Oral Questions

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

Yes, in particular I stand by two reports that highlight positive outcomes from this Government’s policies. A Ministry of Social Development report released on Monday shows that total real after-housing incomes are 48 percent higher than at the end of 2017 for those receiving a main benefit. This Government’s Families Package, benefit increases, and changes to Working for Families have made a vital difference in the lives of low-income people and whānau. Statistics New Zealand’s employment indicators for May 2023, released today, shows that despite economic headwinds, seasonally adjusted employment has continued to increase by over 5,000 filled jobs. We know there is more to do but reports such as these show we’re on the right track and are making progress.

💬 Christopher Luxon: Would an asset tax or a capital gains tax be good or bad for an economy already in recession?

💬 Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: We have no plans to introduce either of those things.

💬 Christopher Luxon: Point of order, Mr Speaker. It was a clear question. It wasn’t political; it was principled, about are these taxes good or bad in a time of recession?

💬 SPEAKER: The Acting Prime Minister definitely has addressed the question, that’s the main point. It’s a hypothetical situation. The member does not have to subscribe to the hypothesis of the question.

💬 Christopher Luxon: Wouldn’t an asset tax or a capital gains tax push investment out of New Zealand, deepening the recession we’re already in?

💬 Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: The member is asking a question with the underlying premise that we are planning on introducing one or both of those things, and we’re not.

💬 Christopher Luxon: Does she agree with the previous Prime Minister that they were “unable to build a mandate for a capital gains tax”, and will she rule out introducing an asset tax or a capital gains tax?

💬 Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: To the first part of the question, yes.

💬 Christopher Luxon: And will she rule out an asset tax?

💬 Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: As I’ve already said, we have no plans to introduce such a tax.

💬 Christopher Luxon: Will her Government bring back the tax on KiwiSaver fees?

💬 Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: We have no plans with regards to taxes at this point in time, and so I can’t respond to what might happen three, five, 10 years from now. But we certainly have no plans to do such a thing.

💬 Christopher Luxon: So she’s saying that a tax on KiwiSaver accounts is firmly on the table?

💬 Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: What I’m saying is that we currently have not announced a tax policy.

💬 Christopher Luxon: So how can Kiwis have confidence to invest in the future when, instead of putting together a real economic plan, her Ministers are now designing new taxes in secret and won’t tell the country what they are?

💬 Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: I really don’t understand where that question even came from. I made no such inference and the question therefore makes no sense.

💬 Christopher Luxon: So just to be clear, will she rule out introducing an asset tax or a capital gains tax while in Government?

💬 Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: I think I’ve made myself really clear. We have no such plans to do either of those things.

Question No. 2—Housing

2. to the Associate Minister of Housing: What real-world data, if any, is collected by the Government on healthy homes standards compliance?

This Government believes every New Zealander should have a safe, warm, and dry home. The healthy homes standards were designed to improve and deliver on this and improve the quality of rental properties across the country. The latest Government-commissioned Kantar survey of November 2022 found that 92 percent of landlords had either fully met the standards or have done things to prepare their property to meet the healthy homes standards. As at 31 May 2023, 97 percent of eligible Kāinga Ora homes either met the requirements within the healthy homes standards or had work in progress to meet them. We are also aware of what is happening on the ground through compliance checks by the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment’s (MBIE) tenancy compliance and investigations team. In the period 30 May 2022 to 29 May 2023, they undertook 921 healthy home standards compliance checks—296 of which were the result of a complaint, and 625 were the result of a proactive investigation.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Does she think that information from voluntary surveys is adequate to make evidence-based policy to respond to the real-world level of healthy homes standards compliance?

💬 Hon BARBARA EDMONDS: I think it is one aspect of ensuring that we have compliance with the healthy homes standards.

Chlöe Swarbrick: How many landlords or property managers have self-registered exclusions from the healthy homes standards for their rentals?

💬 Hon BARBARA EDMONDS: I don’t have that data on me. If the member would like to put that on notice, then I’m willing to respond.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Why does the burden of ensuring healthy homes standards compliance fall on renters living in those sub-standard rental properties?

💬 Hon BARBARA EDMONDS: As I said, the Government believes that every New Zealander should have a safe, warm, and dry home. There is a responsibility on everybody to ensure that there is compliance with the healthy homes standards. Again, I will go through compliance time frames between 1 July 2021 and 2025: all private rentals must comply with the healthy homes standards. If the member has a particular concern or tenants that have written to them, we welcome that investigation. They can ring 0800 TENANCY to report that to MBIE.

