 million for remuneration. It is my expectation that the focus of this remuneration package is on retaining people with critical skills and supporting our lower-paid defence force staff where required. We are seeing more training exercise opportunities coming up. For example, since the start of the year, we have had our defence force participate in training operations such as humanitarian assistance and disaster relief in Operation Mahi Tahi, global security in Operation Tīeke, and capacity building through Tropic Twilight and combat training through Rim of the Pacific. In addition, this Government has made significant investments in our defence force after a decade of neglect under National and ACT. Since taking office, we have committed approximately $4.5 billion to 12 major defence capability projects, the—[Interruption] you might want to listen up—largest capability investment defence has ever received. This year, we get the first of our P-8A Poseidon arriving, and in the next few years, we will be seeing more of these capabilities coming online, which will in turn support our attrition challenge. All of these things will contribute to keeping our personnel feeling engaged, supported, and in the defence force.

💬 Dr James McDowall: What does he say to a soldier who has served for more than three years and tells me that he is paid a base salary that equates to less than the minimum wage, and does this explain a recent internal survey that showed that 54 percent of army personnel did not agree with the statement, “The pay I receive is fair for the work I do.”?

💬 Hon PEENI HENARE: Just in my answer to the primary question, I was clear that this Government is committed to supporting remuneration in the defence force. We have invested $90 million in Budget 2022, and I just mentioned in the primary answer that I’ve made it clear that my expectation is that money is to keep specialist skills and to lift the lowest wages in the defence force. This Government, by the nature of its name being supportive of labour in this country, is here to support those who need a lift in their pay. We did that through the Budget, and I haven’t seen anything from either National or ACT that proposes that they will do that.

💬 Dr James McDowall: What is his response to another finding in the survey that showed that only 41 percent of army personnel are not actively looking at leaving the New Zealand Defence Force?

💬 Hon PEENI HENARE: I say that this is a very tough labour market at the moment, and what I also say, too, is the New Zealand Defence Force train their people exceptionally well. Those skills are sought after skills in multiple labour markets, and it’s no surprise that this particular challenge isn’t just in New Zealand. It’s in Australia. It’s in the US. It’s in Canada. When I speak to my colleagues around the world, they have the same challenge as we do. The difference here, between this side and that side of the House, is we’re committed to fixing it.

Tim van de Molen: How much of the budgeted increase will actually go to front-line personnel rather than back-office staff?

💬 Hon PEENI HENARE: I made it clear in my primary answer to the primary question that the $90 million—I made it clear that it is our expectation that that money will go towards retaining key skills and lifting the lowest in the wage table. So, therefore, that is my expectation. The decision, however, is an operational one for the New Zealand Defence Force.

💬 Dr James McDowall: How is he addressing the fact that between 2017 and 2021, there were 84 different job types—ranging from infantry to the trades—that failed to meet enlistment targets, many of which, as he stated in response to my written question, are also at risk of not meeting the 2022 enlistment target?

💬 Hon PEENI HENARE: Two months ago, we announced the defence policy review that sees some key decisions to be made by this Cabinet, by this Government, as we emerge out of the pandemic, and we make sure that our defence force is fit for purpose. We’ve got some key decisions to make, and I’m committed to our defence force personnel to make sure that they get the support that they need to continue to do the great work that they do for this country. I’m proud of our defence force, and I’m getting sick and tired of the other side talking them down.

💬 Dr James McDowall: Does he think that morale is helped when houses in the defence estate look like this [Holds up picture of a house] and how can he be seriously confident that the remaining $6.8 million for getting their entire estate up to healthy homes will be sufficient?

💬 Hon PEENI HENARE: First of all, I’m confident we’ll hit the target for healthy homes in the defence force. Secondly, what I’ll say is, right across the board in housing, this Government has been committed to housing. I made it clear in my priorities in the defence force that infrastructure was one of those key areas. I note, too, when I did that, the other side of the House rubbished it. Therefore, investing infrastructure is hugely important, and what I’ll also note is when they had the defence portfolio, they invested nothing in housing.

Question No. 4—Police

4. to the Minister of Police: What steps has the Government taken to tackle violent offending and the use of illegal firearms?

The firearms-related violence that we’ve seen in some our communities recently is unacceptable. The Government, alongside police, is sending a very clear message to the perpetrators of crime that unlawful activity and intimidation will not be tolerated, and those involved will be held accountable for their actions. Police are already cracking down on illegal gang activity, and recent Government actions, such as the gang package that my colleague Kiritapu Allan and I announced recently, and the passing of firearms prohibition orders will help them to get tougher on offending involving firearms, drugs, violence, and intimidation.

