Oral Questions

1. to the Minister of Energy and Resources: How is the Government partnering with businesses to reduce their emissions?

Recently, I announced the Government is partnering with a further 17 businesses to accelerate decarbonisation projects, which will cut their use of fossil fuels, reduce emissions, and protect and create highly skilled jobs in New Zealand. Through round five of the Government Investment in Decarbonising Industry fund, or GIDI, these Government-backed projects are estimated to reduce carbon emissions by 67,300 tonnes per year—the equivalent to taking approximately 25,000 cars off the road.

Glen Bennett: What are some examples of the projects supported through GIDI round five?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: Through round five, the Government is partnering with Open Country Dairy Awarua on a significant project to install a large, high-pressure electrode boiler and three high-temperature heat pumps. This alone will contribute over half of the emissions reductions in round five. We’re also partnering with Rainbow Park Nurseries in Auckland, which will be the first in the country to use highly efficient heat pump technology to warm the water that runs through the glasshouses. Rainbow Park have said that funding brought forward their green upgrade by at least four or five years, delivering emissions reductions sooner and when New Zealand needs them.

Glen Bennett: Have any of the projects funded through the Government’s partnership been completed?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: Twenty-six projects funded through the Government’s partnership with businesses have been completed. These include new equipment for energy efficiency and carbon reduction at the Whakatane paperboard mill, an electrode boiler at Meadow Mushrooms in Christchurch, and a biomass boiler at Napier Pine. These projects accelerate emissions reductions while protecting and creating jobs here in New Zealand.

Glen Bennett: How will the Government’s partnerships with business contribute to New Zealand’s emissions goals?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: Across GIDI, we’ve now partnered with 56 businesses on 83 projects to accelerate the decarbonisation of industrial process heat. Once operational, all projects are estimated to result in annual emissions reductions of up to 1.6 million tonnes of carbon dioxide. That is the equivalent of taking approximately 590,000 cars off the road. Anyone who purports to cut this scheme needs to tell us how they’re going to make up for that.

Glen Bennett: What investments is the Government making to support decarbonisation in New Plymouth?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: Oh, an excellent question. The Government is investing in two decarbonisation projects at Taranaki Hospital. These projects will replace the hospital’s fossil-gas boiler with a low-emissions alternative and improve the energy efficiency of the hospital, elevating it to green star building status. Once complete, these projects are estimated to reduce the carbon emissions at the hospital by 10,340 tonnes over 10 years. In addition, the Government is partnering with businesses to deliver 21 chargers to the Taranaki region to support the transition to a lowemissions transport system. These projects will help reduce transport emissions and improve the reliability of electric vehicle transport infrastructure in New Plymouth.

Question No. 2—Finance

2. to the Minister of Finance: Does he stand by all his statements related to Government tax and spending decisions?

Yes, acknowledging the context in which they were made.

Nicola Willis: Does he believe he has honoured his commitment not to implement any new taxes this term, and how does he reconcile that with having turned the brightline test into a virtual capital gains tax, having introduced an app tax, new tenant taxes, tried to introduce a wealth tax at the Budget, a KiwiSaver tax, and a jobs tax?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: As I’ve noted before to the member, I have been—if we’re going to apply the word “tax” to every single policy or action, I would apply the “waffle tax” to her leader as an example of that. I stand by the programme of work that we have undertaken. We have undertaken initiatives to make our tax system fairer whilst balancing the need to provide good quality public services.

Nicola Willis: Does he think he was honouring his commitment not to implement any new taxes this term when he asked officials from across Government to develop a wealth tax for introduction in this year’s Budget?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: As has been discussed extensively in this House, that would not have come into force until after the election, and the public, had it been taken up, would have had an opportunity to decide whether they wanted it or not. In the event it was not taken up, by Cabinet decision.

Nicola Willis: Does he stand by his statement that he was “too definitive” when he ruled out extending the brightline test prior to the election, and can he confirm that if someone today lives outside of their family home for 12 months, for any reason—illness, secondment, bereavement—then they will be subject to a capital gains tax if they sell their home within a 10-year period?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: In answer to the first part of the question, yes. In answer to the second part of the question, the rule that the member is highlighting is the rule that the National Party brought in. I will quote from when they bought it in: “The owner must have resided in their 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.” This is what National brought in.

