Oral Questions

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

This is a tough period for New Zealand and for the global economy. However, there are signs of the resilience of the New Zealand economy as we navigate a pathway through a difficult and uncertain environment. Stats NZ reported earlier this month that there was a net gain of 77,810 people arriving in the year to May. The number of arrivals stood at 181,100, the second-highest on record for an annual period since the March 2020 year. That more than offset the departures of 103,300. Of the 181,100 who arrived, 85 percent were non - New Zealand citizens. Our immigration reset is working, and it is attracting overseas workers with the skills that businesses require to rebuild the economy.

Ingrid Leary: What reports has he seen on tourism and its impact on the economy?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Stats NZ also reported that overseas visitor arrivals were 160,300 in the month of May, up 87,600 from the same month a year earlier. That level was around 73 percent of the pre-COVID number in May 2019. On an annual basis, overseas visitor arrivals rose to 2.45 million. With the FIFA Women’s World Cup now under way, the tournament is providing a boost to the tourism and hospitality industries during July and August, which are traditionally quieter months for the sectors. We expect to welcome more than 25,500 international visitors to New Zealand for the games being held here, with two-thirds of visitors coming from the United States. In addition to this, FIFA is estimating that around 70,000 New Zealanders are traveling around the country to attend matches.

Ingrid Leary: What other reports has he seen on the economy?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Activity in the services sector expanded modestly in June, with the BNZ - BusinessNZ Performance of Services Index at 50.1—a reading above 50 indicating that the sector is generally expanding, while below 50 that it is declining. Sales and new orders expanded slightly, though employment declined for the first time since December 2022. As I said in my earlier answer, this is a tough period for many New Zealanders, but our economy is resilient, and we are building for the long term to deliver higher-wage jobs while also lowering emissions.

Ingrid Leary: What reports has he seen on the export sector and its impact on the New Zealand economy?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Stats NZ reported yesterday that exports rose 1.3 percent, to $6.3 billion in June, led by dairy products. On an annual basis, exports rose 8.2 percent, to $72.8 billion. Looking at New Zealand’s key trading partners, exports rose by 11.3 percent annually to Australia, 11.7 percent to the US, and 2.9 percent to China. As I have said previously, 2023 is a difficult year for the global economy. However, there are reasons to be optimistic, including unemployment being at record lows, inflation heading in the right direction, and public debt levels well below those of the countries with which we compare ourselves. We will continue to carefully and responsibly prioritise our spending without unnecessarily adding to inflation, taking a balanced approach that gives New Zealanders choices and flexibility to respond through these testing times.

Question No. 2—Prime Minister

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

Yes, particularly the partnership with Fonterra to co-fund a range of projects to cut coal use at its dairy factories. This partnership will result in halving Fonterra’s manufacturing emissions by 2030, equivalent to taking 120,000 cars off the road, and it will leverage up to $790 million worth of investment. This partnership sits within a backdrop of recent Stats New Zealand data showing New Zealand’s emissions decreasing for a third successive year under this Government. I heard firsthand during my recent trade missions that New Zealand’s climate credentials are crucial to our exports. This Government is committed to reaching our emissions reductions budgets, both for the sake of the environment but also because it benefits our exporters.

Christopher Luxon: Was Treasury right that inflation has pushed tens of thousands of Kiwis into higher tax brackets over the last six years, and, if so, will he adjust tax brackets for inflation to let Kiwis keep more of what they earn?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Yes, in answer to the first part of the question. I’ve been very clear that I don’t think now is the right time for tax cuts in this—the magnitude of tax cuts proposed by the National Party would ultimately result in higher inflation for longer.

Christopher Luxon: Isn’t it a vote of no confidence in his tax policies that his Minister of Revenue was so disillusioned he resigned his portfolio instead of just serving until the election?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I imagine that the members opposite are feeling somewhat disillusioned by their party’s tax policy, given they don’t seem to be able to come up with a coherent one. The member himself has promised billions of dollars’ worth of tax cuts that his finance spokesperson doesn’t seem to know how he’s going to pay for.

Christopher Luxon: Why did he say, yesterday, that David Parker was passing on the revenue portfolio to “[free] him up to focus on [the] transport [role]”, when David Parker said, today, that the real reason he quit was disagreement over tax policy making his position “untenable”?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I know full well from the conversations I’ve had with him that David Parker is enjoying the transport portfolio, is going to get his teeth into that, and I’m looking forward to working with him on it.

Christopher Luxon: Was David Parker right to say that his position as revenue Minister was “untenable” due to his Government’s disagreement over tax policy, and, if not, why not?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: David Parker indicated that he wanted to move on from the revenue portfolio. I was doing a reshuffle and I indicated I was happy to accommodate that.

