Oral Questions

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

Yes; in particular, the Government’s continued investment in supporting New Zealanders to become apprentices. Our Apprenticeship Boost programme has supported over 50,000 apprentices to move into or retrain their trade; 8,800 employers have signed up to the scheme so far, representing a 61 percent increase since the pandemic began.

💬 Christopher Luxon: Why did the Government send the cost of living payment to more than 6,000 people who had told IRD that their mailing address was overseas, and does he accept that this was a careless waste of taxpayers’ hard-earned money?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: As we covered in the House yesterday, the Cabinet, when it set the criteria for the cost of living payment, was extremely clear who that was to go to and that that was people in New Zealand. We continue to work with Inland Revenue to define the way in which the policy can be implemented. I’m advised that in the case of many of those people the member refers to, they may well have had two addresses.

💬 Christopher Luxon: Why didn’t the Government consider taking simple steps like checking mailing addresses before sending millions of taxpayers’ dollars to people living overseas?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I reiterate the answer that I’ve just given to the member: Cabinet was very clear in the criteria that we set. We’re working through, with Inland Revenue, how to improve that. Once upon a time, the member and his party supported people earning less than $70,000 getting some help with easing the cost of living. Nowadays, we know that their priority is simply those earning the highest amount of money getting tax cuts.

💬 Christopher Luxon: Does he accept that sending millions of dollars to people living in Sydney, London, and Dubai was an expensive mistake, and will he now apologise to taxpayers for the way he has wasted their hard-earned money?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: What would be a massive mistake is giving tax cuts to the highest-earning New Zealanders—that would be a massive waste of money on behalf of the taxpayers of New Zealand. And I just can’t believe the Leader of the Opposition would still be proposing such a silly, wasteful—wasteful—policy.

💬 Christopher Luxon: Can he confirm that the 100,000 people who got the first cost of living payment by mistake represents a loss to taxpayers of at least $11 million, and, if so, why won’t he apologise to taxpayers for wasting $11 million of their money?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The number that the member gives is not one that I can confirm in the House today.

💬 Christopher Luxon: What is the number?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: That’s exactly the work that IRD is doing right now—the work on that process. But the member needs to be aware—the member needs to be aware—that when a new payment such as this is created, IRD will work through their systems. The Cabinet was extremely clear about what we did. And I reiterate: if the member wants to go looking for waste, the member should look at his own policies.

💬 Christopher Luxon: Why does the Government think it’s acceptable to send millions of taxpayers’ dollars to overseas backpackers and bankers when, back home, here in New Zealand, Kiwis are suffering, with real wages falling 3.7 percent?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: We do not think that is acceptable, and it’s the very reason why we’re working with IRD to improve those policies. What the member needs to ask himself is whether, as a party, they are promoting a policy which would see the wealthiest New Zealanders get thousands of dollars of tax cuts a year. Also, the member needs to explain himself as to how he’s going to make his policies work. While his colleagues promise more spending, he wants to cut taxes, he wants to reduce debt—his policies don’t add up.

💬 Christopher Luxon: Will he now finally admit that instead of his rushed and convoluted cost of living payment, he should have just let Kiwis keep more of what they earn, or does he, against all the evidence, continue to believe that he can spend Kiwis’ money better than they can?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The person on the minimum wage who’s getting $27 a week as a result of the cost of living payment is going to be a lot happier with that than the two bucks a week that they would get under the National Party’s policy.

💬 David Seymour: Does he stand by his statement that Minister Nanaia Mahuta is “scrupulous in the way that she adheres to the Cabinet Manual”, and, if so, is he aware that since he made that statement, three out of four Government contracts awarded to her husband’s companies have been subject to internal investigations by the contracting agencies?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: With respect to the first part of the question: absolutely, yes. With respect to the second part of the question: the Public Service Commissioner, on the urging of both Minister Mahuta and Minister Hipkins, is looking at the way that Public Service agencies have undertaken their procurement, with respect to conflict of interest issues.

💬 Hon Chris Hipkins: Let’s talk about Bill English’s family, shall we?

💬 SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order!

💬 Chris Bishop: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I was just wondering if there’s going to be any punishment for the Government by way of extra supplementaries for the National Opposition in relation to that inopportune remark from the Leader of the House.

