Oral Questions

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

The economy rebounded strongly in the June quarter. Last week, Statistics New Zealand reported that GDP rose 1.7 percent in the three months to June, which was at the top end of economists’ expectations. The economy is now 4.8 percent larger than before the start of the pandemic, ahead of most countries that we compare ourselves with. Despite a challenging global environment, our economic plan is working, and the resilience of the economy means New Zealand is in a strong position to support our people and take advantage of the opportunities available from our strong pandemic response.

💬 Dr Duncan Webb: Which sectors contributed to growth in the June quarter?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The services sector, which makes up two-thirds of the economy, rose 2.7 percent, as New Zealanders and returning overseas visitors spent more on transport, accommodation, eating out, and sports and recreational activities. It’s also worth noting that exports jumped 20.5 percent, boosted by the return of tourists and ongoing strong agricultural prices.

💬 Dr Duncan Webb: What reactions has seen to growth in the June quarter?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Well, Westpac’s economists said it was a strong result, while Kiwibank said the Kiwi economy staged an impressive rebound following the Omicron disruption. ASB’s economists said the underlying base momentum of the economy should continue, and is a testament to the underlying resilience of the New Zealand economy.

💬 Dr Duncan Webb: How did New Zealand’s growth compare internationally?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Well, the timing of COVID variants and their economic impact has differed between countries, and it does make it difficult to make meaningful comparisons on a quarterly basis. A marker that we can use, though, is where the economy is now, compared to where it was before the pandemic started. On that basis, New Zealand’s economy is 4.8 percent larger than the pre-COVID December 2019 quarter, compared with 5.5 percent in Australia, 2.6 percent in the US, 1.8 percent in the EU, 1.7 percent in Canada, 0.6 percent in the UK, and 0.2 percent in Japan.

💬 Nicola Willis: Does the Minister consider that the reason most New Zealanders aren’t quite as cock-a-hoop as he is about the state of the economy could be because, in the past year, real wages declined by 3.7 percent—that is, typical New Zealanders are going backwards as prices rise faster than wages?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: No; the member is, in fact, wrong. Median weekly earnings from wages and salaries rose by 8.8 percent in the June 2022 quarter—[Holds up sheet of paper] right there for the member.

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

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Well, the World Bank has warned that the global economy may be edging towards recession in 2023, with global growth slowing sharply. New Zealand is, of course, not immune to these developments, but we are well positioned to respond to the challenges. Unemployment is near record lows, exports are rising, and our debt levels are among the lowest in the world. We’re investing in our future to deliver a high-wage, low-emission economy that provides greater security in both good times and bad. There are tough choices ahead for us, but New Zealand is well positioned to navigate a volatile and uncertain global environment.

💬 Nicola Willis: Who should New Zealanders believe about the state of the economy: that Minister, who continues to show off about it; or the Parliamentary Library, who says that real wages have declined by 3.7 percent, and many New Zealand families who feel that economic times are tougher for them than ever?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Perhaps we could refer to the views of a neutral commentator here, Standard & Poor’s. I’ll just read from their executive summary—I don’t know if that’s a concept the member’s familiar with—it says the agency once again praised the Government, saying, “New Zealand [had] weathered the pandemic better than most countries in terms of health, fiscal, and economic outcomes.”

💬 David Seymour: Would the Minister prescribe that Standard & Poor’s report as recommended reading for the majority of New Zealanders, who say the country is going in the wrong direction under his Government?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: We, on this side of the House, acknowledge that 2022 has been a hard year for many people. That’s why our Government has stepped up by increasing benefits, by making sure there’s a cost of living payment, by making sure that we’re supporting New Zealanders with lifts to the minimum wage. All of these things that the ACT Party has opposed—we’re actually supporting New Zealanders.

💬 David Seymour: So, just to be clear, has it been a hard year, or is everything going fantastically?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: This side of the House has acknowledged, time and time again, how hard it has been for New Zealanders. The good news is the New Zealand economy is resilient. We have one of the lowest unemployment rates in the OECD. We have one of the lowest levels of public debt in the OECD. We’ve got growth, so we’re 4.8 percent bigger than we were before the pandemic. There is every reason to be optimistic, even though it has been a hard year for many people.

Question No. 2—Prime Minister

2. to the Acting Prime Minister: Does he stand by all of his Government’s statements and actions?

Yes, particularly the Minister of Finance’s statement that “despite these globally turbulent times, with war, supply chain disruption, energy shocks and inflation spikes, New Zealand has cause for optimism.” Quarterly GDP growth of 1.7 percent meant New Zealand outperformed other countries we compare ourselves with and, when combined with our reopening, we are gaining momentum. Just briefly, that’s shown by international traveller numbers crossing 100,000 for the first time since the pandemic; the ski season in Queenstown hitting 80 percent of pre-COVID times; and international student enrolments, just shortly after they have reopened, are now nearly at 50 percent of pre-COVID times. The resilience of the economy means New Zealand is in a strong position to respond to an increasingly difficult global environment, while continuing to support New Zealand families and businesses to take advantages available, because of our strong pandemic response.

