Oral Questions

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

Yes.

Christopher Luxon: How are Kiwis expected to believe that Michael Wood, Kiri Allan, and Stuart Nash are all just one-off bad eggs instead of a repeated failure by his Government to follow and enforce the rules?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I don’t believe that those people are bad eggs. I believe that in two of those cases they made a mistake. In terms of Kiri Allan’s inclusion in that, the reason that we’re having that discussion is that she did disclose and manage conflicts of interest.

Christopher Luxon: Why did he say just two weeks ago that he had trust and confidence in Michael Wood, and how can Kiwis trust him or his Government?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Of course, I have to rely on the information that I’m given at the time. The information that I was given was incorrect and there has been a consequence for that.

Christopher Luxon: Did he seek or receive assurances from Michael Wood that there were no other conflicts of interest after it was disclosed that he had failed to sell his airport shares?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Yes.

Christopher Luxon: Why does that keep happening with his Ministers; when he asks for clarity of whether they’ve got conflicts of interest, they keep saying, “No, no, no, I don’t.”, and then they do?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: In this case, the Minister indicated there was nothing further I needed to know. There clearly was information further that I needed to know. He is no longer a Minister.

Christopher Luxon: If his own Ministers don’t take him seriously enough to tell him the truth when he asked them, how on earth should New Zealanders take him seriously as Prime Minister?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I believe in this case Michael Wood failed to identify and manage his conflicts of interest appropriately. I think New Zealanders can trust me because in that circumstance I have accepted his resignation as a Minister.

Christopher Luxon: Why does it always take him so long, whether it’s Stuart Nash, Michael Wood, or Kiri Allan, to actually hold his Ministers to account for their rule-breaking?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I absolutely reject that. I found out about this yesterday. I took action almost immediately. These processes take a period of time. Someone is entitled to a process of natural justice. He has made mistakes and there have been consequences for those.

David Seymour: Does the Prime Minister accept New Zealanders are frustrated with crime on the streets and potholes on the roads, and, if so, can he assure them that those problems have not been caused by Ministers in charge of their portfolios who can’t even keep within the basic rules of being a Minister?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Yes, I do accept that New Zealanders are concerned about crime and they are also concerned about potholes on the roads. In terms of the last part of that, potholes on the roads, had there not been such a woeful under-investment in road maintenance we might not be in this position.

Christopher Luxon: Is this Government so incompetent that it can’t follow the rules or so arrogant that it doesn’t believe that the rules apply to them?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Ministers who don’t follow the rules face consequences for that.

David Seymour: Would it be helpful, does the Prime Minister suppose, if he stopped blaming the last Government that went out of office nearly six years ago and started holding accountable the Ministers in his Government now for their performance or lack thereof?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I’m very proud of the fact that under this Government the budget for road maintenance has increased significantly. The number of potholes being repaired has increased significantly. I do note the previous Government decided not to invest in those things so that it can invest in roads of national significance. The reality is we need to build new roads and maintain the roads that we have at the moment. The last Government chose to prioritise one over the other when we need to be doing both.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Does he accept that living in poverty is one of the biggest drivers of health inequities for Māori and Pacific families; if so, will he commit to ending poverty for all families by introducing an income guarantee and a tax-free threshold of the first $10,000?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: In answer to the first part of the question, yes; in answer to the second part of the question, no.

Christopher Luxon: Is he confident none of his other Ministers have undisclosed conflicts, undeclared shares, unreported links to donors, undeclared donations, or any other violation of the rules?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I have confidence in the Cabinet Office processes to identify those things and I’ve just outlined further steps that are being taken to strengthen those processes.

Christopher Luxon: How many more Ministers does he expect will resign or be sacked before the election?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I think that’s a ridiculous question. I would have thought the member should be more concerned about the conflicts of interest in his own team, which he doesn’t seem particularly focused on.

Question No. 2—Finance

2. to the Minister of Finance: Is he concerned at the findings in the Productivity Commission’s A fair chance for all report that nearly 1 in 5 New Zealanders experience persistent disadvantage; if so, will he commit to making the changes needed to end persistent disadvantage in New Zealand?