💬 SPEAKER: I’ve noticed since I became Speaker, and today’s been no exception, that the volume coming from my left is such that it indicates to me that maybe not every supplementary question asked is wanting an answer by the Opposition; if they did, it would be a lot lower. And I’m going to also warn the Government side as well: some of the interjections are out of order. I’ve sat here and waited for someone to take a point of order on this, and so my warning is to both sides. When I became Speaker, it was indicated to me that you wanted more robust debate at question time; that’s what you’re getting. So, to both sides, if you don’t want that any more, if you want me to intervene, I will do it, but it will be a very different look to question time, and the indication that I’ve had from many parties is that you don’t want that. You either want it or don’t want it; I’ll leave it up to you to decide.

Question No. 2—Children

2. to the Minister for Children: Has he read Treasury’s release titled “Overview of the financial position of Oranga Tamariki, the key issues it faces from a financial perspective”; and, if he has read it, does he still stand by his statement that the Government’s ability to protect and support vulnerable children is “improving”?

In answer to both parts of the question, yes.

💬 Karen Chhour: Is Treasury correct when it says that Oranga Tamariki (OT) have not sought Cabinet or joint ministerial approval to reprioritise $42 million, and, if so, how has he held Oranga Tamariki accountable for spending $42 million without proper permission?

💬 Hon KELVIN DAVIS: Decisions around that $42 million were made before I became Minister, but the current chief executive has inherited an agency where the financial systems weren’t up to scratch, and they’re well aware of my expectations in terms of making sure their systems are up to scratch.

💬 David Seymour: Point of order. Mr Speaker, I just seek your guidance. Is it permissible for a Minister to address a question by saying it was the previous Minister that did it? Surely he’s responsible for the Government in continuity.

💬 SPEAKER: Can you ask the question again, please?

💬 Karen Chhour: Is Treasury correct when it says that Oranga Tamariki have not sought Cabinet or joint ministerial approval to reprioritise $42 million; if so, how has he held OT accountable for spending $42 million without proper permission?

💬 SPEAKER: It wasn’t properly addressed.

💬 Hon KELVIN DAVIS: I stand by the answer I gave. The chief executive inherited financial systems that weren’t up to scratch. And I’ve made it very clear that they need to get those systems up to scratch.

💬 SPEAKER: Karen Chhour—I’ll give you an extra question.

💬 Karen Chhour: Is Treasury correct when it says that OT have created an ongoing cost pressure of $20 million into subsequent years directly attributable to their improper spending decisions, and, if so, will the Minister cut services or ask for more money to cover this $20 million shortfall?

💬 Hon KELVIN DAVIS: No, that shortfall has been met through baselines.

💬 Karen Chhour: Why does the Minister think Treasury stated that Oranga Tamariki is “a disparate collection of ideas, [and] not governed by a clear organisational strategy”, and does he believe that as Minister he is ultimately responsible for the organisation’s strategy?

💬 Hon KELVIN DAVIS: Oranga Tamariki was quite disparate and that is what we are doing to—we have put in place the future direction plan to make sure that it has some purpose and direction.

💬 Karen Chhour: Does the Minister agree with Treasury’s assessment that Oranga Tamariki’s cost per child significantly increased with no clear explanation or improvement in outcomes for children?

💬 Hon KELVIN DAVIS: One of Oranga Tamariki’s problems was that it actually did some good work but was terrible at telling its story. And one of the parts of that is that 20 percent of funding actually goes to 2 percent of children with the highest needs. Now, some of their needs are such that it’s not appropriate to describe them here in the House, but I’m not going to nickel and dime, or I’m not going to tell Oranga Tamariki that they should skimp on the work to protect those children or protect the workers that look after those children.

💬 Hon Grant Robertson: Does the Minister believe that the Ministry for Vulnerable Children, the precursor to Oranga Tamariki, was established with sufficiently robust financial controls?

💬 Hon KELVIN DAVIS: Well, the answer is no. And that’s what I’ve said, that the system that the current chief executive inherited, their financial systems weren’t up to scratch, and they are now making sure that those systems are improved.

💬 Karen Chhour: Does the Minister think that OT has improved and does he still stand by his statement that Oranga Tamariki is on the right track?