Nicola Willis: Why is the finance Minister trying to blame National for the effect of a brightline test that he extended to 10 years, and a definition of the main home which means that families who live outside their home will now be subject to a capital gains tax?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Because the National Party brought that rule in. The National Party brought in the brightline test; the rule hasn’t changed in that respect.

Nicola Willis: Would the Minister also like to blame National for his extensive reflection on the need for a wealth tax, for his reflection on the need for a KiwiSaver tax that would wipe tens of billions of dollars off New Zealanders’ KiwiSaver accounts, for his decision to increase tenant taxes without a mandate from the electorate, or is it actually his responsibility that those decisions were made?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Over the course of the last six years we’ve worked extremely hard to support New Zealanders through very tough times, including the COVID pandemic and including the period of time now where cost of living pressures are so high. We’ve done that in the context of inheriting a situation where New Zealand public services had been consistently run down. So, yes, we had to invest heavily in health to make sure we paid our nurses properly, to make sure we recruited health staff. We had to invest heavily in education to make sure we didn’t have kids learning in halls and in corridors outside classrooms, and to make sure that teachers are here and that they’re paid properly. We had to invest extensively to make sure that we got away from the National Party policy of selling off public and State housing and, instead, building 13,000 public houses. So, yes, there will always be an element of what we are doing where we have to look back and say, “We are cleaning up the National Government’s messes.”

Hon Damien O’Connor: Has the Minister reflected on or done any analysis on what would happen if there was an increase in the GST across this country?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: As the member well knows, that is not something that the Government has increased, and previous Governments who didn’t do that reflection before they went into office and then just did it straight after without telling New Zealanders certainly have something to reflect on.

Nicola Willis: How can New Zealanders trust any commitment he makes on tax when it may be that he takes a detour down the road to Damascus at any juncture?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Mr Speaker—I just didn’t know that had finished—this Government stands proudly on the record we have had of supporting New Zealanders through tough times, making sure we look after the most vulnerable in our community, making sure that we have quality public services available, and making sure that what we do adds up. The member has a set of unfunded promises that don’t add up and place her firmly in the Bermuda fiscal Triangle that Paul Goldsmith created for her.

Question No. 3—Health

3. to the Minister of Health: What is the Government doing to reduce youth vaping?

Earlier this week, I confirmed a number of new regulations aimed at reducing youth vaping, including proximity restrictions and limiting flavour descriptions. These new regulations build on the previous protections we introduced, including banning sales to under-18s and prohibiting vape advertising and sponsorship. The impact of these regulations will continue to be monitored. Nothing is off the table in terms of what we need to do to make sure we see a reduction in youth vaping while retaining sufficient tools for smoking cessation.

Sarah Pallett: What change is the Government making to reduce the appeal of vaping to children?

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: While some vape flavours are described generically, others are described in ways that appear to be designed to specifically appeal to young people. Studies have found that flavours are important for initiation and continuation of vaping among young people. That’s why we have changed regulations so that vape products and their packaging will only be able to have generic descriptions that accurately describe the types of flavours.

Sarah Pallett: What change is the Government making to make vapes less accessible to children?

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: We want vapes as far from the minds and reach of children and young people as possible. That’s why any locations within 300 metres of schools and marae will be off limits for new specialist vape shops. Limiting the proximity of specialist vape shops in this way is intended to make vapes less visible and accessible to young people.

Sarah Pallett: Why is the Government working to reduce youth vaping?

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: Many of the regulatory controls are there to protect young people from vaping. Youth vaping has grown, despite the laws we’ve brought in to prohibit sales to under18s. Alongside our efforts to reduce tobacco smoking, we want to ensure vaping products are safe, regulated, and are only being used for cessation purposes, as was intended. I’m committed to protecting our tamariki from the risks associated with smoking and vaping products.

Question No. 4—Justice

4. to the Minister of Justice: Does she still believe that the Government has the right priorities in justice?

on behalf of the Minister of Justice: Yes, including cracking down on gangs whilst also supporting victims of crime. We’ve banned semi-automatics and we’ve toughened legislation on the proceeds of crime but we’ve also passed sexual violence legislation and improved victim assistance schemes and funding for Victim Support.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Why, when apparently cracking down on gangs, does her Government persist with the goal of reducing the prison population by 30 percent, irrespective of the level of serious crime in our communities?

