Oral Questions

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

Yes, particularly our investment to boost the teaching workforce with around 700 new teachers from overseas and 300 new domestic teachers. Within a year, the investment that we’ve made has exceeded the goal of a thousand new teachers. In a global shortage, there is high demand for teachers, so we need to make sure New Zealand is an attractive place to have a rewarding teaching career. While there is, no doubt, more work to do, we’ve made good progress with more than 3,800 more teachers in classrooms since we became the Government.

Christopher Luxon: How did he manage to spend $2 billion more a year on law and order but deliver 107 percent increase in serious assaults, two ram raids a day, and a 70 percent increase in gang members?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Of course, one of the reasons that we know that there are more gang members is that we put more resource into the police chasing gang members and actually making sure that they are being charged. The gang register was only put in place in 2016. Had it been in place for longer under the previous National Government, there probably would have been more gang members on it when we actually became the Government in the first place. We’ve had to do catching up because it was one of the things that the last National Government didn’t do.

Christopher Luxon: How did he manage to spend $5 billion more a year in education, hire 1,400 more public servants, but deliver fewer students leaving school with level 2 NCEA?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Mr Teacher—Mr Speaker, because we are employing—

Hon Members: Ha, ha!

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: “Mr Teacher”! Slight slip. Because we’re employing more teachers, because we are paying them better, and when he talks about the “public servants”, what he would be referring to are the extra specialist staff, amongst others, but they would be the extra specialist staff employed by the Ministry of Education to deal with the students and to support the students who have the highest learning support needs. We have managed to start getting on top of the significant waiting lists—for example, for some of our most vulnerable young kids who were waiting for far too long to get the specialist support that they deserve.

Christopher Luxon: How did he manage to spend half a billion dollars restructuring the health sector, but every single health outcome—access to cancer treatment, emergency department wait time, surgical wait list, and child immunisation rates—has all got worse; not one single one has improved?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I know the member likes to pretend that the global pandemic never actually happened, but almost every health system around the world has seen indicators around things like elective surgeries and emergency department wait times get worse. And it’s because the health system’s been dealing with a massive influx of people with COVID-19.

Christopher Luxon: How did he manage to spend $2.3 billion more on housing but rents are up $175, the State house wait list is up 20,000, and there are four times as many kids now living in cars?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I’m glad the member mentioned the State house wait list, because under the last National Government, to get the wait list down, they simply deleted a whole lot of categories on the wait list. Those people’s housing needs did not go away; they got more severe. And the reason that we’ve now got people on the more severe State house waiting list is that they simply pretended they didn’t exist under the last National Government. We are building more State houses, more public houses, than any Government since the 1950s. If the last Government had been building public houses at the same rate as we are, there would be next to no people on the State house waiting list.

Christopher Luxon: How has he managed a special skill set to spend more, to hire more, but deliver worse outcomes in crime, worse outcomes in health, worse outcomes in housing, and worse outcomes in education?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: If I just take the middle one of those again for a moment and deal with health, the health system has been under enormous pressure because of a global pandemic. I note the member mentioned immunisation rates. Now, that’s an interesting topic given members opposite that could potentially make up a Government, if they are successful, would include apparently a bunch of anti-vaxxers who don’t seem to think that vaccinating kids is a good thing to do.

Christopher Luxon: Why does he measure success by the amount of taxpayer money he spends, rather than the actual outcomes delivered for Kiwis that improve their daily lives?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I don’t, and I’m happy to have the opportunity to recap—for the member—from yesterday some of the highlights of this Government’s time in office: wages growing at 6.9 percent over the last year, unemployment below 4 percent for two years in a row, more Kiwis in work than ever before, 110,000 low-income New Zealand families having cheaper and healthier power because of the Warmer Kiwi Homes programme, and 77,000 fewer New Zealand children living in poverty under this Government. We’ve seen record levels of renewable electricity generation under this Government. We’ve seen significant efforts to improve the quality of the school property portfolio that was so badly run down under the last Government that we had kids parked in hallways, in gymnasiums, and in libraries because they simply did not have enough classrooms. On the international front, we’ve secured more progress on free-trade agreements than any Government in recent New Zealand history, to support our exporters. We’ve got more people in apprenticeships—274,000 people taking up free apprenticeships and targeted trades training under this Government. One thousand three hundred more classrooms—to put a number on the figure that I was using before. Three thousand more teachers in our classrooms—something that we are incredibly proud of. Supporting schools so that parents don’t have to top up school budgets with donations, in the way they had to under the last National Government. Or what about the hundred million free school lunches that have been delivered in our schools? Increasing paid parental leave to 26 weeks. Increasing health funding so that our hospital doesn’t have to go begging. And here’s one for the member, given his announcement: increased Pharmac’s funding by 51 percent since we became the Government. Twelve thousand additional public housing places under our Government, and there are more under construction right now because we want to see Kiwis with a roof over their head. One thousand eight hundred extra police on the beat under our Government. And let’s not forget the record levels of investment in our infrastructure, with $71 billion due to be invested in infrastructure over the next five years as we catch up for the years of neglect of our infrastructure that we saw under the last National Government. There is so much more I could talk about.