💬 Hon KELVIN DAVIS: Yes, absolutely. Let me just run through a couple of statistics. The section 78 uplifts are down 73 percent since 2018. The numbers of children in care have decreased by 25 percent since 2018. Māori provider funding has increased 168 percent since 2018. But here’s the statistic that I think is most important. There are some 50,000 children and their whānau that come to the attention of Oranga Tamariki every year through reports of concern or family group conferences who are not in Oranga Tamariki care. They are keeping children and their whānau out of the system and that is a big improvement.

Question No. 3—Finance

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

The country’s strong economic and financial position continues to be recognised by international rating agencies. Standard & Poor’s reaffirm New Zealand’s local currency credit rating to AAA and the foreign currency rating to AA+—both with a stable outlook. The agency once again praised the Government’s response to COVID-19, saying, “New Zealand had weathered the pandemic better than most countries in terms of health, fiscal, and economic outcomes.” We are taking a balanced approach in what is a difficult international environment that is tough for many New Zealand businesses and households.

💬 Ingrid Leary: What other reports has he seen on credit rating assessments for the economy?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Fitch Ratings upgraded New Zealand’s long-term foreign currency credit rating from AA with a positive outlook to AA+ with a stable outlook, or the long-term local currency credit rating has been reaffirmed at AA+ with a stable outlook. The country’s rating was downgraded, I would note, to AA in September 2011.

💬 Ingrid Leary: Why are credit ratings important for the New Zealand economy?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The ratings are important for ensuring that the cost of our borrowing remains low. Our AAA and AA+ ratings give people more confidence that New Zealand is a good place to invest. It helps ensure our debt-servicing costs are kept as low as possible. In a challenging global environment, our strong credit rating is a sign of confidence in the economy and that the Government’s economic plan and management is working. We are as a country well placed to support New Zealanders and to make the long-term investments we need to build a sustainable and resilient economy.

💬 Ingrid Leary: What did the reports say about the economy’s prospects?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The Standard & Poor’s report said New Zealand’s economy is performing well, and the strong rebound in economic activity and the removal of pandemic-related support measures will narrow New Zealand’s fiscal deficit. The agency said that debt levels remain low when compared with our peers internationally and that New Zealand is in a good position to deal with further challenges. The Fitch Ratings agency said the Government’s credible commitment to prudent financial management and our planned return to surplus will lead to a gradual reduction in debt relative to GDP—well below the medium of our peers. There is—even in challenging times—every reason to remain optimistic about the New Zealand economy.

Question No. 4—Finance

4. to the Minister of Finance: Does he stand by his statement that “This tighter period will require some tough choices”; if so, what tough choices, if any, has he made in relation to tax and spending?

Tēnā koe anō. I thank the member for again allowing me to highlight matters that I raised last Thursday in my speech entitled “The New Zealand Economy—The Case for Optimism”. I stand by the full statement, including the context surrounding it: “As with all of you, with the emergency COVID response behind us now, we will enter into 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. Those would do more damage than any problem we are trying to solve.” In answer to the second part of the question, every finance Minister has tough choices to make during the Budget process. For example, in Budget 2022, across all portfolios, 564 initiatives were submitted for consideration, seeking a total of $64 billion of operating funding. And with these decisions, as well as our previous decisions to run larger surpluses before the pandemic than New Zealand has ever ran, have meant that, according to the OECD, New Zealand workers have the 36th-lowest tax on labour income out of 38 OECD countries. We are working to maintain a careful balance in our Budget decisions.

💬 Nicola Willis: Did he read advice provided to him in this report from 12 April, titled “GST treatment of services supplied to managed funds”, including the warning that proposals to increase GST for managed funds would mean “KiwiSaver members would have less available when they withdraw funds to purchase a first home, or at their retirement.”, and, if so, was his agreement to progress this policy change an example of a tough choice?

💬 SPEAKER: Any part of that question.

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Exactly. In answer to the first part of the question, yes.

💬 Nicola Willis: Well, why did he decide to progress that policy in full knowledge that it would reduce the value of New Zealanders’ KiwiSaver funds?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The advice from officials that that document is included in was to pursue a policy that would mean equitable treatment of managed funds with respect to GST. There were a number of matters contained in the report around advice about what might or might not happen and how particular KiwiSaver funds might or might not respond. The public policy purpose here was to create a level playing field.