Chlöe Swarbrick: How can the Government understand whether the healthy homes standards are working when they have no real-world data on compliance and no data on the self-registered exclusion and the burden disproportionately falls on renters to report these issues, and doesn’t all of this just make the case for a rental warrant of fitness?

💬 Hon BARBARA EDMONDS: As we’ve said, the Government, again, believes that everybody should have a safe, warm, and dry home. We are doing compliance checks on the ground. Private landlords have to comply with the healthy homes standards by 1 July 2025. There is always more work to do in this space, and we believe that the best way to improve that is through doing compliance checks and having standards which were not in place before 2019.

Question No. 3—Finance

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

As I’ve said previously in the House, 2023 is a difficult year for many New Zealanders and especially so in the economic sense. However, our labour market does remain resilient with New Zealanders in work in record numbers, and wages growing to help deal with the challenges ahead. This morning, Stats New Zealand reported that employment rose for the fifth month in a row, with filled jobs rising by 5,461, or 0.2 percent, in May, taking the total number of jobs to 2.37 million. The main contribution came from services industries and from goods-producing industries. By region, the number of filled jobs in Auckland rose 4.6 percent on a year earlier, Canterbury by 3.8 percent, Waikato by 3.4 percent, Wellington by 2.7 percent, and Otago by 5.2 percent.

💬 Anna Lorck: What reports has he seen on confidence in the labour market and its impact on the economy?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Confidence in the jobs market remains positive with the Westpac-McDermott Miller Employment Confidence Index at 105.6. A number above 100 represents optimism, while below represents pessimism. Confidence across regions was mixed with gains in Tairāwhiti and Hawke’s Bay due to a lift in reported and expected earnings. All regions saw a fall in perceptions about current jobs opportunities, which reflects some of the issues that New Zealanders are dealing with at the moment.

💬 Anna Lorck: What reports has he seen on exports and its impact on the economy?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: It is a challenging global environment for New Zealand’s exporters and that will continue for the rest of the year. However, last week, Stats New Zealand reported exports rose 2.8 percent to $7 billion in May, led by dairy products, fruit, and seafood. On an annual basis, exports rose 8.2 percent to $72.8 billion. Looking at exports by destination, annual exports to China rose 2.3 percent, to Australia by 7.5 percent, by 8.6 percent to the EU, and 12 percent to the US. The Prime Minister is currently leading a 29-strong business delegation to China to boost export growth with a key trading partner, in sectors ranging from dairy, meat, and wood, to emerging areas like gaming, health and wellness, as well as tourism and education. We are continuing to strengthen and diversify our economic ties with the rest of the world, including through our new free-trade agreements with the UK and the EU.

💬 Anna Lorck: What other reports has he seen on economic activity in the economy?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Stats New Zealand reported that the New Zealand Activity Index, which is a broad and more up-to-date measure of activity in the economy, rose 0.7 percent in May compared with the same period a year ago. Activity indicators rose for heavy traffic movements, activity outlook and grid demand, along with a reduction in jobseeker numbers. Activity indicators did however ease for electronic card transactions, light traffic movements, manufacturing, and job advertisements in line with the challenges facing the New Zealand economy. We know that many New Zealanders are doing it tough. However, as a country we are well-placed to face the challenges ahead, with unemployment near record lows, and public debt levels well below those of countries we compare ourselves with. As a Government, we are continuing to strike a balance to support New Zealanders in the here and now, while investing in strong public services and a resilient infrastructure network to build for a better tomorrow.

Question No. 4—Finance

4. to the Minister of Finance: Does he agree with BNZ that “The New Zealand economy is currently in peak stagflation: two quarters of negative growth; a labour market that is unsustainably tight; and inflation miles above the Reserve Bank’s target”; if not, why not?

In answer to the first part of the question, no, I would not characterise the New Zealand economy that way. The answer to the second part of the member’s question is in the qualification provided by the BNZ economists immediately after the quote the member used for the first part of her question. That quote is, “But the worm is turning. Inflationary and labour market pressures are easing, and interest rates have probably peaked. The outlook is brightening with a solid bounce in activity expected in the second half of next year.” I acknowledge that for those who are affected at the moment by the slowdown, these are challenging times. However, as a country, we face this period of slowdown from a strong starting point of high employment, growing real wages, and low public debt.

💬 Nicola Willis: Well, does he agree with the BNZ’s comments, immediately following those comments, that “The New Zealand economy has stalled.” and “there is more pain to be felt as the economy bounces along the bottom torn between rising immigration and [higher] interest rates.”, and isn’t it actually the case that the worm for our economy will only turn when there’s the election of a National-led Government?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: No, in answer to the second part of that question, because the election, if it were to happen, of a National Government would see unaffordable tax cuts and massive cuts to public services, and the member needs to explain how all of that adds up, because at the moment they can’t even cost a basic policy, let alone have an economic plan that ends up.