Christopher Luxon: So what I would say to you is, why, despite that very long spiel, is crime worse, is education worse, is health worse, and is roading worse; why have we not seen improvement in any of those outcomes at all?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I utterly reject the assertion that the member is making in his question. If he thinks that having fewer children in poverty is a worse outcome, if he thinks that building more State houses since the 1950s is a worse outcome, if he thinks having more teachers in schools is a worse outcome—that could actually explain their track record on under-investment in teachers. If he thinks having more nurses and more doctors in our hospitals is a worse outcome—that could also explain the mess that we inherited from the last Government. We actually think those things are good signs. They are good investments in the future of our country.

Question No. 2—Housing

2. to the Minister of Housing: What recent progress has the Government made to boost public housing in Auckland?

I am pleased to inform the House that this Government has delivered over 13,000 public houses across the country. In Auckland alone, there’s been an increase of nearly 7,000 public homes. Recently, the Prime Minister and I opened Te Mātāwai, a 276-unit apartment complex in Auckland’s CBD, the largest single-site public housing development in New Zealand’s history. Our extraordinary pace of delivery means that this Government is delivering the most public homes per year since the second Labour Government in the 1950s.

Helen White: How is Te Mātāwai supporting its tenants?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: Te Mātāwai will provide tenants with around-the-clock onsite support, which demonstrates our deep commitment to ensuring those people who need the support in their lives can get it. Around 60 percent of the units at Te Mātāwai are accessible or universally designed and have been recognised with Lifemark ratings of 3 or 4. All of the units at Te Mātāwai are built to Homestar 7 standard, meaning they will be warmer, healthier, and more energy efficient for those who make their homes there.

Helen White: What is the Government doing to help elderly people into public housing in Auckland?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: Kāinga Ora is currently building 236 new homes in Avondale to replace 45 older homes. Of this, 192 of the homes will be retained for seniors housing. Once complete, it will allow Kāinga Ora to replace several ageing senior housing complexes across Avondale and Blockhouse Bay. Kāinga Ora has also worked in partnership to deliver 41 new public homes on Wilson Road, Glen Eden specifically designed for older people. Other examples of Kāinga Ora senior housing that are currently at various stages of development across Auckland include 52 homes on Greenslade Crescent in Northcote and 123 homes in Manukau City’s Osterley Way. We are deeply committed to providing the support needed for those in public housing, including older New Zealanders.

Helen White: How is the Government enabling land for much-needed housing in Auckland?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: The Government has invested $2 billion from the Housing Acceleration Fund into five large-scale projects in Auckland: in Tāmaki, Mount Roskill, Oranga, Northcote, and Māngere. This work, which has been overseen by Kāinga Ora, delivers the pipes, roads, and other key civil infrastructure to allow more than 17,000 homes to be built across Auckland in the coming years to help solve our housing crisis. This work also enables an additional 11,000 homes to be delivered on neighbouring privately owned land. In addition to this work, over $120 million in infrastructure investment through the Infrastructure Acceleration Fund will enable a further 4,000 homes across Auckland.

Helen White: What progress has been made on these Auckland large-scale projects?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: To date, the work under way has seen 82 hectares of land made build-ready to support more than 6,000 homes. More than 2,600 homes have so far been delivered in the Auckland large-scale projects by property developers. These homes are a mix of market and affordable public homes, as the work continues with about another 30 hectares of land to be made build-ready for housing. Our Government is proud of these outcomes.

Question No. 3—Revenue

3. to the Minister of Revenue: Does she agree with the Minister of Finance’s statement that he was “too definitive” when, prior to the election, he ruled out changes to the brightline test, and will the Government’s subsequent changes to the bright-line test result in some New Zealanders paying a capital gains tax on their family home?

I always agree with the finance Minister’s statements in the context that they were made. New Zealand has no capital gains tax on the family home. Further, I have today announced that we will remove the brightline test for owners of flood- or cyclone-damaged properties who take up the voluntary buy-out offer, which is co-funded by the Government and local authorities. We remain committed to supporting those affected by the severe weather events. In some cases, a voluntary buy-out may trigger the brightline test or one of the other tests for land sales. The Government is clear: it isn’t appropriate to apply the brightline test to these property sales because of the impact of weather events. This builds on earlier tax rollover relief changes made in April for the North Island weather events.