💬 Hon Chris Hipkins: Do New Zealanders have less in their KiwiSaver funds today to spend on a first home or for their retirement as a result of the decision to tax employer contributions on KiwiSaver, and, if so, who made that decision?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Undoubtedly, yes, New Zealanders do, and that was a decision undertaken by the previous National Government, along with the decision to not fund the New Zealand Superannuation Fund, denying $32 billion to that fund, which is expected to support New Zealanders in retirement. I am very proud of this side of the House’s work on retirement savings.

💬 Nicola Willis: Did he read the regulatory impact statement provided to him on 26 May, which warned that if the Government agreed to change the GST treatment of investment funds it would reduce KiwiSaver fund balances by $103 billion, and, if so, why did he authorise that policy proposal going to Cabinet?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: As the member knows, that calculation goes out to 2070, and that calculation is also based on an annual 10 percent increase in KiwiSaver fees. On this side of the House, we’re trying to drive down the cost of KiwiSaver fees.

💬 Nicola Willis: Can he confirm that, on 22 June this year, he chaired the Cabinet economic development committee, which authorised the Minister of Revenue, in consultation with the Minister of Finance, to make final policy decisions on proposals to change GST on fees charged to managed funds, and does he stand by that decision?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: It is one of my great honours to chair the Cabinet economic development committee.

Question No. 5—Police

5. to the Minister of Police: What announcements has he made on preventing at-risk youth from entering a pathway of crime?

The Better Pathways Package that we announced earlier this month extends police and Oranga Tamariki initiatives that are backed by evidence and that are known to work. They provide intensive wraparound support to at-risk young people and their wider families, and that support is provided from within their own communities. The Government is backing local providers to scale up the work that they do best, and to give young New Zealanders the best chance to succeed.

💬 Vanushi Walters: How many will benefit from these services?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Part of the Better Pathways Package targets some of the most at-risk young people; 232 families with at-risk young people will benefit from the scaling up of initiatives such as family functional therapy, intensive mentoring, and community-led youth inclusion programmes.

💬 Vanushi Walters: Why are these changes necessary?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: While overall trends around youth crime are continuing to point down, we are seeing a spike in youth offending in some key areas, particularly in the upper North Island. But we do know that punishing young people through the criminal justice system, more often than not, has led them on to future and more serious criminal offending. So these services, alongside other evidence-based initiatives in the Better Pathways Package, aim to put more young people into education or training or work in order to drive down youth crime.

💬 Vanushi Walters: What evidence has he seen that family functional therapy programmes will help at-risk youth?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Family functional therapy programmes already operate across New Zealand and they’ve led to a reduction in youth offending of up to 60 percent in some regions, as well as reducing challenging behaviours and instances of family harm. We’re supporting their expansion because they have been shown to work.

💬 Vanushi Walters: How will youth inclusion programmes help at-risk youth?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: These programmes are helping to lower the rates of youth offending and increase participation in education, training, or employment. So, as of August 2022, for example, if we look at 59 of the 61 young people who went through programmes in Ōpōtiki and Taitoko, they were more fully engaged in education and supported into employment as a result of those programmes. They work, and that’s why we’re backing them.

Question No. 6—Social Development and Employment

6. to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: What current contracts does the Ministry of Social Development have with Visions of a Helping Hand Charitable Trust in Rotorua, and what process around conflicts of interest, if any, did the ministry undertake before awarding the contracts?

The Ministry of Social Development (MSD) has one contract with Visions of a Helping Hand to provide intensive support to people who are staying in non-contracted emergency housing in Rotorua. This is to work with up to a hundred clients at any given time, to develop individual plans to support their wellbeing and long-term goals. Funding decisions for this contract are through a panel, which is made up of representatives from Rotorua Lakes Council, Korowai Health, the regional commissioner for the Bay of Plenty, and Ngāti Whakaue. MSD has advised me that there was one conflict of interest on this panel. This is not an MSD staff member and was unrelated to the Visions contract. This is managed by that member not participating in discussions or deliberations on the conflict of interest matter. I’ve also been made aware of the perceived conflict of interest involving an MSD staff member with Visions. I’ve received reassurances from MSD that this interest was declared prior to the tender process and that the staff member was not a member of the panel that awarded the contract or involved in the development of the tender by Visions. Visions of a Helping Hand also received two amounts of one-off grant funding relating to provider capability and a COVID-related Community Awareness and Preparedness Grant Fund.