💬 Arena Williams: What results has he seen from these operations specifically targeted at violent crime, and how will this make New Zealanders safer?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Heaps, but I’ll highlight in particular Operation Cobalt, which has resulted in 133 warranted searches being undertaken and 34 warrantless searches. That’s involved 4,605—

💬 Simeon Brown: Come on, Chippy!

💬 SPEAKER: Order! Simeon Brown will stand, withdraw, and apologise, and if he does it again, he’ll go. Take the mask off to do it.

💬 Simeon Brown: I stand, withdraw, and apologise.

💬 SPEAKER: No, the member will do it properly.

💬 Simeon Brown: I withdraw and apologise.

💬 SPEAKER: Chris Hipkins, please start again.

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: As of 28 July, through Operation Cobalt, the police have conducted 133 warranted searches and 34 warrantless searches. They’ve filed 4,605 criminal charges. They’ve issued 5,682 infringement offence notices and seized 53 firearms. That expands on the progress they made through Operation Tauwhiro, which saw 1,804 firearms seized, 55 kilos of methamphetamine seized, 765 warrantless searches, 1,043 warranted searches, and 1,457 arrests being made. I congratulate the police on the work that they are doing to apply pressure to gangs and send a clear message that illegal behaviour like that will not be tolerated.

💬 Arena Williams: What additional tools have been provided to help police crack down on the illegal possession of firearms?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I welcome the fact that last night Parliament unanimously passed the Firearms Prohibition Orders Legislation Bill. People whose actions or behaviour have involved violent offending can now be stopped by a court from possessing, using, or being around guns and ammunition for 10 years. Owning a firearm is a privilege, and firearms prohibition orders will mean that those people with a history of violence won’t have access to the most dangerous of weapons. I’m very proud of the work that our Government has been doing to support the police to do their job and to make our community safer.

💬 Hon Mark Mitchell: Why did the Minister not include additional warrantless search powers as requested by the New Zealand Police Association, who said that without those powers these firearms prohibition orders are basically meaningless?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Where somebody has a firearms prohibition order against them, it can be in place for up to 10 years, and the notion that a person subject to a firearms prohibition order, or anybody who they are with—for example, if they are in a vehicle with someone—could be subject to a warrantless search for up to 10 years, in an unlimited way, would be disproportionate, and, unfortunately, that is the position put forward by the National Party. That is not something that this Government was willing to sign up to.

Question No. 5—Finance

5. to the Minister of Finance: Does he stand by his statement that “obviously New Zealanders are currently facing significant increases in their cost of living”?

For the House’s benefit, the context of that quote was a question from the media at a post-Cabinet press conference on 16 May regarding a possible extension of the half-price public transport fares that the Government had announced in March. Since that time, the Government has announced a targeted and temporary cost of living payment, extended the fuel excise and road-user charges—

💬 Chris Bishop: Ha! It’s not targeted!

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: —More targeted than the member’s tax cuts; I’d say that—cuts and half-price fares for public transport, and moved to boost competition in the grocery sector by banning covenants and implementing the Commerce Commission’s recommendations in that sector. This is all in addition to the previously announced income support changes on 1 April and the winter energy payment coming in on 1 May. I continue to stand by my statement that New Zealanders are currently facing increases in the cost of living, and that’s why we’re moving to support them through this period of high inflation instead of waiting all the way until Budget 2024 before doing anything—which I think is now the member’s policy.

💬 Nicola Willis: Does he stand by his statement that the cost of living payment is a targeted package of support, and did he envisage that would include London investment bankers and French backpackers?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I stand by my statements in that regard, and I would note that if the member’s really concerned about targeting, then she would be incredibly concerned about a policy that would give somebody earning $250,000 a year $125 a week. Imagine the waste that that would entail—oh, no, that’s the National Party’s policy.

💬 Nicola Willis: How can he justify characterising the cost of living payment as targeted when 800,000 people have been missed while dead people, overseas residents, possibly prisoners have been sent taxpayers’ cash?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: As was traversed in the House yesterday, we always knew that there would be people who would not get the payment until they filed a tax return. As we stand today, we have 1.4 million or so New Zealanders who have received this payment. These are people earning less than $70,000 who, once upon a time, the National Party claimed to care about. What they’re now focused on is tax cuts for the most wealthy New Zealanders.

💬 Matt Doocey: You don’t care. You don’t care. You don’t care any more.