Nicola Willis: How can she say there is no capital gains tax on the family home when the IRD has issued specific guidance which says that if a family-home owner is out of their home for 12 months for any reason, they will be subject to a 10-year brightline test, meaning, in effect, they will pay a capital gains tax on the sale of their home?

Hon BARBARA EDMONDS: I repeat that there is no capital gains tax on the family home. I also remind the member that the brightline test was introduced by the National Party, which created this uncertainty. Under National’s rule, the owner must have resided in the property as their main home. The main home exclusion will not apply when only a family member and not the owner has used the property as their main home. So this would’ve been caught by the National rule. Under their rules, if that person was living in the home for less than half the time they owned it, they would have been subject to tax on the entire gain on the sale.

Nicola Willis: Why does she keep claiming that there is no capital gains tax on the family home when the IRD’s explicit guidance about Rebecca says that despite never owning an additional home and having her husband and daughter stay in the sole home she owns, she would have to pay a capital gains tax for the time she was away from her home?

Hon BARBARA EDMONDS: Again, I want to reiterate my earlier comments: there is no capital gains tax on the family home. Section CB16A, which talks about the disposable under the brightline test, the Commissioner of Inland Revenue, not the Minister of Revenue, is responsible for interpreting the tax legislation. The main home should not be caught by the brightline test. This has never been and is not the intention.

Nicola Willis: Does the Minister think it’s fair that a family would have to pay a capital gains tax on the sale of their family home just because one parent needed to move out of home for a period of time due to, for example, a work secondment or a family illness?

Hon BARBARA EDMONDS: What’s not fair is that under the previous rules by the National Government, if a person was living in the home for less than half the time they owned it, they would’ve been subject to tax on the entire gain on that sale.

Nicola Willis: Does the Minister see that the best way to ensure that no family is subject to her capital gains tax by stealth would be simply to take the brightline test back to two years where it should stay?

Hon BARBARA EDMONDS: I absolutely refute the mischaracterisation by that member who says that there is a capital gains tax by stealth. There is no capital gains tax in New Zealand on the family home.

Nicola Willis: Does the Minister realise it’s pretty confusing when she claims there isn’t a capital gains tax for families but explicit IRD guidance makes clear that if a homeowner is out of their family home for more than 12 months for any reason at all—secondment, renovations, damage from a natural disaster—they will be exposed to her Government’s brightline test if sold within the brightline period?

Hon BARBARA EDMONDS: What is confusing is that these are the same rules that the National Party introduced when they brought in the brightline test in 2015. We sought to clarify the rules in 2021 to provide some cushion for those taxpayers. Therefore, once again, I reiterate, there is no capital gains tax on the family home.

Question No. 4—Prime Minister

4. to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his response “Yes, I do” to my question yesterday asking if he stood by “the factually incorrect statement he made to Newshub on Saturday ‘The idea that you’d make a joke about blowing up an ethnic minority is something that isn’t really funny’”, and does he consider his own statements that the Ministry for Pacific Peoples’ expenditure “isn’t acceptable” to be criticising an ethnic minority?

Yes, I stand by the statement that such jokes are not funny. All Government spending is open to scrutiny and it’s possible to do that without talking about blowing people up.

David Seymour: Does he stand by the statement—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Order!

David Seymour: —he made yesterday—

SPEAKER: Sorry to interrupt. Can you ask the question again?

David Seymour: Happy to, Mr Speaker. Does he stand by the statement he made yesterday that “I believe … all political leaders have a responsibility to take care in the statements … they make about all of New Zealand’s citizens and groups, and we have a particular duty of care to ensure that the statements we make don’t inflame tensions”; and if he really believes that, why did he mischaracterise my criticism of wasteful spending at a Government department as an attack on an entire ethnic group?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Yes, and it’s a matter for the member to clarify what it was he was intending when he said he thought that sending Guy Fawkes into the Ministry for Pacific Peoples was an appropriate thing to do.

David Seymour: How can he stand by his statement that “political leaders have a responsibility to take care in the statements that they make” while, at the same time, making factually incorrect statements, and standing by them today, when they introduce race into a debate where it never needed to be?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I know the member seems to want to turn the election campaign into a culture war with himself at the centre of it. We’re actually focused on more important issues, on this side of the House.