Christopher Luxon: Why, then, despite the rules on collective Cabinet responsibility, has a Minister who has publicly defied the Prime Minister on tax policy retained his position in his Cabinet?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I reject that that’s what David Parker has done. From time to time, Ministers put proposals before Cabinet that the Cabinet does not agree with and that do not proceed. Ministers do need to be able to explain that. I don’t believe that David Parker has done anything other than that.

Christopher Luxon: Is the real reason he keeps delaying his tax policy plan because he can’t even convince his own Cabinet colleagues to get it over the line, let alone the public?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: That might have more credibility if the National Party had come up with a tax plan that was credible and consistent. But given, even in the last year, they’ve had multiple variations of their tax plan and they’re not actually even in the Government yet—and probably unlikely to be, given they can’t come up with a tax plan that balances out.

David Seymour: What is the Prime Minister’s best explanation for losing four Ministers overboard in just seven months?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Each and every one of those cases is different, and there are extenuating circumstances. Particularly in the most recent case, I would expect the member to show a little more sensitivity than that.

David Seymour: How can Kiwis trust a Prime Minister who didn’t know a Minister was leaking Cabinet information to donors, didn’t know a Minister was defecting to Te Paati Māori, didn’t know a Minister had a major shareholding conflict of interest, and didn’t know—or at least didn’t do enough for a Minister who was facing serious challenges?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I believe that New Zealanders can trust me more than the party of privilege, as defined by the party’s founder, Roger Douglas.

David Seymour: Does he stand by his statement that he’s asked the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet to do a review in light of last week’s shooting in Auckland, and will that review consider whether the law makes it too easy for criminals, some of whom have committed violent offences, to get a sentence of home detention?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The member has mischaracterised the statement that I made. What I indicated was that I had asked for advice from the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet on what reviews would be done into an event such as this and whether any additional review would be appropriate in the circumstances. There are a number of reviews under way at the moment. There is, of course, the fact that there is a police investigation still active. There is a police critical incident investigation. The Chief Probation Officer is conducting a review into Corrections’ management of the offender, the potential for a coronial hearing. At this point, I don’t think an additional review is required, but there may well be additional findings out of those other reviews that I just mentioned that the Government will need to give due consideration to.

David Seymour: Doesn’t the Prime Minister want to know how it’s possible and whether it’s acceptable that people on home detention carry out around 1,500 offences they’re charged for every year, including 143 acts intending to cause injury last year?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I don’t believe that that offending is appropriate. Of course those are issues of concern. The number of people on home detention under this Government has stayed relatively static to what it was under the last National Government. There has not been an increase in the use of home detention. Those numbers have been relatively static. We are concerned about that sort of offending. I’m very concerned that the offender managed to get hold of a firearm, for example. It is one of the reasons why this Government is absolutely committed to implementing the firearms register.

David Seymour: Can the Prime Minister explain to the House and the public why someone who broke the law by supplying a firearm to a person on home detention without a licence would have registered their firearm?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: One of the things that the firearms register will do is it will allow police more ability to keep track of where firearms are ending up. I believe that creating the firearms register is the right thing to do. I think the member and, potentially, the Opposition should clarify what their position is as to whether the firearms register will go ahead if there is a change of Government.

David Seymour: What is the Prime Minister going to change in his leadership after his first seven months to persuade New Zealanders that a Government that hitherto cannot manage itself is really capable of fixing the problems of inflation, lawlessness, and division that rive New Zealand under his leadership?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I will be campaigning on the platform that this Government wants to support New Zealanders who worked hard to get ahead so they can create a better life for themselves and their families, and I endorse the sentiments of Roger Douglas that the ACT Party is the party of privilege.

Christopher Luxon: Aren’t his Cabinet Ministers right to be disillusioned when he spent six months stringing them along on the wealth tax only to nix it at the last minute in a desperate attempt to keep his failing Government re-elected?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I utterly reject that. We will be announcing our tax policy shortly, and I can say to the member that we’ll have no difficulty making our numbers add up. It’s no wonder the member can’t announce his policy, because (a), he doesn’t have a consistent one, and (b), his finance spokesperson’s got no idea how he’s going to pay for it.

Question No. 3—Energy and Resources

3. to the Minister of Energy and Resources: What action is the Government taking to decarbonise New Zealand’s energy sector?