Hon DAVID PARKER: The proportion of prisoners in prison who are gang affiliates has increased, as has the number of gang affiliates on other forms of sentence. On both occasions, this is in part because the police are cracking down so successfully against gangs, seizing proceeds of crime, firearms, and bringing the full weight of the law against them for their offending.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: How does she reconcile her statement to Newshub: “if there is a line and someone crosses [it,] they are held accountable and they suffer the consequences of committing that crime.” with her Government’s stated goal of reducing the prison population by 30 percent, regardless of the level of serious crime in our community?

Hon DAVID PARKER: I think the answer that I gave earlier addresses that question. There is no doubt that the police have been given more resources to crack down on gangs. They have a serious offending unit that cracks down on gangs and other organised crime. It has resulted in thousands of offences being charged, with those people ending up in prison in the main and sometimes on home detention, as well as the confiscation of many firearms and the proceeds of crime.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Doesn’t the Government’s prison reduction focus send the message that the Government is less interested in accountability and consequences for crime than it is in achieving its goal of a 30 percent reduction in the number of prisoners?

Hon DAVID PARKER: On this side of the House, we actually leave sentences to the courts. We don’t interfere in that process. I would note that in respect of another party’s announcement recently, the Auckland District Law Society said that if that happened, then this would be limiting judicial discretion in a way that would be an overreach of parliamentary power and that it would be illogical.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Has the Minister received any reports of a member of this House interfering in the police prosecution by contacting prosecution witnesses?

Hon DAVID PARKER: Well, if that was correct, it could be a very serious issue, but I have no particular information on that matter. If the member wants a more particular answer, that could be put down in a primary question.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Is she concerned that the impression that some people may have gathered that the Government is less interested in the consequences of crime has flowed through to the situation where Woolworths is spending $45 million buying new trolleys to stop people running out of stores without paying—something that means law-abiding Kiwis have to pay more for their fruit and vegetables and groceries?

Hon DAVID PARKER: It might be that that member, like some of his colleagues, never goes to supermarkets, because I know, having been to supermarkets over many decades, that it’s many decades ago that they introduced the same technology to stop those trolleys being taken from the car park.

Hon Meka Whaitiri: To the Minister, in your opinion, is it appropriate for a member of this House to interfere in a police prosecution by contacting prosecution witnesses?

Hon DAVID PARKER: Oh, that’s a very easy question to answer. That would be entirely inappropriate, and I would be surprised if that ever occurred.

Question No. 5—Finance

5. to the Minister of Finance: Does he stand by his statement that “in the economic circumstances that we are in at this time, we do not believe that major tax changes are appropriate”; if so, when would economic circumstances be appropriate for taxing wealth or capital gains?

In answer to the first part of the question, I stand by my statement in its full and proper context. In answer to the second part of the question, the member is asking about a hypothetical situation, but I would refer her to the rest of my answer to her question on 17 May 2023, where I went on to say we have made the tax reform that we promised to make at the 2020 election. Future policies are for political parties to make.

Chlöe Swarbrick: What could be a more appropriate time to tax wealth or capital gains, when the Government’s own research shows that the wealthiest 311 families in this country pay an effective tax rate less than half of that of the average New Zealander?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Clearly, the Cabinet decision is that the particularly volatile and uncertain economic environment that we’re living in now is not the appropriate time to make those major tax changes. I would note that since that statement was made in May, we have seen further volatility globally, particularly with respect to what’s happening in China and, indeed, across other parts of the world, and so that part of that statement certainly stands.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Is it not the right time to create a fairer and more equitable tax system when 55 percent of New Zealanders report being in a financially difficult position, compared to the wealthiest 311 families who own $85 billion in wealth, more than the bottom 2.5 million New Zealanders combined?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Well, as I’ve said on a number of occasions in this House, this is a particularly challenging time for many New Zealand households and, indeed, many New Zealand businesses. That’s the reason why the Government has stepped up with significant support over a long period of time to low and middle income New Zealanders, and we will continue to try to find the opportunities to do that.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Is it the right time to tax wealth when Aotearoa’s tax system is ranked 136th in the world for reducing inequality?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Well, I haven’t seen that particular statistic, but I have seen statistics that rank within the OECD around things like the tax wedge, that New Zealand actually compares relatively favourably on. During this term of Government, we’ve sought to make the tax system fairer by increasing the top rate, putting in the trustee rate to reach that top rate as well, and we will continue to look for opportunities to do that, balanced against all of the other needs that we have.