💬 Christopher Luxon: When the finance Minister said the Government is going to start targeting spending to where it can “get the most bang for buck for New Zealand”, does he think adding 14,000 bureaucrats to the public sector, at a cost of $1.7 billion a year in salaries, is an example of good “bang for buck” spending?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: It always fascinates me that the Opposition looks at the kinds of people who helped New Zealanders get through COVID and decides to call them bureaucrats. These are the hard-working public servants who got up every day during the pandemic to make sure that New Zealanders got through as well as any other country in the world.

💬 Hon Chris Hipkins: Was he urged to extend the most untargeted financial support offered over the last 2½ years to a greater number of businesses for a longer period of time, and, if so, what was his response to that?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Yes, indeed. Time and time again, members opposite called on us to give further support to the business community. We did give significant support, over $20 billion, but the National Party prefers an approach of untargeted support through tax cuts for the wealthiest New Zealanders. That’s not our policy.

💬 Christopher Luxon: Why should taxpayers believe the finance Minister, when he claims the Government is going to start being targeted when spending taxpayer money, when over the last five years he’s overspent every single Budget spending target he set himself?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Because New Zealand continues to have one of the lowest levels of public debt in the world—lower than the level inherited from the previous Government; because we have unemployment at 3.3 percent; and because the economy has grown 4.8 percent since before COVID. The record of this Government in making sure that New Zealanders got through COVID has been recognised by the likes of Standard & Poor’s as one of the best responses in the world.

💬 Christopher Luxon: Is he embarrassed that the Government’s cost of living payment was so badly targeted that tax officials had to remove over 100,000 people from the list of eligible recipients after the first payment was made, at the cost of millions of taxpayers’ dollars?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The cost of living payment was designed to make sure that those earning less than $70,000 who had not benefited from other changes that the Government made got some relief from the increasing cost of living. Members opposite were calling on us to do something. We did it and they don’t like it. They prefer untargeted tax cuts for the wealthiest New Zealanders.

💬 Christopher Luxon: If the Government is finally planning to start being targeted when spending taxpayer money, why did they try to push through a $225 million a year tax increase on KiwiSaver funds?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The cost of living payment represents a move from the broad-based initiatives we had through COVID, such as the wage subsidy scheme. Those were initiatives that the member and his party supported. We’re now targeting that support for—the member’s option is to make sure that people in this House get thousands of dollars of tax cuts a year while those on the minimum wage get two bucks a week. That is not targeted spending.

💬 Hon Chris Hipkins: Is the Minister of Finance aware of any instances where taxes on KiwiSaver savings were actually increased?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Yes. The previous National Government did exactly that when it increased the employer tax obligations and also when it took away the thousand-dollar kick-start. I also recall the National Party actually opposing KiwiSaver when it was first introduced. The Labour Party continues to be proud of KiwiSaver.

💬 Christopher Luxon: Does he think taxpayers are getting good bang for their buck when, despite labour shortages in almost every sector, there are still 50,000 more people receiving unemployment benefits than when his Government took office?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I am proud of the fact that we have unemployment at 3.3 percent. I’m also proud of the fact that we work with those who are in receipt of income support to be able to support them back into work, and the programmes that we have put in place there are starting to bear fruit.

💬 Christopher Luxon: Does he accept that with school attendance and achievement so shamefully low, taxpayers are not getting good bang for buck from this Government’s spending in education?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I believe taxpayers are getting excellent bang for buck from what we do in the education sector. Every single day in schools across New Zealand we are seeing students achieving and achieving well. We will always continue to work, as we have been, on attendance and attendance strategy. But I would bear in mind, when it comes to what’s happened in attendance—[Interruption] When it comes to what’s happened in attendance, Mr Luxon, he needs to look at the previous National Government to see where that trend started.

💬 Christopher Luxon: Is the finance Minister’s claim that the Government is going to pivot to being targeted when spending taxpayer money an admission that the last five years have been a spending free-for-all, and does he accept this approach has contributed to the cost of living crisis that is sending Kiwi families backwards?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Our approach over the course of the last five years has meant that New Zealand has an unemployment rate of 3.3 percent. It means that we have one of the lowest levels of public debt in the world. It means that our economy has grown 4.8 percent from pre-COVID times.

We’ve invested to support New Zealanders through COVID. Standard & Poor’s and others around the world are telling us that that is one of the best responses to the pandemic from an economic point of view, from a health point of view, and from a social point of view. I’m proud of this Government’s response to COVID-19.