💬 Chris Bishop: Does she think it’s appropriate that, when MSD awarded a contract to the Visions of a Helping Hand trust in November 2021, one of the trustees of Visions was working for MSD as a regional housing adviser in the Bay of Plenty?

💬 Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: I’ve already covered the conflicts of interest that were declared and the processes that were undertaken to ensure that the process for awarding the contract was fair and transparent.

💬 Chris Bishop: What steps did MSD take to manage the conflict of interest or perceived conflicts of interest around their awarding of this contract to Visions of a Helping Hand trust?

💬 Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: I responded to that very clearly in the answer to the primary question.

Question No. 7—Social Development and Employment

7. to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: What announcements has she made about supporting rangatahi into employment?

Last week, I announced that we’re supporting 1,000 more rangatahi into employment through new funding for He Poutama Rangatahi programmes. Seven programmes from the top of the North Island to the West Coast in the South will receive funding to engage young people in their communities who are hardest to reach. This includes young people who have experienced challenges in accessing education or who are encountering barriers that are preventing them from getting a job. We remain laser focused on supporting young people to become work-ready and helping them to tackle the barriers to employment.

💬 Anahila Kanongata'a-Suisuiki: How will this funding support both young people and the workforce?

💬 Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: He Poutama Rangatahi focuses on providing bespoke wraparound support, pastoral care, and pre-employment training for 15- to 24-year-olds. It means that young people are better supported and gain the confidence to take up job opportunities in the labour market, which we know is paying dividends. For example, filled jobs for the 15 to 24 age group rose to 131,000 in the June 2022 quarter, up 18 percent when compared with the June 2021 quarter. The focus remains on filling demand for skilled workers, improving employment, social and whānau outcomes, supporting businesses and the labour market to grow, and, fundamentally, supporting people to realise their potential.

💬 Anahila Kanongata'a-Suisuiki: How does this announcement align with the Better Pathways Package to tackle youth crime?

💬 Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: He Poutama Rangatahi was a feature of our Better Pathways Package announced recently by Minister Hipkins and myself. Whilst this additional support sits separate to that, it aims to achieve the same goal, which is to see more rangatahi in employment or training. As part of the Better Pathways Package, we announced an extension to He Poutama Rangatahi. The extension recognises the importance of disrupting the cycle of crime, addressing some of the long-term and very complex issues that children and young people face, and giving them an opportunity to re-engage with their communities.

Question No. 8—Social Development and Employment

8. to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: Does she stand by all of her statements and actions?

Yes, in the context in which they were made.

💬 Hon Louise Upston: Why did she say she wanted to remove the outstanding arrest warrant sanction, when this would allow criminals like the couple who shot at police during their 12-day crime spree to use taxpayers’ money to evade police?

💬 Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: I think the member has taken any comments that I made about that particular sanction out of context. I also have said very clearly that it is not something that is on our work programme at this point in time. I have, however, said in the past, and I will totally acknowledge that, that I don’t think the welfare system should be used as a tool for the justice system, and I think it is something that we should look at in the future.

💬 Hon Louise Upston: Hasn’t she just answered questions about resolving youth crime issues through the welfare system?

💬 Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: Supporting youth to realise the potential through the welfare system, not punishing them and pushing them closer to the justice system.

💬 Hon Louise Upston: Does she believe, then, that people on the run from police should continue to receive a full benefit?

💬 Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: As I said, I have no intention at this point in time to change the current policy.

💬 Hon Louise Upston: Given the Minister’s answer—and she’s not quite sure which way she’s sitting on this—does she agree, cutting the benefit on criminals—

💬 Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. It’s well known—and the member who’s asking the question is an experienced member—that questions are an opportunity to ask questions, not to provide a commentary on the answers given.

💬 Hon Michael Woodhouse: Speaking to that point, that is true, but the commentary that prefaced the question is led to by the failure of the Minister to answer a very straightforward question in the previous supplementary.