David Seymour: Does he stand by his statement in response to questions about Labour’s low polling: “we’re going to fight back”, and is mischaracterising what other people say for political advantage part of this “fight back”?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Of course, as Prime Minister, I’m not responsible for either of those comments. But, yes, of course, I do stand by the first one. With regard to the second one, I’m sure that the parties opposite will be getting more scrutiny—including uncovering the fact that the member himself is being propped up by a bunch of anti-vaxxers.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Tēnā koe e te Māngai. What does the Prime Minister think must be done to stop politically motivated violent extremism that is growing, the white identity - motivated violent extremism that is growing, that relate to anti-Semitism, ant-rainbow, anti-Māori, and anti-Pacific ideologies, as identified in the New Zealand’s Security Threat Environment 2023 report released last week?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: There are many things that we can do, but I think one of the things that we can all do as political leaders is to lead by example. The other thing is when we see that behaviour, we can call it out.

David Seymour: Does the Prime Minister believe New Zealanders have a right to an honest, healthy debate this election, and will he publicly commit to promoting that instead of mischaracterising others’ statements and creating a culture of fear?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Yes, I absolutely do and I would like the member to make the same commitment.

David Seymour: Is he resorting to a desperate campaign of fear because his Government has no record to run on and New Zealanders know it and they’re deserting him at the polls by the thousand every week?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Coming from a member who’s being propped up by a bunch of anti-vax conspiracy theorists, I think that question’s a bit rich.

Rawiri Waititi: Does the Prime Minister agree with a judgment that we’ve got the leader of ACT chiming in about law and order but is first to get name suppression for his president for heinous crimes?

SPEAKER: The Prime Minister’s not responsible for that.

David Seymour: Point of order, Mr Speaker. Mr Speaker, I invite you to reflect and perhaps seek advice. The member has just speculated that a particular individual has name suppression and is guilty of heinous crimes. Both of those are in contempt of court, and, due to the long tradition of comity between this House and the courts, to make such statements is deeply disorderly, brings the House into disrepute, and should face very severe consequences from you, Mr Speaker. I can’t believe, frankly, what I’ve just heard. The tikanga of this House is well known and should be respected.

SPEAKER: I’d like everyone to calm down, thank you. I will go back and look at everything that’s happened in question time today. The future of the House is in the House’s hands and every individual member in it. I have—and I have stated this on a number of occasions—allowed supplementary questions to be asked, including the member himself on this very question today, that have been out of order, almost completely out of order, and have allowed the Minister to choose whether or not they want to address all or part of it. I will go back and have a look at that particular one and everything else, but there’s a very clear procedure about what the member is talking about. He has that open to him if he wishes to take that course of action, OK? Raising it as a point of order in such an instance is not appropriate. Are there any further supplementaries on this primary question?

Question No. 5—Health

5. to the Minister of Health: What announcement has she recently made regarding improving the mental health of New Zealanders?

Earlier this week, I was proud to announce that the Government’s mental health and addiction programme Access and Choice has hit the 1 millionth support session mark since it started delivering services in 2020. Access and Choice provides support to people experiencing mild to moderate mental health challenges so small issues don’t become big problems.

Dr Anae Neru Leavasa: How many New Zealanders does the Access and Choice programme support?

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: Each month, tens of thousands of New Zealanders are benefiting from this new programme, which offers mental health support in healthcare settings they are used to, such as GP clinics. The wellbeing support provided in general practice alone has population coverage of over 3 million New Zealanders. Figures show that approximately 40,000 to 60,000 sessions a month are being delivered, and this number will continue to grow as the phased nationwide roll-out of services continues.

Dr Anae Neru Leavasa: How has the Access and Choice programme supported New Zealand’s diverse communities?

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: New Zealanders can get free and easy to access face-to-face support from Kaitāia through to the Bluff, and more than 600 locations in between. We have seen great uptake in the number of Māori accessing the service, with 19,700 sessions delivered in May and June this year. We have also seen 4,000 sessions delivered to Pacific people and 9,900 sessions delivered to young people, also in May and June this year. This shows what can happen when we design services with diversity in mind.

Dr Anae Neru Leavasa: How can someone access those services?

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: Access and Choice services don’t require referral and are appealing to a wide cross-section of Kiwis wanting to address mild to moderate mental wellbeing challenges. New sites are also coming on stream every month. Now you can get free and easy to access face-to-face support from Kaitāia through to Bluff and at more than 600 locations in between. To find a provider close to where they live, head to wellbeingsupport.health.nz.

Matt Doocey: In light of the Minister’s response of being proud, how proud is she that under her Government an extra 176,000 people have been unable to get mental health support, with the latest New Zealand health survey reporting that unmet mental health need has increased from 4.9 percent in 2017 to now 8.8 percent in 2022, despite the $1.9 billion somewhere for mental health?