In answer to the first part of the question, yes. I believe that all parties in this House should be concerned when segments of our population lack economic opportunities, social connections, or experience economic hardship, particularly when those patterns of disadvantage are intergenerational. In answer to the second part of the question, I believe that ending persistent disadvantage is something that all Governments should be committed to. The Productivity Commission’s recent report is a useful contribution to the debate as to what changes are necessary to reduce persistent disadvantage. I look forward to engaging with that work more fully and, as with previous Productivity Commission reports, there will be a full Government response as to some of the specific measures that the Government might want to take forward.

Hon Marama Davidson: Does he acknowledge that an income guarantee could be a central pillar of the social floor recommended in the report, ensuring that communities and whānau have basic public supports and incomes when they are experiencing disadvantage?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I congratulate the member on shoehorning into that question the Green Party’s policy. I do think it is important that we provide support for people when they need it and in the ways that they need it, and ensure that every New Zealander can live with dignity.

Hon Marama Davidson: Does he accept findings that institutional racism and discrimination against Māori and Pacific peoples is contributing to poor health outcomes and disadvantage for these communities, and, if so, will he prioritise equity in healthcare?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Absolutely we will, and are indeed prioritising equity in healthcare. The creation, through the health reforms, of Te Aka Whai Ora was an important moment, I think, in how we can take steps forward on that—and actually significantly in line with the report’s recommendations, because the report focuses particularly on institutional arrangements and systemic changes, and I think that’s exactly what we’re doing in healthcare.

Hon Marama Davidson: Does he agree that Aotearoa will be unable to meet its 10-year target to halve child poverty without significant investment to end persistent disadvantage affecting 1 in 5 New Zealanders?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: No, I don’t. I think that is a goal that will require a lot of effort from the Government over the next few years to be able to reach it, but it is one that we have committed ourselves to. I note that in the latest Budget, around material hardship—which is the closest thing, in terms of a proxy, for what we measure at the moment, to persistent disadvantage—we have seen a reduction by 3 percentage points since 2017-18 of children living in those circumstances.

Hon Marama Davidson: Will he commit to the recommendations made in this report and to ending persistent disadvantage so all whānau have warm, dry homes, enough food on the table to feed tamariki, and so our young people can go to school instead of working 20 or 30 hours a week to support their families?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: As I noted in my primary answer, we will work our way through the specific recommendations that have been made in the report. So, rather than responding to that part of the question directly, I would say that the themes in the report are ones that this Government has been working on. We know that there is always more to do, and we commit to working on those issues.

Question No. 3—Finance

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

Last week, Statistics New Zealand reported that GDP edged down by 0.1 percent for the March quarter, following a 0.7 percent decline in the previous December quarter. On an annual basis, the economy was 2.9 percent larger than a year ago and is 6.7 percent bigger than before the start of the pandemic, ahead of most of the countries with which we compare ourselves. We know that 2023 is a challenging year for the New Zealand economy and New Zealand households as global growth slows and the North Island weather events disrupt households and businesses. The decline in growth over the last two quarters is characterised as a technical recession. It does need to be viewed in the context of a record number of New Zealanders in work and wages rising at a faster pace than inflation, which is not typical of recession conditions. We are well positioned to support New Zealanders through this tough time, with cost of living support and dealing with the impacts of weather events. Unemployment, however, does remain low, there has been a rebound in tourism and international students, and public debt levels are among the lowest in the OECD.

Ingrid Leary: What was the impact of the North Island weather events on the GDP numbers in the March quarter?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The impact of the Auckland floods and Cyclone Gabrielle saw declines in primary production, manufacturing and transport, postal, and warehousing activity. New Zealand’s economists have said that headline growth would likely have been positive in the March quarter if it wasn’t for the cyclone. They said that the rise in immigration and fiscal support could support momentum and growth in the economy over the second half of the year. Westpac’s economists said the results show that the economy “is in a transition phase rather than in outright recession.”