💬 SPEAKER: The Hon Chris Hipkins is correct. I was waiting for the question to be completed. Just on the speaking to the point of order, it was out of order in itself as well. It shouldn’t be used to have a go because you just don’t like what the point of order is about, and pointing out that it’s because the previous question wasn’t answered—a point of order should’ve been taken at that stage. It would’ve been my ruling that it was addressed, so I’ll deal with that bit. But as far as the current supplementary’s concerned, you shouldn’t make a comment, as that would be out of order.

💬 Hon Louise Upston: Will the Minister commit to retaining sanctions for those on the run from police, for as long as she is Minister, or does she believe people wilfully defying police arrest should never be sanctioned?

💬 Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: As I said, it is not on the work programme currently. I can’t guarantee that in future Governments it might not be changed. However, it’s certainly not on my agenda for now. What we are focused on is making sure that we support people to realise their potential in the welfare system, not look for every opportunity to punish them because they’re on it.

Question No. 9—Foreign Affairs

9. to the Minister of Foreign Affairs: Does she have confidence in New Zealand’s engagement with the International Seabed Authority about its management of seabed mining; if so, why?

Yes, I have confidence in the way that New Zealand is engaging with the International Seabed Authority (ISA). They are one of many. The fact that we have been consistent in arguing for a high-standards environmental protection framework evidences our commitment to ensure that no deep-sea mining happens without a level of environmental protection.

💬 Hon Eugenie Sage: With those high standards of environmental protection, how is that consistent with the ISA recently allowing a subsidiary of The Metals Company to do exploratory mining and take 3,600 tonnes of polymetallic nodules from the sea-floor between Hawaii and Mexico?

💬 Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: I acknowledge the validity of that question. New Zealand made a decision to participate in the broader role of the ISA in advocating for a high-standards environmental protection framework rather than participating with the Legal and Technical Commission, which is an independently appointed set of experts who consider applications.

💬 Hon Eugenie Sage: Does she consider there is any conflict of interest with the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research (NIWA) Principal Scientist - Fisheries being the only New Zealand delegate on the Legal and Technical Commission, and NIWA also being contracted by The Metals Company to help it with its seabed mining proposal, and, if not, why not?

💬 Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: It would be remiss of me not to acknowledge that there could be a perceived conflict of interest in that instance. However, when we consider the broader impact of the ISA in implementing a high-standards environmental protection framework, that is the area where we can make the biggest impact to state our position, but also to have influence across the whole of the international waters that is consistent with the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. The other thing is we continue to respect the territorial integrity of nations when they make their decisions in this area, which is why we participate in the ISA.

💬 Hon Eugenie Sage: Does she recognise that exploratory mining, such as recently allowed, can permanently damage sea-floor habitats and ecosystems, and, if so, does she agree with the ISA’s distinction between exploration and exploitation being arbitrary and unsupported by scientific evidence?

💬 Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: Again, I acknowledge the validity of the question, which is why, in advocating for a high-standards environmental protection framework, we also include within that having a science- and evidence-based approach in the consideration of deep-sea mining applications in international waters.

💬 Hon Eugenie Sage: Has she sought advice about Aotearoa New Zealand changing its position and calling for a moratorium on deep-sea mining alongside our Pacific neighbours such as Palau, Samoa, Fiji, and the Federated States of Micronesia, and, if not, why not?

💬 Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: Yes, I have, and I’m expecting that advice to come back to me. We’ve said previously that if negotiations do not succeed at the ISA to achieve the effective protection framework of the marine environment, New Zealand will be calling for no deep-sea mining to occur. We are encouraged with the number of Pacific nations in the region who have expressed their concern with the lack of progress within the ISA, and they have voiced that at a number of fora. So we must recognise that we would be in step with Pacific partners if we move down that road as we consider our own position in weeks to come.

Question No. 10—Women

10. to the Minister for Women: What progress can she report for Suffrage Day on women’s equality?

I’m sure the House will join me in commemorating the occasion of Monday—Suffrage Day—when we marked 129 years since women won the right to vote in this country. As the Minister for Women, I am proud to say that the Government has made progress to improve the lives of Kiwi women through passing the Equal Pay Amendment Act, rolling out pay parity to many female-dominated industries, such as early childhood education, and reducing the pay gap in the Public Service.