💬 Nicola Willis: Would the Minister care to explain why the Australian economy is performing so much better than New Zealand’s, with no recession; inflation 110 basis points lower, at 5.6 percent; official interest rates 140 basis points lower, at 4.1 percent; and both the current account and Government Budget in surplus?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Many, many answers to that member’s question there. We’ll just take the very, very last point. The member might want to go back and look at the way that surplus is measured in the Australian economy, and the New Zealand economy, in that they have a one-year surplus this year and then go back into deficit next year, so questions like that would need to be answered. But I guess the point that the member needs to think about is that the two economies are both doing well, relative to the rest of the world, when we compare to pre-COVID times. The difference in terms of GDP to the same quarter last year—New Zealand had 2.2 percent growth, Australia had 2.3 percent; so it’s close. We work well with our neighbours. I do, however, given the members interest in Australia, look forward to her advocacy of a capital gains tax and a 45c top tax rate.

💬 Christopher Luxon: Oh, that’s coming.

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: From you, is it?

💬 Nicola Willis: Is it Labour Party policy to increase the top tax rate to 45c and deliver a capital gains tax, or is that just the proposal discussed at Cabinet to be deferred to later?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: As the member well knows, I’m in this role as the Minister of Finance. I’m not answering questions about what the Labour Party policy is or isn’t. But what I can say is that, once again, at this election, we’ll be there with a fully costed economic plan. The member’s got a couple of options: she could leave out a few billion dollars like Paul Goldsmith, or she could front up to New Zealanders about how she’s going to pay for public services with her unaffordable tax cuts.

💬 Nicola Willis: Does he agree with Westpac that “it’s clear the New Zealand economy is losing momentum”, or does he prefer BNZ’s characterisation that “economic momentum has ground to a halt”?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: We can all play “pick-an-economist” if we want to, and I could also pick out Sharon Zollner, the chief economist who makes the point that the recession that we have at the moment doesn’t look much like a normal recession, with unemployment still at a near-record low, and the low levels of public debt that we have. Clearly, she also stated that we would have had positive growth in the last quarter if the cyclone hadn’t hit.

💬 Nicola Willis: Why does he refuse to take any responsibility for delivering the biggest current account deficit since records began in New Zealand, a recession, exploding Government debt, sky-high inflation and interest rates—but he will happily stand in this House and take credit for any blip on the horizon that he can spin as positive today?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Over the course of the last six years, I have taken responsibility for the full picture of where we have gone as a Government from an economic perspective. We got through COVID better than most other countries; our economy is 6 percent larger than it was. Does that mean that every single thing that’s happened along the way has been perfect? No, it doesn’t, but I will stand by our record of having low unemployment, low public debt, an economy that’s bigger than it was before COVID, and having looked after people—and being able to produce an economic plan that actually adds up, unlike the National Party.

💬 Nicola Willis: Is he concerned that his economic mismanagement has delivered New Zealand the biggest current account deficit in the developed world, with BNZ’s head of research, Stephen Toplis pointing out that “the last time we experienced such heights was back in the 1970s when New Zealand was referred to as a ‘banana republic’”?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The nature of New Zealand’s current account deficit challenge is long-running. As the member knows, that the direction of travel here is the right one, and that it has now come down to 8.5 percent. I know the member wants me to take responsibility for high global interest rates; for a supply chain affected by COVID. I’m sure if the member stopped and thought about it for a minute, she would realise that those aren’t matters that are in the control of the Government. I’d also point the member to the fact that New Zealand’s net international investment position now means that, actually, the impact of that current account deficit over the last few years is effectively neutralised. This is very different from periods of time in the past when the current account deficit has been high.

💬 Nicola Willis: Has he been advised what the impact for New Zealanders will be when the Government rips off its fuel tax band-aid at the end of the week, leaving New Zealanders to struggle on with the ongoing cost of living crisis and no permanent tax reduction; and does he agree with Gareth Kiernan, Chief Forecaster of Infometrics, that “households are now paying the price for the Government’s inability to cut its spending from higher pandemic-era levels now that we’re out the other side”?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Of the four or five questions that the member put up there, I’ll comment on a couple of those. The first is the very interesting notion that it appears the National Party is going to magic up another couple of billion dollars to keep the fuel tax subsidy going, because that’s the clear implication of that member’s question. We put that measure in to support New Zealanders as inflation rose. Inflation is now coming down, and that measure is coming off.