Last week, we announced that the Government is partnering with Fonterra to cut their coal use in half for manufacturing emissions at sites across the country. This partnership will result in earlier emissions reductions of around 2.1 million tonnes by 2035 and will result in annual reductions of up to 328,000 tonnes of carbon. That’s the same as removing 120,000 cars off the road. The deal demonstrates how the transition to a low-emission economy is not only good for the climate but also a win for our major export industries by producing low-carbon goods and improving New Zealand’s economic resilience—a longed-for win New Zealand workers by futureproofing our economy and jobs.

Glen Bennett: How will the Government’s partnership with Fonterra help New Zealand meet its emissions reductions targets?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: Our partnership with Fonterra will drag the emissions reductions forward into earlier emissions budgets, meaning we invest in New Zealand’s decarbonisation transition rather than buying expensive foreign carbon credits to offset their emissions. The agreement will deliver 1.2 million tonnes of the emissions reductions required in New Zealand’s second emission budget and 830 tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions in budget 3. This also makes up around 7 percent of the energy and industry sector sub-target in emissions budget 2, and 4 percent in emissions budget 3.

Christopher Luxon: Where does the money come from?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: I challenge Mr Luxon to ask me a question rather than chipping in, and maybe he could explain what National will do instead.

Glen Bennett: Why is the Government partnering with Fonterra to reduce their coal use?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: The independent Climate Change Commission has been clear: the emissions trading scheme (ETS) alone is not sufficient for New Zealand to meet its climate goals, with the ETS needing to be significantly higher than it is today to justify fully funding projects. Some large industrial users have said that without complementary measures like Government Investment in Decarbonising Industry, the ETS would have to be up to $200 per tonne for these vital decarbonisation projects to stack up for their businesses. This would massively impact the economy, including driving up New Zealand’s energy costs. For example, this would add more than 40c per litre to the cost of petrol; if that’s what the National Party are suggesting, I suggest they release the policy.

Glen Bennett: What other benefits will be delivered through the Government’s partnership with Fonterra?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: As the Prime Minister said last week, by partnering with Fonterra to reduce emissions, we’re helping to maintain New Zealand dairy’s competitive edge as international consumers and food manufacturers demand further climate commitments. I’ve heard firsthand the importance of New Zealand’s climate credentials to our exports. This partnership is an investment in our future economic prosperity.

Question No. 4—Finance

4. to the Minister of Finance: Does he agree with tax advice provided to him by the Treasury that “fiscal drag has had the greatest impact on average full time wage earners. However, it is increasingly impacting lower income individuals over time”, and will the Government adjust tax thresholds to address this?

In answer to the first part of the question, yes; as the member and I have discussed on a number of occasions, fiscal drag does have an impact on New Zealanders across the board. This is an issue that all Governments have faced, and as I have stated previously, adjusting tax thresholds is something that all Governments will need to consider over time. However, there are trade-offs involved in doing so, and in deciding that fiscal space should go towards changes to tax thresholds, that means deciding not to invest in other areas like critical public services such as education, health, and housing. In answer to the second part of the question, the Government has indicated its tax policies at the Budget, and this was not part of that.

Nicola Willis: Is he concerned by advice he received in February that fiscal drag is likely to be most acute for those currently earning near the $48,000 threshold, which includes full-time earners on the minimum wage?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I am aware of the advice that I was given, and all Governments—all political parties—have to work out how they balance together providing support to people, for example, earning around that $48,000 level. I do note that the member’s party’s policy would see those people getting $2 a week, and the tradeoff for that would be significant cuts in health, education, and housing, and services they rely on.

Nicola Willis: Is he concerned that the average wage is currently above the $70,000 tax threshold, so, according to his own advisers, is taxed at a marginal rate of 33 percent, whereas in 2010 it was just above the $48,000 threshold, taxed at a much lower rate?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Well, in answer to the first part of the question, no, because I want New Zealanders to earn higher wages.

Nicola Willis: Well, does he agree with the advice he has received that having a higher proportion of earners with higher marginal tax rates may be expected to lead to lower incentives to work and save over time as the returns on these activities are reduced?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: We are clear that we want to see New Zealanders’ wages rise. That is the thing that will continue to provide incentives for them to keep working harder and to be part of a more productive economy. What the member needs to be able to answer to New Zealanders is how does this all balance up, because offering tax cuts in the environment that we are in now means they have to be paid for from somewhere, and that, in the case of the National Party, would have to be cuts to services.

Hon Damien O’Connor: Has the Minister any reports on what would be the impact of an increase in GST after the next election?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: An increase in GST obviously would need to be communicated by a political party, and there is a track record of a party in this House that raised GST and didn’t communicate that. The impact would be significant.

David Seymour: Does the Minister accept that the size of the core Public Service is 28 percent larger than when he first became the Minister of Finance, and, if so, can he point to an actual outcome such as kids learning more, or safer streets, or more operations that have resulted from all these extra people he’s hired?

