Oral Questions

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

Yes, particularly the action this Government has taken on the housing crisis that we inherited in 2017. We have reversed the decline of public home numbers by adding 13,000 new public homes, including 10,000 new builds, and delivering 4,000 transitional houses. We’ve incentivised new builds to reverse the housing deficit, with building consents reaching record levels over our time in Government. We’ve tipped the balance in favour of first-home buyers—so that they are a larger share of the market—by increasing the first-home grants, removing the house price caps from first-home loans, and banning foreign speculators from purchasing existing New Zealand homes. Let me be clear, banning foreign property speculators has made a difference. If it was reversed, it would put our first-home buyers at the back of the queue, which is where they were under the last National Government.

Christopher Luxon: Isn’t it embarrassing that having spent half a billion dollars of taxpayers’ money to restructure the health system, polling reported in the Post this morning shows that 70 percent of New Zealanders say that the health system has got worse?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: It’s desperate times for the National Party when they’re quoting their own pollster in the House.

Christopher Luxon: Which failure in health does he think is most responsible for the 70 percent of Kiwis saying the health system is worse; is it the record wait times in emergency departments, the thousands of Kiwis on surgical wait-lists, or the collapse in childhood immunisations?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: It’s a tragic day when the National Party can’t find any evidence to back up its arguments in the House, other than jacked-up polls done by their own pollster.

Christopher Luxon: Go talk to some people. How is it possible that he can spend $5 billion more on education, only for 81 percent of Kiwis to say that there has been no improvement since the last election, with 57 percent saying it’s actually got worse?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Of course, the biggest driver of the increased spending in education is the increased salaries. The question that the member asked probably explains why teachers got such paltry pay rises under the last National Government, and why it’s been up to us to make sure that their wages have been catching up. I am very proud of the fact that teachers’ salaries at the top end of the salary scale—which, for secondary and primary teachers, is most of the teachers—have gone up so significantly under our Government from somewhere around 70 grand to over a $100,000 a year.

Christopher Luxon: Which of his failures in education does he think is influencing Kiwis the most: his broken polytechnic mega-merger, the record number of Kiwi kids not in school, or the abysmal decline in basic skills like literacy and numeracy?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I will make no apology for the work the Government has done to clean up the mess in vocational education that we inherited from the last Government, where almost all of our polytechnics were going broke and probably wouldn’t still be around if we hadn’t stepped in to bail them out.

Christopher Luxon: Who is right: the 64 percent of New Zealanders who say that the criminal justice system has got worse since the last election, or the Minister of Police, Ginny Andersen, who says New Zealanders feel safer?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: If the member is going to continue to quote Ministers out of the full context of their quotes, that can go both ways. We could start quoting him out of context as well.

Christopher Luxon: Why does he think Kiwis have totally lost faith in his Government on law and order; is it the 107 percent increase in serious assaults, two ram raids every day, or the 70 percent increase in gang membership?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: What New Zealanders can have confidence in is when it comes to issues like violent crime, we are making sure that that violent crime is actually being reported. One of the biggest drivers of the increase in violent crime reporting has been an increase in reporting of domestic violence. That is something that the members opposite don’t like to talk about; it’s something that, actually, we should acknowledge. More people are reporting domestic violence than they used to. I actually think that that is an encouraging sign that New Zealanders’ tolerance for that kind of violent crime is no longer what it used to be. That is a good thing.

Christopher Luxon: Isn’t it obvious that whether it’s health, education, or law and order, it doesn’t matter how much taxpayer money it spends, this incompetent Labour Government is simply incapable of delivering better outcomes for New Zealanders?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Once again, the member fails to acknowledge where the extra spending is going. Actually, if we look at health and we look at education, one of the biggest drivers of the increase in spending is that we are paying people properly, something the last National Government did not do. For those people who lose their jobs if National gets in and decides to cut public spending to pay for tax cuts, the tax cuts won’t mean very much at all.

Question No. 2—Sport and Recreation

2. to the Minister for Sport and Recreation: What has been the impact on New Zealand of co-hosting the FIFA Women’s World Cup?