Question No. 5—Energy and Resources

5. to the Minister of Energy and Resources: How will Budget 2023 support businesses to decarbonise their vehicle fleets?

Through Budget 2023, the Government is backing businesses to accelerate the decarbonisation of their vehicle fleets. Heavy vehicles make up around a quarter of New Zealand’s total transport emissions, so these partnerships are vital to our decarbonisation. The clean heavy vehicles grant funded through Budget 2023 will support the purchase of low-emissions heavy vehicles, including trucks, vans, and buses, and includes electric and green hydrogen - powered vehicles.

💬 Glen Bennett: How will the Government’s clean heavy vehicles grant support businesses to decarbonise?

💬 Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: The Government’s partnership with businesses will support the roll-out of around 500 low-emissions heavy vehicles and help businesses to lower their emissions. The clean heavy vehicles grant will also help businesses to reduce their fuel costs over that time by up to 75 percent. This fund builds on the success of the Government’s Clean Car Discount and Low Emissions Transport Fund to support the decarbonisation of New Zealand’s transport fleet.

💬 Glen Bennett: How does Budget 2023 support the roll-out of a national EV charging network?

💬 Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: A lack of public EV chargers is a key barrier to the uptake of EVs. Through Budget ’23, the Government is partnering with the private sector to roll out a national EV charging network of up to 23 EV charging hubs. These hubs will deliver more locations for people to tank up their EVs, providing multiple fast electric vehicle chargers, including options for low-emissions heavy freight along our key transport routes. This is on top of the Government’s investment in EV chargers today, having delivered more than 1,300 EV chargers across New Zealand through the Low Emissions Transport Fund.

💬 Glen Bennett: How else is the Government partnering with businesses to decarbonise transport?

💬 Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: The Government’s green hydrogen consumption rebate will bridge the price gap between fossil fuels and green hydrogen to support early adopters to reduce their emissions by 150,000 tonnes, the equivalent to cancelling out the emissions of hundreds of trucks. Working with partners in the private sector, this initiative will help make green hydrogen a financially viable option, developing the industry and driving down emissions in hard to abate sectors while creating new jobs and economic development opportunities in our just transition regions.

Question No. 6—Police

6. to the Minister of Police: Does she stand by her statement, “It is my view that New Zealanders feel safer”; if so, why?

on behalf of the Minister of Police: I stand by my full statement at the time it was given, that “It is my view that New Zealanders feel safer with a Government on track to deliver 1800 extra Police.” As the member is aware, we have now delivered over 1,800 extra police.

💬 Hon Mark Mitchell: Do authorised officers have powers of arrest?

No, they don’t; however, authorised officers have a large amount of work that they need to do in order to keep our communities safe as well.

💬 Hon Mark Mitchell: How can she say Kiwis feel safer when, according to the 2023 New Zealand Crime and Victims Survey, 39 percent of victims of crime do not think police would be interested or could not do anything?

I’m pleased to see that more than eight out of 10 New Zealanders rate police’s professionalism highly under the New Zealand Crime and Victims Survey. It is a tribute to the hard work police officers do day in and day out to help keep our communities safe.

💬 Hon Mark Mitchell: The question is not about the professionalism of the police.

Is that a point of order?

💬 Hon Mark Mitchell: Supplementary, Mr Speaker. The question is not about the professionalism of the police; the question is, how can she say Kiwis feel safer when, according to the 2023 New Zealand Crime and Victims Survey, 39 percent of victims of crime do not think police would be interested or could not do anything?

💬 Hon BARBARA EDMONDS: In reference to the survey that the member spoke about, the New Zealand Crime and Victims Survey, I’m pleased to see that eight out of 10 New Zealanders rate police professionalism highly. Although down on last year’s figure, police have highlighted the changes to the reputation of police internationally as well as public concern about new crime trends like ram raids lying behind these changes.

💬 Hon Mark Mitchell: Why, given that there are 1,530 more police on the beat, was there no police response yesterday in Christchurch to a violent offender placed under citizen’s arrest?

💬 Hon BARBARA EDMONDS: That type of offending is distressing. The member will also well know that, under section 16 of the Policing Act 2008, the Minister cannot direct the Commissioner of Police as to where they deploy their resources or investigations.

💬 Hon Mark Mitchell: Has the Minister sought an explanation from the commissioner?

💬 Hon BARBARA EDMONDS: Again, under the Policing Act 2008, section 16, the Minister cannot direct the Commissioner of Police in relation to investigations, enforcement, or the deployment of their resources.