Nicola Willis: Is it the Minister’s position that now is not an appropriate time to introduce taxes of the sort being discussed with the member due to volatility in the global economic environment, and, if so, what are the economic conditions in which the Minister thinks it would be appropriate to introduce taxes of that sort?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: As indicated by the Cabinet decisions in May, a time when the global economy is so uncertain, where companies and households have been through very turbulent times, and where there are ongoing significant challenges to the New Zealand economy is clearly not that time.

Nicola Willis: So does the Minister think it would be appropriate to introduce wealth taxes or capital gains taxes if the economic conditions were more permissive?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The Cabinet has taken the decisions that are to be taken in this term of Government on taxation, and there are no further decisions to be taken in that regard. Clarity about taxation is very important, and we look forward to hearing clarity from the National Party about taxation—for example, whether or not the 39 percent top rate is coming back.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Does he agree with 63 percent of people in Aotearoa who think now is the right time to implement a wealth tax to provide free dental care so people don’t have to live with debilitating pain?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: As has already been indicated, Cabinet has taken the decision not to implement a wealth tax.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Who is most disproportionately impacted by the current economic conditions that he describes, the one in nine children living in poverty or the 311 wealthiest families in Aotearoa?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Quite clearly, those people who are our most vulnerable are the most impacted by a deterioration in economic conditions, and that’s exactly why, as a Government, I am proud that we have lifted the rates of main benefits, lifted family tax credits, lifted childcare assistance, supported superannuitants, students—all of them—with the cost of living pressures that they’re facing. Those are the things that need to be prioritised over unfunded tax cuts that would deliver significant benefits to the wealthiest New Zealanders.

Question No. 6—Public Service

6. to the Minister for the Public Service: What reports has he seen about proposals for changes to the Public Service?

Our Public Service supports the Government of the day to implement its policies and programmes. The Public Service does vital work, such as making sure businesses and workers are supported through fair and balanced law; educating our kids; fixing roads, rail, bridges, and houses after natural disasters; and assisting with solving long-term intractable problems like good environmental planning, safe water in the future, responding to climate change, and so on. The latest Kiwis Count survey reported that 82 percent of New Zealanders trust public services, and that compares to the OECD average of just 50 percent. I’ve seen reports on proposals to integrate CERT New Zealand into the National Cyber Security Centre to strengthen the country’s cyber-security resilience and response. That’s a proposal the Government accepted, by the way. Also, I’ve seen reports on proposals to improve national security leadership through organisational reform, something that this Government is doing. But I’ve also seen various reports of proposals to cut 7,300 Public Service workers in the Wellington region and 14,000 nationwide, including halving the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) workforce. All of these proposals would make it more difficult for any elected Government to implement its policies and would see significant cuts to vital services that Kiwis and our economy rely on. This Government has no plans to do that.

Angie Warren-Clark: What would be the effects of a reported halving of MBIE public services?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: MBIE contains a number of functions that are crucial to successful economic activities. Halving MBIE’s workforce would mean it could not have processed the tens of thousands of visas for the FIFA Women’s World Cup that contributed $200 million to our economy. MBIE would not be able to process the hundreds of thousands of other visas which are the basis of our reinvigorated tourism sector or the thousands of working holiday green list and skilled migrant visas for nurses and other health workers urgently needed by our health sector. Halving MBIE’s workforce would limit the support for our film and games industries, which employ thousands of people, or our emerging space industry. It would prevent the new Grocery Commissioner from starting his work to make grocery prices fair and supermarket shopping affordable, and there’s much more. This Labour Government has no plans to reduce the capacity of Government in these vital areas.

Angie Warren-Clark: What would be the effect of some of the other reported proposals about public services?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: One of the proposals I’ve seen is in relation to the Ministry for Women. That proposal would halt the Women’s Employment Action Plan closing the gender pay gap, which has narrowed under this Government but still stands at 9.2 percent. Another reported proposal, in relation to the Ministry for Pacific Peoples, would mean abandoning the 2,700 people who have enrolled in programmes to support their pathway to homeownership, as well as the 1,350 people that the ministry has supported in jobs over the past year. A reported proposal in relation to Te Arawhiti, the Office for Māori Crown Relations, would significantly slow settling remaining claims related to the Crown’s historical breaches of the Treaty of Waitangi and would slow or stop the work within Crown agencies and departments adopting modern Treaty relationships to address longstanding equity problems. This Labour Government has no plans to reduce capacity in these areas.