SPEAKER: That doesn’t really relate to the primary, but if you want to answer—

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I was going to say that the question has been put to the Prime Minister last week and was answered for the member. The question around the growth of the Public Service should be put to the Public Service Minister, but what I can say is that I’m extremely proud, over the last few years, of the way that the Public Service has stepped up to support New Zealanders through the global pandemic; the work that they did saved tens of thousands of lives and thousands of businesses. That is a demonstrable result I am proud of.

Nicola Willis: Isn’t it in fact the case that the Minister is ignoring the advice about the overwhelming case for income tax reduction for working people because he continues to believe that he and his merry band of Ministers can spend New Zealanders’ money better than they can, despite the clear evidence that they have been wasteful and have not delivered outcomes for that spending?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: No. The reason why we believe that now is not the right time for tax cuts is because we are in very uncertain and volatile times and because we think New Zealanders deserve to have quality health and education services. Over the course of the last five years, we have been rebuilding from the underfunding of those services by a Government that prioritised tax cuts over investing in them. New Zealanders deserve quality public services. We are delivering them. They are at risk under a National Government.

David Seymour: Is the Minister of Finance aware that the pandemic is, for all intents and purposes, over; and, if so, will he commit to returning the size of the Public Service to pre-pandemic levels, and when?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: As in terms of my responsibilities, as indicated to the member on a number of occasions, we are on a track to reduce Government spending as a percentage of GDP back towards the long-run average. If we clicked our fingers and did that right away, as I would acknowledge the member has at least put out a plan to do, it would cause significant damage to the New Zealand economy and to New Zealand society. At the moment, that is the economic plan of a potential alternative Government—because it’s the only one that’s out there—and it’s massively damaging and risky.

Nicola Willis: What conversations, if any, has he had with the Associate Minister of Finance delegated responsibility for assistance on tax policy, one David Parker, and has that to date included any discussions about their mutual disappointment they can’t go on a wealth tax tax grab?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I have many conversations with Mr Parker and usually in the middle of them the words “Tory” and “putting the country at risk” and “tearing up the social contract”—they tend to be the things that feature in those conversations.

Nicola Willis: Do those conversations also feature discussions about their mutual disappointment that the Prime Minister kiboshed their plans for a wealth tax?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: As I indicated, I’m more than happy to go through some of the other topics that Minister Parker and I discuss from time to time, but mostly they focus on the importance of continuing the excellent work of this Government to lift children out of poverty, to build more State houses, to make sure that our economy continues to grow sustainably, and to make sure that we get on with reforming the Resource Management Act—one of Mr Parker’s other portfolios—which the Opposition singularly failed to do across nine years.

Question No. 5—Justice

5. to the Minister of Justice: What was the total cost of cultural reports funded by the Ministry of Justice in October 2017, and what was the total cost of cultural reports funded by the Ministry of Justice in May 2023?

Section 27 of the Sentencing Act 2002 allows an offender the right to request a report on their personal, family, and even community circumstances, and how it may have related to their offending. This could possibly include family history and mental health, for example. This Government has not made any changes to section 27 of the Sentencing Act. As released in written question No. 19765, I am advised that in October 2017, the cost of section 27 reports funded by the Ministry of Justice was $1,530; and that in May 2023, the total cost of section 27 reports funded by the Ministry of Justice was $806,022.

Nicole McKee: Can she confirm that in the year to 30 June 2023, the average amount spent on cultural reports was over $630,000 a month, compared to an average of $3,333 a month in the year to 30 June 2018; and does she think this is a good use of taxpayer money?

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: As stated before, this Government has not made any changes to section 27 of the Sentencing Act. It is true that section 27 reports are being more frequently used by the defence, as the legal profession’s awareness of them grows. Given the increased use, I’m expecting, and have requested, further advice in the coming weeks to understand whether changes to the system may well be needed.

Nicole McKee: Will she adopted ACT’s policy to repeal section 27 of the Sentencing Act 2002, which allows criminals to get shorter sentences by requesting cultural background reports?

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: No.

Nicole McKee: What does she say to the victim of Stevie Taunoa, who was pregnant at the time that she was sexually assaulted in her home and continued to receive threats from her offender following the assault, and who watched as the judge presiding over his case noted his lack of cultural identity before sentencing him to 12 months’ home detention?

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: That is a completely unacceptable circumstance for any person to be subjected to. As I’ve already stated to the member, I’m keen to get a fuller understanding of whether the use of section 27 reports remains fit for purpose, and I am not ruling out further changes at this point in time.