Ingrid Leary: How will the Government manage the response to the economic outlook?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Economic activity has been affected by the North Island weather events. Looking ahead, the Reserve Bank is forecasting that the recovery and rebuild from these events will add about 1.5 percent to GDP spread over a number of years. The Government will have a part to play in the recovery, as New Zealanders would expect us to. The cost of asset damage from the weather events is estimated at between $9 billion and $14.5 billion, with half of that related to infrastructure owned by central government or local government, such as roads. We are committed to supporting New Zealanders with the cost of living pressures and to investing in essential public services, as well as the work we need to do to help these regions recover and rebuild.

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

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: We do see reports that show the resilience of the New Zealand economy. This week, it was the BNZ-Business New Zealand Performance of Services Index, or the PSI, with a reading of 53.1 in May, close to the long-term average for the survey. A reading above 50 indicates that the sector is generally expanding, while below 50 indicates that it is declining. Sales, new orders, and employment all expanded. BNZ’s economists said the result indicated that the economy would grow modestly in the June quarter. As I’ve said previously, this is a tough period for New Zealanders, but our economy is resilient and we are building for the long term to deliver higher-wage jobs and lower emissions.

Question No. 4—Finance

4. to the Minister of Finance: What advice, if any, has he sought from Treasury in the past six months on specific matters relating to New Zealand’s current tax settings, and what specific tax changes, if any, were considered as part of the Budget process?

The Government seeks and receives a range of tax policy advice during the parliamentary term, including in the past six months on New Zealand’s current tax settings. That advice varies from agency to agency and is reflected, for example, in the decision in the Budget to lift the trustee tax rate. In answer to the second part of the question, the Budget process for 2023 began around August of last year, and, as at all Budgets, it considered whether specific tax changes were appropriate. That was the subject of Cabinet discussion. Cabinet discussions are confidential until such time as announcements are made.

Nicola Willis: Point of order, Mr Speaker. The second part of the question was very specific: what specific tax changes, if any, were considered as part of the Budget process? I don’t believe the Minister has addressed that part of the question.

SPEAKER: No, I think he has.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: Perhaps I can help here—speaking to that point, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: Well, how can you? I’ve already made a ruling.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: Well, the issue is a question of Cabinet. The Minister is using Cabinet confidentiality to not address the second part of the question, but the question does not refer to Cabinet.

SPEAKER: That’s the point of having further supplementaries—you can explore that.

David Seymour: Mr Speaker, can I speak to that?

SPEAKER: No. As I said, I’ve already ruled on it. Go back and read Hansard, read the question, and listen to the answer. It’s been addressed.

David Seymour: Point of order, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: A new point of order?

David Seymour: Yes, Mr Speaker. I think it is something that bears some consideration. You’ve often said that the member has more supplementaries to further explore the answer.

SPEAKER: Order! You’re now disputing my ruling—

David Seymour: No, I’m not; I’m just trying to be helpful.

SPEAKER: —and interjecting while I’m on my feet. I mean, one person has been elected to be the judge of what happens in here. Either you’re going to allow me to do that under the rules, or not.

Nicola Willis: Has he used his public office to obtain advice on possible changes to the tax system that have not yet been made public?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I refer the member to my primary answer. I did note in my primary answer that at this Budget, as at all Budgets, consideration has been given to specific tax changes. Those are the subject of Cabinet’s discussions. They are confidential until such time as announcements are made.

Nicola Willis: Why doesn’t the public have a right to know what policies his Government is considering on tax?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I have answered a number of times in this House that the extent of the Government’s work on tax was outlined after the 2020 election. That has been the work programme for tax. In respect of the Budget, we had the announcement on the trustee tax rate. In respect of this Government, those are the actions on tax that we are taking.

Nicola Willis: Can he can he rule out the possibility that tax changes rejected by Cabinet will re-emerge in the Labour Party manifesto?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Well, the Labour Party manifesto is not my ministerial responsibility, but I can indicate to the member that it has not yet been finalised.

Nicola Willis: Has the finance Minister, or has he not, sought and received advice on possible options for reducing or increasing income tax? If he won’t answer that question, why doesn’t he believe the public have a right to know?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I have answered that question, and that’s exactly what my primary answer suggested. I would refer the member, if she wants further advice on this, to an answer given by Bill English on 5 June 2015 with respect to questions about support for children in hardship, where he acknowledged that Treasury had given him a range of advice and said that that advice would be released as part of Treasury’s Budget 2015 proactive release in early July.