Angie Warren-Clark: What other effects would a reported reduction of 14,000 core public servants have?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: It’s likely that programmes like Mycoplasma bovis eradication and responding to the pandemic and natural disasters could not be staffed. It would also restrict the ability to develop initiatives such as targeted children’s vaccination programmes for those missing out, and policy responses to organised and violent crime. This Labour Government remains committed to having a Public Service able to meet the needs of all New Zealanders.

Angie Warren-Clark: What would be the effect on the Wellington regional economy of a reported proposed reduction of 7,000 public servants who ordinarily work here?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: The public sector is responsible for 12 percent of the Wellington region’s GDP. The hit to the Wellington economy would be in the region of $1 billion per annum. This Labour Government remains committed to a Public Service providing the services that New Zealanders need and developing solutions for long-term difficult challenges rather than repeatedly kicking the hard policy cans down the road.

Question No. 7—Education

7. to the Minister of Education: Will she make the Common Practice Model a legal requirement for teachers to follow, and on what date will the final content of the Common Practice Model be published?

on behalf of the Minister of Education: On behalf of the Minister of Education, the final Common Practice Model will be released in term 4 of 2023. Teachers are encouraged to use the new maths and literacy curriculum from 2024 and through 2025. It will become a legislative requirement from 2026.

Erica Stanford: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I didn’t ask the Minister about the curriculum; I asked about the Common Practice Model, which is a completely different document to the curriculum. So the wrong question has been answered.

Hon KELVIN DAVIS: I’ll repeat the last sentence: it will become a legislative requirement from 2026.

Erica Stanford: Will the Common Practice Model require Structured Literacy to be used to teach every student to learn to read?

Hon KELVIN DAVIS: It will provide clarity to teachers so that they know what to teach.

Erica Stanford: Can she explain to parents why it is that she’s going to mandate a certain method that teachers will use to teach their children to read, but she won’t say what that method is until after the election?

Hon KELVIN DAVIS: Again, the Common Practice Model will provide clarity to teachers.

Erica Stanford: Can the Minister provide any clarity to this House today on how parents will know, after the election, how their children will learn to read, and whether or not that will be Structured Literacy, which has been shown to be the best way to teach children to read?

Hon KELVIN DAVIS: We always trust the teachers, but when we provide clarity their practice will improve even more.

Erica Stanford: Isn’t the reason that she will not put her neck on the line and state what method of teaching reading will be compulsory prior to the election is because she’s afraid of the controversy and cannot defend her position?

Hon KELVIN DAVIS: No, that’s not the case whatsoever. We’ll trust in teachers and, as I said, the Common Practice Model will provide clarity to them on the best ways to teach.

Question No. 8—Racing

8. to the Minister for Racing: What recent reports has he seen on the New Zealand racing industry?

Our racing industry is on the charge. This Australian season just gone, Kiwi-bred and -trained horses made up 8 percent of group 1 starters, yet won 30 percent of races. That’s just one statistic to show the quality of the New Zealand racing industry. Racing is worth $1.6 billion to our economy, and that contribution is growing. This positive outlook is confirmed in the New Zealand Thoroughbred Racing (NZTR) statement of intent which notes, “Off the back of the recent approval of the TAB New Zealand-Entain strategic partnering arrangement, our industry has been given an opportunity for significant revitalisation. We now see the dawn of a new era for New Zealand racing, laying a platform for improved professionalism and standards right across the board”. The statement goes on to say, “We are extremely heartened by the strategic arrangement, which has given NZTR the ability to plan with certainty for the next five years, and prioritise key areas of the business to promote growth.” I note this statement was signed off by Cameron George, a person who knows a thing or two about revitalisation. Up the Wahs!

Terisa Ngobi: What feedback has the Minister heard on the TAB-Entain strategic partnership?

Hon KIERAN McANULTY: The leadership of the New Zealand racing codes have told me that the partnership is a game-changer. In my role as Minister, I had to be satisfied the partnership would be to the benefit of New Zealand racing before I could sign it off. The feedback I received on this has been universal. Industry leaders are reporting that stakes are up, funding for world-class harm minimisation is up, and payments to the racing and sporting codes are also up.