💬 David Seymour: Why does the Government continue to insist on New Zealanders filling out a New Zealand traveller declaration form to enter their own country when contact tracing, vaccine requirements, and post-arrival testing are no longer required?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: As has been stated a number of times, including by me yesterday, we are moving towards a system where that New Zealand travel declaration will be the document that is required to enter New Zealand. We will move away from the paper-based arrival card. Rather than stop the declaration and then restart it again, we’re continuing it so it will become the single document you need to enter the country.

💬 David Seymour: Can the Prime Minister confirm that 10,000 people entering yesterday had to fill out the form for no reason other than the Government is in a holding pattern?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: No, it still provides important information for New Zealanders, and it will become the document that everybody will use to enter New Zealand in the future.

💬 David Seymour: What does this Government say to a shopkeeper in Christchurch who’s worked 156 days straight to keep the door open; when will the Government fix immigration so business owners facing severe worker shortages up and down the country can take a break?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The immigration rebalance and reset is already under way. That’s seen around 10,000 employers become accredited employers. It’s seeing the job-check process largely meet its targets, and it’s seeing visas granted. What I say to that shopkeeper is, like all New Zealanders, they’ve worked hard to get through COVID. In that time, they’ve been supported by the Government through things like the wage subsidy things, things like the resurgence support payment, the Small Business Cashflow Scheme. We continue to stand alongside those small businesses.

💬 David Seymour: Does the Government stand by its announcement to amend consumer lending regulations under the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act (CCCFA) next March, and, if so, why not fix them now so that struggling small businesses battered by the past two years of COVID restrictions can consolidate their debt without additional rigmarole?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Those changes have been welcomed by those both in the banking sector and those who borrow. You’ll need to direct the question to Dr Clark exactly on the timing, but from our perspective here, those things should not be preventing the business person the member refers to from getting access to the consolidated credit they need.

💬 David Seymour: Well, if the regulations under the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act are not stopping people from getting access to the credit they need, why does it need to be amended at all, and, if the regulations are stopping people getting credit, why is it acceptable that a problem first pointed out last December won’t be fixed by David Clark until next March?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: There are a variety of concerns that were raised about the CCCFA. Some of those were of the nature of guidelines that didn’t require regulatory change, so those changes are being made; some are the results of regulatory change, which will go through the system. I know from the conversations I’ve had with retail banks that they are satisfied that the changes that we’ve already made are making a difference.

Question No. 3—Education

3. to the Minister of Education: What progress has the Government made in supporting employers to maintain and increase the number of New Zealanders in apprenticeships?

More good news. The Government’s Apprenticeship Boost programme has reached a significant milestone, supporting over 50,000 apprentices to move into or to retain their trade; 18,800 employers have signed up to the scheme so far. Under our Government, apprenticeships are back and they are thriving.

💬 Marja Lubeck: How is Apprenticeship Boost making a difference for workplaces in the wider economy?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Two years after we introduced it, it’s heartening to see the impact Apprenticeship Boost has had on helping to deliver key infrastructure projects and bolstering our construction workforce. Apprentices are helping to build houses, fix up roads, upgrade commercial buildings, and fix infrastructure like our pipes. Unlike in the wake of the global financial crisis, when apprentice enrolments plummeted, we’ve overseen a significant increase, including through a global pandemic.

💬 Marja Lubeck: How is Apprenticeship Boost delivering for Māori?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: A highlight of the scheme is that 19 percent of Māori apprentices are participating compared to 17 percent of the overall population being Māori. With Māori unemployment at 5.5 percent—the lowest since records began—our focus on providing targeted and wraparound support is paying dividends.

Question No. 4—Agriculture

4. to the Acting Minister of Agriculture: Is the Dairy Industry Restructuring (Fonterra Capital Restructuring) Amendment Bill consistent with her Government’s commitment to addressing the global climate crisis; if so, how?

On behalf of the Minister, yes. This bill allows Fonterra the ability to change its capital structure, and this will help to drive investment around sustainability and innovative dairy practice. Farmers are already putting in the work to measure the emissions, improve freshwater quality, and increase sustainable practices on-farm. This reflects the broad programme of work that the Government is undertaking to support farmers to reduce their emissions in line with our climate change commitments. The benefit of a high-performing and efficient Fonterra will flow through its nearly 10,000 farmer shareholders into our rural communities, and it underpins a well-functioning, sustainable dairy industry.

💬 Teanau Tuiono: What evidence, if any, does the Minister have that freed-up capital will go towards sustainability measures on farms rather than towards increasing milk production?

💬 Hon MEKA WHAITIRI: Because the Government has a project of reducing emissions that they have worked on very closely with the industry: He Waka Eke Noa. There are commitments from farmers; this bill will not remove the expectations that we reduce our emissions. This is purely a bill to enable Fonterra to move capital and to invest in sustainable practices that many dairy farmers are already undertaking.