Nicola Willis: Point of order, Mr Speaker. This line of questioning is one that I have now attempted via written question and via the Finance and Expenditure Committee process, and it relates to Ministers’ responsibility to the House to account for the advice that they receive. This has been a matter of many Speakers’ rulings throughout the years and I would direct you specifically to Speaker’s ruling 187/2, which notes that the Official Information Act does not exempt Ministers from their accountability to the House through question procedures, and I would simply ask that you direct the Minister that he cannot use the later release of information—the planned later release of information—as a reason to not fully address questions asked in parliamentary written or oral question form.

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Speaking to the point of order, Mr Speaker. I don’t want to prolong others because I have addressed the question. I don’t want to comment on your rulings, but that is what you ruled. In my last answer, I was simply referring to a practice that has occurred in the past as far back as 2015, but I believe I have addressed all the questions I have been asked today.

SPEAKER: So the Minister must answer, if they can, consistently with public interest, but it’s up to the Minister to judge that. So you can ask further questions, if you wish.

Nicola Willis: Mr Speaker, is there any chance I could have an extra supplementary to do so?

SPEAKER: I can’t grant you one, but you can—

Hon Michael Woodhouse: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I would just make the point that the answers given by the Minister of Finance did not refuse to provide information in the public interest. He refused to provide it because it would be later available, and, as Nicola Willis has pointed out, Speaker’s ruling 187/2 is very clear that that’s not an appropriate answer.

SPEAKER: Well, I’ll invite all members to do what I will do and go back and look at the Hansard about exactly what has been said, and check whether or not my rulings are correct. If it’s not, I’ll come back and correct it.

Nicola Willis: Point of order, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: A new point of order?

Nicola Willis: Yes. I just seek leave to table a document. The document is the letter I have received from you, Mr Speaker, on 20 June, which sets out your concerns that you have written to the Minister of Finance on the matter discussed in the letter, advising him he should not be using the Official Information Act to consider whether to release information requested in the written question. You have—

SPEAKER: Leave has been sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is none. It may be tabled.

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

Question No. 5—Energy and Resources

5. to the Minister of Energy and Resources: What actions is the Government taking to drive the uptake of hydrogen?

In Budget 2023, our Government introduced a $100 million contract for difference to stimulate the production of hydrogen at point of consumption. This will allow the growth of a hydrogen industry in New Zealand.

Naisi Chen: How will the $100 million hydrogen rebate support the uptake of green hydrogen?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: The Government’s green hydrogen consumption rebate will bridge the price gap between fossil fuels and green hydrogen to support the early adopters to reduce their emissions by 150,000 tonnes of carbon, equivalent to cancelling out the emissions of hundreds of trucks. This initiative will help make green hydrogen a financially viable option as the industry develops and drives down emissions in our hard-to-abate sectors as part of the Government’s broader plan to decarbonise the New Zealand economy.

Naisi Chen: How will the Government’s hydrogen rebate support New Zealand’s just transition regions?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: Our just transitions regions, Southland and Taranaki, will directly benefit from the Government’s hydrogen rebate. Hydrogen businesses will be required to build partnerships in these regions to create good jobs, build skills, and develop local supply chains. This will support regional resilience. It will also enable decarbonisation in hard-to-abate sectors and the development of new renewable generation, supporting a just transition.

Naisi Chen: How else is the Government driving the uptake of green hydrogen?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: The Government is committed to working closely with innovative New Zealand businesses to test, trial, and build out the kit needed for a hydrogen economy. Examples of these partnerships include working with HW Richardson to convert six trucks to dual-fuel hydrogen vehicles and supporting Hiringa Energy to develop a hydrogen refuelling network covering the routes taken by 80 percent of freight volume.

Question No. 6—Health

6. to the Minister of Health: What are the subspecialties to which the wait-list equity adjuster was being rolled out in the wider northern region, and how, if at all, is ethnicity being used as a factor in prioritising access to health treatment outside of the equity adjuster tool?

