Oral Questions

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

Yes, particularly this Government’s decision not to prioritise $11 billion on tax cuts targeted to the wealthiest New Zealanders and instead focus on targeted support for New Zealand families to soften the blow from this global crisis. This has enabled us to provide additional support to New Zealand households through the family tax credit, increasing childcare subsidies, higher minimum wage, support for winter energy bills, longer parental leave, the Best Start payment, higher benefit payments, lower fuel costs through the fuel tax reductions, supporting the supply of a record number of new homes, and encouraging more people into work than ever before, all while reducing Government spending back to the historic average as COVID-19 stimulus and support concludes. These are turbulent times, but I stand by this Government’s response.

💬 Christopher Luxon: Does she agree that her Government’s decision to unleash a tsunami of cash on the economy means the Reserve Bank has to smash families for the sixth time this year with even higher interest rates just to keep up?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I think we need to push through the rhetoric that is coming from the Leader of the Opposition, which, quite frankly, is inaccurate. I would refer back to the percentage of GDP that represents Crown spending right now: one of the largest drops that we’ve seen, from 35 percent to 31 percent. Compare that to the National Government under the global financial crisis, whose spending in 2009 was 34 percent of GDP.

💬 Christopher Luxon: Why, when the Reserve Bank is putting their foot on the brakes with rising interest rates, is her Minister of Finance keeping his foot pushed down on the accelerator with unprecedented spending, and isn’t that just a recipe for economic burnout?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I again refer to the facts, which seem to be absent in the member’s question. Again, as a percentage of GDP, Government spending, Crown spending, sits at 31 percent. That is, of course, because the COVID spending and supports have come away, as planned by this Government, whilst at the same time we have put in place targeted support. Again, contrast that with the National Party’s plan of $11 billion of spending targeting the wealthiest New Zealanders, which we know would make inflation worse.

💬 Christopher Luxon: What does she say to the homeowner with a $700,000 mortgage who, after re-fixing their mortgage rate, is now paying almost $600 more each and every week in interest because her Government is spending a billion dollars more every week to feed its addiction to spending?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Again, I believe that most New Zealanders would be looking around the world right now and seeing the circumstances that all economies find themselves in—the IMF just over the weekend predicting that in terms of global growth, there’s a 25 percent chance it will slow to 2 percent or less and that we will see in emerging financial markets 30 percent of banks in distress. These are tough times; New Zealand is not alone in that. That is why in this country our Government is focused on supporting those New Zealanders through those difficult times.

💬 Christopher Luxon: Does she agree with the IMF, who came out yesterday saying that “fiscal restraint can lower inflation while reducing debt.”, and, if so, why won’t her Minister of Finance rein in his addiction to spending?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Actually, I met with the director-general of the IMF, and what we are doing is very much in line with their policy prescription: targeted support for New Zealanders. In fact, one of the specific things that they have suggested is, for instance, childcare subsidies, which is exactly what this Government has done. One of the things they advise against: broad-based tax cuts which would add stimulus and make inflation worse.

💬 Christopher Luxon: Why can’t she just concede that her Government has wasted billions of dollars on failed programmes like the cost of living payment, the RNZ-TVNZ merger, and report after report on failed transport projects like light rail?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: The gall of being told that the cost of living payment is a waste of money for those on $70,000 or less but $11 billion on a tax cut for those on under $180,000 is not—I totally reject that. I stand by our response; now he needs to stand by his.

💬 Christopher Luxon: Is it seriously her view that widespread job shortages and record Government spending have had no impact on inflation, and, if so, why does she think Westpac is saying, “the economy has become increasingly overheated, with inflation pressures boiling over in every corner of the country.”?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: You could also add every corner of the world. New Zealand is in the lower half of the pack of 38 nations in the OECD. In fact, relative to others, we appear to have peaked when others continue to climb. I know the member would like to think that New Zealand is not affected by the global volatility we are seeing, but we are. But what protects us is making sure that we have low unemployment, support for, for instance, our targeted sectors that provide employment, record-low unemployment, and support for our exporters. We stand proudly on our record there.

💬 Christopher Luxon: Does she take any responsibility for record-high domestic inflation, or will her record reflect that when Kiwis were suffering, it was always just someone else’s fault?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Again, I refer back to my earlier answer. The idea that somehow we are the only ones experiencing high rates of inflation—we are not. It just demonstrates to me the way that this member has insulated himself from what is occurring. What we take absolute responsibility for is our support for New Zealanders. That is why we’ve reduced the cost of fuel, it is why we’ve increased the family tax credit, and it’s why we’re increasing childcare subsidies. The member proposes to give those same families $2 a week and make inflation worse.

💬 David Seymour: Can the Prime Minister see the problem with every world leader saying inflation is worse than some other country and none of them doing anything effective to actually tame it?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Again, I come back to my response. The idea that we are doing nothing in the face of inflation is patently wrong. But, of course, it’s not just about fiscal policy; monetary policy plays a role too.

💬 David Seymour: Point of Order! Mr Speaker, my question was very clear. It was “nothing effective”. Now, the Prime Minister said she wasn’t doing nothing, but she didn’t address if she was doing anything effective.

💬 SPEAKER: I think you’re wrong. She did address it.

Question No. 2—Finance

2. to the Minister of Finance: Talofa lava, Mr Speaker. What recent reports has he seen on the New Zealand economy?

In its latest note on New Zealand, the OECD is projecting the economy to slow in 2023 due to global uncertainty and lower domestic demand. It is forecasting economic activity to moderate to 1 percent next year and warns that risks to the projection are to the down side. Nevertheless, New Zealand finds itself in a good position to face the challenges ahead and support our people to blunt the sharp edges of the global economic slowdown. The OECD noted that unemployment is close to historic lows, wages are growing, and the reopening of borders has contributed to a surge in tourists. The Government’s books are in a strong position, with debt levels among the lowest in the world. This will be a tough period for many New Zealand households, but our country is in a strong position to manage it.