💬 Teanau Tuiono: Then why was no climate implications of policy assessment produced for the bill, despite the Ministry for the Environment raising concerns that the proposals would support an increase in emissions?

💬 Hon MEKA WHAITIRI: The bill regulates, as I said, the operation of New Zealand’s dairy industry and Fonterra’s capital structure. It does not make changes to environmental regulations or climate action but, rather, relates to decisions on who farmers may choose to supply milk to. What we know is that Fonterra and its farmers are working to improve practices and reduce emissions, and Fonterra’s capital restructuring will enable farmers to redirect capital that would otherwise have been required for share purposes to these ends.

💬 Teanau Tuiono: Does the Minister think it is fair that Fonterra’s proposed capital restructure may make it more difficult for dairy farmers facing the effects of climate change to pursue land-use change, and, if not, why not?

💬 Hon MEKA WHAITIRI: The bill allows Fonterra the ability, like I said, to change its capital structure, and it relates to decisions on who farmers may choose to supply milk to. Land-use changes have been a constant throughout New Zealand’s agricultural history, and it’s driven by a number of factors. Ultimately, if farmers are looking to move away from dairy, that is a business decision for each farmer to consider.

💬 Teanau Tuiono: Does she believe it’s fair for the Government to support Fonterra’s restructure through legislation when this is designed to strengthen their monopoly and will have the effect of shielding them from the commercial realities of climate change?

💬 Hon MEKA WHAITIRI: I thank that member for the questions, because the bill is yet to be presented to the House. But what I can say to that member is that there are some mitigating and transparency obligations in the bill which include a Government-appointed extra member to the price-setting panel, and that is one way of ensuring transparency so they avoid any price-gouging, and I look forward to that member putting in his submission when the bill reaches the House.

Question No. 5—Finance

5. to the Minister of Finance: Does he stand by his statement that “we will enter a period of more targeted spending”, and does he consider that Government spending in the past six months should have been more targeted?

I stand by the full statement, including the context surrounding it: “As we move to implement our plan, future investments will obviously not be at the same scale as during COVID. As with all of you, with the emergency COVID response behind us now, we will enter a period of more targeted spending. This tighter period will require some tough choices. At a broad level, my focus will continue to be on making sure New Zealand maintains responsible debt levels, and ensuring our path back to surplus. This must not be done through austerity cuts to spending. These would do more damage than any problem we are trying to solve.”

To answer the second part of the member’s question, our spending has been targeted to deal with the conditions New Zealand has been experiencing. Our initial COVID response was broad-based and supported by the Opposition, for example, more than $20 billion in wage subsidies and other business supports, and more than $10 billion extra for health. More recently, the Government has continued to support businesses through the Omicron outbreak, with more than $2 billion of support for businesses since the start of March. This, of course, sits alongside support for households such as by reducing fuel excise duty, introducing the cost of living payment, and the other 1 April income support increases.

💬 Nicola Willis: Does the Minister consider the cost of living payment scheme was targeted, when official documents revealed it was so badly designed that 6,629 people received it despite explicitly advising the IRD of their overseas address?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The policy that we put in place was to make sure that those who earn less than $70,000 were supported. That was something that the member and others across the House urged us to do, and we have done that. This is a payment that has not ever happened before in New Zealand’s history, and the Inland Revenue Department continues to work to refine its delivery.

💬 Nicola Willis: Can he confirm he received advice from the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment on 12 April and 26 May warning against a proposed new KiwiSaver tax, saying it would reduce retirement savings, and was his choice to press ahead with that tax regardless an example of the sort of tough choice we can come to expect from him?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: As has been covered in this House over the last period of time, the member is mischaracterising the decision. The decision was taken by Cabinet. It was one that was taken on the basis of advice from a range of different Government agencies.

💬 Nicola Willis: Why did the Minister recommend that Cabinet progress a KiwiSaver tax, and was it because he was very tempted by the additional $250 million in annual revenue it would bring in, allowing him to continue his lavish spending?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Again, the member mischaracterises the policy proposal that was put forward. It was designed to create a level playing field when it came to managed funds and how GST was treated with them. The Government, obviously, upon reflection—given the reaction of some of those who would have benefited from it, who no longer wanted the playing field levelled—decided not to go ahead with the proposal.

Question No. 6—Environment

6. to the Minister for the Environment: What actions is the Government taking to enhance protection for New Zealand’s most productive land?

We need to house our people and feed them, too. Our cities and towns need to grow, but not at the expense of the land that’s best suited to growing our food. Once land is built on, it can no longer be used to grow food. This week, the Government released the National Policy Statement (NPS) for Highly Productive Land, which will enhance protection for our most productive land, providing security for both our domestic food supply and primary exports.

💬 Angie Warren-Clark: Why is the National Policy Statement for Highly Productive Land necessary?