💬 Willow-Jean Prime: How is the Government supporting women who are mothers?

💬 Hon JAN TINETTI: Under this Government, we’ve boosted support for all parents, but we know that women still do the majority of unpaid caring responsibilities, which is why taking action such as extending paid parental leave, further funding childcare programmes, launching the Best Start payment, and reinstating the training incentive allowance will make a difference to the lives of working mums.

💬 Willow-Jean Prime: What work is the Government progressing to ensure equal employment opportunities for women?

💬 Hon JAN TINETTI: I’ve already spoken in the House on how proud I am that we’ve launched the first ever Women’s Employment Action Plan earlier this year. This plan was written by women, for women, with immediate and medium- and long-term actions to address barriers to women’s employment. This work is happening across Government agencies now.

💬 Willow-Jean Prime: How else is the Government ensuring that girls and women are getting the essential health and wellbeing services they need?

💬 Hon JAN TINETTI: We made historic moves to decriminalise abortions, introduced paid miscarriage leave, and led a comprehensive plan to end family and sexual violence. We’re also making critical investment into women’s health through providing free period products in all schools, improving cervical and breast cancer screening, covering maternal birth injuries through ACC, and investing in maternal mental health services.

💬 Willow-Jean Prime: How is she supporting women into leadership roles in the Public Service?

💬 Hon JAN TINETTI: Suffrage Day is a reminder of the tireless work of the great Kate Sheppard and Meri Te Tai Mangakāhia, who petitioned this Parliament for women’s right to vote. And 129 years on, I know that they would be pleased to see a Parliament here today full of so many talented women and that we now have 52.5 percent of women on all Government boards thanks to a concerted effort to lift women’s leadership.

Question No. 11—Police

11. to the Minister of Police: Does he stand by his statement in relation to the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Amendment Bill, “In fact, I think the Police raised some compelling arguments in favour of a lower threshold”, and, if so, did he agree with the compelling arguments Police raised?

Yes, and yes.

💬 Hon Mark Mitchell: Did he ask for the lower threshold to be included in the bill?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: If the member had listened to my answers yesterday, he would know that the Cabinet paper contained a number of options.

💬 Hon Mark Mitchell: Point of order, Mr Speaker. It’s a very direct question and I didn’t ask what was contained inside the Cabinet paper; I asked the Minister if he asked to have a lower threshold.

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Well, I can elaborate further. The advice I gave—

💬 SPEAKER: I’ll rule on the matter first, OK? Otherwise I’ll be dishing out new supplementaries. The Minister was correct in his answers yesterday, but he could be more fuller in his answers.

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I’m happy to be even fuller. The advice that I gave to Cabinet was contained in the Cabinet paper, and that contained a range of options.

💬 Hon Mark Mitchell: Did the Minister ask for the lower threshold to be included in the bill, as was his advice from his own agency?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: In the Cabinet paper, there were a range of options and that was one of them.

💬 Hon Michael Woodhouse: Point of order. Mr Speaker, I suggest to you that, on two occasions, the Minister has not addressed the question. The existence of more than one option in a Cabinet paper does not address the question of which option the Minister recommended, and that was what Mr Mitchell had asked twice.

💬 SPEAKER: It’s not quite what he asked, actually.

💬 Hon Michael Woodhouse: I’ll elaborate on my point. Mr Mitchell’s questions did not refer to options; he asked whether the $10,000 threshold was the Minister’s recommendation. The answer—to say “There were a number of options.” does not address the question.

💬 SPEAKER: It does actually address it because you can’t require the Minister to say “Yes” or “No”; he has options. It could have been fuller, but if your member’s got more supplementaries, that’s what they’re there for.

💬 Hon Mark Mitchell: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Did he ask the justice Minister, the Minister in charge of the bill, to include the $10,000 threshold in the bill?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The $30,000 threshold, as I indicated yesterday, was set by Cabinet, based on consistency with the existing threshold in the legislation, which was passed by a previous National Government.

💬 Hon Kiritapu Allan: Can the Minister confirm that all of these answers that he’s canvassed in the House were, indeed, what the Prime Minister said in the stand up when she announced this proposal?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I can, indeed.