💬 Barbara Edmonds: What did the report say about New Zealand’s public finances and its impact on the economy?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The OECD said fiscal consolidation was appropriate to help reduce demand pressures and make sure that New Zealand was on track to meet a Budget surplus target. For the 2022 June financial year, core Crown expenses were below forecast. Excluding COVID emergency spending, expenses were about 31 percent of GDP, which is in line with the historic average. The fiscal impulse is forecast to turn contractionary in the current June 2023 financial year and remain so throughout the remainder of the forecast period.

💬 Barbara Edmonds: What further reports has he seen on the global economy and its impact on the New Zealand economy?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The OECD is forecasting that global economic growth will slow to 2.2 percent in 2023 and said the world was now paying a high price for Russia’s unprovoked, unjustifiable, and illegal war of aggression against Ukraine, which is resulting in high levels of inflation and energy supply shortages, particularly in Europe. The OECD is projecting that the UK will contract 0.4 percent next year, while the US will grow 0.5 percent, and Europe by 1.8 percent. The 38-nation OECD will expand by 0.8 percent.

💬 Barbara Edmonds: What reports has he seen on the role of the export sector in the economy?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The export sector is continuing to support the economy. Statistics New Zealand reported that exports rose 14 percent to $7.1 billion in October, compared to the same month a year earlier. On an annual basis, exports rose 14.5 percent to $71 billion. The sector is continuing to show its resilience, but as I’ve noted previously in the House, what happens overseas will impact on New Zealand’s prospects. If our trading partners do move into recession, this will affect the demand for New Zealand’s goods. As a Government, we will continue to support New Zealanders and soften the impact of these global shocks, while investing for the long term in health, education, housing, and addressing climate change. We will responsibly manage our finances and make sure that, as New Zealanders face difficult times ahead, we are there to support them.

Question No. 3—Education (School Operations)

3. to the Associate Minister of Education (School Operations): Would she consider requiring attendance officers to report their data to the Ministry of Education; if not, how is she evaluating whether the $16.5 million per annum spent on the Attendance Service is delivering results?

To the first part of the question, they already are required to do this. To give further assurance to the member, the Attendance Service providers are required to provide an annual business plan, six monthly reporting, and an annual report to the Ministry of Education. This also includes monitoring on the key performance indicators set out in their contracts, such as the number and duration of non-enrolled cases and the work to get them back into education. This information informs whether each attendance provider is delivering on their contract terms.

💬 Chris Baillie: Is the Minister concerned by the fact that 108 schools who could have submitted their attendance data for term 2 chose not to provide this information to the ministry and, if so, is she considering requiring schools to report their attendance data in 2023?

💬 Hon JAN TINETTI: We have a long historical time series that goes back to 2011. Compulsory data collection isn’t on the current work programme. We have enough data to give us a nationwide picture of where things are at.

💬 Chris Baillie: Does the Minister think it is good enough that less than half of the 13,739 non-enrolment notification cases and just over half of the 11,031 unjustified absence cases referred to the Attendance Service from 1 January to late October have since returned to school, and, if not, is the Minister considering any changes to attendance adviser contract requirements in 2023?

💬 Hon JAN TINETTI: Returning to school is one option for those young people. We also work on getting them into other forms of education and employment.

💬 Chris Baillie: Does the Minister believe that spending $1 million on a campaign to remind parents of the importance of school attendance was a good use of taxpayer money, and, if so, what metrics have been implemented to measure the effectiveness of this awareness campaign?

💬 Hon JAN TINETTI: That money came out of baseline funding. If we have laser-sharp focus on getting our young people back into education, training, and employment, we are seeing that those numbers are starting to change.

💬 David Seymour: Point of order, Mr Speaker. The question was whether they got value for money. The Minister said that it came out of baseline funding, that they had a laser-like focus, and that the numbers were trying to change, but she never addressed whether that particular expenditure had been effective in any way.

💬 SPEAKER: I counted three—I’ll get the member to remind me of the question, but I’m pretty sure I noted at least two legs to that.

💬 Chris Baillie: Does the Minister believe that spending $1 million on a campaign to remind parents of the importance of school attendance was a good use of taxpayer money, and, if so, what metrics have been implemented to measure the effectiveness of this awareness campaign?

💬 SPEAKER: There are two parts. The first part was addressed.

💬 Chris Baillie: If the Government was able to publish the previous day’s COVID cases every single day, why does it take 15 weeks to publish attendance data, and will the Government commit to publishing attendance data daily?

💬 Hon JAN TINETTI: This year is no different from any other year. The Ministry of Education has published the data from term 2 in exactly the same time as it has in every other year since 2011. One of the reasons that it does take so long for the ministry to publish that data is to make sure that that data is correct, and to make sure that we have a good data set.

Question No. 4—Finance

4. to the Minister of Finance: Does he stand by his statement that “many New Zealanders will be facing increased mortgage payments over the coming year”, and has he sought advice to quantify the financial impact record interest-rate rises would have on New Zealanders?

💬 SPEAKER: And that’s to the Minister of Finance, the Hon Grant Robertson.

I stand by my full statement that “As we’ve discussed before when the member has raised these kinds of examples, it would very much depend on the specific circumstances of that household. What we do know is that many New Zealanders will be facing increased mortgage payments over the coming year. That’s why it is a good thing that average hourly earnings are tracking just above inflation at the moment. That’s why it’s a good thing that we’ve increased the minimum wage. That’s why it’s a good thing that we’ve provided additional support for low and middle income households—things that the National Party has opposed.” In response to the second part of the question, there is no need for me to seek this advice as I regularly receive reports on the financial system, its stability, and its impact on New Zealand households. In response to these kinds of reports, the Government is providing additional support to New Zealand households through the family tax credit, higher minimum wage, higher benefit payments, lower fuel costs, and encouraging more people into work than ever before.