The tournament has been an extraordinary showcase for New Zealand. We’ve had more than 700,000 people attend the FIFA Women’s World Cup, in the 29 games held in New Zealand, and watched the exceptional athletes and wonderful football that has been on offer. We’ve seen record crowds for a football match in New Zealand, at 43,217; the biggest stadium crowd for a sporting event in New Zealand so far this year; the biggest TV audience for a football match shown in New Zealand in 20 years; nearly 165,000 people have attended FIFA fan festivals; and more than 20,000 international visitors have come to watch games here in New Zealand, providing a boost to the tourism and hospitality industries during what is traditionally a quieter period of time. I’d like to thank New Zealanders for getting out to support this event, as well as those involved in the organisation, and, in particular, the 5,000 volunteers who have put their time into making this tournament a success.

Helen White: What other impact has the tournament had on New Zealand?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The tournament has caught the attention of football fans around the world. FIFA has reported that the group stages alone saw records broken for ticket sales, broadcast figures, and digital media. The tournament is set to exceed the 1.1 billion people who tuned into the last world cup, in 2019, and, in doing so, highlights New Zealand’s unique value and raises the country’s international profile. The Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment will carry out a post-event analysis to determine the economic impact of the tournament. However, a report for the Hotel Council Aotearoa found that hotel room occupancy rates were 7 percent above the equivalent month before the pandemic and represented the highest increase in occupancy rates since the pandemic. As one tourism operator was reported as saying, they’ve experienced “three weeks of mid-summer levels of business, almost exclusively because of this tournament”.

Helen White: What legacy has been created by co-hosting the tournament?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Well, the event has provided us with an opportunity to create significant social benefits for our country. Communities across New Zealand will benefit from newly upgraded sporting facilities as a result of $25 million that the Government has invested across 30 sporting facilities, including pitch, lighting, and facility enhancements, unisex changing spaces, and event infrastructure. Funding has also been set aside to support a leverage and legacy programme, which includes 50 projects around the country, including several projects that are being delivered by mana whenua groups. This aligns with the Government’s strategy for women and girls in sport and active recreation: to grow visibility, participation, and new female leaders in sport.

Helen White: How does the FIFA world cup align with the Government’s women and girls in sport strategy?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: In 2018, the Government launched New Zealand’s first ever women and girls in sport strategy, with three themes: participation, leadership, and valuing visibility. I am proud of the strides that we have made in promoting women’s sport across New Zealand and across the world. The FIFA Women’s World Cup 2023 is the culmination of New Zealand’s hosting of three major international women’s sporting events: the ICC Women’s Cricket World Cup, the Rugby World Cup, and the International Working Group Conference on Women and Sport. By creating a platform through which to encourage and inspire women and girls to be involved in sport, these events play a key role in further advancing each of the strategy outcomes in Aotearoa New Zealand. I’m immensely proud of New Zealanders’ hosting of this event.

Question No. 3—Oceans and Fisheries

3. to the Minister for Oceans and Fisheries: Does she agree with the statement in the State of our Gulf 2023 report, “recent events have underscored the precarious nature of the situation and the ecological tipping points we seem intent on testing”; if so, does she consider that the Hauraki Gulf Fisheries Plan is an adequate response to the situation?

To the first part of the question, yes. The fisheries plan and wider marine protections announced last week are a significant milestone in protecting the Hauraki Gulf. The plan itself is the first of its kind: an ecosystems-based approach tailored to the unique challenges facing the gulf. However, our work does not end there. Just this morning, in a speech to the New Zealand Seafood Conference, I called the industry’s attention to the very report the member references. The Hauraki Gulf is one of the most beautiful and productive waterways in the world and it is under stress. We need action, working alongside mana whenua, communities, and wider industry, and that is exactly what a Labour Government will continue to deliver.

Hon Eugenie Sage: Is she confident that the fisheries plan will restore fish stocks once abundant in Tīkapa Moana—the Hauraki Gulf—such as snapper and kahawai, and prevent any further fisheries from collapsing, as the scallop fishery has?

Hon RACHEL BROOKING: The plan will continue to look at what all those species are doing. It is a five-year plan, and it has an action plan for every year, and a lot of the actions include monitoring. Where there are specific measures needed for specific stock within the gulf, further regulatory actions can be taken.

Hon Eugenie Sage: Why has she not acted immediately to ban bottom trawling in the Hauraki Gulf given the clear public mandate of more than 2,000 public submissions on the draft fisheries plan and 36,000 people signing a petition calling for a ban on bottom trawling in the Hauraki Gulf?