In answer to the first part of the question, aside from the Auckland District defined by the former district health board (DHB) boundary, I am advised that Te Tai Tokerau District has implemented the tool for urology and orthopaedic wait-lists, and Waitematā has recently implemented the tool in gynaecology. I am advised that the equity adjuster is not used for acute care or cancer treatment. The equity adjuster is applied to planned care, previously referred to as elective care. In answer to the second part of the question, I am advised that Te Whatu Ora considers all factors when assessing people’s needs for care. Most importantly, this is primarily based on clinical need, as determined by the clinicians involved, but other factors are taken into account, including ethnicity from time to time.

Brooke van Velden: Is she aware that in November 2020, cancer and blood services at Auckland DHB had a policy to “reduce inequity for Māori and Pacific peoples by putting them at the front of the prioritisation queue”, and can she give a guarantee that ethnicity is not being used to prioritise the queue for cancer services in any Auckland hospitals?

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: I thank the member for that question. The document that that member is referring to incorrectly said that that programme of work has started; it in fact never occurred.

Brooke van Velden: What, then, does she say to the medical professionals confidentially telling ACT that the practice is still going on, and staff know about it?

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: Well, those medical professionals have avenues for raising their concerns, if any, within Te Whatu Ora, and I note that a number of health leaders, including the Royal College of Surgeons, have come out in support of the equity adjuster as applied to planned care.

Brooke van Velden: Is the Minister aware that medical practitioners are afraid of speaking up on this issue, such as the surgeon who texted to say, “My concern is the lack of consultation from Te Whatu Ora, and we are unable to express our concerns to the powers. Many of us feel this is wrong, but there is no avenue to express it, let alone change it.”? However, this person refuses to be identified for fear of retribution.

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: I have worked with surgeons for multiple years of my professional life, and the courage it takes to be a surgeon is the courage to stand up for your conviction. So I encourage that person if they’ve got an issue to bring it forward, and to take it up also with the professional leaders who have come out in support of that process for planned care.

Teanau Tuiono: What advice has she received on the most effective ways to improve Māori and Pasifika life expectancy so that it is in line with the Pākehā life expectancy, and is she committed to action on the best evidence available to address health inequities?

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: Yes, I am committed to evidence-based action to address health inequalities, and the advice that I have received is that the strongest thing we could do to address health inequities—the seven-year life expectancy gap between Māori and Pasifika—was to vote for the smoke-free legislation, something the other side of the House showed a remarkable lack of moral courage to do so.

Brooke van Velden: Is she aware that in February 2022 Auckland DHB said, “Our focus for planned care is prioritisation of long-waiting patients over 200 days, and long-waiting Māori and Pacific patients over 120 days”, or did this also not happen?

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: At Auckland Hospital, that approach would have been replaced with the equity adjuster.

Question No. 7—Health

7. to the Minister of Health: How many people on surgical waiting lists have had the equity adjuster applied, and how many received an improved prioritisation with a contribution from the ethnicity component?

I am advised that all specialities in the Auckland district have been using the algorithm tool since February 2023 for treatments. It is estimated that over 10,000 patients will have had the equity adjuster applied. I am also advised that due to the complexity of the algorithm being made up of clinical priority and time spent on the wait-list, rurality, ethnicity, and deprivation level, Te Whatu Ora is unable to estimate how many patients have received an improved prioritisation just due to the ethnicity component alone. However, it is important to note, as we canvassed in the House yesterday, that the most influential factor on how a patient is scheduled is how sick they are, as determined by their doctor, and clinical priority remains a primary element.

Dr Shane Reti: Have clinicians discriminated against Māori and Pasifika on surgical waiting lists, given the Prime Minister’s assertions that for the same clinical need, Māori and Pasifika have waited longer and “that is discrimination”?

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: I refer that member to the press release put out yesterday by the Royal Australasian College of Surgeons, who are, obviously, intimately involved in this area, and it does mention that unconscious bias can affect how patients are assessed and how long they spend on the wait-list.

Dr Shane Reti: Are wait times, deprivation levels, and rurality collectively better measures of inequity than ethnicity; if not, why not?