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: We have just described a brand new mental health system in the community that is addressing unmet need, and if we had been in the position that that Government left us in, there would be nothing in the community for mental health. If we go back and turn back the clock in the way National wants us to for mental health, those people would be a lot worse off.

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?

E te Māngai o te Whare, for what I believe is the 16th time, I stand by my full statement at the time it was given; it is my view that New Zealanders feel safer with the Government on track to deliver 1,800 extra police. I also stand by my recent comments that it was great to meet in person with Countdown to talk about how we can work together to reduce unacceptable levels of retail crime. I share that member’s concerns about the increase Countdown has seen in stolen goods, physical assaults, thefts, and security incidents. However, rather than just talking about being tough, this Government is resourcing police to work with organisations like Countdown to get on top of this problem.

Hon Mark Mitchell: Well, does she include Countdown employees in those that should feel safer?

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: I met with Countdown in just the last week, and when I met with Countdown they were also accompanied by the new retail crime support unit which has been advising them, and they have taken into account those security measures. I will also meet tomorrow with police and representatives from 40 retail organisations, including Farmers, Mitre 10, Michael Hill Jewellers, Pascoes, Aura, Kmart, Glassons, and Retail New Zealand. I agree that there is an unacceptable level of retail crime in New Zealand, and we are taking action to get on top of the problem.

Hon Mark Mitchell: Do the 234 Countdown workers that have been assaulted so far this year feel safer now that she has met with them?

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: This Government has taken action to support retailers with a new retail crime prevention unit and also to support those retailers with additional security features. The actions this Government is delivering to reduce retail crime is far superior to what those policies are, which is solely to introduce boot camps, which was proven by their own appointed science adviser not to work.

Hon Mark Mitchell: Does she think Kiwis feel safer when dairy workers are having to confront armed youth offenders, risking their lives to defend themselves and their businesses?

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: Absolutely not, and that is why this Government has taken action to introduce a new offence, a ram raid offence, introduced into this House this week. We have also seen record numbers of security installations right across the country. We are working closely with those retail owners so that they are supported and so offenders are brought to account.

Hon Mark Mitchell: Given her single focus on community safety, are communities safer now than when she became police Minister?

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: There’s always more work to do, and this Government is focused on delivering those results. I think those results of giving retailers clear support, of improving front-line resources with 1,800 extra police, and enabling those retailers to have access to good quality intelligence and advice from police is far superior to the actions that member is suggesting, which is simply to introduce boot camps for youth offenders.

Question No. 7—Agriculture

7. to the Minister of Agriculture: What has the Government done to support New Zealand’s farmers and growers?

The primary industries are the backbone of our economy and the Labour Government has always backed our farmers and growers. The full list is too long to read out in the House, but I’ll give you a few examples. Firstly, we’ve successfully implemented a world-first Mycoplasma bovis eradication programme. We’ve co-invested in 267 sustainable food and fibre futures projects alongside industry to lift export value and innovation. We stood up the Opportunity Grows Here initiative to attract Kiwis into the sector and support with labour shortages. We saved Telford and Taratahi from financial ruin and ensured the future of agricultural education. We started On Farm Support and the Career Pathways Scheme. We set aside $6 billion for futureproofing roads and rail infrastructure. We invested $1 billion into developing emissions reduction tools, extension services on farm, and farm sustainability practices, and we’ve secured seven new or upgraded free-trade agreements to give our exporters diversified market opportunities. At every turn, the Labour Government is looking to cement the bright future of our primary industries.

Steph Lewis: What have we seen as a result of this support?

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: As a result of all this great support, we have, firstly, placed more than 16,000 additional Kiwis into primary sector jobs, funded 1,400 people through free agricultural taster courses at Telford and Taratahi—two organisations that the previous National Government had deserted. We have put 44 on-farm support staff on the ground in the regions and they have played a significant role in Tairāwhiti and Hawke’s Bay. We’ve got 50 farm advisers into the Career Pathways Scheme. We’ve established 32 rural hubs to connect farming communities with health and wellbeing support, and we’ve slashed millions of dollars in tariffs off our primary sectors. As a result of this and other support, today I’ve announced the final figure for our food and fibre export revenue ending on 30 June this year: a record $57.4 billion of export earnings. That is 50 percent higher than when we came into Government in 2017. I want to thank the industry and everyone in the primary sectors for helping us achieve that.

Steph Lewis: What are the challenges facing the primary sector?