💬 SPEAKER: Order! Does the member realise his offence? I mean, I know the member’s been around for a while, and he’s spent time as a whip, and he should know by now—you know, has the member been here about six years, nearly?—that one does not bring me into the debate, as he did three times during that question. I mean, probably I could get him on boring and repetitive interjections. He will stand—

💬 Marja Lubeck: Ha, ha!

💬 SPEAKER: Who did that? That member will stand, withdraw and apologise.

💬 Marja Lubeck: I withdraw and apologise.

💬 SPEAKER: And now Mr Doocey will.

💬 Matt Doocey: Withdraw and apologise.

💬 SPEAKER: Has the member finished?

💬 Nicola Willis: Does he stand by his statement that “As a result of both the winter energy payment and the cost of living payment, 81 percent of working-age New Zealanders are being given temporary support to deal with cost of living pressures.”, and how does he reconcile that with the revelation that only 1.3 million New Zealanders have received a cost of living payment?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: It’s an interesting situation where the member thinks that something that’s actually in a Cabinet paper is somehow or other a revelation. We always knew that there would be people who would not get the payment until they filed their return. I know that those earning under $70,000 in New Zealand need the support of the Government to be able to get through this period of inflation. The Government is standing by those New Zealanders, unlike the National Party, who want to give tax cuts to the most wealthy New Zealanders.

💬 Nicola Willis: When he promised his cost of living payment and promoted it by saying there was a wider group of New Zealanders who needed some support, why didn’t he let New Zealanders know that that group would be so wide as to include London yo-pros, French backpackers, and dead people?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Well, as we’ve already articulated, this is a policy targeted at those earning less than $70,000 a year. The member opposite has a policy that would see someone earning $250,000 a year getting $125 a week, while someone on the minimum wage gets $2 per week. If the member wants to know what’s wasteful and untargeted, it’s her policy.

💬 Nicola Willis: How can he characterise the payment as targeted, when according to analysis by his own officials, close to a quarter of the payments would go to households with incomes in the top 30 percent, and that’s before we count the overseas residents who may number in the thousands?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I can recall vividly in this House the member asking questions about families where people earned $60,000 for one partner in the couple, $60,000 for the other, and banging the desk and she told us, “What are you doing for those people?” Now we’re doing something for them and the National Party don’t like it. That’s because their focus is the wealthiest New Zealanders getting the biggest tax cuts. On this side of the House, we’ve stepped up to do something for those people.

💬 Nicola Willis: What responsibility, if any, does he take for failures with the cost of living payment, which has sent taxpayer money both offshore and into the grave?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I take responsibility for the fact that we have stepped up to support New Zealanders who are earning less than $70,000 a year. That member previously stood up here and told the Government to do something about that. Well, now we’ve done it and she doesn’t like it, because we haven’t adopted her policy of giving the most wealthy New Zealanders the greatest benefit. I stand proudly on our record of supporting low and middle income New Zealanders. The National Party is in favour of supporting the highest income earners.

Question No. 6—Agriculture

6. to the Minister of Agriculture: Does he stand by his statement that “Extra monitoring and a range of practical support is being rolled out to help farmers achieve immediate improvements in intensive winter grazing practices”; if so, what monitoring of intensive winter grazing practices is being done this season?

Yes. Extra monitoring and a range of practical support is being rolled out to help farmers implement good intensive winter grazing practices. Since late May 2022, this year, the Ministry for Primary Industries animal welfare compliance team has been undertaking a programme of monitoring winter grazing in Southland and Otago known as Phase Two of Project Poharu. This includes, firstly, proactive visits to many operations undertaking winter grazing; weekly meetings with Environment Southland and Otago Regional Council, who have responsibility for environmental issues such as water quality potentially arising from winter grazing; and attending to any complaints received regarding potential animal welfare issues arising from intensive winter grazing. This is a follow-up to the equivalent programme Project Poharu undertaken in 2021, and in addition MPI staff have been working with industry groups such as Beef + Lamb to provide guidance to the primary sector on good intensive winter grazing planning and practice.

💬 Teanau Tuiono: Does he stand by his statement in response to a question on 7 June that the “Ministry for Primary Industries people will be out on the ground ensuring that best winter grazing practice occurs this winter”, and, if so, what specific steps are being taken to deliver on this?

💬 Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: As I just said in the previous question, we’ve had a project task force team out now assessing what is going on. In fact, I’ve been very pleased with the reports that I have been getting. Indeed, Environment Southland and I think the Otago Regional Council have been overflying some of those areas, and at this stage, in spite of a terribly wet winter and some really challenging times for farmers, the reports are that most farmers are managing the situation very, very well.