💬 Nicola Willis: Will the Reserve Bank’s record interest rate hike today worsen the cost of living crisis that New Zealanders face?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Well, again, in answer, as I answered to the primary question, New Zealand households experience these things differently. Certainly for those people—

💬 Christopher Luxon: Are you seriously not going to say “no”?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: —who will be re-fixing their—I’m not, Mr Luxon; just listen. Mr Luxon, just listen. For those households—for those households—who experience the need to re-fix their mortgage over the next couple of years, they will be facing significant increases in their costs and cost of living pressures. That’s why, as a Government, we’ve committed ourselves to making sure that we relieve that cost of living pressure, particularly on those who feel it the most: low and middle income households. That is the policy’s prescription that we prefer. The member may well prefer to give tax cuts to the wealthiest New Zealanders as a response to this—tax cuts that even Don Brash thinks are a bad idea.

💬 Nicola Willis: Does the Minister think it’s appropriate to choose this moment to engage in political point-scoring—[Laughter from the Government side of the House]

💬 SPEAKER: Order! Yeah, silence when questions are being asked.

💬 Nicola Willis: Shall I start again?

💬 SPEAKER: Yes, if you like.

💬 Nicola Willis: Does the Minister think it is appropriate to choose this moment to engage in political point-scoring when, across the country today, tens of thousands of New Zealanders have learnt that in the next year they will have to find thousands of extra dollars to make their mortgage payments each week?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Lessons on political point-scoring from the Olympic champion in that regard are not ones that I’m going to accept. On this side of the House, we take the plight of New Zealanders seriously. That’s why we have stepped up continually to support New Zealand households through what is a very, very difficult time. If what the member wants is to avoid political point-scoring, let’s have a proper debate about a global inflation crisis where every central bank in the world had to deal with it; where every Government had to undertake fiscal policy to deal with it, at the end of which, on fiscal indicators, we find ourselves with one of the lowest levels of debt in the OECD; where we have the lowest level of unemployment on record here; and where, on an inflation measure, we’re the 10th lowest out of 38 OECD countries. That would be a proper policy debate, not political point-scoring.

💬 Nicola Willis: What does the Minister take more seriously: name-calling his political opponents, or the fact that the Reserve Bank has just forecast that New Zealand will go into negative growth next year and stay there for four quarters, spelling a deepening of the cost of living crisis for every single New Zealander?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I take seriously the fact that New Zealand, as an open trading economy, will always suffer the impact of what happens around the world. I take seriously supporting New Zealanders through that, to make sure that those who are the most affected—on low and middle incomes—get support; not those who are on the highest incomes. As I have said in this House many, many times, 2023 will be a difficult and challenging year for New Zealand. Our starting point is better than most other countries: New Zealanders are in work while facing these issues; New Zealanders are seeing their average hourly earnings rise ahead of inflation. This will be a challenging time—as it happens, the Reserve Bank are forecasting that growth in the last two quarters of this year will be very, very strong, and yes, there will be a period where it comes off from there, but New Zealand, overall, remains resilient and strong in the face of this.

💬 Nicola Willis: Does the Minister understand that non-tradeable domestic inflation here in New Zealand is currently the highest it has been since records began, and that this measure is something he can’t blame on Vladimir Putin?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: As we’ve discussed numerous times in the House, non-tradeable inflation is not a direct corollary with domestic inflation. I’ve already worked the member through the issues around the construction sector and the imported inflation that occurs in what is something that is largely seen as a non-tradeable item. What I do acknowledge is that we are now in a period of time where inflation is much higher than we have experienced in recent years; it is an issue that all New Zealanders will feel the consequences of. What I would say is that a responsible Government strikes a balance between making sure that we do the things we can to reduce that, but also to continue to support the low and middle income New Zealanders most affected by it—that is not the member’s policy.

💬 Nicola Willis: Is the Minister aware that, unlike in many of the countries he likes to compare New Zealand with, the Reserve Bank is forecasting that inflation is yet to peak here at home, and will hit 7.5 percent in the coming months—right at the same time as New Zealanders will be paying record mortgage payments, and when will that Minister present a plan to address it?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Those countries around the world that we seek to compare ourselves to have inflation—in the case of the UK, up over 10 percent. They’ve had inflation in the case of Australia, likely to reach at 8 percent by the end of the year. We continue to find ourselves in a position where we have the tenth lowest inflation out of 38 countries in the OECD. The cost of living pressures that we see are strong. Now, the member might like to think about the fact that actually, the actions that the Government has taken—for example, reducing the fuel excise duty and having half-price public transport—have contributed to lowering the Consumers Price Index.

💬 David Seymour: Does the Minister of Finance accept that the problem with inflation is now much worse than anticipated, say, six months ago, and if so, what changes in policy is the Minister prepared to make that he hadn’t announced six months ago?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: It’s certainly true that the forecasts around inflation have been worse now than they have in the past. The member will also be aware that we are heading towards a Budget where our percentage of spending as a GDP will continue to go down. That is the approach we’re taking; the fiscal consolidation that’s needed. The member doesn’t get to rewrite history. New Zealand was able to get through COVID by making sure we looked after lives and livelihoods; I stand by that approach. The period of time now in front of us is one where we do need fiscal consolidation, and that is what will occur.

💬 Nicola Willis: Why is it that in this moment—when millions of New Zealanders are now worrying about how they are going to afford their mortgage repayments, while other costs continue to grow—all that Minister can offer is excuses, no accountability, and no solutions?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: What this side of the House is able to offer New Zealanders is record low unemployment, wages growing faster than inflation, an economy that has actually grown through COVID—and when we do have to deal with the economy slowing down, we are in a much stronger position than almost any other country. On this side of the House, we understand it’s a balance: we’ve got to look after New Zealanders, we’ve got to invest in public services, and we do need to return to some form of fiscal consolidation. All of that’s a balance. The member’s policy of tax cuts for the wealthiest New Zealanders will make that situation much, much worse.