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: We’ve seen an increase in input prices on farm as a result of Russia’s war in Ukraine and the effect that has had on supply chains—on fertiliser and fuel, in particular. Recently, we have seen commodity prices coming down from their record highs. The markets are also sending strong signals around sustainability credentials and emissions reduction. But some of the biggest challenges that we would have are, firstly, if we ignored the market signals and locked ourselves out of international market opportunities, if we opened the door to foreign buyers and made it uncompetitive for New Zealanders to bid for farms, or if we sold off core infrastructure like roading into the hands of foreign buyers—that’s exactly what National and ACT are campaigning on.

Steph Lewis: Will the Government protect farmers by keeping the conduct of financial institutions Act?

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: Yes. The Labour Government remembers the pain of the interest rate swaps crisis and we would not let that happen again. Thousands of farmers lost hundreds of millions of dollars after being taken advantage of by banks and dodgy operators—that’s why we put the Act in place. We also put in place a Farm Debt Mediation Act in 2019 to ensure that farmers under pressure would get a fair deal from their banks. Anyone who is proposing to repeal those protections would be serving our primary sector poorly. That’s what National and ACT are campaigning on.

Question No. 8—Housing (Māori Housing)

8. to the Associate Minister of Housing (Māori Housing): Does he stand by all his statements and actions in relation to Māori housing?

I thank the member for the question. Yes, in particular, when I said last week that this Government has done more for Māori than any other Government in history, and I actually referenced the member himself, Mr Potaka. As we all know, the Opposition likes to talk about what members have said in the past, and when Mr Potaka said just last year, this Government has been very much engaged, entwined, and bolted-on to what we’re doing—which is wonderful. Mr Potaka, he also said, “You either love them or you hate them, and right now we love them.” I’d like to thank that member for his ongoing support and love. Kia Ora.

Tama Potaka: How many of the 553 contracted houses have been completed under the iwi prototype scheme and are now occupied by residents and their whānau?

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: As that member well knows—as an avid supporter of this Government, he knows the problems that our people have to go through in terms of infrastructure, whenua Māori; the member knows there’s a range of problems.

Andrew Bayly: What about a number? Spit it out.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: What we do have is 1,000 houses contracted to 2025—fabulous work done by Minister Henare, Minister Woods, but at the moment we have 70 built.

Simeon Brown: Point of order. The question was quite clear around how many from a particular programme had been delivered, and I didn’t hear an answer to that question. I heard about 1,000-something else—

SPEAKER: I’m surprised you heard anything. You’re kidding, right?

Hon Peeni Henare: Can the Minister confirm that two weather events have impacted on two of the prototypes, and that those prototypes pivoted to help the East Coast in need?

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: I can confirm that, and confirm the support of Sir Selwyn Parata, who has also given huge support to this Government; along with Tuku Morgan, one of the leaders from Tainui; Pita Tipene from the North; Willie Te Aho from the coast; and, of course, we’ve got Jamie Tuuta from Taranaki—and, of course, the member gave his undying support, well, just at the end of last year. I thank him for going for that love and support.

Tama Potaka: How many, if any, of the houses built through the Māori housing iwi prototype scheme now house people who were previously on the social housing register, and does his ministry collect that information?

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: As the member knows, I’m not responsible for the social housing register—the Minister’s over here—and if one day he becomes the Minister of Housing, which I think will be never, he could possibly ask that question. I’m not responsible for that register, but I am responsible for the iwi prototypes. Can I say today, this is the only Government that’s ever had a by Māori, for Māori strategy. The previous Government never put anything in place. Shame on Mr Luxon—he’s responsible. He’s the leader now, but Tama here is a big supporter of what we’re doing, so maybe he can initiate that in 2030 or something when maybe you’ll get into Government.

Tama Potaka: How does the Minister reconcile that answer with his answer to written parliamentary question No. 23271, when he states, “I’m advised that Te Puni Kōkiri does not collect information about whether individuals living in houses funded through the Whai Kāinga Whai Oranga were previously on the Housing Register.”?

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: I’ll just do this slowly for the member, because I have a lot of aroha for the member—I’m not the Minister responsible.

Tama Potaka: How many houses, if any, have been built at Ihumātao?

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: As that member knows, Ihumātao is a unique situation, and our people have five years to build houses, and the member who’s related to some of those people over there, should know better. He’s been very patronising and he’s learnt too many of the dirty rotten National Party tricks—I want the old Tama Potaka back.

Question No. 9—Police

9 to the Minister of Police: What actions have Police taken to crack down on retail and organised crime?