Hon RACHEL BROOKING: At the moment, 27 percent of the Hauraki Gulf has bottom trawling banned from it, and one of the actions in the fisheries plan is to really reverse that presumption so that bottom trawling in the gulf can’t happen, except for in very specific areas. We will soon be consulting on the size of those very specific areas, and—to the member’s question about why not totally ban it at the moment—in general, of our whole fishery, 67 percent of our fisheries is from bottom trawling, and it is a significant part of our economy.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Has she sought advice from Fisheries New Zealand about the risk of bottom trawling spreading the invasive seaweed Caulerpa brachypus, and, if not, why not?

Hon RACHEL BROOKING: I’ve certainly had many discussions with the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) about Caulerpa and its spread. In those discussions, the evidence does seem to say that where the Caulerpa is found is in areas where there are yachts.

Hon Eugenie Sage: Is it acceptable that mana whenua and community groups have had to take their own action, such as establishing a rāhui around Waiheke Island and elsewhere, to help restore fish stocks in the absence of prompt Government action?

Chlöe Swarbrick: Shout-out to Ngāti Paoa.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING: I just heard a little heckle there from the member for Auckland Central, and I do agree with it. There is amazing work being undertaken by community groups in that area at the moment, and I commend them for that. Caulerpa is a biosecurity problem, and that doesn’t fall under my delegations, but of course it is relevant to the fisheries in the Hauraki Gulf, and there has been over $3 million spent by MPI on this issue already.

Hon Eugenie Sage: Will she take strong and urgent action to ensure the health of the gulf is restored rather than allowing the continued trends of decline, as has happened in the 20 years since the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park was established?

Hon RACHEL BROOKING: I consider that this fisheries plan and the work that will continue on as it’s implemented is strong action, and there’s always more that can be done, both on land and in the sea.

Question No. 4—Health

4. to the Minister of Health: What has the Government done to support the health workforce?

So many things. We have taken a range of actions to boost and support the health workforce. We are training more medical students, increasing the number of nursing placements, boosting the number of people working in the public health system, and we are increasing their pay. We are focused on making our health workforce more sustainable, growing our own workforce, and building a workforce representative of our community.

Soraya Peke-Mason: What has the Government done to improve the pay and conditions of nurses?

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: We’ve done a lot to improve the conditions of nurses, including growing their workforce. We’ve boosted our international recruitment and now provide up to $10,000 in financial support for international nurses to cover their New Zealand registration costs. Proof of the impact of this work: in the quarter from 1 April to 30 June this year, 3,000 nurses got registration in New Zealand for the first time. Now that pay equity has been settled and their collective has been ratified, graduate nurses now earn $73,566 a year and registered nurses on the top step now earn $103,630 a year. Increasing the pay of nurses goes a long way to retaining them in our system, and as a result, in the public health system we have seen over 5,000 nursing fulltime-equivalents across our time in Government.

Soraya Peke-Mason: How will the Government’s workforce plan support the sector?

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: Protecting, promoting, and improving the health of New Zealanders is only achievable with a strong health workforce. That’s why we have released the Health Workforce Plan with six action areas and initiatives that will make an immediate difference to deliver the long-term shifts we need for the sustainability of our workforce. For example, to grow the number of doctors working in general practice, we will grow our rural generalist pathways, scale the General Practice Education Programme—

Simon Watts: Six years of neglect—six long years of neglect.

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: —to 300 places a year by 2026—is someone over there opposed to training general practitioners? Speak up!—and establish a national picture of health training pathways. It will take time for the actions we’re talking to to be fully realised, but we are laying the pathway of a much better health system.

Soraya Peke-Mason: Great work e te Minita. Supplementary—

SPEAKER: Order! You just wasted that question. You got another one?

Soraya Peke-Mason: Why has the Government focused on supporting the health workforce?

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: We are working on long-term plans to ensure a representative and responsive workforce to meet the future needs of New Zealanders, no matter where they are, who they are, or where they live. Global workforce shortages and long-term underinvestment has put a lot of pressure on our workforce, and these challenges are not unique to New Zealand. Over the next year, stabilising our domestic workforce and supporting them to manage the day-to-day pressures will be a key focus. Workforce has been a demonstrated priority for this Government, and we have a long-term plan to assure a sustainable, representative, and responsive workforce to meet our future needs.

Question No. 5—Finance

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

Yes, in the context in which they were made and undertaken, acknowledging that that context can change as a result, for example, of the global and domestic economic backdrop, including the emergence of a one-in-a-hundred-year economic shock linked to a global pandemic or the second-most expensive natural disaster to hit this country.