💬 Teanau Tuiono: Does he also stand by his statement in response to a question on 7 June that “for those farms and farming operations that don’t meet those high standards, we have to check up on and prosecute where necessary”, and, if so, is he confident that checks are sufficient—

💬 Mark Cameron: That’s right. The Greens hate farmers—we know it.

💬 SPEAKER: Order! Who interjected then?

💬 Teanau Tuiono: Another go?

💬 SPEAKER: The member will start again and I’ll think about what I’ll do.

💬 Teanau Tuiono: Does he stand by his statement in response to a question on 7 June that “for those farms and farming operations that don’t meet those high standards, we have to check up on and prosecute where necessary”, and, if so, is he confident that checks are sufficient to identify issues requiring enforcement action?

💬 Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: Yes, and to expand on that a little bit, look, the process that we have gone through in conjunction with my colleague the Minister for the Environment, the Hon David Parker—we have been focused on this, primarily from an animal welfare perspective first and foremost, but then, of course, the effects of intensive winter grazing on potential water quality issues. The task force that we had, the action team that we appointed, and indeed the actions of both, as I say, the councils and MPI have shifted the behaviour, and I believe that we’re in a far better position than we were five years ago.

💬 Teanau Tuiono: Can he give us specific progress, if any, that has been made on including animal welfare considerations as part of farm planning alongside environmental management, in line with recommendation 6 of the Winter Grazing Taskforce final report?

💬 Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: As I say, I appointed a task force and then an action implementation group. They came back. Of the 11 recommendations that came from the task force, all but one of them have been implemented, including the one he refers to. There is good coordination between the shared objectives of better animal welfare and better environmental management through water quality.

💬 Teanau Tuiono: Is he committed to implementing all 11 recommendations of the Winter Grazing Taskforce on how animal welfare can be improved, and, if so, how?

💬 Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: [Drops notes] I was going to read all 11 out, but I won’t. Yes, I am committed to all of them. The only one that has not been implemented is: “Work is needed to establish baseline animal welfare performance of intensive winter grazing systems in order to monitor the progress of improvements.” We consider that actually most farmers and most regional councils know what good practice is, and so we considered that that was not necessary. All the other 10 recommendations have indeed been implemented.

Question No. 7—Social Development and Employment

7. to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: What updates has she seen on creating jobs in the construction workforce?

Recently, the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) partnered with the Western Institute of Technology at Taranaki (WITT) and the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) to help build the workforce needed for the construction of Taranaki Base Hospital. Project Maunga Stage Two is the continuation of the Taranaki Base Hospital redevelopment and will see the continuation of the new east wing, a six-storey building housing many of the hospital’s acute services. The collaboration between MSD, MBIE, and WITT sees MSD helping to coordinate recruitment, training and upskilling, and engaging with local education organisations, providing support for site workers, and connecting with iwi groups and industry. This is a meaningful collaboration and one which maximises the number of jobs locally for people who are out of work or haven’t been given that opportunity to work.

💬 Glen Bennett: What feedback has she seen on this partnership?

💬 Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: Western Institute of Technology at Taranaki CEO John Snook says, “The project leaves behind not only a hospital but a trained community of apprentices. In some ways, this is going to be the biggest legacy of all.” He also says, “Project Maunga is a significant sized project and it will provide opportunities for the future workforce of Taranaki to get an education, gain experience, and make a meaningful contribution to the regional economy of Taranaki.”

💬 Glen Bennett: What other updates has she seen on employment in the construction workforce?

💬 Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: I’m pleased to report that we’re seeing a year-on-year increase in the number of people employed in the construction sector. There are now 295,000 people employed in the sector, an increase of nearly 20,000 people since the same quarter last year. This is a reflection of our investment in programmes like Apprenticeship Boost, which has seen almost 50,000 apprentices pick up a trade, and other smaller but equally as important initiatives like Kiwi Can Do, which has supported almost 900 people into jobs in the construction sector. These numbers show that the Government is working effectively with the construction sector to meet workforce demand and fulfil the aspirations of our job seekers.

Question No. 8—Social Development and Employment

8. to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: Can she confirm that there are 13,383 people aged 18-24 who have spent one year or longer on the jobseeker benefit, and that, on average, just 178 participants in Mana in Mahi each year had been on a benefit for a year or longer when they started their placement?