Nicole McKee: Why should the victims of crime have any confidence in her ability to defend their rights when she suggests that offenders are like victims, by saying, “It’s a sad indictment on our justice system that the best way to help te iwi Māori is to keep them out of our justice system,”?

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: In terms of our focus on victims of crime, I am proud of our track record on supporting victims. Since National left office, our Government has tripled the funding for the Victims Assistance Scheme, and doubled the funding to Victim Support. We passed the Sexual Violence Legislation Act, established Te Aorerekura, and will introduce a bill to give greater protections and rights to victims of family and sexual violence. And we’re establishing three new pilots in the courts to improve victim safety, to ensure they’re heard at bail decisions, and to strengthen the support for child victims of sexual violence. My focus is a justice system where victims feel safe, heard, and empowered.

Question No. 6—Foreign Affairs

6. to the Minister of Foreign Affairs: What recent announcement has she made about New Zealand’s ongoing response to Russia’s assault on Ukraine?

Thank you for the question. In response to Russia’s illegal and unjustified invasion of Ukraine, I’ve recently announced a new tranche of 23 sanctions. These are an extension of our ongoing commitment to stand with Ukraine and to condemn the actions of those contributing to this ongoing crisis. Specifically, these sanctions are aimed at Russia’s military industrial complex, the paramilitary group, and individuals who have played a part in unlawfully transporting and deporting Ukrainian children to Russia. These sanctions will also impact a number of Belarusian financial institutions due to their escalating support of Russia’s war in Ukraine. This represents our staunch stand against the abhorrent actions we are witnessing. Since the passing of the Russia Sanctions Act in March 2022, New Zealand has adopted more than 20 rounds of sanctions targeting over 1,500 individuals and entities. We remain committed to aligning our actions with international sanctions efforts in response to Russia’s aggression.

Dan Rosewarne: How does she plan to address the actions of Russia concerning the deportation of Ukrainian children?

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: New Zealand categorically condemns the acts of unlawfully separating children from their families. This is a gross violation of human rights and a clear breach of international law. We have specifically included three individuals involved in these heinous actions in our recent sanctions. We are sending a strong message to Russia and the world that such actions are intolerable and will be met with decisive measures.

Dan Rosewarne: What is the purpose of these sanctions on Russia’s military industrial complex and Belarusian financial institutions?

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: The sanctions aimed at Russia’s military industrial complex and Belarusian financial institutions are designed to disrupt their operations and reduce their ability to support military activities. Fourteen of these sanctions target individuals and entities of the Russian military industrial complex involved in the development, manufacture, and procurement of weapons and technology used against Ukraine. We expect these sanctions to have a significant impact and limit their capacity to continue their aggression.

Dan Rosewarne: What is New Zealand’s response to Russian nuclear weapons stationed in Belarus?

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: New Zealand remains deeply concerned about Belarus hosting Russian tactical nuclear weapons on their territory. New Zealand has always been a strong advocate for nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation, and any development that means nuclear weapons are sited in more countries is negative. We call on Russia to reverse this course of action, and on Belarus not to host nuclear weapons now or in the future. It represents a direct threat—not only to Ukraine but also to its neighbouring allies—and destabilises the region further.

Question No. 7—Social Development and Employment

7. to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: Does she stand by her statement, “Dental care is something that can be put off due to affordability difficulties, especially for low-income households. We know that issues with dental health have a negative impact on people’s general health, financial health, ability to work, and quality of life”; if so, does she have confidence people unable to afford dental care can access dental grants?

on behalf of the Minister for Social Development and Employment: Yes, and yes.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Does she think Ministry of Social Development (MSD) dental grants are meeting the level of unmet need for dental care amongst low-income households; and if so, why are 40 percent of adults and 50 percent of Māori still unable to afford dental care?

Hon PEENI HENARE: We’re proud of the work that we’ve done in this space. In fact, lifting the cap from $300 to $1,000 in the Budget of 2022 has seen a significant uptake of that particular service so that people can receive dental services. What I note, too, is the criteria that it wasn’t only to be for emergency dental but also to allow people to access what would be considered normal dental appointments for fillings or for check-ups to make sure that they don’t fall into the emergency dental criteria. We know that there’s more work to do, but we’ve done a heck of a lot of work to make sure that we can support those who are currently low-income households to access dental services.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Are enough beneficiaries in low-income households able to access dental grants when emergency department staff have reported still regularly seeing patients who have attempted DIY extractions with a screwdriver?