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: I believe there is decades of evidence that shows that ethnicity is an independent predictor of health outcome in New Zealand.

Dr Shane Reti: What factors will she take into account to determine if the equity adjuster is creating new discrimination, as requested of her by the Prime Minister?

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: I have asked officials to prepare a plan for how that evaluation will be undertaken.

Hon Kelvin Davis: Does she agree with the statement that “to the entitled, equity looks like discrimination”?

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: It is clear to me that, for decades, we have had inequitable healthcare in this country and that we have been working on this problem for decades. In fact, multiple Governments have been working on this problem, and yet we have not been able to fix the issue and more needs to be done.

Hon Marama Davidson: What is the Minister’s response to a quote from a health expert who says, “But more to the point, some of the health gaps are not explained by socio-economic status or any other factor other than ethnicity. Māori experience systematic health disadvantage because of their ethnicity.”?

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: That is also my understanding of the evidence, and that is what I mean by my response to the previous question—that ethnicity is an independent and strong predictor of your outcome in the New Zealand health system.

Question No. 8—Defence

8. to the Minister of Defence: What recent defence arrangements has New Zealand made with Fiji?

Bula vinaka, Mr Speaker. New Zealand and Fiji are close friends and military partners, and we share a view that it is for the Pacific Island countries to determine the security arrangements for our own region. The New Zealand Defence Force (NZDF) and the Republic of Fiji Military Forces—or RFMF—have a long history of exercising together and partnering on regional security, climate response, and humanitarian challenges. This recently included Fiji’s vital assistance to us following Cyclone Gabrielle. Last week in Suva, I joined with Fiji’s Minister of Home Affairs and Immigration, Pio Tikoduadua, to sign two arrangements: a Status of Forces Agreement—or SOFA—which sets out the legal framework for closer military cooperation within our respective territories; and, secondly, a statement of intent to outline priorities for closer defence cooperation. These two arrangements complement the strength and spirit of New Zealand and Fiji’s broad relationship as outlined in the Duavata Relationship Statement of Partnership.

Vanushi Walters: Minister, what are the areas for closer cooperation set out in the statement of intent?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: The statement of intent reaffirms New Zealand and Fiji’s joint commitment as security partners in our region, based on a shared vision for a secure, stable, and resilient Pacific for current and future generations. It’s been agreed that between 2022 and 2025, we will include a joint focus on training, maritime security, and coordination of disaster and humanitarian responses. It also includes specific initiatives such as boosting personnel exchanges and secondments, more formalised dialogue between our civilian agencies—such as the Ministry of Defence and Manatū Kaupapa Waonga—and between Ministers bilaterally and multilaterally within our region.

Vanushi Walters: What’s the purpose of the Status of Forces Agreement?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: The Status of Forces Agreement provides a clear legal framework for cooperation between our two militaries in accordance with our respective laws and regulations. It will strengthen cooperation and good conduct of joint or unilateral visits; exchanges; maritime, air, and land-based exercises; and other activities between the NZDF and the RFMF. Because we know that climate change is the most pressing security threat for island countries, the agreement also commits both parties to minimise adverse effects of activities on the environment.

Vanushi Walters: Is this the first Status of Forces Agreement we’ve entered into with a Pacific country?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: No, we have a range of agreements to strengthen our partnerships with Pacific countries. This includes Status of Forces Agreements with the Cook Islands, Timor-Leste, Tuvalu, Tonga, Australia, and France. It’s a positive development for New Zealand and the region to now have agreed a SOFA with Fiji.

Vanushi Walters: How do these defence arrangements contribute to the overall relationship between New Zealand and Fiji?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: As the Prime Minister said earlier this month, our countries—Fiji and New Zealand—“are connected by a kinship forged in Pacific culture, identity, and interests founded on our long history, friendship, and mutual respect.” Building on our longstanding military cooperation reaffirms the strength and spirit of New Zealand and Fiji’s relationship, as outlined in the Duavata Relationship Statement of Partnership and the 2050 Strategy for the Blue Pacific Continent. It sits alongside other contributions this Government has recently announced, such as the $11.1 million of climate change support for Fiji to respond to the impacts of climate change.