💬 Hon DAVID PARKER: Over the last 20 years, about 35,000 hectares of our highly productive land has been carved up for urban or rural residential development, while 170,000 hectares of this land has been converted to lifestyle blocks. That’s why we’re moving to protect our most fertile and versatile land, especially in our main vegetable- and orchard-growing areas like Auckland, Waikato, Hawke’s Bay, Horowhenua, and Canterbury.

💬 Angie Warren-Clark: What will the National Policy Statement for Highly Productive Land do?

💬 Hon DAVID PARKER: Under the NPS for Highly Productive Land, councils will be required to map and manage highly productive land to ensure it’s available for growing vegetables, fruit, and other primary production now and in the future. Land more suited for development because of its lower-quality soils will be identified so that our best soils are not lost to urban sprawl.

💬 Angie Warren-Clark: What immediate effect will the National Policy Statement for Highly Productive Land have?

💬 Hon DAVID PARKER: Although councils have some time to map in some detail what areas are to be protected, immediate protections have been put in place for land that is zoned rural on top land-use class I, II, or III soils, unless that land is already identified or zoned for urban development.

💬 Angie Warren-Clark: How will the NPS for Highly Productive Land work with other national policy statements?

💬 Hon DAVID PARKER: The National Policy Statement on Highly Productive Land will work with the NPS on Urban Development (NPS-UD). Urban intensification under the NPS-UD will reduce the demand for outward urban growth on highly productive land. Under the two instruments, we will indeed both house and feed our people.

💬 Angie Warren-Clark: What flexibility does the NPS for Highly Productive Land provide for councils?

💬 Hon DAVID PARKER: In limited circumstances, councils will still be able to rezone highly productive land for urban housing if less productive land is not available and a number of other tests can be met. The NPS will introduce strong restrictions on the use of highly productive land for new rural lifestyle developments. Lifestyle blocks gobble up the most land, and they will be constrained.

Question No. 7—Housing

7. to the Acting Minister of Housing: Does he stand by the Minister of Housing’s statement from May last year that “We have heard, we’ve listened, and we’ve acted to make sure that we are putting in a different system for Rotorua”, and is he satisfied with emergency housing provision in Rotorua?

on behalf of the Acting Minister of Housing: In response to the first part: yes, in the context in which it was made. In response to the second part: since 2013, Rotorua’s population increased by around 9,000 people and during this time, only around 1,500 new homes were consented. This shortfall in housing drove up rents and house prices and led to an increasing number of people living in emergency housing. That is why we formed the Rotorua Housing Taskforce, a forum for central government to work with the Rotorua Lakes Council and Te Arawa iwi to provide better support and outcomes for people living in emergency housing motels and the community.

The contracted motel model we introduced in Rotorua specifically for whānau with tamariki is working well and has seen positive outcomes. The support service providers have already helped over 200 whānau to move into longer-term accommodation. They have also supported many clients into employment. We have always said that motels are not a long-term solution; they are an immediate response to a crisis that is decades in the making, which is why we continue to focus on building as many public homes as we can.

💬 Chris Bishop: When she says the system is “working well in Rotorua”, why has the Government spent $6.4 million with the Visions of a Helping Hand Charitable Trust, an organisation that reportedly removed a woman in labour from an emergency housing motel and has such a bad reputation one person interviewed on TVNZ Sunday programme said they would rather live in a bus with six people than one of their motels?

It was really important that Government agencies didn’t go in to Rotorua pretending that they had all the answers. The ask from Rotorua, the council, and Te Arawa was that we work together and that we utilise the support of local community providers. On behalf of the Acting Minister of Housing, the allegations have certainly been looked into by the officials and the information that we have to date gives us the confidence to continue with the contracts.

💬 Chris Bishop: Will he commission an independent inquiry into the emergency housing provision by the Visions of a Helping Hand Charitable Trust in Rotorua; and if not, why not?

The allegations that were made in the Sunday interview that the member is referring to are allegations that needed to be taken up with the police. To date, the police have provided no information or any instruction that there is cause for exiting the contracts and the provision of support that is in place for those people.

💬 Chris Bishop: When the Minister of Housing said, “we are putting in a different system for Rotorua”, does that different system mean mothers going into labour in cars and children living for month upon month in squalor and misery?

I need to remind the member of where the emergency housing system came from. It came about from New Zealanders living in their cars and in doorways in 2016, under the previous Government. We have committed to building the houses that New Zealanders need. We recognise that in places like Rotorua, there were less public houses available than what there had been when the previous Government had started. We are building those houses again. In the interim, we need to provide a roof over the heads of people who are homeless, so that is currently the emergency housing system that we have in place. A review is being undertaken and we look forward to any improvements that can be made.

💬 Chris Bishop: Why has the Government become a taxpayer-funded slumlord in Rotorua?