Hon PEENI HENARE: Of course we don’t want to see DIY on dental work in households. What we want to do is make sure that we have the right settings to allow people to access that, and we’re confident that we have by lifting the cap and, of course, changing the criteria to make sure that those who do need it can access that support through MSD.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Does the Minister support people having to get into debt to access expensive dental treatment, which then impacts their ability to meet weekly costs?

Hon PEENI HENARE: That’s why we lifted the cap from $300 to $1,000—to make sure that people don’t fall into the emergency dental trap. We can ensure that they access services to get their kinds of appointments to make sure that they have regular oral health checks, to make sure their teeth get the treatment that they need. We know that there’s more to do, but I am confident that by lifting the cap as well as changing the accessibility settings, more people are accessing these services.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Does the Minister think that only allowing low-income adults to access dental grants where they have an “immediate or essential need”—such as when they’re in pain or when their teeth are decayed—rather than for cleaning, check-ups, and other, broader prevention work is leading to good oral health outcomes for families?

Hon PEENI HENARE: I’ve already explained that we’ve already changed the criteria to make this system a lot more flexible so that it isn’t just for the emergency dental grant: it’s to make sure that there’s better oral health by ensuring that people can book appointments, have regular check-ups, even get a filling; and that it’s not just a one-off—it is a cap of $1,000; you can visit a dentist on multiple occasions to that cap of $1,000. We’re proud of the work that we’ve done in this space. We know that there’s more we need to do to support low-income families, and we’ve done that across multiple portfolios as a Government.

Question No. 8—Police

8. to the Minister of Police: What recent progress have Police made on tackling organised crime?

I was incredibly proud to announce last week that Operation Cobalt, Police’s focus work to disrupt gangs and organised crime, has reached a significant new milestone. As of 6 July 2023, police have entered 43,460 charges and have issued a further 55,988 traffic-related infringement offence notices. These charges are supported by 1,235 search warrants conducted and 731 warrantless searches as part of Operation Cobalt. Police have also seized 449 firearms as part of this operation, which builds on the 1,804 firearms seized as part of Operation Tauwhiro. These charges demonstrate Police’s absolute commitment to tackling organised crime and that this Government is backing police to keep our communities safe and to hold offenders to account.

Vanushi Walters: Minister, are you aware of any recent actions taken by police in the past 24 hours?

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: This work never stops. In just the past 24 hours, police arrested a patched member of the Head Hunters gang who was observed travelling through the Manukau area. With assistance from the armed offenders squad, an armed vehicle stop was made that revealed a large quantity of methamphetamine, and a further search of the address the offender came from revealed a firearm, which was loaded; ammunition; and a large quantity of cash. The offender has been arrested and charged with possession and further supply of methamphetamine, and police are not ruling out further charges being laid. This is just one more concrete example of the incredible work that our police are doing to tackle organised crime.

Vanushi Walters: What feedback has she seen on the success of Operation Cobalt?

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: The successes of Operation Cobalt are known well beyond the confines of this House. Operation Cobalt national controller Detective Superintendent Uraia Vakaruru recently spoke with One News and made it clear that Mongrel Mob, Barbarians, Mangu Kaha, Black Power, Mongols, Greasy Dogs, Comancheros, and Hells Angels members have all been caught in the crackdown, and a recent story in the Police Association magazine highlighted the success of Operation Cobalt, explaining that up to 200 staff were working on the operation over the 12 different police districts, alongside non-traditional groups such as road policing as well. With nearly 700 new police working on organised crime and a spate of new, useful legislation, it’s clear we’re empowering police to get on with the job.

Vanushi Walters: How has new legislation assisted police in tackling organised crime?

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: Just this month, a front-line constable in Counties Manukau invoked the first ever use of the new provisions in the Search and Surveillance Act. This new power enabled the officer to seize nearly $24,000 in cash in suspicious circumstances from a gang member who was in breach of bail. The officer was not satisfied with the explanations given and had reasonable grounds to suspect the cash was not lawful. The District Court agreed and granted an order to retain the cash for 28 days, pending further inquiries. This follows previous successes of the use of the Criminal Activity Intervention Legislation Act 2023 in Ōpōtiki during gang conflict, and it demonstrated we’re making sure police have the rules and the tools to get the job done.

Question No. 9—Health

9. to the Minister of Health: How many times has her office requested officials delay the release of information, as she described in the correction to her response to oral question No. 8 last Wednesday, and when did she first receive any communication suggesting the answers she gave to question No. 8 were not accurate?

In answer to the first part of the question, my staff member did not request the delay to the release of the information; my staffer asked the publication not to occur in the week of 5 July. In early June, officials advised me that the due date for the release was to be 30 June. Towards the end of June, officials asked for an extension of time because they could not meet the due date of 30 June. When advised it would be 5 July, my staff member asked for it not to be that week. To the second part of the question, as I already said last week in this House, at approximately 4.30 p.m.