💬 Hon Mark Mitchell: Why is it more difficult for the Police to operationalise the $30,000 threshold?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: One of the things that Police are concerned about—and I think there’ll be an opportunity to canvas this through the select committee process; there’s a variety of things that they would like to have considered—is that they don’t want to end up spending time arguing about the difference in value of different items that might be seized. So, for example, is something of a value of $25,000, or is it $30,000? So a lower threshold, or no threshold, would alleviate that concern. They’re also concerned that the $30,000 threshold would create a safe harbour, for example, where organised groups, like gangs, spread their assets out across a wider range of people, below the $30,000 threshold. I do think both of those are compelling arguments, as I indicated to the member yesterday. On the other hand, I think that there are some other arguments put forward by Crown Law and others—which, again, we can work our way through during the select committee process—around the consistency of the $30,000 threshold that is in the current legislation. That was set by the previous National Government, based on the median income at the time. In fact, if we were being consistent with the policy approach of the last National Government, that threshold would go up to $55,000. We haven’t made that decision.

💬 Hon Mark Mitchell: Why is the Minister so reluctant to advance and fight for the recommendations that the Police have put forward to actually make the bill meaningful in terms of the threshold?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I trust in the democratic process, and I hope that the select committee will be conscientious in canvassing the views of people who take the time to make submissions. This is something the Government has kept an open mind on, and we will, right the way through the process.

Question No. 12—Justice

12. to the Minister of Justice: What legislative changes to seize criminal assets and combat organised crime are being progressed?

The Government is progressing a range of changes to legislation to give Police additional tools to combat organised crime and pursue ill-gotten gains. On 6 September, I introduced the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Amendment Bill to the House, and, on 13 September, I introduced the Criminal Activity Intervention Legislation Bill. These bills build on significant progress already made this term, including the enactment of the Firearms Prohibition Orders Legislation Act, record investments in front-line police, and boosts to programmes to stop young people becoming involved in organised crime in the first place.

💬 Ginny Andersen: What will these changes mean for organised criminals who structure their affairs in order to avoid their illicit assets being restrained or forfeited?

💬 Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: The Police’s experience with criminal proceeds investigations tells us many cases involve criminals structuring their affairs to create distance between themselves—

💬 Hon Louise Upston: It should be 10.

💬 Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: —and the assets by putting property into associates’ names. It should be 10? It is currently 10,000, so thank you for agreeing to our proposal as well. The criminal proceeds bill grants Police new powers so that if it is suspected that an associate couldn’t have funded their assets legitimately, then they could be required to prove to the court how they came to possess them or face having them seized.

💬 Ginny Andersen: What will these changes mean for criminals who flee overseas but have illicit assets based here in New Zealand?

💬 Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: Currently, criminals are able to avoid the reach of the criminal proceeds regime in some cases if they are overseas and simply refuse to cooperate with the existing legal process. The criminal proceeds bill establishes a new court order for the High Court that will allow authorities to pursue and seize the New Zealand - based assets of criminals no matter where they are in the world, unless they can provide proof within two months that they obtained their property legally.

💬 Ginny Andersen: What other changes are being made to reinforce the criminal proceeds regime?

💬 Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: The criminal proceeds bill also fixes two technical issues by closing a gap in the legislation so that the Official Assignee, the Government body that manages assets restrained under the criminal proceeds regime, can hold seized property longer than 28 days while the court considers an application for a restraining order and, secondly, by protecting the integrity of KiwiSaver by eliminating the potential for criminals to hide illegal funds in their KiwiSaver accounts by making funds subject to civil forfeiture orders.

💬 Ginny Andersen: How will the Criminal Activity Intervention Legislation Bill help make communities safer?

💬 Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: The criminal activity bill gives effect to our announcements made in July and will enhance community safety by creating new powers and offences for Police to target criminal offending, including those commonly associated with gang activities such as the possession and discharging of weapons and firearms, money-laundering and suspicious possession of cash, and dangerous behaviour on our roads. In 2020, we campaigned on working harder and smarter to keep our communities safer, break the cycle of offending, and tackle the root causes of crime. And that, across a range of areas, is exactly what we are doing.