Terisa Ngobi: What feedback has the Minister heard on restoring the TAB legislative monopoly?

Hon KIERAN McANULTY: Parliament was clear some decades ago that TAB should be the sole provider of racing and sports betting in New Zealand. This was done to ensure the New Zealand racing industry, one of the smallest in the world, would continue to be one of the best performing. At the time those regulations were passed, the explosion of unregulated, offshore, online competitors was not envisioned. With the Government’s agreement in principle to restore TAB’s monopoly, the industry have reported that this further improves the certainty of funding that goes to racing and sport. This is securing the future for those that love racing and sport, and those that work in the industry. This is another part of this Government’s plan to bolster our emerging and high-performing export industry.

Terisa Ngobi: How many people are employed in the New Zealand racing industry, and what does this mean for them?

Hon KIERAN McANULTY: There are estimated to be around 15,000 people directly employed in racing. Providing certainty over how the industry is funded makes a career in racing an attractive prospect. In particular, racing provides an array of employment opportunities in regional New Zealand. I’m advised that this certainty of funding gives the industry confidence to further develop apprenticeship and training programmes, and to take more young people on.

Question No. 9—Corrections

9. to the Minister of Corrections: Is it still the Government’s policy to reduce the prison population by 30 percent over 15 years?

When we became Government, there was a prison population crisis—a moral and fiscal failure, according to Bill English—which was predicted to see the population balloon to close to 14,000 people by now, far more than the network could accommodate. The long-term target we set reflected the situation at the time, one that could have seen measures such as triple and quadruple bunking and mattresses in prison hallways, and the possibility of using mothballed boarding schools out in the community. It is important to remember that Corrections does not decide who is sent to prison or for how long. Their contribution to the reduction in the prison population was through improving administrative processes for people eligible for release and also providing housing. The Government will continue to protect public safety and support the justice system to hold offenders to account, and I am progressing no specific policies to further reduce the total prison population.

Toni Severin: Has his goal of 30 percent fewer prisoners in jail led to an increase in gang members and gang associates serving sentences in the community on electronic monitoring from 383 in 2017 to 738 this year?

Hon KELVIN DAVIS: Well, first of all, let’s commend the police for doing a sterling job in arresting those people who are committing crime, those gang members. The proportion of people in prison who are gang members has increased substantially, and, because of the increases in arrests, I guess judges then are looking at various options for sentencing, which does include home detention, which does include incarceration as well.

Toni Severin: Has his goal of 30 percent fewer prisoners in jail led to a situation where 917 violent offenders are in the community serving an electronically monitored sentence?

Hon KELVIN DAVIS: Well, Corrections doesn’t determine the sentence a prisoner receives, but it has prevented about 3,000 people from not being housed in mothballed boarding schools around the country. Now, I’d hate to think about the community’s safety if that had eventuated, as was predicted.

Toni Severin: How is his goal of 30 percent fewer prisoners in jail not an experiment with public safety and an example of the Government failing to do its most important job of keeping people safe?

Hon KELVIN DAVIS: Oh, that’s an insult to the judiciary, who make the decisions about the sentences people receive. Corrections’ job is to house the people that judges send there and they do a good job. They also do a great job in making sure people don’t reoffend, because you can see the reoffending and the re-imprisonment rates have decreased as well.

Toni Severin: Isn’t it the case that we need more criminals, not fewer, in prison, and will he support ACT’s policy of investing $1 billion to build an additional 500 prison beds to ensure dangerous people can be locked away from law-abiding New Zealanders?

Hon KELVIN DAVIS: No, and I hate to think about the amount of taxes they would have to raise and increase and impose on poor working New Zealanders. The operating costs of prisons—I mean, it costs billions not just to build a mega-prison, an American-style mega-prison like they want. It costs billions as well to operate them, huge costs imposed on the community, when we just need to really rely on the judiciary to do the job that they’ve been charged with doing.

Question No. 10—Transport

10. to the Minister of Transport: Does he stand by the Government’s record on the delivery of light rail?

A light-rail connection from the Auckland city centre to the airport is Government policy, as is progressing mass transit in Wellington, and that’s what we’ve been doing. The planning of these major infrastructure projects is critically important. I’m told that his own party now regrets that they didn’t plan for a public transport corridor when they widened State Highway 16, making the job of now adding the much-needed north-western busway both more difficult, more time consuming, and more expensive.