I can confirm that, as at the end of the June quarter 2022, 8,388 people aged 18 to 24 had been receiving a jobseeker work-ready benefit for a year or more, and there was also 4,995 jobseekers with a health and disability exemption. Up until 2013, the jobseeker health and disability exemption used to be called the sickness benefit, and included people like Daisy Bell, who said yesterday in the media, “I don’t know how sitting up at midnight hooked up to a dialysis machine screams free ride to you”. I can also confirm that in the four years since it was launched, Mana in Mahi has exceeded its target: in the time it has been operating, it has helped 711 people who have been receiving a main benefit for over a year and who had barriers into employment and to work. I can also confirm this Government helped more people off benefit and into work last year than any time since records began—113,000 to be exact, with just over 35,000 people aged between 18 to 24.

💬 Hon Louise Upston: Does the Government stand by its argument that Mana in Mahi helps the 13,383 young people on the jobseeker benefit long term, when just 178 participants each year were on benefit long term?

💬 Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: I certainly stand by the fact that we need a suite of measures to support people into employment. Mana in Mahi is an example of one of the many effective programmes that we have implemented as a Government. Also, I want to make this House aware of the fact that we as a Government have been very focused on ensuring that we prevent people from coming on to benefit as well. We are all aware of the statistics and who might be disadvantaged in a tight labour market, and who might be more likely to end up on benefit and receiving long-term welfare receipt. We are committed to getting in there early so that that doesn’t happen.

💬 Hon Louise Upston: Does the Minister believe young job seekers who break their benefit dependency by remaining off benefit for 12 months should receive a thousand-dollar incentive payment, and, if not, why not?

💬 Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: There are incentives already on offer through the different products that we have in place. Mana in Mahi—there is an incentive payment there. What I do not like and what I do reject is that the National Government’s policy around incentives is somehow the silver bullet to the complex challenges that young people are facing. Also, I do worry that the way in which the National Government have framed their policy means that they are actually incentivising people to stay on benefit for longer—rather than leave when a job may become available at six months, they’ll stay on for a year.

💬 SPEAKER: Order! Order! The member can’t comment at length on previous Governments.

💬 Hon Louise Upston: What does the Minister say to 23-year-old Montana Mason, who told Stuff she believed more support and job coaching was needed?

💬 Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: There are a range of different tools that need to be put in place to provide support for the young people that are on benefit or are unemployed. As I said earlier, there are financial incentives in some of the products that are available. There is coaching in the youth service that was set up by the previous Government. But you need that suite of measures to ensure that you’ve got the right tools for the individual young person, for their individual circumstances that come before you. What I would be worried about is the inference from that side of the House that they would be slashing front-line services to pay for that when, actually, front-line work-focused case management is important as well.

💬 Hon Louise Upston: Does the Minister disagree with Mr Copeland, who is a 20-year-old who said that job coaching should be mandatory as people “spent way too much time on the benefit” and “I know I have, and I regret it”?

💬 Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: As I’ve said in this House already, job coaching is available through particular programmes, and what we also have done is we have put into place the front-line work-focused case management that had been run down by the previous Government. The person I agreed with, actually, is Newstalk ZB’s John MacDonald, who said, “When I saw the coverage on the TV news last night, I thought I was back in the 1980s. I think this policy is a disaster. It sounds good, but in my view it will achieve nothing.”

💬 SPEAKER: Order! Order! The member does not have responsibility either for previous Governments or Opposition policy. I know that she has been asked a couple of times to comment on it, and I probably shouldn’t have let that happen, but the member just can’t keep on doing that at length.

💬 Hon Louise Upston: Does the Minister disagree with 20-year-old Leon Copeland, who said, “I’ve gone through other agencies as I realised Work and Income is horrible at actually helping people on the benefit with finding jobs. It’s like they don’t care anymore.”?

💬 Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: I think our results speak for themselves. The June quarter saw 35,000 people in that year—young people—exit benefit into work. That compares to the 22,000 people that exited benefit into work back in 2017 under the previous Government. It is important that we have a suite of measures in place. This Government is focused on doing that, making sure we have the right tool in the toolbox for the young person. There are no silver bullets.

Question No. 9—Education (School Operations)

9. to the Associate Minister of Education (School Operations): What changes has the Government made to NCEA to support senior secondary students in 2022?

This morning I announced a package of changes to NCEA and university entrance, to recognise the impact COVID-19 has had on senior students’ assessment in 2022. We’ve heard from schools how significant absences of students and teachers—as a result of COVID-19—have had a substantial impact on teaching and learning. These changes are designed to recognise the disruption, and provide relief for students while preserving the integrity of NCEA and the learning it represents. We’re making measured and proportionate changes based on advice by expert advisory groups to give senior students certainty that despite the disruption they have faced, they will have a fair opportunity to gain the credits and qualifications they need for the future.