💬 Hon Michael Woodhouse: Point of order. The Minister answered a question about the seeking of an explanation with the repeating of what we know, which is that the Minister can’t direct. They are two different things, and, therefore, the question wasn’t addressed.

I’ll let the member ask the question again. In my opinion, most New Zealanders might have thought that it was addressed, but you can ask it again if you like.

💬 Hon Mark Mitchell: Has the Minister sought an explanation from the commissioner?

💬 Hon BARBARA EDMONDS: I am not aware of whether the Acting Minister has sought an explanation from the commissioner.

Question No. 7—Women

7. to the Minister for Women: What recent announcements has the Government made about representation on public sector boards?

Earlier this month, Minister Radhakrishnan and I announced the results of the Manatū Wāhine Ministry for Women’s 2022 stocktake of diversity on public sector boards and committees. Ensuring women’s voices are around the board tables of our public organisations is crucial if we’re serious about driving meaningful progress for an inclusive New Zealand. I am pleased to report that representation for women on public sector boards and committees is the highest it’s ever been, at 53.1 percent, and women now hold 41.9 percent of board chair roles.

💬 Soraya Peke-Mason: How does this compare to previous years?

💬 Hon JAN TINETTI: In 2018, the Government set the target of 50 percent women’s representation on Government boards. The stocktake shows this is the third consecutive year we have achieved this goal and the 10th consecutive year we have seen an increase in representation for women. Women in chairperson roles has also had a 10 percent increase since we began collecting the data in 2015.

💬 Soraya Peke-Mason: What does the stocktake tell us about representation for Māori?

💬 Hon JAN TINETTI: Māori representation has increased steadily since 2019, when data collection for ethnicity on boards began. Māori board members now hold 26.8 percent of board roles, with wāhine Māori making up 15.1 percent of all public sector board and committee members.

💬 Soraya Peke-Mason: And what does the stocktake tell us about ethnic representation on public sector boards and committees?

💬 Hon JAN TINETTI: Since we began tracking ethnic communities’ representations on public sector boards and committees, we have seen representation increased by 64 percent. Pacific board members are 7.2 percent of roles, and Asian board members 6.1 percent. We are making good progress, and we still have so much more potential to unlock. New Zealand is an incredibly diverse country, and it is important we continue making boards and committees more representative of New Zealand society.

Question No. 8—Health

8. to the Minister of Health: What is the name of the supplier storing the 17.8 million expired and expiring Rapid Antigen Tests to which she referred in her statement yesterday, “I am happy to give the member the name of the supplier if they put it on notice”, and what is the overall cost to date of warehousing with this supplier to which she referred in her statement yesterday that “I am happy to provide the cost of the warehousing overall for the member if the member puts that question on notice”?

To the first part of the question, I’m advised that the current provider of warehousing and logistics for personal protective equipment (PPE) and rapid antigen tests (RATs) is Healthcare Logistics (HCL). In answer to the second part, I am advised by Te Whatu Ora that at this stage they have no cost data for HCL back to January 2022 when they became a single provider. From January 2022 to April 2023, the total spend was $44.27 million for all COVID-19 PPE and rapid antigen test warehousing and logistics. Prior to that there were multiple providers, and they are unable to disaggregate and collate the information in the time available. I have asked for that work to be completed at pace and provided to the member once it is available. I would also like to note that the total costs include the storage, warehousing activity, picking, packing, distributing, freight, and courier costs for distribution. RATs are only one component of the total figure.

💬 David Seymour: Can the Minister clarify that the counter party she mentioned is named Healthcare Logistics, and is Healthcare Logistics a subsidiary of any other company?

💬 Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: In response to the first part of the question, yes, the firm is Healthcare Logistics.

💬 David Seymour: What other supplies besides rapid antigen tests are being stored, and what is the value of those supplies?

💬 Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: As I mentioned in my primary answer, personal protective equipment, which would include—I’m not certain it’s in this particular warehouse, but the types of COVID PPE that we purchase are masks, gowns, and gloves.

💬 David Seymour: Does the Minister now see it was a mistake to ban other private companies from importing rapid antigen tests and even confiscate RATs from those who were eventually able to import some, when the Government itself has been so woeful at managing inventory that it’s wasted at least 158 million on expired or near-expiring tests and we now know are spending nearly $45 million storing inventory?