Simeon Brown: Has he seen reports that zero metres of Auckland Light Rail have been built in the last six years, despite this Government spending over $140 million on this programme, and will he stand next to a giant red zero to celebrate this success?

Hon DAVID PARKER: Sometimes that member puts a giant red target on himself. I mean, the member is facile in his assertions that everything is built under National and nothing is built under Labour. It was a Labour Government that planned the Waterview Tunnel; that did most of the work on State Highway 20. It was the National Government that finished it. It was the National Government that started the City Rail Link (CRL) after pressure from Opposition parties. The CRL has largely been completed under this Government. This Government has made major improvements to the State highway network. We finished Transmission Gully, the planning for which started under the prior Labour Government. The construction commenced under the National Government and finished under the Labour Government. These big projects take time and are, in duration, longer than any one Government, and the member needs to concede that.

Simeon Brown: Was he aware that on the day that he announced light rail to Albany that—to the day—exactly six years earlier, Phil Twyford announced light rail to Mount Roskill, and considering the outcome of that light-rail project, what confidence does he have in delivering light rail to Albany?

Hon DAVID PARKER: What I know is that State Highway 16, which is eight-lanes wide now close to Auckland—eight-lanes wide—has been expanded to six-lanes wide further out, and is already getting clogged up because the last, incompetent National Government didn’t design the public transport corridor, didn’t provide for it around the Waterview connection, notwithstanding that they were spending hundreds of millions of dollars on that connection, and, as a consequence, gridlock in Auckland down that corridor is getting worse. And we, on this side of House, have a plan to fix it.

Hon Damien O’Connor: Has the Minister received any reports on the utilisation of large amounts of foreign capital to build our roading infrastructure?

Hon DAVID PARKER: I have seen reports of both funding holes in how other parties are going to fund their proposals, which amount to many billions of dollars, and that overseas capital will be brought in to do it. Of course, the idea that overseas capital is cheaper than Government borrowing is illusory, because the private sector expectations of rate of return are higher. As to where that capital comes from overseas, some people are suggesting Belt and Road, but we’re not.

Simeon Brown: When will he concede that Auckland Light Rail is a failed transport project that is going nowhere, has no funding, and instead invest in the real transport infrastructure projects New Zealand needs, like new roads of national significance?

Hon DAVID PARKER: There are some new roads that are necessary. The Brynderwyns improvement is one good example that this Government is committed to. A major highway project in Tauranga has also been committed to that is necessary to enable more housing. But the member’s assertion that, essentially, roads are the answer is not true in metro areas like Auckland. We have spent billions and billions and billions of dollars on the likes of eight-laning parts of the north-western motorway, and because of that member’s party not planning for it, we’ve already got clogging up of that network, and fixing it with decent busway down that is much more expensive because of the incompetence of that side of the House.

Question No. 11—Youth

11. to the Minister for Youth: What has the Government done to support our young people to make the most of their unique talents and have a sense of belonging and connection in their communities?

Young people represent 17 percent of the population and are 100 percent of our future. As Minister for Youth, I’m immensely proud of what this Government has done to support young people across the country. During this term, we have worked to support rangatahi to be heard through the refreshed Youth Plan, to keep them engaged with education and training through increased funding of the Ākonga fund, and have supported their innovative ideas through the youth enterprise programmes. Over the past three years, we have provided over 220,000 opportunities for young people to engage, supporting well over 100 providers every year to encourage and support the resilience and capability of young people and improve their overall wellbeing.

Naisi Chen: What was the focus of the recently released refreshed Youth Plan and how will it help young people?

Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME: Last week, I launched the refreshed Youth Plan, titled Voice, Leadership, Action, which will guide a consistent approach across the youth sector and, along with the Youth Health and Wellbeing Survey, aims to inform the Government’s policies and will ensure we are incorporating feedback from our rangatahi. The voices and leadership of young New Zealanders are key drivers behind the plan, and we all know how effective and powerful change can be when young people lead it for themselves and their whānau, their schools, businesses, and communities. That’s one of the reasons why the refreshed Youth Plan is such a great quality. Our youth advisory group worked on this plan with us—20 amazing young people with diverse knowledge and experience, who I have thoroughly enjoyed working with. We heard from over 1,400 young people from across the motu, and I’d like to take this opportunity to thank them all for their amazing work and contributions.