Question No. 9—Police

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

I stand by my full statement at the time it was given: “It is my view that New Zealanders feel safer with a Government on track to deliver 1,800 extra Police.” This includes approximately 270 authorised officers who work in specialist areas tackling crime. Authorised officers have been counted in constabulary numbers since the introduction of a Policing Act in 2008. The inclusion of authorised officers in the 1,800 was made by the police Minister at the time of the announcement and was included in the proactively released Cabinet paper. To the second part of the member’s question, I quote the National Party: “Authorised officers in the right areas will speed up and make our criminal justice system more effective, efficient, and put the right resources in the right places at the right time.”

Hon Mark Mitchell: So in light of that answer, does the Minister now want to correct her answer to the House that there were 1,800 new front-line beat officers?

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: I refer the member to my primary question.

SPEAKER: Do you want to correct that?

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: Sorry. I refer the member to my primary answer.

Hon Mark Mitchell: How does the Minister define a “beat officer”?

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: The front line of crime has changed over time, and I consider chasing the money, taking assets off criminals, and crippling criminal networks to be an effective tool; and that is exactly what these authorised officers are able to do. I’m sure it’s for this reason that National propose to expand and increase the use of authorised officers in this document [Holds up document].

Hon Mark Mitchell: Can the Minister tell us where she found the definition of a beat officer, or is it her own definition?

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: If the member would like to refer to the Policing Act, where constabulary numbers were defined and counted for the nine years that member was in Government, under the same definition.

Question No. 10—Forestry

10. to the Minister of Forestry: How is the Government empowering communities when it comes to the planting of forests?

Last week, this Government delivered on its 2020 election commitment to tighten up rules on farm to forestry conversions by giving communities greater control over the planting of forests. We are empowering local councils, who will work alongside their community to decide which land can be used for plantation forests, which are forests that are intended to be harvested, or carbon forests, which are forests that the landowner intends to farm for carbon. This moves away from a system where councils and communities had limited tools to deal with farms being purchased explicitly for conversion into forestry. I believe forestry has a role in our economy and environmental measures to address climate change, and this announcement ensures that the forestry sector maintains its social licence working alongside our communities.

Angela Roberts: What’s the significance of this announcement for rural communities?

Hon PEENI HENARE: The devastation that unfolded at Te Tairāwhiti and Hawke’s Bay during Cyclone Gabrielle was a stark reminder of what can happen if we get land-use settings wrong. Today’s changes help us towards addressing the findings and recommendations of the recent ministerial inquiry into land use, and these changes are about getting the right tree in the right place for the right reason. I have seen fewer pine forests planted on high-productivity farmland and more pine forests being planted on less productive land. It is the view of this Government that we have got the balance right. This Government acknowledges that both farming and forestry have a bright future under this Government.

Angela Roberts: How will this change benefit the environment?

Hon PEENI HENARE: Climate change is here. Amendments to the National Environmental Standards for Plantation Forestry, otherwise known as the NES-PF, will see the environmental effects of carbon forests being managed the same way as plantation forests. This means many standards, such as ensuring rules around riparian planting, will now be required for any new forestry conversions, which will include carbon forests. We have heard and acted on the real concerns, especially from regions such as Te Tairāwhiti, Wairoa, and the Tararua district, about the scale of exotic carbon forestry happening and the potential impact to the environment and on rural communities.

Angela Roberts: How is this announcement being received around the country?

Hon PEENI HENARE: On Wednesday last week, I attended Fieldays 2023 at Mystery Creek, where the general response to the announcement was very positive. In fact, in their words, we took the wind out of National’s sails, and they’re looking forward to National revisiting their policy on forestry—

SPEAKER: Order! Order! The Minister ought to know that he can’t use supplementaries to criticise the Opposition.

Question No. 11—Education

11. to the Associate Minister of Education: Is she confident that the Government’s early childhood education announcement on Monday has adequately responded to the concerns of the sector, who had previously described it as “unworkable”, and, if so, why?

Yes. I have met with sector representatives three times since Budget day. They made clear that the funding condition of particular concern was the requirement for services to allow enrolment for only 20 early childhood hours if parents requested this. This has now been removed.