I refute that. Again, there is a level of hypocrisy in the question, given that the decades of under-investment in housing have led to the emergency housing model that was introduced by the previous Government that we inherited. We will do everything that we can to work with iwi, to work with councils, to work with community providers to ensure that the options that are in place are appropriate, but the main thing is building the houses that we need, and we are currently doing that.

💬 Rawiri Waititi: Can the Acting Minister tell this House and the iwi of Te Arawa how, from the first COVID lockdown in 2020, the 50 homeless people who were moved to emergency hotels in Rotorua have now grown to near on 1,000 people living in emergency hotels in Rotorua in 2022?

When COVID hit, it was important that we ensured that people were in some type of accommodation. So there were a number of people with very complex challenges at that time that needed to be housed, and the option in front of us right then was basically emergency housing provision of some sort. What I can say to the member is that what we have seen, I think, since March, is a steady decline in the number of whānau who are in emergency housing. We have seen a large number of whānau moved out of emergency housing in Rotorua into more permanent, more secure, more stable housing, and that is the trajectory that we intend to follow, and what we are focused on.

💬 Rawiri Waititi: Can the Acting Minister tell us or confirm that they will use the 51 vacant Kāinga Ora homes in Rotorua for those living in emergency housing?

I do not have information on any vacant public houses in Rotorua. If the member would like to put that in writing, then we will happily receive that.

Tāmati Coffey: Can the Minister confirm that in the Aotearoa New Zealand Homelessness Action Plan, as done by this Government, there is a specific part of that plan which is dedicated to reducing the reliance of emergency housing clients on motels?

Absolutely. We are focused on decreasing the reliance on emergency housing in New Zealand. That comes down to building the houses that we need. There was an under-investment by the previous Government. We are well on our way to building the houses that we have committed to, and that has to remain our focus as a Government.

💬 Chris Bishop: Can he confirm that since the publication of the much vaunted Homelessness Action Plan, the Government has spent hundreds of millions of dollars housing thousands of New Zealand families in motels all around the country?

If we hadn’t inherited a deficit of houses by the previous Government, then we wouldn’t be in the position that we are now. We have a plan; that was something that the previous Government never had.

Question No. 8—Education

8. to the Minister of Education: Does he agree with the New Zealand Initiative that “The Ministry conducted no research on the effects of these ‘Modern Learning Environments’ on students’ learning prior to compelling schools to adopt them. Neither did they conduct any evaluation of their effects after they were established”; if not, what evidence has the ministry provided the Minister to show that modern learning environments improve literacy and numeracy skills?

The Ministry of Education does not compel schools to adopt modern learning environments.

💬 Chris Baillie: Does the Minister agree with the previous Minister of Education, Hekia Parata, who said in 2014: “Every new school building must meet the Modern Learning Environment standard and every existing school must prioritise the property funding they receive from the Ministry of Education to upgrade their buildings to the Modern Learning Environment standards”; and, are these open-plan classrooms still being built?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: In answer to the first part of the question, no. On this side of the House, in this Government, we believe that schools should have choice.

💬 Chris Baillie: Will the Minister commit that no future learning or teaching initiatives be undertaken by the Ministry of Education without quantitative evidence that it works and a framework for ongoing monitoring and evaluation is in place; and, if so, why didn’t that apply to innovative learning environments?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I refer the member to my previous answer. On this side of the House, we believe that schools should have choice around how they structure their learning environments.

💬 Chris Baillie: Will the Minister commit to funding resources for teachers in open-plan classrooms to support students with learning disabilities, such as auditory processing disorder and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, without financial cost to the schools; and, if not, why not?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I thank the member for the opportunity to highlight the fact that this Government has put more additional funding into learning support in the five years that we’ve been in Government than the last Government, supported by the ACT Party, did in the nine years that they were in Government.

💬 Chris Baillie: Will the Minister ensure that the Ministry of Education either provides schools and teachers evidence that innovative learning environments improve numeracy and literacy skills for students, or stop insisting that schools use their property funding to build more?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The member clearly hasn’t listened to any of the answers that I’ve previously given. The Ministry of Education does not require schools to do that.

Question No. 9—Police

9. to the Minister of Police: Did he receive any recommendation from the Police regarding the asset value threshold in the proposed Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Amendment Bill; if so, what was that recommendation?

Yes, Police recommended there be no threshold but advised that a $10,000 threshold would raise the fewest operational challenges if a threshold was considered necessary for New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 compliance. The bill was drafted with a $30,000 threshold, which is consistent with the existing thresholds contained within the Act. We’re actively seeking to hear expressions and views on this matter through the select committee process and we’re approaching that with an open mind about what the threshold should be, if in fact there should be one.

💬 Hon Mark Mitchell: Why does the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Amendment Bill contain a $30,000 threshold as opposed to a $10,000 threshold per his officials’ recommendation?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Because the $30,000 threshold is the current threshold for serious criminal activity in the law as standing today, passed by a National Government.