Question No. 5—Health

5. to the Minister of Health: What is Te Aho o Te Kahu—Cancer Control Agency doing to improve men’s health?

Te Aho o Te Kahu—Cancer Control Agency is currently undertaking a large, proactive programme of work to transform the way cancer treatment services are provided in New Zealand. We know that prostate cancer is a serious issue for men in this country. It’s the second most commonly diagnosed cancer in New Zealand men. Every year, nearly 4,000 men are diagnosed, and about 650 die from the disease—the third highest cause of death after lung and bowel cancers. The work of Te Aho is to support those diagnosed with cancer to access high-quality care, regardless of who they are or where they live. Specifically, in relation to prostate cancer, this is about ensuring the evidence-based guidance to improve diagnosis and inform the need to improve specialist cancer treatment and support services. This will improve how all men connect with, and journey through, the cancer care system, but will be of particular benefit to Māori and Pacific men and their whānau.

💬 Dr Duncan Webb: What work is being done to improve cancer-related health outcomes for Pacific men?

💬 Hon ANDREW LITTLE: Cancer disproportionately affects Pacific communities in New Zealand. This means many aiga grow up without their fathers, brothers, sons, uncles, and grandfathers, because of the inequitable access to cancer treatment for these communities. Te Aho have been working with community partners, such as Moana Connect, to better overcome the barriers Pacific men face in getting cancer treatment. This research, which will be released early in 2023, will inform further work by Te Aho to identify opportunities to improve cancer coordination and support or care for Pacific peoples during cancer treatment.

💬 Dr Duncan Webb: What work’s being done to improve cancer-related health outcomes for Māori men?

💬 Hon ANDREW LITTLE: We know that Māori have worse cancer survival rates than other New Zealanders, particularly Māori men. Māori are 20 percent more likely than non-Māori to develop cancer, and twice as likely to die from it. These outcomes are not good enough, and that’s why the work of Te Aho, in conjunction with Te Aka Whai Ora—Māori Health Authority, is so important. Te Aho works closely with Hei Āhuru Mōwai—Māori Cancer Leadership Aotearoa. Their members sit on many of Te Aho’s major advisory groups, targeting advice towards equitable cancer outcomes for Māori, as well as access to Māori cancer expertise. The Government is also taking further steps, as announced in the Budget this year. From 2023, we are lowering the bowel-screening age for Māori and Pacific people, from 60 to 50 years of age. This will help stem the longstanding inequities these communities face in accessing such vital health services compared to other New Zealanders.

💬 Dr Duncan Webb: What else can be done to support improvements in men’s health?

💬 Hon ANDREW LITTLE: Well, I’m glad that member asked. As with every Movember, growing a mo is the biggest way to show your support, or anyone’s support, for this very cause, and, of course, I am someone who already sports a fair amount of facial hair myself. As a cancer survivor myself—prostate cancer—it is fantastic to see such support some blokes are doing across the Chamber to help raise not only awareness but also funding for men’s health.

💬 Dr Duncan Webb: In light of that answer and in view of Movember being a health initiative, does the Minister have a view of which mo is the best in the House?

💬 SPEAKER: In so far as he has ministerial responsibility!

💬 Hon ANDREW LITTLE: Mr Speaker, naturally your good self, as the top contender, but I am thankful for all members who have participated in this very important gesture.

Question No. 6—Broadcasting and Media

6. to the Minister for Broadcasting and Media: Can he name any new services which can be provided under his public media merger but cannot be provided without it; if so, what are they?

The bill ensures that current TVNZ and RNZ media services will remain. But I thank the member for catching up and realising that there will be new services that come from a new public media entity. That could not occur within the current funding and structure. As that member has identified, the new entity will be able to create new services that ensure our stories, our news, and our voices can continue to be told in a changing media landscape. What these new services are won’t be determined by me—as the Opposition know—as the Minister, because we wouldn’t want to interfere in things; they will be determined by the new entity. That is only right.

💬 Damien Smith: Point of order, Mr Speaker. The question was very specific and on notice, asking what new services specifically were able to be provided by the merger but can’t be provided without it. It was not asking about what they will do, which I’m aware is up to the entity to decide, but what this merger enables them to do that they can’t do without it.

💬 SPEAKER: Yeah, I’m going to agree with you, and I shall give the member two extra supplementaries to examine the Minister.

💬 Damien Smith: So, Minister, if it can’t provide new services that you can’t outline, why are you spending hundreds of millions of dollars, as well as creating huge uncertainty for employees and the industry, all for an entity that can’t even provide any new services, as specified?

💬 Hon WILLIE JACKSON: There will be new services. I cannot stipulate what the programmes are going to be. I’m not the programme director. That will be the role of the management and the new entity. Why we are spending on this merger is because the Opposition have underspent on media for decades, as they have underspent on health, education, employment, and everything.

💬 SPEAKER: Order! That was a straight-up question and the Minister went totally political on it; he shouldn’t do that.

💬 Damien Smith: In light of not answering that, why does the Minister repeatedly refer to the need to compete with international streaming services as justification for the $360 million merger, and has the Minister been briefed that TVNZ already runs a streaming service without any need for his expensive merger?

💬 Hon WILLIE JACKSON: I’ve been briefed by TVNZ. I meet with the CEO quite regularly. So, yes, absolutely. It’s about survival—it’s about survival. The global giants are applying pressure like we’ve never seen before. The way that New Zealanders are consuming their media is quite different. So we have to build a sustainable media entity, a strong media entity, a New Zealand public media entity that needs to be invested in. We will be doing that and we will be doing that over the next few years.

💬 David Seymour: Point of order. Mr Speaker, the Minister didn’t actually address the question. The question was about whether he was aware that there was already a streaming service. He said he met with the CEO, he said it was about survival; he didn’t acknowledge whether he was aware of that or not, or address it.

💬 SPEAKER: I will ask the member to ask that question again, and we’ll have the answer.