💬 Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: No, and I reject the accounting—the creative accounting—in that question. I also reject, as has been documented in documents released under the Official Information Act, that there was confiscation of any rapid antigen tests. I do note, however, as I said in response to this question yesterday, that in order to deal with a rapidly changing pandemic, large purchases—at a time of global uncertainty around supply chains and for a country at the end of supply chains, we did need to make large purchases.

💬 David Seymour: Does the Minister recognise that by banning others from acquiring rapid antigen tests, making the Government, effectively, the monopoly provider for a period of time, she has now wasted $160 million, around $32 per New Zealander, which is just the extra cost of having a Labour Government this week, with more costs to rack up next week?

💬 Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: No, I reject the accounting that the member is trying to do on the fly there, and I would like to point out that while it was not possible to predict the procurement needs we had for a rapidly changing global pandemic, we take the issue of responsible financing of the health system extremely seriously, which is why Te Whatu Ora, in the less than one year of its operation, has been directed to find efficiencies. And I can report that in its first year it has made savings that, were they to be annualised, would total $75 million. This includes savings from the removal of boards, savings on procurement, savings on optimisation of multiple data and digital packages that they have, savings on insurance, savings on inventory, savings on back-office shared functions, and the removal of duplicated positions in finance. We take efficiency in the health system extremely seriously.

Question No. 9—Emergency Management

9. to the Minister for Emergency Management: Does he stand by all his decisions and policies regarding the Emergency Management Bill?

Yes.

💬 Hon Meka Whaitiri: Who gave him advice that the advisory role for Māori in his proposed new national emergency management system would work for Māori?

💬 Hon KIERAN McANULTY: As is usual process when considering a bill, we engaged with a number of stakeholders. That included those within the civil defence structure that were engaged and work regularly with Māori communities. There’s also a Māori advisory committee directly advising me and previous Ministers in the development of this bill, and I also consulted widely along this House, including my own caucus, who unanimously supported the bill at the time.

💬 Hon Meka Whaitiri: Why is it acceptable that in this bill, Māori are once again relegated to advisory level, rather than having real decision-making power at both national and local levels?

💬 Hon KIERAN McANULTY: It clearly outlines in the bill that there is a proposal to include and require Māori representation at the civil defence emergency management group level, which is not an advisory level. It is the actual group which conducts civil defence activities in each region.

💬 Hon Meka Whaitiri: Is he aware that recent events, including Cyclone Hale, Cyclone Gabrielle, and flooding in Tairāwhiti over the weekend, highlights that the current emergency management system, which already enables Māori advice, is failing to meet the needs of tangata whenua?

💬 Hon KIERAN McANULTY: I was in Tairāwhiti in the weekend. I spoke to Māori there on the ground, and the feedback that I got was that they were very happy with the engagement of the local civil defence structure. That’s not to say that that is in place in every region, and that is why the bill proposes what it does.

💬 Hon Meka Whaitiri: What is his response to the call of Māori leaders across the country, including Ikaroa-Rāwhiti, who have continually called for the Crown to recognise and fully resource a Māori emergency management system?

💬 Hon KIERAN McANULTY: Well, the member was part of the Labour caucus when this bill was consulted on, and she expressed her support for it at the time. In addition to that, we have consulted across a number of local councils across the country, and the proposal was that setting a requirement for Māori to be part of civil defence emergency management groups without setting a minimum and allowing each region to find the number that best suits them—I expect that the number in Waikato might be different to the number in Southland, but that is their call, because it will work for them. The secret and the benefit of our success across various disasters in civil defence is that it is locally led, and that is what we’re proposing in this bill.

💬 Hon Meka Whaitiri: How can he justify the bill to tangata whenua, who stepped up and led a response to every emergency event, and yet continue to be shut out of governance arrangements of the emergency management system in these legislative changes?

💬 Hon KIERAN McANULTY: With the greatest possible respect, I suggest the member reads the proposals, because the proposals are to require that Māori are at the level that make decisions in planning, preparation, resilience, and response. At every given opportunity, I have taken the chance to acknowledge the role that tangata whenua iwi Māori play whenever there is a response. It is always marae that opens its doors whenever there is a severe weather event or a natural disaster. They don’t pick and choose who comes in for welfare needs; they open their doors and take all that come. We, as a Government, recognise that; that is why we are proposing what we are in the bill.

💬 Hon Meka Whaitiri: Will he consider an amendment to the legislation to empower a tangata whenua emergency management system, including a Māori director of emergency management and a Māori emergency management committee structure; if not, why not?