Nicola Willis: Does he think the 80 percent increase in annual Government spending that has occurred on his watch has delivered an 80 percent improvement in public services, and, if so, why don’t New Zealanders agree with him?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: To reiterate the words of the Prime Minister earlier, David Farrar is obviously charging a lot of money, because he has to get many, many mentions of his work in the House. I am proud of the fact that, as this Government, we supported New Zealanders through the COVID pandemic. The large chunk of the extra expenditure that the member is talking about was devoted to getting households, businesses, individuals, and communities through the pandemic in a healthy way and with their businesses still operating and with people still in work.

Nicola Willis: Can he confirm net Crown debt has risen from $5.4 billion in 2019 to $73.3 billion today, and what does New Zealand have to show for it?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I can confirm, yes indeed. To get through the pandemic, we did indeed increase the borrowing that we did as a country. What New Zealanders have got to show for it is that tens of thousands of their family and friends are alive today because we adopted the approach we did. What we’ve got is 3.6 percent unemployment—one of the record-low levels of unemployment because we stepped in and we looked after people and we looked after businesses. The member might want to rewrite history and join Mr Seymour in the faculty of hindsight economics; on this side of the House, we deal with what’s in front of us.

Nicola Willis: Were Treasury and IRD right when they said, “Fiscal drag has had the greatest impact on average full-time wage earners, and why won’t he adjust brackets and allow New Zealanders to keep more of what they earn, when he seems to be able to find billions of dollars each time Chris Hipkins asks for quick cash, but he won’t find a cent for working New Zealanders?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: That is absolute nonsense. We have consistently over the last few years increased support for working New Zealanders, be it through the family tax credit, be it through childcare assistance, be it through the lifting of the minimum wage. What I note is that our focus is on supporting New Zealanders to increase their incomes by their wages rising. The National Party seem to think that the only way you can increase someone’s income is by cutting their taxes; that is a road to nowhere.

Nicola Willis: How can he claim there is no wasteful spending that could better be used for tax reduction when the Ministry for Pacific Peoples can find $40,000 for a leaving party, and how much has he budgeted for his?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: In answer to the first part of the question, I invite the member to think about all of the Governments in all of the history of New Zealand and think about things like hair straighteners at Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment or an $11 million sheep farm in the middle of the Saudi desert. The Prime Minister has been clear that that expenditure was inappropriate. There is no budget, there is no leaving party. However, I am prepared to donate to the member’s party when she becomes the leader and rolls Christopher Luxon.

Nicola Willis: Now that he’s had to walk back his views on depreciation deductions, GST, wealth tax, and capital gains tax, does he accept that his real legacy after six years in Government will be a highly indebted, highly taxed economy in which public services have gone backwards?

SPEAKER: That’s probably the most assertions I’ve heard in a supplementary. The member can answer however he likes.

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: In which case, I will speak freely in response to that. The questions of legacy come when someone is at the end of their political career; I’m not. I’m here because I’m want to make sure that we lift more children out of poverty—the 77,000 that we’ve lifted. I’m here to make sure that we add to the 60,000 apprentices that we’ve trained in our time here. I’m here to make sure that unemployment stays low, that wages keep rising, and that we support and look after New Zealanders. The member betrays something, though, doesn’t she? It’s all about personal stuff, legacies, for that member. This Government is here for all New Zealanders; that member is here for herself.

Question No. 6—Finance

6. to the Associate Minister of Finance: What is the Government doing to ban foreign buyers from the New Zealand residential property market?

When this Government took office, around 20 percent of homes in central Auckland and 10 percent of homes in the Queenstown region were being purchased by overseas buyers. We fixed that within 100 days by introducing legislation to effectively ban foreign buyers of existing residential homes in New Zealand. Now the percentage of foreign buyers of New Zealand homes is just 0.5 percent. This is a successful policy that has delivered on its promise to restrict foreign buyers of New Zealand homes.

Ingrid Leary: Why is it important that the New Zealand housing market is set by New Zealanders?

Hon DAVID PARKER: This Government believes New Zealanders should not be outbid for homes by wealthy foreign buyers. Whether it’s a beautiful lakeside or ocean-front house or a modest suburban home, this law ensures that the market for our homes is set in New Zealand not on the international market.

Ingrid Leary: How does the ban on foreign buyers of New Zealand homes interact with our trade agreements?

Hon DAVID PARKER: The Government banned foreign buyers before the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal came into effect. If we had not done so, foreign citizens from within that agreement and other countries we have trade agreements with, including China and now the European Union, could not be prevented from buying up New Zealand homes. If that position is reversed by any future Government, such a law may be irreversible without violating our international trade agreements.