💬 Damien Smith: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Why does the Minister repeatedly refer to the need to compete with international streaming services as a justification for the $360 million merger, and has the Minister been briefed that TVNZ already runs a streaming service without any need for his expensive merger?

💬 Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Yes, I have been briefed by TVNZ, and I am aware of what they’re doing in terms of their streaming services. I will repeat again: this is an opportunity in terms of survival. Our media is under pressure. Our major media, TVNZ, has been losing money for a number of years now. We need to support them. We need to get a New Zealand voice out. New Zealanders need to see themselves; they need to hear themselves, Mr Luxon, and we’re proud to set up this new merger.

💬 Damien Smith: I look forward to seeing the Minister on Survivor.

💬 SPEAKER: Order! No, don’t start off a question like that. You’ve just lost one.

💬 Damien Smith: Does the Minister intend his merged entity to compete with Netflix, and, if so, is competing with a $100 billion multinational corporation to which New Zealanders already have access seriously a good use of hundreds of millions of Kiwis’ hard-earned dollars?

💬 Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Again, answering the member’s question, we do not want to roll over for global giants. We want to set up and strengthen the public media entity here. This is what this is about. I’m disappointed that that member wants to give away the New Zealand story to global giants. It’s not about that. It’s about looking after New Zealand media—TVNZ and RNZ coming together—investing once and setting the foundation and setting up the future for New Zealand media. This is a great investment. It’s sad the National Party has not invested properly. Shame on the National Party.

💬 David Seymour: Point of order, Mr Speaker. The poor National Party have had nothing to do with the questioning. It’s completely unfair to bring them into the debate and is contrary to Speakers’ rulings.

💬 SPEAKER: And normally I would agree with that, but the out of order interjections coming across are bound to get a reaction, and they did.

💬 Damien Smith: Why has his merger bill not been subject to cost-benefit analysis, and is it because using $360 million of taxpayers’ money to compete with several hundred-billion-dollar companies would have been laughed out of Treasury as a horror show?

💬 Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Can you repeat the question, please?

💬 Damien Smith: I’m happy to repeat it. Why was his merger bill not subject to a cost-benefit analysis, and is it because using $360 million of taxpayer money to compete with multinational companies would have been laughed out of Treasury as a horror show?

💬 Hon WILLIE JACKSON: No, that’s not correct. It was deemed that it was not necessary to go down that track. That’s what our business analysis told us, and the reality [Interruption]—this is good money being spent. The reality is that the National Party would invest only $90 million. We want to put a bit more money in, as we do in health, education, employment—right across the board. This is about preserving the New Zealand identity, not getting rid of it, as the ACT Party would do, and the National Party.

💬 SPEAKER: Have you got another supplementary?

💬 Damien Smith: I think so. Would it be more cost-effective, Minister, that his expensive merger should have been replaced with just buying New Zealanders all a subscription to Netflix?

💬 Hon WILLIE JACKSON: No, not at all. The member is just not getting this. Unfortunately, he’s too close to the National Party. But the reality is that we have a media that is under threat at the moment, losing money everywhere—losing money, losing funding, under pressure—so we have to start a new strategy. That’s what the merger is about. It’s about bringing Radio New Zealand and TVNZ together so that we can put a great foundation in place, and, sadly, that member is not getting it. But I am happy to speak with him after this session if he likes.

💬 David Seymour: Point of order, Mr Speaker. That repeated reference to a party not involved in the questioning in that instance means that the Minister is not only breaking the Speakers’ rulings; he’s doing it knowingly after you’ve just told him not to do it.

💬 SPEAKER: Yeah, let me think about this. There are multiple things going on in this particular question and the answer. The member is right, but I’d go back to my former comment that there are also interjections coming across that are probably inviting some of the out-of-order comments that the Minister has made. Repeated requests to the Minister don’t seem to have worked, and I maybe have to think of a new strategy and implement that.

💬 David Seymour: Another question, Mr Speaker?

💬 SPEAKER: Yeah.

💬 David Seymour: On that reading, the ACT Party is actually a victim of the National Party’s heckling, and perhaps should be considered for the awarding of additional supplementaries.

💬 SPEAKER: I’ll come back to you on that one.

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: Speaking to the point of order, Mr Speaker. Well, perhaps also the National Party should get a supplementary to be able to defend itself. The fact is too that if you were to look at the Hansard—and I know that you make an effort to do so afterwards—I think you’ll find that the reference to the National Party came well ahead of any heckling that was delivered from this side. I’ve been listening very carefully because I thought that yesterday you made some interesting comments—not necessarily rulings—but I don’t think that they were particularly helpful for the House. I’ve listened very carefully to the content and then part of the content going into our questions today, to make sure that we didn’t get into the same position as your comments suggested yesterday, but in this case Mr Jackson went out of his way in his first answer to bring in the National Party.

💬 Hon Chris Hipkins: Speaking to the point of order, Mr Speaker. I think there are a number of observations one could make about this particular question exchange, one of which is that a very strict interpretation of the Standing Orders would result in a number of the supplementary questions that have been asked being ruled out of order on the basis that they don’t comply with the rules of Parliament because of the various assertions that they have contained within them. Secondly, the National Party have been interjecting constantly throughout the answers to those questions, and when one interjects in the way that the Opposition have been, they do have to expect some degree of response from the Minister answering a question. They are the ones who have chosen to involve themselves in the question. But perhaps the third and most important point, Mr Speaker, is that you are the sole judge of these matters, not the Opposition.

💬 SPEAKER: I will take the time to review both Hansard and the recording of this question, and others, actually. It’s very difficult to keep up with everything that goes on in the House when you want the level of robust exchange that the House wants. I would encourage the Minister, though, that he doesn’t have to make these questions last longer than they really should, and if I did make a comment, he seems to revel in it. Probably I shouldn’t say that, but I’m just stating the obvious. Are there further supplementaries?

💬 Damien Smith: No.