💬 Hon Mark Mitchell: Did the Minister recommend to Cabinet that a $10,000 threshold, as advised by Police, should be contained within the bill?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The views of the Police were canvassed in the paper that went to Cabinet that contained the views of the Police, the views of Crown Law Office, and the views of the Ministry of Justice. The Cabinet ultimately made the decision to proceed with the existing $30,000 threshold, as is in the current Act, but we’re certainly open to hearing different views about that during the select committee process.

💬 Hon Mark Mitchell: So, just for clarity, is the Minister telling the House that, as police Minister, he advocated for a $10,000 threshold to be contained within the bill, as recommended by the Police—because they said it would be more difficult to operationalise at a $30,000 threshold—and he was not listened to?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: No. In fact, I think the Police raised some compelling arguments in favour of a lower threshold. But that would require more significant changes to the existing primary legislation as passed by the previous National Government. It would involve reconsidering whether the threshold that was put in place by the previous National Government of $30,000 for significant criminal offending should be changed.

Question No. 10—Māori Development

10. to the Minister for Māori Development: What recent events has he attended to celebrate te reo Māori?

Kia ora. Mr Speaker, tuatahi ka mihi atu ki ngā tāngata katoa mō ō rātou kaha ki te whakanui i tō tātou reo. He roa tonu te huarahi e haere ana, engari e tika ana kia mihia tātou katoa mō te kaha o tērā wiki.

[Mr Speaker, firstly I’d like to acknowledge everyone for their efforts to celebrate our language. The path we’re travelling is long, but it’s appropriate that we all acknowledge each other for the strength last week.]

Just congratulating everyone who made an effort with te reo Maōri last week. I was privileged to host the 50th commemoration of the 1972 te reo Māori petition on the steps of Parliament last week with our Deputy Prime Minister. Alongside colleagues and members around the House, I was proud to see the thousands of New Zealanders who came together to celebrate this important milestone in the revitalisation of te reo Māori. The petition, which was signed 50 years ago by 33,000 New Zealanders, was the start of the movement that has seen te reo Māori become an official language of Aotearoa and a valued part of our national identity. Can I congratulate Te Taura Whiri for putting together the day—it was a wonderful day.

Tāmati Coffey: What other events did the Minister attend?

💬 Hon WILLIE JACKSON: On 15 September, I attended an event in New Plymouth which celebrated the efforts of Hana Te Hemara Jackson, a Ngā Tamatoa leader and wahine toa who presented the Māori language petition to Parliament. We should never forget the efforts of some of our Māori language champions who fought for the revitalisation of our language and the difficulties that they face. It was a fabulous evening, a fabulous night.

Kaua rawa e wareware ki ngā mahi taku Aunty Hana i a mātou ki a Ngā Tamatoa me tā rātou whawhai mō tō tātou reo.

[Don’t ever forget the efforts of my Aunty Hana with us in Ngā Tamatoa and their fight for our language.]

Tāmati Coffey: What reports has he seen on the support of New Zealanders for te reo Māori?

💬 Hon WILLIE JACKSON: I’ve seen recent data that indicates 83 percent of Kiwis believe te reo Māori is an important component of our national identity. This is consistent with the Government’s ambition that by 2040, 85 percent of New Zealanders will value te reo Māori as a key part of our national identity.

Tāmati Coffey: What is the Minister’s current focus in supporting efforts to increase the use of te reo Māori amongst New Zealanders?

💬 Hon WILLIE JACKSON: We believe—the Government believes—learning Māori should be about being inclusive, not exclusive. In order to increase the use of te reo Māori, we need to see people shift from being passive supporters to becoming active users. A good starting point for all New Zealanders who want to embrace te reo is Te Taura Whiri’s website, which provides free language learning tools.

Kaua rawa e wareware ko te reo mō te katoa o tēnei motu.

[Don’t ever forget that the language is for this entire country.]

Tāmati Coffey: What progress has been made on the Maihi Karauna?

💬 Hon WILLIE JACKSON: I think we’re well on our way to achieving our 2040 goal of having 1 million speakers of basic te reo Māori. I just want to be clear with the House: what does that mean? That means people being able to say a few words. In 2018, 907,000 Kiwis aged 15 or over could speak about basic things in te reo Māori, up from 770,000 on the 2016 baseline. People get a little bit confused because we’re not talking about conversational Māori, which is about 185,000. So there is a long way to go in terms of getting the conversational reo up, but everyone’s finding their way with the language, and I congratulate everyone in the House who’s making an effort. Kia ora tātou.

Question No. 11—Women

11. to the Minister for Women: Is she concerned that the gender pay gap increased recently to 9.2 percent and that Statistics New Zealand did not report on the ethnic minority gender pay gap altogether?