💬 Angela Roberts: What changes are being made to Learning Recognition Credits (LRCs)?

💬 Hon JAN TINETTI: Students will be able to receive Learning Recognition Credits, with one Learning Recognition Credit awarded for every five credits earned through assessment. Students working towards NCEA level 1 will be able to receive up to 10 additional credits, or those at levels 2 or 3 will be eligible for up to eight additional credits. The use of LRCs was carefully considered by the Ministry of Education and the New Zealand Qualifications Authority in consultation with my NCEA professional advisory group. The advice and evidence from these three entities was clear, that the threshold for use has been met due to staff and student absences delaying assessment opportunities in 2022. The earn-as-you-learn approach focuses on credentialing learning that has occurred, and maintaining the credibility of the qualification.

💬 Angela Roberts: What other changes are being made, and why?

💬 Hon JAN TINETTI: To receive a certificate of endorsement, students will need to earn 46 credits at merit or excellence level instead of the usual 50. The university entrance requirement to achieve at least 14 credits in each of three approved subjects has also been adjusted to 14 credits in each of two approved subjects and 12 credits in the third approved subject. I note that the New Zealand Post Primary Teachers’ Association are supporting these changes, and I quote, “Hundreds of thousands of rangatahi have had their most critical years at high school severely disrupted because of COVID and through no fault of their own. These credits are the boost they need to ensure they can get on to the tertiary pathway of their choice or move to where they deserve to be in secondary school. It is the fair and right thing to do, and we commend the Government for it”.

💬 Erica Stanford: Why is it that after three years, the Government’s approach is to, for the third year running, lower the bar for achieving NCEA, rather than implementing policies that work to see students actually attending school and achieving the credits they need to gain NCEA to ensure their future success?

💬 Hon JAN TINETTI: These are evidence-based decisions recommended by educational experts. If the member is saying that those people don’t have the qualifications to make those recommendations, then I severely recommend that she rethinks that position. I have confidence that they are proportionate to disruption faced by students and schools as a result of COVID-19 and other winter illnesses. I would also say that these are the sort of recommendations that will encourage students to attend school because they will feel success.

💬 Erica Stanford: Can the Minister explain how lowering the bar to gain NCEA will improve numeracy and literacy of our high school students, given that only one third of them passed the 2021 literacy and numeracy pilot?

💬 Hon JAN TINETTI: The member is referring, of course, to a pilot, and the case of a pilot is to ensure that we get the settings right in that particular pilot. The 2021 pilot was of a small scale, with most participants in year nine or ten. As such, results were not representative and can’t be regarded as likely NCEA attainment levels for future learners.

💬 Hon Chris Hipkins: Can the Minister confirm that the current adjustments to NCEA as a result of COVID-19 disruption were modelled on similar changes made following the Christchurch earthquake to recognise the disruption that those students had experienced, and that nobody used that as a basis to undermine the credibility of the qualification?

💬 Hon JAN TINETTI: Yes, absolutely. This is something that this country is well used to, and we also, I reiterate, use our experts to guide us in that so it doesn’t undermine the integrity of the qualification.

Question No. 10—Foreign Affairs

10. to the Minister of Foreign Affairs: Does she stand by her statement, “Our focus is on engaging with the International Seabed Authority process as the best means to achieve an outcome that deep-sea mining does not take place unless we can ensure the protection of our ocean through setting high environmental standards”; if so, does she still have confidence in that process?

On behalf of the Minister, yes, I stand by that statement. The International Seabed Authority (ISA) is mandated under international law to develop rules to regulate deep-sea mining in areas beyond national jurisdiction. Rules that apply only in exclusive economic zones (EEZs) do not protect the high seas. At the most recent ISA meetings, which concluded last week, New Zealand, alongside a group of other States, strongly advocated our position that mining in international waters should not be legal in the absence of strong environmental safeguards. This must include robust and comprehensive regulations that embed the precautionary approach. If the international negotiations at the ISA do not result in rules which achieve the effect of protection of the marine environment, as required by international law, New Zealand will be calling for no deep-sea mining to occur.

💬 Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: What environmental standards will, in her view, be sufficient to protect the ocean, and are these standards supported by independent and robust scientific evidence?