Question No. 7—Environment

7. to the Minister for the Environment: Will the repeal and replacement of the RMA reduce costs and speed up consenting processes; if so, how?

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Yes, processes under the new resource management system will deliver considerable cost and time savings. More than 100 district and regional plans under the Resource Management Act (RMA) will be replaced by 15 Natural and Build Environment Act (NBA) plans. More activities will be permitted, fewer consents will be needed. Clearer notification and information requirements, independent hearings panels for plans, better designations, and narrower appeals will reduce planning delays, costs, and re-litigation. A fast-track pathway, which has already shown to reduce consenting times by 15 months, will be made permanent for infrastructure and significant housing developments, so repeal and replacement of the RMA will be faster, cheaper, and better for Kiwis.

Tāmati Coffey: When will we first see the improvements from the repeal and replacement of the RMA?

💬 Hon DAVID PARKER: A draft national planning framework is already being prepared and will include a pro-infrastructure chapter, which will be released upon the Act being passed. This will then come into force in 2024, which will enable the first three regions to prepare their regional spatial strategies, which will take about two years and will then enliven the new designation powers. Fast track, which currently expires in 2023, is proposed to be extended so there is no gap between the current fast track and its permanent version under the NBA.

Tāmati Coffey: How will reducing the number of district and regional plans, from more than 100 to 15, reduce compliance costs?

💬 Hon DAVID PARKER: Well, this will substantially reduce the number of plans, obviously, and it will also enable better-quality plans and greater consistency and therefore regulatory predictability. In Greater Wellington, for example, there will no longer be separate plans for Porirua, Lower Hutt, Upper Hutt, and Wellington City, and developers will be able to rely upon one plan across the region with provisions that become more consistent. More activities will be permitted in NBA plans with standards avoiding bespoke conditions. This, too, will result in fewer notified consents and simpler processes.

Tāmati Coffey: How much is the repeal and replacement of the RMA estimated to cut costs by?

💬 Hon DAVID PARKER: The new resource management system will deliver economic as well as environmental benefits. For every dollar spent, it’s expected to deliver benefits of between $2.58 and $4.90. On a conservative estimate, the benefit to users will be a 19 percent cost saving—or about $149 million a year, which equals to more than $10 billion in cost savings over 30 years. In addition, unduly restrictive planning restraints have contributed to New Zealand’s urban land and housing prices being amongst the least affordable in the OECD, and this will help turn that around too.

Question No. 8—Police

8. to the Minister of Police: What is the percentage increase of ram raids since 2018, and how many businesses have had security systems installed through the Small Retailer Crime Prevention Fund?

As the member is aware, there is no specific offence code for a ram raid, so the data available involves mining the text of all retail burglary descriptions. That data suggests that there were 84 ram raid - style burglaries in 2018 and 517 as of 21 November 2022—a 515 percent increase. In response to the second part of the question, as of 17 November, a total of 240 stores have been contacted by staff, 153 have now completed a police assessment, and a total of 362 security interventions have been approved and allocated to contractors. That includes 75 fog cannons or upgrades, 62 security sirens, 41 alarms, 53 CCTV systems or system upgrades, 40 bollards or similar security measures, and 36 roller doors. Many stores are also receiving improved lighting, strengthened windows, mirrors, and counter screens.

💬 Hon Mark Mitchell: Point of order, Mr Speaker. My primary question was very clear. It asked how many systems have been installed.

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Mr Speaker, I can elaborate further on that. I don’t have data on the number of those projects that I’ve just mentioned that have been completed. The list that I gave is the number that have been approved and now sit with contractors. As to when they are completed, that will be a matter between the contractor and the store concerned.

💬 Hon Mark Mitchell: Point of order, Mr Speaker. That is a primary question on notice. The Minister did have time to actually gather that information and data and bring it to the House. He should know, as the police Minister, how many security systems have been installed.

💬 SPEAKER: When the Minister elaborated, he actually answered.

💬 Hon Mark Mitchell: Why has a small business in Auckland had to endure 42 ram raids in the past 18 months and spend a quarter of a million dollars fixing the damage caused by ram raiders during a cost of living crisis?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I am concerned about the increased incidences of ram raids, and that’s why the Government is taking proactive action to ensure that we’re following up on every one of those instances. No businesses should have to go through that experience.

💬 Hon Mark Mitchell: How can the Minister tell the House that he’s taking proactive action when he can’t even come here and tell us how many security systems have actually been installed for ram-raided businesses?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: As I indicated, there are 362 security interventions that have been approved for installation. When that actually happens sits between the contractor who’s been approved to do the work and the business themselves. In terms of the individual number of stores, the 153 stores, I don’t believe it’s a good use of police time to ring 153 of them every day to ask whether the work’s been finished yet.

💬 Hon Mark Mitchell: Well, is he suggesting that it’s a good use of police time to be going out and surveying stores to have bollards installed instead of actually being proactive and stopping the ram raids?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: If the member is now saying that we should stop this work, that would be an interesting argument for the Opposition to be making.

💬 Hon Mark Mitchell: What support, if any, can he give to struggling business owners who can no longer afford insurance to protect themselves from a relentless crime wave?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I’ve just indicated in quite a lot of detail the support that is currently being provided, and that is across the stores that have had the assessments completed to date, and that work continues.

💬 Hon Mark Mitchell: Point of order, Mr Speaker. The question was about what support he can offer to business owners that can no longer afford insurance to protect their business because the premiums have gone so high, because of the amount of ram raids currently happening in this country.

💬 SPEAKER: Yeah, and that was addressed. Question No. 9—

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: Point of order! Mr Speaker, I’d ask you to also have a look at the answer given to Mr Mitchell’s primary question. The question on the sheet very clearly states, “how many businesses have had security systems installed through the Small Retailer Crime Prevention Fund?” Now, someone is paying out terminal invoices from that fund. It must be something the Minister knows and, in four hours of preparation, it’s not unreasonable for the House to accept there might be a specific answer—perhaps as low as seven.