Ingrid Leary: Does the Government have any plans to loosen the ban on foreign buyers of New Zealand homes?

Hon DAVID PARKER: The Government is not considering that because removing the foreign buyer ban would not be for the benefit of New Zealanders; it would only be for the benefit of foreign capital. Giving open slather to foreign buyers would be selling out young New Zealanders who are finally getting a foot on the property ladder, because, under settings like we have in this Government, the percentage of homes that go to people who live in them rather than rent them out—from overseas or New Zealand—owner-occupiers do better under us. Allowing foreign buyers into our housing market would send young Kiwi first-home buyers to the back of the queue. Our position is clear. The position of other parties is for the media to investigate.

Chris Bishop: How does he reconcile this opposition to foreign capital with the Government’s announcement of a $2 billion fund funded by BlackRock, a foreign capital fund, to invest in renewable energy?

Hon DAVID PARKER: Unlike the other side of the House, we’ve always seen a difference between foreign direct investment in companies and in, actually, commercial property, compared with allowing rich-listers from overseas to outbid New Zealanders for a modest house in South Auckland. New Zealanders want one house to live in. We don’t want rich people from overseas outbidding them.

Question No. 7—Immigration

7. to the Minister of Immigration: What percentage of all accredited businesses have had a post-accreditation check completed since the Accredited Employer Work Visa was introduced, and what percentage of Accredited Employer Work Visas logged with Immigration New Zealand have had a verification check completed since applications opened?

To the first part of the member’s question, 27,947 accredited employer applications have been approved, 609 post-accreditation checks have been completed, and 1,723 are in progress. Therefore, 2.2 percent of all approved accredited employer applications have had a post-accreditation check completed, and a further 6 percent are in progress since the Accredited Employer Work Visa (AEWV) was introduced on 23 May last year. To the second part of the member’s question, 100 percent of approved work visas logged with Immigration New Zealand have been assessed by an immigration officer.

Erica Stanford: Point of order, Mr Speaker. The second part of my question was quite specific and asked how many of the work visas logged with Immigration New Zealand have had a verification check completed, and that was not answered or addressed.

SPEAKER: I think it was, but you can use your supplementaries to explore that.

Erica Stanford: How can he claim that the AEWV will reduce migrant exploitation when Immigration New Zealand have approved 64,000 work visas while only conducting verification checks on 2,330 of these, a little over 3 percent?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: The member’s facts are wrong, which is unfortunately par for the course for her. In excess of 77,000 visas have been given to workers under the Accredited Employer Visa work program.

Erica Stanford: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek leave to table an email from Immigration New Zealand to an immigration advisor stating that of the 63,800 visas that have been granted, only—

SPEAKER: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection?

Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.

Chris Bishop: In other words you’re wrong, as per usual.

SPEAKER: Order! Be quiet.

Erica Stanford: Supplementary question?

SPEAKER: Yes, you can have one.

Erica Stanford: Thank you, Mr Speaker. When he told the media that “very few” of the 27,000 accredited employers are participating in fraud, how does he know this, given just 2.2 percent of accredited employers have had post-accreditation checks completed and in light of the increasing number of migrant exploitation stories in the media, Immigration New Zealand have now conceded they simply do not know how widespread migrant exploitation is?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: There’s a number of issues in that question, but of the 27,892 accredited employers, they weren’t all accredited on day one. That number is as at 14 August this year, and the other relevant figure as at 14 August this year is 80,576 Accredited Employer Work Visa applications have been revealed. And so the member has revealed in her question today just how out of date she is. But to answer the particular point that I think the member was making, the post-accreditation checks are happening, and that is why a number have lost their accreditation, a number have been suspended, and a number are under investigation. That is what happens. I’m just intrigued by that member, who suddenly wants a lot more checks and processes, in light of her comment only a couple of months ago when she said she was “concerned about the over-regulation of these businesses under the accredited employer visa scheme.” The member is flaky.