💬 Hon DAVID PARKER: The principles would have to include the precautionary approach and robust monitoring. I think, in New Zealand, which has a well-developed regulatory regime, we understand how hard in practice it can be to hold mining companies to account when they leave or something goes wrong. A case in point is the hundreds of millions of dollars that are being shelled out currently by taxpayers to remediate the Tūī oilfield. As the Minister has previously indicated, New Zealand will be reviewing the approach, following this most recent round of meetings which concluded last week, and that review will take into account progress, or the lack thereof, and the views of Pacific Island States.

💬 Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: How can any standards be sufficient to protect the moana from seabed mining, given that her own officials said there is uncertain and inadequate information about the marine environment and the effects of such activities?

💬 Hon DAVID PARKER: As I said previously, this issue is complicated internationally by the reality that unless you have an international rules-based regime, the rules that countries have stop at the edge of their EEZs, and you could have an unregulated position on the high seas.

💬 Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Does she agree it is necessary to re-evaluate the Government’s position, especially given that Costa Rica and Chile, the two nations she told the House in June she was working with to advance an alternative regulatory proposal, have now told the ISA to hit the brakes on deep-sea mining, raising concerns that there is an absence of independent scientific information?

💬 Hon DAVID PARKER: As I said in answer to an earlier question, the Minister has previously indicated that we would be reviewing New Zealand’s approach, following the most recent round of meetings. The attitudes of those other countries that the member named will no doubt be considered by her, as well as the views of Pacific Islands.

💬 Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Does she agree with French President Emmanuel Macron, who told the world at the UN Ocean Conference in 2022 that we have to create a legal framework to stop high-seas mining; if not, why hasn’t this progressed?

💬 Hon DAVID PARKER: Well, yes, I do agree with that. And I’m sure that I speak on behalf of the Minister in saying that we are concerned to work with our Pacific Island neighbours to protect our neighbourhood against inappropriate environmental effects.

💬 Hon Eugenie Sage: Has the Minister requested advice on whether New Zealand’s support for a deep-sea mining moratorium in international waters beyond national jurisdiction would have any impact on New Zealand’s domestic regime to assess seabed mining applications; if so, what did the advice say?

💬 Hon DAVID PARKER: On behalf of the Minister, I’m not in a position to answer that question but I’m sure, if the member asks a question to that effect to the Minister, or puts a question in writing, it could be addressed.

Question No. 11—Local Government

11. to the Minister of Local Government: Does she agree with the Prime Minister’s statement on Three Waters reform that “The ownership of these entities sits with local bodies and government so it is not changing the ownership structures”, and does she believe those reforms will actually maintain true local government ownership of water assets?

on behalf of the Minister of Local Government: On behalf of the Minister, yes, because under the reforms territorial authorities would be the owners of the water services entities. The water services entities will be owned by territorial authorities in the services area. Each territorial authority will receive an ownership share in the relevant entity based on the population in the district. Territorial authorities will be the only shareholders in these entities. These arrangements were recommended by the working group that was made up of local council representatives from across New Zealand, some of whom previously expressed concerns about the three waters reforms. Therefore this proposed ownership structure is a direct result of engagement with the local government sector.

💬 Simon Watts: How does he reconcile that answer with the Water Services Entities Bill, which states territorial authorities have—and I quote—“no right, title, or interest in the assets, security, debts, or liabilities of a water services entity:”; and how is it possible to own something while not having any rights over it?

On behalf of the Minister, because the only threat to public ownership is privatisation. So I put to the National Party: when this Government approached that party and suggested that we put our respective views aside and on one issue and one issue alone we agree to entrench public ownership of these water entities, they refused.

💬 Simon Watts: Does he stand by his comment in the House yesterday that those same councils that would not own their water assets under his model are “mischief making” and does he believe—

💬 SPEAKER: Order! Order! The member is going to have to wind back. This is a really complicated situation now where he’s asking this Minister, who is answering on behalf of another Minister about that Minister’s comments, and he’s got to adjust his question to make sure he’s doing that.

💬 Simon Watts: Can I seek for clarification. My understanding is he’s Acting Minister.

💬 SPEAKER: No, he’s not now. I understand the plane has landed and he’s answering for. That’s why the question says “she”.

💬 Simon Watts: Does she agree with the Acting Minister of Local Government who said yesterday that those same councils that would not own their water assets under this model are mischief making; and does she believe the over 30 councils who have raised that concern are just mischief making?

On behalf of the Minister, yes, I do agree with the Associate Minister’s description of that member as mischief making. That was the context of that comment. What we have is a situation here where a proposal that was made by the working group, which in turn was made up by representatives of local government, made this very recommendation. They are shareholders in these entities. If the National Party wishes to make a policy that shareholders are not owners, I look forward to their further explanation on that.