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Speaking to the point of order, Mr Speaker. The member’s point of order itself explains the difficulty there. It can be some time after work is completed before an invoice arrives.

💬 SPEAKER: To the point of order by the Hon Mark Mitchell, it was a supplementary question and it was definitely addressed. The Minister saying that he doesn’t know the number is actually an answer.

Question No. 9—Energy and Resources

9. to the Minister of Energy and Resources: Will the Crown Minerals Amendment Bill help to enable New Zealand to phase out fossil fuel extraction; if so, how?

The bill will mean the Crown Minerals Act (CMA) will no longer actively promoting the prospecting, exploration, and mining of Crown-owned minerals, including fossil fuels. It will increase flexibility and allow the Government to manage the Crown mineral estate that enables fossil fuels to be phased out, while ensuring energy remains secure and affordable for all New Zealanders. The bill is, of course, just one part of our Government’s measure to reduce New Zealand’s reliance on fossil fuels and their extraction. We have already ended new offshore oil and gas exploration permits last term and have committed to achieving net zero by 2050. We’ve also set out a comprehensive plan for reducing our emissions in the emissions reduction plan, including an additional $650 million for our Government investment in decarbonising industry and the phase out of fossil fuels from the processed heat sector. We also have a commitment to phase out the use of coal for low and medium temperature process heat, and we also have a comprehensive energy strategy under way.

💬 Hon Julie Anne Genter: Does she consider that the changes go far enough to be consistent with the International Energy Agency’s Net Zero by 2050 pathway, which requires no new oil and gasfields being approved for development from now?

💬 Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: As I indicated in the answer to the primary question, I believe that this change to the purpose statement of the Crown Minerals Act is an important part of a suite of Government energy measures and resources measures that need to be put in place for us to achieve our climate goals. Do I think this will achieve it on its own? No, no one measure will; they all need to work together.

💬 Hon Julie Anne Genter: Does she agree that the Government needs to send strong signals to the energy industry to immediately stop investing in fossil fuels and invest in clean energy instead?

💬 Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: As the Minister of Energy and Resources, I take seriously my job to both promote investment in new energy generation and also ensure that we have the regulatory settings right to encourage that investment. I note, with some satisfaction, that we are seeing, at the moment, quite a change in the pattern of investment we’re seeing in energy generation in New Zealand. It’s not just the traditional generation we’re seeing built from our “gen-tailers” but are seeing a raft of independent generation projects coming on board in the renewable space. Just to name a few, the Rangitaiki solar power plant, that Todd-Sunergise are investing in—that’s $600 million into a 400 megawatt solar farm near Taupō. We’re also seeing Lodestone Energy investing $300 million into five solar farms in Northland, the Bay of Plenty, and Coromandel, and, of course, we’re seeing the work under way in offshore wind, with the partnership between Copenhagen Infrastructure Partners and the New Zealand Super Fund. This is the kind of investment we need to see in our future, not looking back to the past and thinking we can keep using fossil fuels for ever.

💬 Hon Julie Anne Genter: How important does the Minister think the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) April report is, which states that to limit warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels, we need emissions to peak at 2025 and essentially halve by 2030?

💬 Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: Of course, that report is incredibly important; it is one of a number of reports that are pointing to the fact that we need to have decisive climate action. This change to the Crown Minerals Act is just one measure that New Zealand is taking.

💬 Hon Julie Anne Genter: Is the Minister confident that this legislation progresses change fast enough to meet the IPCC’s limit of 1.5 degrees Celsius and avoid climate catastrophe?

💬 Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: As I’ve indicated in previous answers, I don’t think there is one change or one measure that itself can solely do New Zealand’s job in terms of what it needs to do on climate action. I think this is a change that needs to occur. I think it is a change that we have well-signalled and been working on for a long time. In isolation, it is not enough, but when you put it together with a comprehensive programme of Government action on climate change, it is an important part of that suite of measures.

💬 Hon Julie Anne Genter: Are the proposed changes to the Government’s ability to respond under this bill sufficient to enable “‘a rapid and just phase-out of fossil fuel production’ immediately”, as required according to a recent University of Manchester study?

💬 Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: Again, it is part of a suite of policies. It is an important part, but we need to see this as an important part of tranche two of changes to the CMA. Of course, in 2018, with the support of the Green Party and New Zealand First, we stopped the issuing of new offshore oil and gas exploration permits and joined a handful of countries that took a leadership position in this field. We’re now a part of a group of countries and regions, including Denmark, France, Greenland, Belize, Spain, Ireland, Quebec, and Sweden, who have seen that fossil fuels are not their future, and we need leadership that points to what a 21st century future looks like.

Question No. 10—Internal Affairs

10. to the Minister of Internal Affairs: What recent announcements has she made about reducing gambling harm in communities?

Last week, I announced changes to strengthen harm minimisation requirements in venues that have pokie machines to reduce the harm they cause to people and their families. These include mandatory annual training for all staff dealing with gamblers, ensuring that staff in pokies venues are better trained; new requirements around the steps venues must follow to identify harmful gambling, such as regular sweeps and recording signs of gambling harm; two new rules around venue design that will support harm minimisation by ensuring staff can better monitor ATMs and pokie machines are less visible; and a range of new infringement offences that help penalise those who fail to comply with harm minimisation regulations.

💬 Glen Bennett: Why are stronger harm minimisation regulations needed?

💬 Hon JAN TINETTI: Pokies are known to be the most harmful form of land-based gambling in Aotearoa, with one in five players considered to be at risk from gambling harm. Data from the 2020 Health and Lifestyles Survey indicates that about 10 percent of New Zealanders use pokies, and while some may consider pokies a form of recreational fun, for far too many Kiwis and their families they do cause serious harm, including mental, financial, and social harms.

💬 Glen Bennett: What feedback has she received on the proposed changes?