Erica Stanford: When he stated in the Estimates debate that “what we are seeing now is reported levels of migrant exploitation that are in fact what they always were;”, can he explain if the reports on Monday night of 40 migrant workers whose jobs never materialised, living in a three-bedroom overcrowded home for months with no money, begging for food before, out of desperation, calling the police is as it has always been?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: The events that have transpired in relation to that group of workers who have been the subject of publicity in the last few days have been absolutely horrific and have been absolutely tragic, and they are the victims of a scam and a fraud that now clearly crosses boundaries. Sadly, migrant worker exploitation and the exploitation of, for example, students on visas in this country is, tragically, not new. What we need to make sure of is that we have systems that keep abreast of it and enable our enforcement officials and authorities to enforce compliance with the law, and that is what is happening right now with that case and the other cases that have come to light—most of which have been notified through the renewed notification processes that this Government put in place two years ago because we knew that migrant worker exploitation was hugely underreported and has been for years.

Question No. 8—Police

8. to the Minister of Police: What updates has she seen about the Police’s use of laws to target gangs and organised crime?

Following heightened tensions in the Manawatū, police last week invoked the use of criminal activity intervention legislation (CAIL) to provide warrant powers to search vehicles—and the occupants of vehicles—of suspected gang members. This is the second time the legislation has been invoked since it came into effect in April of this year. Once again, it has proven to be a vital tool in police’s ability to crack down on gangs. Under this warrant, police searched 21 vehicles, 34 members and associates; and resulted in three arrests, three firearms and five other weapons being seized. Most importantly, the law had a chilling effect on gang activities and aided the lowering of tensions in the region.

Vanushi Walters: What effect are laws like the Criminal Activity Intervention Legislation Act having?

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: Under the Criminal Activity Intervention Legislation Act, police have now laid five charges for discharging a firearm to intimidate and have issued two warrants, in both Ōpōtiki and the Manawatū, resulting in a total of 48 vehicles being seized, seven firearms and 16 other weapons being seized, and 12 arrests. I’ve also heard from police on the front line that having the warrants in place leads to lowering tensions and a quicker dispersal of gang members. Our commitment of 700 additional officers working on organised crime is having clear and tangible benefits, unlike other silly policies suggested in this House, such as asking gang members to take off their patches and giving them a ticket for hanging out together.

Vanushi Walters: What feedback has she received on these law changes?

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: What I hear directly from front-line police is that the laws this Government has implemented are making meaningful difference to their work cracking down on gangs and organised crime. Police officers that I talk to directly specifically cite their overwhelming support for the provisions contained within the CAIL that allows for warrantless searches during periods of heightened gang conflicts—also the new abilities to freeze criminal assets, through amendments to the Criminal Proceeds Recovery Act. This Government remains committed to smart legislation that cracks down on gangs and organised crime, not pointless chest beating that does nothing to back our cops.

Vanushi Walters: What further reports has she seen on police targeting organised crime?

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: To quote the front of today’s New Zealand Herald: “Meth: police net record haul”. Police have just confirmed that meth bust, provisionally calculated, is at 747 kilos, the largest in New Zealand’s history. I would like to commend the hard work of front-line police and Customs in cracking down on illicit drugs to keep that harm out of our communities. I have no doubt that this Government’s increase in police funding of 50 percent, an additional 1,800 officers, and continued strengthening of our laws is ensuring police have the rules and the tools they need to actually tackle organised crime.

Question No. 9—Pacific Peoples

9. to the Minister for Pacific Peoples: Is she confident that taxpayers’ money is being spent appropriately at the Ministry for Pacific Peoples?

on behalf of the Minister for Pacific Peoples: On behalf of the Minister, in general, yes, but it is correct that the Public Service Commission was recently brought in to investigate spending by that ministry. The commission concluded that the spending on a function to farewell the former chief executive was inappropriate, and that is a conclusion that I agree with.

Simeon Brown: Which Ministers, if any, were invited to, and attended, the farewell party for the outgoing chief executive of the Ministry for Pacific Peoples on 13 and 14 October 2022, that cost taxpayers almost $40,000?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I understand two Ministers, at least one former Minister and a current Minister, attended the event. I should, just for the sake of the record, also point out that although a total of $39,262.00 was spent on that function, approximately $11,000 has been refunded by the person in whose honour the event was organised.

Simeon Brown: Isn’t it the case that the only reason the Government is now criticising the almost $40,000 farewell party at the Ministry for Pacific Peoples is because it finally came to light through an Official Information Act request?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: On behalf of the Minister, the information that Ministers received came as a result of the Public Service Commission investigation into the matter, and Ministers were keen to see that investigation take place, and Ministers agree with the conclusion of that investigation.