Penny Simmonds: Is Early Childhood NZ chief executive Kathy Wolfe correct when she said of the Government’s alleged solution on Monday that “their solution is partial and clear as mud.”, and the sector needs “certainty not vagueness,”; if not, why is Ms Wolfe incorrect?

Hon JO LUXTON: As I said in my answer to the first question, I have met with sector representatives three times since Budget day. At the second meeting, I asked them to clarify to me what the particular sticky issue for them was, and it was the requirement to enrol for 20 hours if requested by parents. They said that some of them already do publicly provide their fees, and they were willing to work with the ministry to allow greater transparency around that. So it was purely the 20 hours that was the main sticking point for them, and they confirmed this to me at the second meeting I attended.

Penny Simmonds: Does the Minister understand that the 20 hours free policy has never worked for home-based early childhood education (ECE) providers, as it directly contradicts the role of an educator as a self-employed contractor and it leaves their income level not viable without optional charges?

Hon JO LUXTON: I’ve also met with the home-based sector, who shared their concerns with me, and have asked officials to go away and do some work on that, which the Minister and I will be taking into consideration.

Penny Simmonds: Why is the Minister ploughing on, imposing this ill-thought-through policy that 90 percent of the ECE sector opposes, at a time the sector is chronically short-staffed, thousands of children are stuck on wait-lists, and many ECE providers are on the brink of closure?

Hon JO LUXTON: This Government is committed to reducing financial pressures on families during this tough economic time, and the way to do that was to reduce fees in the early childhood sector and reduce barriers to early childhood education.

Question No. 12—Digital Economy and Communications

12. to the Minister for the Digital Economy and Communications: What progress has been made on the Game Development Sector Rebate?

This Government and the game development sector are gearing up to roll out the support of the announcement from Budget 2023. The Government is providing certainty to the growing and important game development sector with a $40 million per annum funding boost through the Budget. We’re now shifting focus into delivering that scheme. Consultation on the scheme’s design opened last week and closes on 6 July, with the scheme’s outline expected to be announced by October and successful applicants receiving year 1 funding in mid-2024. I’ve also announced that NZ On Air has been selected to administer the scheme. It has considerable experience in administering contestable funds and has developed a good relationship with the game development sector.

Glen Bennett: What support will the rebate provide the game development sector?

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: There will be good support in place for the gaming development sector. The scheme will provide a 20 percent rebate that is designed to help grow and retain game studios here in New Zealand, up to $40 million a year across the industry. Studios that meet that threshold will be able to receive up to $3 million a year in rebate funding. The scheme will be backdated to 1 April of this year, meaning that businesses will already be able to receive support. It will offer huge potential for our young people entering into the sector. I’ve been thrilled to see the strong responses from the game development sector to this investment and hear that this will enable them to grow further and contribute to our economy.

Glen Bennett: What are the main design features in the consultation document?

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: The Government is proposing the rebate will apply to eligible expenditure on digital games that are intended for public release for entertainment or educational purposes. Eligible expenditure would include expenditure related to developing and commercialising digital games, research, and game design, including adaptation to new platforms. Over the past few years, the Government has been working very closely alongside the gaming development sector as one of the key focus areas in the digital industry transformation plan. This consultation is yet another step in this process and I want to get good feedback from the sector on the detailed design of the new scheme so it sets us up for success.

Glen Bennett: How important is the game development sector to New Zealand’s economy?

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: Really important. New Zealand’s game development sector is a small but fast-growing part of our tech sector, bringing in $400 million in revenue in 2022. Our firms enjoy international success—around 96 percent of the sector’s output is exported. The digital economy and the digital technology sector contributed $7 billion in GDP in 2021 and since 2016 it has grown at twice the annual rate of the economy. As a Government, we are committed to making the best investments for the future of the economy, and the game development sector rebate will help build the New Zealand we want for the future. That’s a high wage, low emissions economy and one that has high skills, innovation, resilience, and sustainability. I’m looking forward to seeing the scheme progress and achieve the Government’s ambitions of a promising new sector.