💬 Hon JAN TINETTI: Given the level of harm caused by pokies, these changes are designed to drive a strong culture of care in class venues over time. I’ve heard some views from within the gambling harm prevention sector say that these reforms are positive but they are concerned that they don’t go far enough, and I agree. More systematic change is needed to reduce harm from gambling, which is why I have started work to scope a complete review of the Gambling Act 2003. As the Minister of Internal Affairs, I am committed to ensuring our regulations are working to reduce harm as much as possible and that we have the necessary enforcement tools for non-compliance.

💬 Glen Bennett: What are next steps in reducing harm from gambling?

💬 Hon JAN TINETTI: I expect that the new harm minimisation regulations for pokies will be in place in the first half of 2023, and, as mentioned, we have also committed to scoping out a wider review of the Act, which has been warmly welcomed from within the sector.

Question No. 11—Local Government

11. to the Minister of Local Government: How many, if any, parks and reserves that also serve a storm water function will be transferred to the proposed water services entities as part of the Government’s three waters reforms, and does she stand by all her statements on three waters reform?

The public can be assured that where the primary purpose of council-owned land is as a park, it will remain a park and remain in council ownership. In this instance, the public will have the same access to parks that they currently have and enjoy.

💬 Simon Watts: On the basis that she will not confirm how many parks and reserves will transfer which also have a stormwater function, what does it say about these reforms that this far into the process, nobody is even able to confirm what assets will transfer into these entities?

💬 Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: This will be the first time to comprehensively understand and identify the extent of the stormwater network and its profile. That’s why we established a Stormwater Technical Working Group to help provide a definition that would better ensure that we were capturing a range of stormwater assets if we integrated it into a waters network system. On that basis, I’m really pleased that the Stormwater Technical Working Group helped to define secondary water assets. All property whose primary or predominant purpose is not the delivery of water services will be clearly identified and listed in a schedule of assets that should not transfer from councils to entities. Ultimately, councils will help us identify what will not be transferred.

💬 Simon Watts: Does she stand by her statement in the House last week that, I quote, “Councils have the ability to work with water establishment entities to decide which assets and land will transfer”, and, if so, will she commit that councils will be the ones to have the final say over the transfer of their assets to water services entities?

💬 Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: I do, on the basis that the definition that was developed by the Stormwater Technical Working Group in relation to the predominant use of land can enable councils to make that decision.

💬 Simon Watts: Does she stand by her statement made in the House earlier today that establishment of the principles of Te Mana o te Wai, and I quote, “included a number of stakeholder groups: the rural communities … Federated Farmers … industry users … horticulturalists, as well as iwi”, and, if so, why can only iwi submit Te Mana o te Wai statements in the Government’s three waters reforms?

💬 Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: In developing Te Mana o te Wai aspirations in 2014, under the then Minister Nick Smith, it was important that those aspirations were communicated and engaged with across many communities. In terms of who develops Te Mana o te Wai statements—because this, essentially, is grounded in holistic concepts of relationships to water bodies—that is why the Water Services Entities Bill ensures that iwi mana whenua are developing these statements.

💬 Simon Watts: Is it three waters or five?

💬 Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: This is about ensuring we have safe drinking water, better environmental outcomes, ensuring that we protect source water—the use of it in whatever form—but also, when water gets discharged back to our lakes, rivers, streams and beaches, we won’t end up with no swim notices.

💬 Simon Watts: Point of order, Mr Speaker. My question was six words: is it three waters or five? I don’t believe the Minister answered my question.

💬 Hon Kieran McAnulty: The member referred to three waters in the primary.

💬 SPEAKER: The question was definitely addressed. I counted; every member should have counted the number.

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: Well, three or five? What was the count?

💬 SPEAKER: Well, I’d encourage the member to go back to Hansard, and next time you want to speak to me, you should take a point of order.

Question No. 12—Workplace Relations and Safety

12. to the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety: What steps is the Government taking to support the health and safety of workers?

Yesterday, the Health and Safety at Work (Health and Safety Representatives and Committees) Amendment Bill was introduced to the House. The bill delivers on a 2020 Labour manifesto commitment to ensure that all workers have access to health and safety reps in their workplace, should they request one. Health and safety reps play an important role in workplaces across the country already and have the power to request information and conduct inspections. Trained reps may issue a provisional improvement notice to address a problem or direct a worker to stop unsafe work. This legislation will ensure that when a worker makes such a request, the business in question will need to initiate an election. It also proposes ensuring that if at least five workers or a health and safety representative request for a health and safety committee to be established, the business will need to do so.

💬 Marja Lubeck: What does the Health and Safety at Work Act currently provide for in terms of health and safety representatives?

💬 Hon MICHAEL WOOD: Current legislation allows for businesses outside of specific high-risk sectors with fewer than 20 employees to decline a health and safety representative request from their workers and not make a decision on establishing a health and safety committee. This means that almost 29.3 percent of New Zealand workers do not necessarily have the right to request a health and safety representative or a committee, which we believe is a significant blind spot in the existing legislation.

💬 Marja Lubeck: Is the Government making health and safety representatives mandatory?

💬 Hon MICHAEL WOOD: No, we are not. Businesses will only be required to initiate an election where workers on that worksite request them, and workers may indeed prefer to engage in less formal ways, such as through regular health and safety meetings. None the less, we believe it is important that if workers determine that a health and safety rep would improve health and safety in that workplace, that should be able to proceed.

💬 Marja Lubeck: Why is taking action on improving health and safety in the workplace so important?

💬 Hon MICHAEL WOOD: While health and safety outcomes have improved since regulatory changes and the establishment of WorkSafe as a regulator, New Zealand does still have high rates of work-related harm in comparison to other countries. Rates of fatalities per 100,000 workers are roughly double those in Australia and about four times those of workers in the United Kingdom. We know we need to address this, and this legislation is just one step out of a comprehensive work programme the Government is undertaking to ensure that New Zealanders are safe and healthy at work.

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: Supplementary?

💬 SPEAKER: No. No more supplementaries for National.