Simeon Brown: Is she aware of any other instances of excessive spending by the ministry, and, if so, what are these instances?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: On behalf of the Minister, no, and that ministry has now tightened up its guidelines on its spending, but, in any event, it’s a ministry whose spending to date has made a difference to many, many members of the communities in whose interests they work. For example, the financial literacy campaign has seen nearly 3,000 Pacific Island citizens and residents learn financial management skills, and that has seen 120 of them now in homeownership that otherwise they would not have been.

Question No. 10—Commerce and Consumer Affairs

10. to the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs: What recent evidence has he seen that the Commerce Commission is acting in line with Government expectations?

Seen heaps. Firstly, the commission’s recently provided an excellent preliminary issues paper on the market study that I initiated into personal banking. Second, the Commerce Commission has successfully sought the highest ever fine under the Fair Trading Act: $3.675 million against One NZ, previously known as Vodafone, for misleading consumers. Thirdly, I recently appointed the first ever Grocery Commissioner, who has the tools to improve competition in the sector and hold supermarkets to account. This is all evidence that the Commerce Commission is meeting the expectations I laid out: that it will drive competitive markets and it will act with confidence to deter anti-competitive behaviour. The Commerce Commission is playing a vital role in keeping big businesses such as banks, telcos, and supermarkets in check—all part of this Government’s relentless focus on the cost of living for New Zealanders.

Anna Lorck: What will the banking study help achieve for consumers?

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: The study will look at the range of banking services people take up for personal or household use, with a focus on deposit accounts and home loans. Research shows New Zealand banks are more profitable than in comparable economies over the past decade. This raises questions on whether there is enough competition in personal banking. The preliminary issues paper published last week proposes to look at how competition is working, and will recommend any actions the Government should take to strengthen competition in the sector once the study has concluded.

Anna Lorck: Why did the Commerce Commission take action against One NZ?

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: Because the company misled consumers as to the nature of their product and distorted competition for the supply of broadband services in New Zealand. The commission called out the initial fine of $2.25 million as “manifestly inadequate”. They successfully appealed, and ultimately the fine was raised to $3.675 million—the highest ever under the Fair Trading Act.

Anna Lorck: How will the new Grocery Commissioner help protect New Zealand consumers?

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: There’s a lot of interest in the Grocery Commissioner. The commissioner has broad powers to investigate how effectively and efficiently the grocery industry is operating. This includes the ability to examine costs, revenue, and margin, and to require anyone with relevant information to supply it. And the commissioner has adequate powers to ensure that the cost savings from the removal of GST from fruit and vegetables will be passed on to consumers when it comes into effect in 2024.

Question No. 11—Agriculture

11. to the Minister of Agriculture: What advice, if any, has he requested from his officials regarding the Global Dairy Trade Auction Price Index falling by 7.4 percent overnight, and what impact does he expect this fall will have on New Zealand’s wider economy?

To the first part of the member’s question, yes, I have requested advice from the Ministry for Primary Industries about the change in the Global Dairy Trade Price Index. To the second part of the question, I will quote, for a start, ANZ rural economist Susan Kilsby, who said this morning, “We’ve seen these cycles before, and everyone does get through them,”. This will have a big impact on our economy and this Government commits to work with the dairy industry to ensure that market opportunities are opened up and that we assist them with the vital infrastructure that they and their farmers need.

Mark Cameron: Is it still his Government’s policy to price agricultural emissions, a policy which could decrease net revenue for dairy farmers by 6 to 7 percent despite the fall in the Global Dairy Trade Price Index?

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: This Government’s been working with all the agricultural sectors for about five years. We’ve made good progress in the recent week or two. We are committed to include agricultural pricing in our international emissions reduction programme. I’ll remind him and the National Party that it was in 1997 that former Minister Simon Upton committed New Zealand’s agricultural emissions—

Christopher Luxon: You’re making it up.

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: —to our international obligations to reduce them.

SPEAKER: Order! Christopher Luxon will stand, withdraw, and apologise.

Christopher Luxon: I withdraw and apologise.

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: Mr Speaker, thank you very much. I’m a little bit deaf, particularly to comments like that. Can I say that it is irresponsible for any agricultural leaders to ignore the market realities that are coming at us. Can I quote, “Fonterra’s biggest customer is Nestle. Nestle has a commitment to reduce its Scope 1, 2, and 3 emissions by 50 percent by 2030.” If we don’t participate in that emissions reduction programme and give honest signals to farmers, we are misleading them and they will be locked out of markets.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: See if you can respond in a ministerial statement.

SPEAKER: Order! That’s completely out of order. Come on.