This Government continues to take action to assist police in tackling persistent youth offending and to hold to account those gang members and organised crime syndicates that peddle their misery and methamphetamine to our communities. There’s plenty more to do, but this Government takes backing the police and tackling crime seriously. This includes continued roll-out of the Retail Crime Prevention Programme and the fog canon subsidy scheme, the introduction yesterday of the ram raids offending bill, and also supporting police with the resources and the laws they need to continue to crack down on organised crime. It’s very easy to talk a big game in this House, but this Government continues to deliver the rules and the tools to support police in their work to crack down on retail and organised crime.

Arena Williams: How will new legislation help police?

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: Yesterday, this Government introduced the Ram Raid Offending and Related Measures Amendment Bill to give further tools to police and the justice system to crack down on persistent youth offending. The new ram raid offence is modelled on the existing offence of burglary and will carry a maximum 10-year sentence of imprisonment. Where it does differ is that police now have the discretion to charge 12- and 13-year-olds in the Youth Court, where previously this wasn’t possible. The bill also makes it an aggravating factor in the Sentencing Act to live stream an offence, and for an adult to use a child or a young person to commit a crime.

Arena Williams: How are police helping to support retailers?

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: The Government has continued to support retailers through both the Retail Crime Prevention Programme and the fog canon subsidy scheme. To date, 16 August, the fog canon subsidy scheme has seen the installation of 1,867 fog canons into small retailer areas, and also a further 137 are booked in. The Retail Crime Prevention Programme has also aided 586 retailers, with a total of 2,198 security interventions, including 519 fog canons, 421 security sirens, 479 alarms, and 423 CCTV systems and system upgrades. These interventions are making a difference. While ram raids do remain too high, I am always wanting to see that the numbers keep tracking down, as we have seen in the past two months.

Arena Williams: What reports has the Minister seen on the success of police charges for serious offences as part of Operation Cobalt?

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: Operation Cobalt remains a driving force in supressing and also disrupting organised crime and gang-related activity within our communities. As of 17 August, police have laid 48,814 charges, which includes offences such as burglary, theft, fraud, breaches of bail, reckless driving, driving while disqualified, careless driving, and drink driving. These are serious offences and police are rightfully prioritising holding gang members to account—and also affiliates to account. It’s a shame that some people talk down this work in describing these serious offences as minor charges.

Question No. 10—Health

10. to the Minister of Health: Is it acceptable that as of July this year there have been 3,361 cases of staff being physically assaulted in Te Whatu Ora facilities, and is it acceptable that this is only 98 fewer assaults than the 3,459 physical assaults that occurred in the whole of 2022?

No, and no. It is never acceptable that someone is assaulted at work. I am assured by Te Whatu Ora that it takes the safety and security of its staff very seriously and is taking a large number of initiatives to keep people safe.

Brooke van Velden: Is it acceptable that, in the first seven months of 2023, seven out of the 20 former district health board districts have already recorded more physical assaults on staff than they recorded for the entire year of 2022?

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: No, it is not acceptable.

Brooke van Velden: Does she believe that Te Whatu Ora complies with the Government’s expectation that public sector employers must “create safe and healthy places of work”, when five Te Whatu Ora employees have been stabbed by a patient since 1 January 2022, and, if not, is it acceptable that any staff have been stabbed at their place of work?

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: No, it is absolutely unacceptable that our staff are treated in that way, and, yes, I do have confidence that Te Whatu Ora works very hard on this problem and has a number of mitigations in place.

Brooke van Velden: What changes will she advocate for to ensure staff safety when providing healthcare to Kiwis, considering the occurrence of 8,600 physical assaults on staff since April 2021 and the absence of national guidelines for responding to violence against staff?

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: There is a number of measures under way already in Te Whatu Ora that I expect Te Whatu Ora to continue to roll out. That includes de-escalation training for staff across hospitals, but particularly in areas of high risk; the presence of over 800 security staff in our hospitals; in areas that are high risk, physical modifications to the environment; not to mention increased efforts put into reporting, which may reflect some of the data the member has mentioned today.

Question No. 11—Local Government

11. to the Minister of Local Government: Has he seen the recent report from the Helen Clark Foundation on sponge cities and, if so, has he sought advice about encouraging water-sensitive urban design and sponge cities as part of the three waters reforms?

Yes, I have. I have it here. But I only became aware of it because of the member’s question, so I appreciate her submitting that. I have not sought advice on this, however, because it is our view that the reforms do allow for such proposals to be considered by water entities. Specifically, sections 12 and 14 of the Water Services Entities Act set out the objectives and operating principles of the new water services entities. These include clear requirements for the entities to protect and promote the environment, to support and enable our response to climate change, and to have regard in the delivery of water services to green water infrastructure and water sensitive design.