💬 Hon KIERAN McANULTY: It is my hope that the committee will decide to extend the time in which they consider the bill to take into account any lessons that arise from the response to the Auckland floods and Cyclone Gabrielle. Civil defence should never have any time for politics. That is why I engaged and gave every party in this House the opportunity to contribute towards the bill, and I actually acknowledge the contributions of the Hon Gerry Brownlee with his experience, in particular, of the Christchurch earthquake, because his contributions actually assisted us in the formulation of this bill. We will continue that vein and bipartisan approach in the development of this bill, and we will be open to all suggestions for refinements and improvements.

Question No. 10—Environment

10. to the Minister for the Environment: What progress has been made on repealing and replacing the Resource Management Act 1991?

The Government is making substantial progress on repealing and replacing the Resource Management Act (RMA) and is on track to do so within this parliamentary term. The RMA takes too long, costs too much, and does not adequately protect the environment. The RMA reforms will deliver results: plan making will be faster, fewer consents will be needed, and costs for approvals for housing and infrastructure will decrease significantly. Environmental outcomes will also improve. The current system is failing—business, developers, and environmentalists agree on this. After years and years of dithering by prior Governments, it’s time to repeal and replace the RMA.

💬 Hon Phil Twyford: What benefits will the repeal and replacement of the RMA deliver for New Zealanders?

💬 Hon DAVID PARKER: As I’ve said, system process costs for developers and other people are excessive. The numbers are staggering. At the moment, New Zealanders pay around $800 million a year for those consents. After the new system is in place, people applying for consents are expected, on a conservative estimate, to save 17 percent, which would be $149 million a year, and the mid-range estimate puts that at $430 million per year. These excessive costs that developers are currently paying are passed on to consumers. Developers will instead be able to spend that money on housing and infrastructure rather than on consultants or filling out council paperwork.

💬 Hon Phil Twyford: What is the Government’s view of the select committee reports on the Natural and Built Environment Bill and the Spatial Planning Bill?

💬 Hon DAVID PARKER: I’d like to thank the committee for the role it has played in ensuring the new legislation is robust. Around 94 percent of all submitters agreed on the need for system reform. Most major organisations were also broadly supportive of the main components of reform. Around 3,000 submissions were received on the bills. I want to thank submitters, who took the time and effort to submit. Reform of this nature is complex, and we rely on the input of system users to get the details right. The committee have recommended a number of sensible and constructive changes to the bill, and I look forward to diving into their recommendations and debating the bills with my parliamentary colleagues on all sides during the next stages of the legislative process.

💬 Hon Phil Twyford: Does the Government have any plans to reinstate the RMA at a future date?

💬 Hon DAVID PARKER: No, we don’t. We campaigned at the 2020 election to repeal and replace the RMA—using the Randerson model as its basis—and this Government is delivering on that promise. To reinstate the RMA after repeatedly promising for years and years to repeal and replace it would be total madness.

💬 Hon Michael Woodhouse: Point of order. Mr Speaker, in light of the Minister of Finance and Minister of Housing encouraging Chris Bishop to ask a supplementary and given the restraints on them, I seek leave for the National Party to have one extra supplementary question in order that that can happen.

💬 SPEAKER: Well, I could put the leave I guess. I could actually award it. Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is objection.

Question No. 11—Regional Development

11. to the Minister for Regional Development: Does she believe taxpayers have a right to expect good value for the Government’s investment in the Provincial Growth Fund (PGF), and do comments from the Office of the Auditor-General that it was “not yet certain that Parliament or the public can have confidence that the investments made through the PGF reset will ultimately represent good value for money” concern her?

on behalf of the Minister for Regional Development: In answer to the first part of the question, yes. To the second part of the question, the Government always takes reports from the Office of the Auditor-General seriously, and we acknowledge their findings. The Provincial Growth Fund (PGF) reset was delivered in extraordinary times, when the Government was rapidly responding to the economic effects of the pandemic, which the report acknowledges. I am advised that Kānoa is going to engage with the Office of the Auditor-General on the report, and it is my expectation that they will make improvements to internal processes where needed. I also note the independent evaluation of the Provincial Growth Fund undertaken by Allen and Clarke and released in June 2022, which rated both outputs and early outcomes as effective.

💬 Hon Michael Woodhouse: Well, given her response that the Government always takes the Auditor-General’s reports seriously, is she concerned that many of the Auditor-General’s concerns from this report mirror the report from 2020 about the PGF overall, suggesting no lessons were learnt, and does this demonstrate that the Government still has no care for managing taxpayers’ money?

On behalf of the Minister, no, I don’t accept that and I point the member to the findings of the latest report from the Auditor-General, where he acknowledged that Kānoa - Regional Economic Development and Investment Unit’s performance of its due diligence of applicants had improved; one example of the way in which lessons have been learnt.