Mark Cameron: Has he asked his colleagues to put a hold on essential freshwater regulations which increase cost for dairy farmers via expensive resource consenting and freshwater farm plans, given dairy farmers are facing record high production costs and falling dairy prices?

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: I’m acutely aware of the dilemmas that the dairy farmers are facing at the moment. There is a whole range of different dairy farming operations, some that will be paying $4 to $5 per kilogram of milk solids to produce their milk, and others that will be requiring over $8. Resilience is the trendy word of the day. What we are saying to the sectors is that we must be prepared for the cycles that inevitably go down. We have been seeing record returns and prices for dairy and other primary sector income. This year a record $56 billion in gross export earnings have come into this country, a lot of it from dairy. If you have prices so high in commodity markets, the only way for them to go usually is down, and it is important that we warn farmers, including the increasing requirements on market access. And if that member thinks we can continue to have degradation of our water, degradation of our biodiversity, and outrageous animal welfare practice and still get into our high-value markets, he’s misleading the dairy industry that he proposes to represent.

Mark Cameron: Will he ask James Shaw to dump significant natural areas, a policy that will mean farmers lose even more productive land to Government red tape?

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: Since 1992, when the National Government passed the Resource Management Act, significant natural areas have been a legal obligation for councils to identify. The fact that many of them have not and that now there is a requirement to do so is simply part of the reality that if we are to market into places like the European Union, they require us to be responsible managers of biodiversity, of our natural features and attributes. It’s the reality that we face as the producer of the finest food and fibre in the world trying to sell to the world’s most discerning markets. We have put hundreds of millions of dollars of taxpayer money to assist the farmers through this journey. We’ll continue to do that. If he thinks that’s not necessary, he’s misleading himself and the farmers.

Question No. 12—Police

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

For those in the back, I stand by my full statement at the time it was given, that it is my view that New Zealanders feel safer with a Government on track to deliver 1,800 extra police. As that member is aware, we have now delivered on that commitment. I further stand by my commitments today that the best way to disrupt gang activity and the harm it causes is by resourcing the police and giving them the proper legislative tools to ensure they can effectively hold offenders to account, not knee-jerk, headline-grabbing slogans.

Hon Mark Mitchell: Yeah, like weak legislation. Does—

SPEAKER: Was that your question?

Hon Mark Mitchell: No.

SPEAKER: Hmm, yeah, be careful.

Hon Mark Mitchell: Why does the Minister think that Kiwis feel safer when there have been five homicides in 17 days as a result of gang and gun violence?

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: The firearms offences of the past few weeks have been incredibly concerning—in particular, the gang violence we have seen within our communities. However, the data does demonstrate that these are isolated events and not indicative of a broader trend. And if we go back through August over the past four years, the numbers are 10, 15, seven, and 14. This Government is doing more to reduce the harm caused by firearms than any other previous Government, including the banning of semi-automatic weapons in the wake of March 15th, buying back more than 60,000 guns, introducing firearm prohibition orders, as well as establishing New Zealand’s first digital firearms register. If that member was truly worried about the danger of firearms, he’d talk to Christopher Luxon and convince him to make keeping it a bottom line for National. But he hasn’t, and he won’t keep that promise to front-line police.

Hon Mark Mitchell: Can the Minister confirm that over 50 percent of Operation Cobalt charges relate to traffic infringement and admin offences?

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: I’m more than happy to provide a breakdown. Those 45,000 charges are varied, as well as the nearly 500 firearms seized that were illegally held by gang members. We continue to resource Operation Cobalt and I’m incredibly surprised that that member does not support such an effective operation that cracks down on gangs.

Hon Mark Mitchell: Point of order, Mr Speaker. It was a very specific question around the Cobalt charges. The Minister said she was very happy to give us a breakdown of them, and then she didn’t give us a breakdown of them.

SPEAKER: But she did address the question.

Hon Mark Mitchell: Does the Minister think Kiwis feel safer when ram raids have increased to two a day?

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: I am not happy with the rate of ram raids, but it has been pleasing to see over the past two months that they have continued to decrease and the figures for this month have decreased again from end year. This is a result of police working closely with groups such as Oranga Tamariki and really effective programmes like Kotahi te Whakaaro and Circuit Breaker that roughly see that about 82 percent of young people who go through those programmes do not reoffend. That’s in stark contrast to that member’s policy of boot camps, which sees 80 percent of those people who go through the programmes going on to offend.