Hon Eugenie Sage: What role, if any, does he consider that nature-based stormwater solutions, such as more green space and urban wetlands, in cities and towns have in responding to a changing climate and more extreme storm events?

Hon KIERAN McANULTY: Well, the report itself, from what I’ve seen, makes for interesting reading. And from the conversations that I’ve had with those within the local government sector already, this is something that is on their radar. But the priorities that the entities will follow are set by the regional representative groups, of which local government each have a seat on there. It’ll be through that venue that local government can highlight the best approaches for their own respective communities.

Hon Eugenie Sage: Does he consider that green roofs, on-site rainwater storage, rain gardens, and more urban trees would help reduce stormwater volumes and improve stormwater management; if so, what action can water services entities take to encourage more use of water-sensitive urban design?

Hon KIERAN McANULTY: Well, I’m certainly not an expert in these things, but those that will be running the operational aspects of water entities will be. And so if they deem these examples that the member has provided as an appropriate approach to stormwater in the respective communities, I’m certain they’ll pursue them.

Hon Eugenie Sage: Does he agree with Dr Yu Kongjiang, the initiator of the sponge cities concept in China, that, and I quote, “We need a paradigm shift in planning and designing our cities to adapt to the changing climate.”, and, if so, what measures will he promote through the three waters work programme to achieve this shift?

Hon KIERAN McANULTY: One of the rationales behind the water reforms is to ensure that local voice and local priorities are at the heart of the decisions made by water entities. We’ve tried to ensure that central government direction of those entities is limited as much as possible so that the priorities of the respective communities within those entities would be reflected. I don’t think it would be appropriate for me to express my opinion or indicate any potential direction, because that wouldn’t be my intention.

Question No. 12—Commerce and Consumer Affairs

12. to the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs: What benefits have New Zealanders gained from the Financial Markets (Conduct of Institutions) Amendment Act 2022?

Thank you, Mr Speaker. New Zealanders can be confident today that their banks and insurance companies are obliged to treat them fairly and will face consequences if they don’t—

Andrew Bayly: They already have that under the other legislation.

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: —thanks to this vital legislation, Mr Bayly. Since coming into office, the Labour Government has shone a light on the conduct of banks and insurers through conduct reviews, through court cases, and through the establishment of the conduct of financial institutions (CoFI) Act. We have put the onus on banks and insurers to demonstrate that they put the needs of consumers at the forefront of decisions, and we have given the Financial Markets Authority (FMA) essential new powers to hold institutions that treat customers unfairly to account with significant new penalties. This Government’s work on fair conduct is already seeing hundreds of millions of dollars returned to Kiwi consumers by their banks and insurers, and those responsible for unfair treatment are already being discovered and held to account. Everyone on this side of the House should be proud of this fantastic piece of Government legislation.

Anna Lorck: What led to the Government establishing this legislation?

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: Thank you. The FMA and the Reserve Bank reviewed the conduct of banks and life insurers in 2018 and 2019. Since that time, a whopping $161,300,000 has been returned to over 1.5 million Kiwis. In the words of the Executive Director for Regulatory Delivery at the FMA, this demonstrates “the extent of the [weakness] in the systems and processes across banks and life insurers.” and “the significant amount of work required by financial institutions to ensure they are identifying, rectifying, and remediating issues”. The enormous impact of poor bank and insurer conduct on customers is irrefutable, and that’s why this Government took action.

Anna Lorck: What other evidence is there that the conduct of financial institutions Act is necessary?

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: The FMA has taken seven of New Zealand’s big-brand insurers and banks to court for fair dealing breaches and has seen multimillion-dollar penalties handed down to several of these institutions.

Andrew Bayly: But they didn’t do that under CoFI—they did it under existing regulation.

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: Mr Bayly, without this Government’s amendment Act passed last year, the FMA can only act retrospectively once harm to those customers has already been done. There is overwhelming evidence that a proactive, fair conduct regime with powers to monitor, licence, and enforce is sorely needed, the likes of which only the conduct of financial institutions Act provides.

Anna Lorck: Do you have plans to roll back this legislation further?

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: Absolutely not. This Government takes its responsibility for ensuring New Zealanders are protected by our laws—we’re in it for the Kiwi customers who rely on us to make sure their banks and insurers treat them fairly. Where that’s not happening, we will act. We are proud of this critical piece of legislation, and on this side of the House we’ve no plans to repeal it. I agree with Hamish McNicol and Calida Stuart-Menteath, who said in the National Business Review on 18 August that “Ditching CoFI is bonkers”.