No gender pay gap is acceptable, and while there is a gender pay gap there is more work to be done. There is no single fix to the gender pay gap, and the collection of good data is one of the many tools needed to fix it, along with the Equal Pay Amendment Act; Te Mahere Whai Mahi Wāhine, the Women’s Employment Action Plan; reducing the public sector pay gap; and implementing fair pay agreements. I’m advised Stats New Zealand has been considering this as a potential publication in the future. However, in order to ensure reliable and accurate data on ethnic pay gaps, Stats New Zealand needs to undertake a significant volume of work to assess, develop, and define the ethnic pay gap while ensuring those statistics remain internationally comparable.

💬 Jan Logie: What is the Government going to do this term to reduce the pay gap which means wāhine Māori and Pasifika women get paid around 25 percent less than Pākehā men?

💬 Hon JAN TINETTI: This Government knows that the ethnic communities are often the most marginalised group in the labour market, and that is why Māori and Pasifika women have been identified as two priority groups within Te Mahere Whai Mahi Wāhine, the Women’s Employment Action Plan, which sets out the actions that we intend to take as a Government. Having said that, we do look at the progress that has been made in lowering the Public Service gender pay gap by shining the light on what did exist in a major way. While it has come down, again there is still more work to be done.

💬 Jan Logie: Does she think it’s adequate progress for the Government to still be developing a work programme for pay transparency when it was signalled last term that this work was to be started soon and the gender pay gap has only decreased by half a percent over the last six years?

💬 Hon JAN TINETTI: The Government has agreed in principle to investigate whether developing a pay transparency regime would be effective in New Zealand, but we do have to be very careful about this. We have looked at other countries and other jurisdictions in the world, and we do know that pay transparency reporting is not a silver bullet. It is one tool in the tool box that will help us in eliminating pay gaps. We do need to be very, very careful about unintended consequences that may come from rushing through any regime.

💬 Jan Logie: Is it true that international research shows pay gap reporting would reduce the gender pay gap?

💬 Hon JAN TINETTI: We do know that other countries have brought in pay gap reporting, but I would like to point out that the pay gaps in those countries are generally higher than in New Zealand. So that speaks to the point that pay gap reporting isn’t the only panacea to the gender pay gap. That’s why we must undertake a thorough, thorough policy process to ensure that we are not creating unintended consequences.

💬 Jan Logie: What assurances will she give women fighting for equality in the workplace that her Government is prioritising our right to equal pay considering we are approaching the 50th anniversary of the Equal Pay Act and women are still being underpaid by as much as $35 a week?

💬 Hon JAN TINETTI: I can assure all women in this country that this is a priority for both me and the Ministry for Women, but I will point to the work that this Government has undertaken already that has made a significant impact for women in the workplace. We have, as I’ve said, released Te Mahere Whai Mahi Wāhine, the Women’s Employment Action Plan; we have the Public Service Pay Gap Action Plan 2021-2024; and we are implementing fair pay agreements, which will make a big difference to all women in the workplace.

Question No. 12—Education (School Operations)

12. to the Associate Minister of Education (School Operations): How is the Government supporting students who have experienced lost learning opportunities as a result of disruptions from COVID-19?

We know that young people have missed some critical and crucial time in the classroom throughout the last 2½ years, and we need to address the impact of that head-on. That’s why last week we announced putting $20 million towards additional teaching and tutoring services, ensuring that all our tamariki receive the supports that they need.

💬 Angela Roberts: What programmes will be funded through this announcement?

💬 Hon JAN TINETTI: This will include exam preparation, workshops, tutorials and homework, and mentoring. We know that schools are best placed to make the best decisions to target the funding where it is needed most, and we are supporting them to do just that.

💬 Angela Roberts: Who will benefit from these additional services?

💬 Hon JAN TINETTI: $17.4 million will help years 7 to 13 students to catch up on learning they may have missed due to disruptions caused by COVID-19.

💬 Erica Stanford: Why has she waited until just a few weeks before NCEA exams start to provide additional learning support to students who’ve experienced lost learning for the last 2½ years?

💬 Hon JAN TINETTI: We know from what schools are telling us that this is a critical time, and so that’s why we are responding right now with a very, very good package.

💬 Angela Roberts: What other support is being made available to students?

💬 Hon JAN TINETTI: Over $2 million will support programmes designed specifically for Māori and Pacific students. We will expand existing community-led programmes across the motu that can target the specific needs of Māori and Pacific NCEA learners in their community. Altogether, these community-led programmes will be able to help at least 2,245 year 11 to 13 Māori and Pacific learners.

💬 Angela Roberts: How will this support Māori and Pacific students?

💬 Hon JAN TINETTI: That was the question that I’ve just answered, but if we want to reiterate that, it is continuing the progress that we’ve already seen with the work that we put in at the end of 2021. It has made a big difference. We know it’s made a big difference to our Māori and Pacific learners, and we are really looking forward to seeing further progress in that area.