Naisi Chen: What has this Government done to respond to the emerging needs of young people, especially those who have become disengaged from school?

Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME: In 2020, we launched the Ākonga Youth Development Community Fund in response to learners who had been hit hard by COVID and lost connections on their education journey. This fund helps at-risk learners, aged between 12 to 21 years, to strengthen their resilience and reengage with their communities and training opportunities. So far, almost 8,000 young people have benefited from the fund, helping them to reconnect with learning in their communities. Our recent evaluation of the Ākonga fund has confirmed what providers and young people have told us—that the Akonga fund is building the confidence of at-risk young people, fostering their relationships with peers, whānau, and communities, and boosting their motivations and hope for the future. I was so pleased to announce extra funding in Budget 2023, and I’m excited that it will offer a further 5,500 ākonga opportunities through this.

Naisi Chen: In what other ways has this Government supported providers to engage young people in development opportunities that strengthen their wellbeing?

Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME: We’ve funded providers from Invercargill to Kaitāia to offer positive youth development opportunities that support young people to succeed in life and enjoy life, including giving them hands-on experiences to prepare them for work. During the past financial year, 160 providers delivered 82,000 youth development opportunities, providers like the Village Collective in South Auckland that I visited. This is just one example of the hundreds of programmes this Government has funded for young people and, through this, expanded their wellbeing and their opportunities to contribute.

Question No. 12—Immigration

12. to the Minister of Immigration: How many, if any, accredited employers have had their accreditation removed by Immigration New Zealand, and how many, if any, job tokens have been issued by Immigration New Zealand following an approved job check application from an accredited employer that is under investigation by Immigration New Zealand?

In response to the first part of the member’s question, six employers have had their accreditation revoked by Immigration New Zealand and 11 have been suspended, and there are currently 185 investigations under way. To the second part of the question, there are currently 15 open job check applications, covering 87 positions, where the employer is under active investigation. Once a job check has been approved, the employer or their representative issues the job token to the migrant. If an employer has had their accreditation revoked or suspended, these job tokens expire and cannot be issued. Where an employer is under investigation but has not been informed, Immigration New Zealand ring-fences all work visa applications so that no further action can be taken in relation to them until the investigation is concluded.

Erica Stanford: When the Minister said on Radio New Zealand that “Every employer applying for accreditation was required to undergo a number of checks—that they were in business, that the business was viable”, but that not all of those businesses were undergoing the checks that should have been made, what is his understanding of what those checks were and how they should have been carried out?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: The advice I have had is that there is a set of routine checks that should take place and that those checks have not been taking place.

Erica Stanford: Can the Minister confirm that the routine checks at the accreditation stage that Immigration New Zealand were carrying out were not actual checks but simply a declaration form that businesses filled in online, that did not require any actual documentation, evidenced in his quote to this House a couple of weeks ago when he said, “The advice [that] I’ve had is that employers are to provide a declaration in relation to the standards that they have to meet, which includes employment standards, … about their business.”?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: The member hasn’t got it quite right. There are a number of requirements that the employer has to meet. Some of those requirements are checked on an automated basis. So, for example, checking the name of the employer against the database that Immigration New Zealand and the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment have, against a list of employers who have either infringements against their name, prosecutions, or other negative checks. Then there are checks carried out at a human level to make sure that the documentation is in order. But not all of those checks, according to information received from staff members of Immigration New Zealand, appear to have been carried out. That is why I’ve commissioned a review, an independent review, through the Public Service Commission, to ascertain just what the quality of the processing is of those applications.

Erica Stanford: Did officials inform the Minister about a general instruction from the Deputy Secretary of Immigration New Zealand telling staff to skip checks on almost all applications under the scheme, as reported in Stuff this week, in order to get as many workers in the country as quickly as possible?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I’m not aware of any such instruction being given by senior officials of Immigration New Zealand, but that is why I have asked the Public Service Commission to arrange an independent review. That’s in the process of being put in place at the moment. But I do want to remind the member of her position just two months ago on this matter, where she called for a process that was streamlined and did not have bureaucratic tape in the cost out. And I just say this to the rest of the House too—why I think the National Party is weeping crocodile tears on this—that in addition to wanting no bureaucracy at all in this, they voted against worker protection legislation earlier this year that is about giving officials more power to chase up bad employers.