💬 Simon Watts: Does she believe that the Auditor-General, who said, “The bill alone does not provide enough information for us to form a view.”, on the control of water entities is just mischief making?

On behalf of the Minister, I repeat my response to the previous question. The mischief maker in question was in reference to that member and the questions that he was asking at the time. The Auditor-General’s submission to the select committee was very clear—that they continue to work with the Department of Internal Affairs to clarify matters around the ownership structure. But the Auditor-General did not express an opinion on the ownership structure; they were looking at issues of accountability and they provided some constructive feedback to the Finance and Expenditure Committee on ways in which we could improve the proposals—proposals which we have continued and consistently improved based on feedback that we have received from stakeholders and the local government sector.

💬 Simon Watts: What is her response to the three South Wairarapa district councils who said the governance and ownership structure of three waters is, and I quote, “a giant stitch-up”; and how can the public have faith their water assets will remain in the ownership of their council if local councils themselves say they no longer own them?

On behalf of the Minister, the only way to have absolute faith that they will stay in public ownership is to entrench that provision in law, which the National Party refused to do. It is harder now to privatise water assets as a result of these proposals that what it was at the start. What I would say to any councillor who has expressed concerns about the structure is to participate in the select committee process or to turn up to the meetings that the Associate Minister is having with each and every rural provincial council to take feedback direct back to the Minister—feedback which has already resulted in constructive and productive adjustments to the proposal.

💬 Simon Watts: What is her response to Mayor Neil Holdom, who said to select committee today about shares in water entities, “The value of the shares will be put down as zero.”; and doesn’t this just prove the Government shareholding ownership scheme is just a farce?

On behalf of the Minister, what is the farce is the position that the status quo is sustainable. It is not. Not a single council, regardless of their views on this reform process, says that the status quo is sustainable. The only people saying that are the National Party. We have a $185 billion issue that we are trying to sort here, and after four years of consideration, ours is the only practical solution available. The National Party believe that the status quo is the way forward; everyone else says that’s wrong.

Question No. 12—Health (Pacific Peoples)

12. to the Associate Minister of Health (Pacific Peoples): What recent work has the Government done to build the Pacific health workforce?

Budget 2022 will deliver 1,900 new health workers and will support 2,700 more students into training programmes through a $76 million investment to continue to grow the Māori and Pacific health workforce. Specific funding of $37 million over four years for the Pacific health workforce is critical for building a more diverse and sustainable pathway into health for Pacific people, and it will ensure that as our health workforce grows, it reflects also the communities it serves with a workforce that values Māori and Pacific languages and cultural intelligence, and ensures economic security for our Pacific communities in good and bad times. Simply put, this approach is a targeted Pacific—by Pacific, for Pacific—approach, and something, as we learnt during COVID, which directly accelerated positive COVID vaccination rates for Pacific peoples and kept everyone safe.

💬 Lemauga Lydia Sosene: How are Pacific health workers supported by this boost in a Pacific health workforce?

💬 Hon AUPITO WILLIAM SIO: In 2016, Counties Manukau had a Pacific population comprising 21 percent of the local population, but just 11 percent of its staff identified as Pacific. For this reason, we are growing our Pacific health workforce with investment to build on the successes we’ve had in responding to COVID-19, and this in turn will help transition Pacific people from COVID-19 roles to day-to-day roles in the health system on other primary healthcare priorities. We’re taking their learnt experiences on the ground during a global pandemic and pivoting those to new roles in the health sector, capturing their cultural capital and cultural intelligence and ensuing it continues to achieve better positive health outcomes for Pacific people, which will in turn lift better outcomes for the rest of New Zealand.

💬 Lemauga Lydia Sosene: What will this growth in the Pacific health workforce mean for our communities?

💬 Hon AUPITO WILLIAM SIO: This Budget 2022 initiative will support the roll-out of comprehensive primary healthcare teams over the next four years to support and strengthen communities because this is our approach—by Pacific, for Pacific, who are one of the fastest growing populations in Aotearoa New Zealand. This will ensure that Pacific communities across the motu can get access to a wider range of services close to home and in their community and not draw from other parts of the system which are already under strain. This Government will continue to build on the cultural capital of our Pacific health providers and workforce, who already enjoy trusted relationships with our Pacific communities on the ground. This Budget initiative also provides a significant investment to support Pacific health providers to deliver the Government’s Pacific wellbeing approach, which benefits all New Zealanders.