💬 Hon Michael Woodhouse: Well is she concerned that the Auditor-General also found a lack of documentary evidence, meaning they had to rely on people’s two-year-old memories to fill in information gaps? And what are the 170 staff at Kānoa doing if not documenting processes for the $640 million of taxpayer money?

On behalf of the Minister, as I indicated in my earlier answers, there are indeed internal process improvements that are required. It is no excuse at all, but this was during a period where rapid response was required during the pandemic. But processes do need to be better, and I know Kānoa is aware of that.

💬 Hon Michael Woodhouse: Can the Government in all honesty say that the PGF represents good value for money when the Auditor-General has for the second time shown serious concern for how that money is being spent?

Yes, because the Provincial Growth Fund has created thousands and thousands of jobs: 14,949 jobs since its inception. I have been present at occasions on which Opposition members have been there and celebrated the opening of Provincial Growth Fund projects. These are projects that mean a lot in the regions. Does that mean that everything was perfect in the way that the fund was created? No, it wasn’t, and it’s important that we learn lessons and Kānoa responds with changes.

Question No. 12—Foreign Affairs

12. to the Minister of Foreign Affairs: What recent announcement has she made about Aotearoa New Zealand’s support for ocean diversity and conservation?

I recently announced the adoption of a new global treaty designed to protect and restore the biodiversity of the high seas. This treaty, which was finally embraced after two decades of discussions at the UN, represents a considerable leap in our shared ambition to secure the wellbeing of our oceans for future generations. Our location in the Pacific and our relationship with Te Moana-nui-a-Kiwa continue to amplify that kaitiakitanga—or guardianship—are linked to our national identity. This treaty is a reflection of these principles; extending them on a global scale is important. This agreement enables the international community to establish marine protected areas, provides clear procedures for evaluating the environmental impacts of activities within these areas, and also includes a novel provision for sharing the benefits to marine genetic resources obtained from the high seas.

Anahila Kanongata‘a: How does the treaty enable the sharing of the benefits of marine genetic resources and assistance to developing countries in its implementation?

💬 Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: The sharing of benefits from marine genetic resources is a novel aspect of this treaty. It acknowledges the fact that while these resources may be found in international waters, the benefits derived from them—particularly those with commercial or research potential—should be shared equitably. This might include sharing research findings, technology transfer, or capacity-building initiatives. With regards to assisting developing countries, the treaty recognises that these nations often lack the resources and technical capability to fully implement its objectives. Assistance could take the form of financial support, technical training, or cooperation on scientific research.

Anahila Kanongata‘a: Can you share any specific regions that have been identified for protection?

💬 Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: The exact regions to be designated as marine protected areas under the treaty have not been finalised yet. The decision will involve careful scientific analysis and consensus among participating nations. However, the objective is to prioritise areas with high biodiversity value and those most vulnerable to human activity and climate change impacts.

💬 Hon Eugenie Sage: Supplementary.

Anahila Kanongata‘a: Pātai tāpiri.

💬 Hon Judith Collins: I’m sorry, what language? What was that?

Anahila Kanongata‘a: It was in te reo Māori.

💬 SPEAKER: Anahila Kanongata‘a.

Anahila Kanongata‘a: What enforcement mechanisms are in place to ensure compliance with the treaty? [Interruption]

💬 SPEAKER: Sorry, can you repeat that question; I didn’t hear it.

Anahila Kanongata‘a: What enforcement mechanisms are in place to ensure compliance with the treaty?

💬 Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: As the high seas are beyond any single nation’s jurisdiction, enforcement will rely on international cooperation and the good will of States. Compliance measures are likely to include regular reporting obligations, monitoring and evaluation mechanisms, and a dispute resolution process. However, it’s important to note that the success of the treaty will ultimately depend on the collective commitment of all nations to uphold their responsibilities.

💬 Hon Eugenie Sage: What action is the Minister taking to protect deep-sea corals and other vulnerable marine ecosystems on sea mounts in the South Pacific from bottom trawling by New Zealand - flagged vessels?

💬 Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: New Zealand is a strong supporter of high levels of protection in all areas of oceans and fisheries policy and actively works domestically in the high seas to improve management of bottom fisheries. New Zealand’s high-seas bottom fishing is already subject to international regulation by the South Pacific Regional Fisheries Management Organisation and the Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources, which adopt conservation measures based on best available science. This new treaty on high-seas biodiversity will improve effective environmental protection for biodiversity in the high seas. It is designed to work with regional fisheries management organisations.