Dr Shane Reti: Was one of the reasons the report was delayed because of observations that reporting of the performance data was “poorly thought out, badly executed and provided … little [information] … to the public anyway.”?

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: No. As we canvassed in the House on Thursday last week, it was because of the busy week of that week for which the release was—busy week that that office had in the week that the release was proposed for.

Dr Shane Reti: Did other people in her office have knowledge of the request to delay the data release beyond the person she says contacted her at 4.30 p.m.; and, if so, how many people?

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: That relates to the delay in which that question was asked, and the response was corrected in the House. Other political staff in my office would have known about the reply—about the correction—as we prepared to make it.

Dr Shane Reti: Has she or her office also worked on delaying the release of the Ernst & Young review into the Māori Health Authority that she received over two months ago, on 5 May?

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: No. That report, as I have mentioned multiple times, is under consideration. It will be released shortly.

Dr Shane Reti: Can she give an assurance that all health performance measures will be regularly and accurately reported as we move towards an election campaign?

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: Yes. And that is why Te Whatu Ora went to such great lengths to make sure that their review into the issues that led to incorrect data being reported went into such detail and depth. It is a very good report, and I hope the member is reassured there is a better platform for the provision of health data now.

Question No. 10—Prime Minister

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

Yes.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Does he stand by the comment of the Minister Responsible for the GCSB, who has said that “the white supremacist threat in this country began to get serious attention only since mid-2018”?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I have not seen that particular comment by the Minister, but I have no reason to disagree with it.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: What has the Government done since then, if anything, to ensure that responding to the rising threat of white supremacy and anti-Māori hate is a priority for intelligence services and the police?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The member will see that we’ll shortly be releasing national security and intelligence priorities. That will set out some of the work that we have done and some of the work that we are prioritising ahead. That includes targeting those who seek to radicalise anybody for a variety of different reasons. It will also seek to combat mis- and disinformation, which, of course, we know is used in some of the techniques used by groups such as white supremacists. So it will set out quite a comprehensive strategy in those areas, but it will also canvas the things that we have done.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: What concerns does he have, if any, that the recent anti - co-governance tour is contributing to a rise in racist rhetoric and violence against tangata whenua?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I strongly disagree with some of the sentiment that has been expressed during that particular tour. I do believe it’s important that we always balance the right to free speech here. People are entitled to have controversial, unpopular opinions, and ones that I strongly disagree with. I happen to strongly disagree with some of the things that have been expressed by the group of people who are running that tour.

Rawiri Waititi: Does he think that the social theory tactics creating moral panic and fear among many here in Aotearoa are being used by other political parties in this House—using words like “subhuman”, a word used by the Nazis, a white supremacist group, when describing the Jews; “apartheid”, a white supremacist tool used against black African peoples; and “separatism”, “segregation”, and Jim Crow laws a white supremacist tool used against African Americans—is fuelling white supremacist anti-Māori tours disguised as anti - co-governance tours plaguing this country?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I don’t think any human beings should be described as “subhuman”. I think those sorts of expressions are reprehensible. I do regret that some phrases are now more commonly used, including the phrase “apartheid”, completely out of context and with an apparent lack of understanding for what apartheid actually involves.

Rawiri Waititi: Does he believe that it is the role of the police to protect only one side of a political debate and allow white supremacists to assault tangata whenua and tangata Tiriti engaging in peaceful protest?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I believe it is the role of police to ensure that the right to free speech is protected, that the right to peaceful assembly and peaceful protest is also respected, and that the right for people to hold uncontroversial opinions and express those is also protected. That needs to be done equally.

Question No. 11—Oceans and Fisheries

11. to the Minister for Oceans and Fisheries: What recent announcement has she made regarding a new food industry for New Zealand?

On a recent visit to Nelson, I was pleased to announce $750,000 to help scientists and businesses look at which strains of microalgae might be suitable for including in foods like protein bars and shakes. Microalgae include single-celled organisms such as diatoms and dinoflagellates. They have caught the attention of scientists around the world for their extraordinary properties and potential to create an abundant, high-quality natural protein source using only a fraction of the water, land, and time of other types of farming.

Rachel Boyack: How will the funding announced by the Minister assist in development of this new industry?

Hon RACHEL BROOKING: This funding is going towards a $1.5 million project with the Cawthron Institute, marine engineering company Kernohan Engineering, and biotechnology nutrition start-up NewFish. The project will see around 100 strains of microalgae from Cawthron’s globally significant culture collection investigated for nutritional properties and ease of production that could open up new, sustainable protein industries across Aotearoa New Zealand. NewFish will work with Kernohan Engineering to take the best microalgae strains and grow them at a commercial scale.

Rachel Boyack: Why is this such an exciting announcement as a potential development for our food industry?

Hon RACHEL BROOKING: What is so great about this project is that it brings together science, food innovation, and engineering to develop future food solutions. This collaborative approach can help provide nutritional and accessible food for everyone. Global food demand is expected to increase by 60 percent by 2050, and food security is threatened by issues like climate change, geopolitics, and pests and diseases. The most exciting part of this announcement is that it is a low-carbon protein, which can be grown sustainably in bioreactors on land. It doesn’t compete with other types of farming for arable land and grows fast, with some doubling in size every day.

Rachel Boyack: How does this announcement fit within other Government initiatives currently under way?

Hon RACHEL BROOKING: The national Aquaculture Strategy aims to grow our aquaculture and to do more aquaculture on land. The Draft Fisheries Industry Transformation Plan highlights the importance of collaboration across the sector, environmental sustainability, and innovation. This project will be another step towards turning the industry transformation plan into action. The microalgae funding has come from the Sustainable Food and Fibre Futures fund. It is the Ministry for Primary Industries’ flagship fund for the food and fibre sector. Since the fund was established in late 2018, the Government and sector have collectively invested almost $560 million in 263 projects across the supply chain.

Question No. 12—Justice

12. to the Minister of Justice: Is she confident the Government has the correct priorities in justice?

Yes. This Government’s focus on justice is clear: we’re backing the police with the rules and the tools they need to tackle crime; we’re putting victims at the centre of our work; and we’re focused on youth offending and cracking down on organised crime. We will continue to create opportunities to break the cycle of offending through programmes that we know are working, and we’ll ensure that there is strong accountability and consequences for those who don’t take up the opportunities that they are provided.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Will she drop the Government’s target of reducing the prison population by 30 percent regardless of the level of crime in our communities?

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: No. The two factors that we’ve seen in the reduction of main offences are for drug offences and traffic offences, according to the information received from Corrections.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Shouldn’t the priority in justice be to reduce the number of victims of crime rather than the number of prisoners regardless of the level of crime in our communities?

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: The track record of this Government is far better than the previous one, who cut funding to Victim Support. Since National left office, this Government has tripled the funding to the Victim Assistance Scheme and doubled the funding to Victim Support. As already stated today, we have already passed the Sexual Violence Legislation Act and also established Te Aorerekura, and we’ll also introduce a bill to give greater protections and rights to the victims of family and sexual violence. My focus is on a justice system where victims are heard, and that is exactly what we are doing.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Isn’t the thing that victims are most concerned about not to be a victim of crime, and how has her Government made progress when there are 33 percent more violent crimes being committed under her watch?

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: Under this Government, police numbers have soared to their highest levels in history. Operation Cobalt has cracked down on organised crime. New legislation has been passed that enabled police to search 26 vehicles, seize firearms, 11 other weapons, and make arrests in Ōpōtiki. National’s track record on crime is not tough. They closed over 30 police stations, froze Police’s budget, let numbers of police fall, and cut funding for Victim Support.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Is she confident the sentencing laws are right when convicted serious violent offenders routinely receive home detention, which, by the way, doesn’t necessarily mean staying at home?

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: I agree that perpetrators of serious crimes need to be held to account. The Government has not lowered any penalties for individual offences since we have been in office, and decisions in sentences are a matter for the judiciary, something that members of the party opposite don’t seem to understand and saw dangerously close to the very fabric of our democratic institutions.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I was asked about the sentencing laws; I was not asking about the sentencing decisions, and her comment was way off beam in relation to that matter.

SPEAKER: Well, I don’t think so.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: All right. Why does she believe no restriction should be placed on the ability of judges to reduce sentences?

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: The Government has not lowered any penalties for individual offences, and those decisions are made by the judiciary and are before the courts, and that is a matter for the judiciary, not a matter for these members in this House.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Point of order, Mr Speaker. She didn’t answer my question. My question was: why does she believe no restrictions should be placed on the ability of judges? And she said—that’s an appropriate question. That’s not a way to answer a question.

SPEAKER: I’ll go back and check the Hansard, but in my mind it’s been answered.

David Seymour: Over what time period does the Minister claim that the first- and second-most prevalent reductions in offender type in prison were traffic and drug offences, and will she table the Corrections material she referred to as having given her that information in her earlier answer to a supplementary?

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: The specificity of the primary question—I have that information and I’m more than happy to make it available to that member.