edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
2. Question No. 2—Rotorua District Council (Representation Arrangements) BillHon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National) to the Member in charge of the Rotorua District Council (Representation Arrangements) BillQuestion No. 2—Rotorua District Council (Representation Arrangements) Bill2. Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National) to the Member in charge of the Rotorua District Council (Representation Arrangements) Bill: Will he discharge the Rotorua District Council (Representation Arrangements) Bill; if not why not?TĀMATI COFFEY (Member in charge of the Rotorua District Council (Representation Arrangements) Bill): No I haven't discharged the bill so as to allow time for the Rotorua District Council to consider whether possible amendments are able to address the Attorney-General's New Zealand Bill of Rights Act analysis. It's important to note that I've publicly said that the bill cannot continue in its form. Hon Paul Goldsmith: How can the bill be amended in such a way that doesn't deviate from equal voting rights given that is the entire purpose of the bill?TAMATI COFFEY: That's a matter for the advisers to work through which is why we've given them the time to be able to work through that analysis and provide their final advice back to the Māori Affairs Committee—we're in a process.
1. Question No. 1—Māori Affairs CommitteeDAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT) to the Chairperson of the Māori Affairs CommitteeQUESTIONS TO MEMBERSQuestion No. 1—Māori Affairs Committee1. DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT) to the Chairperson of the Māori Affairs Committee: When will the Rotorua District Council (Representation Arrangements) Bill be reported back to the House?TĀMATI COFFEY (Chairperson of the Māori Affairs Committee): That is a matter for the committee.David Seymour: Is the member confident that the committee will be able to ensure the bill overcomes the objections raised by the Attorney-General in his section 7 report—SPEAKER: Order! The member will resume his seat. That's not a matter for the chair of the committee.David Seymour: Point of order Mr Speaker.SPEAKER: These questions are very very narrow and the content is not the responsibility of the chair.
12. Question No. 12—TourismJO LUXTON (Labour—Rangitata) to the Minister of TourismQuestion No. 12—Tourism12. JO LUXTON (Labour—Rangitata) to the Minister of Tourism: What reports has he seen about the impact on our largest international airport of reopening the border to visa-waiver travellers?Hon STUART NASH (Minister of Tourism): Yesterday I joined representatives of Tourism New Zealand Air New Zealand and Auckland International Airport at a dawn event at the terminal to welcome the first air passengers returning under step four of our reconnecting strategy announced by the PM in February and alluded to by the PM in question No. 1. Auckland International Airport advises that from yesterday it was open to 88 percent of its pre-COVID markets. Thousands of passengers touched down on around 25 flights at Auckland Wellington and Christchurch international airports yesterday as New Zealand opened up further for business to further spur the economic recovery.Jo Luxton: What reports has he seen about the return of tourists and business travellers from our traditional Northern Hemisphere markets as aviation connectivity gears up?Hon STUART NASH: Australia remains our number one market. Historically it always has been accounting for 40 percent of pre-COVID arrivals. But the reopening of visa-waiver travel taps into a strong interest in this country from our traditional key Northern Hemisphere markets. These include the USA UK Germany South Korea Japan Singapore Malaysia Canada and others who can now jump on a plane and come here. Tourism New Zealand advises that international flight searches to New Zealand are running 19 percent higher than pre-COVID levels. Our tourism destinations are amongst the world's best. The industry knows there is a rebuild ahead. International travel will be very competitive and airlines will take time to build up their schedules and routes.Hon Member: Well done Minister.Hon STUART NASH: Thank you.Jo Luxton: What reports has he seen about international airlines restarting routes to New Zealand?Hon STUART NASH: Auckland International Airport advises that at the start of this year there were 12 passenger airlines operating to 20 international destinations to and from the airport; by July it expects there'll be 17 passenger airlines operating to 31 destinations to and from Auckland Airport. Later this year major international airlines like Emirates Air Canada Malaysian Airlines Hawaiian Airlines and LATAM Airlines are restarting routes. Air New Zealand is also adding long-haul routes from San Francisco Honolulu Houston New York and Chicago. We have kept airlines flying here with an air freight subsidy scheme for exporters. The tourism sector can now build on that and scale up for the movement of people as well as freight.David Seymour: Did the Minister see any reports of Kiwis of Indian Chinese or Sri Lankan origin welcoming their non-resident families and how long will Kiwis whose families are from non-visa waiver countries have to keep waiting till they can have the same experience under his Government?Hon STUART NASH: No.
9. Question No. 9—Prime MinisterRAWIRI WAITITI (Co-Leader—Te Paati Māori) to the Prime MinisterQuestion No. 9—Prime Minister9. RAWIRI WAITITI (Co-Leader—Te Paati Māori) to the Prime Minister: Does she stand by all her Government's statements and decisions?Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN (Prime Minister): Yes. In particular I stand by this Government's decision to establish a Māori Health Authority as a central element of our health reforms. For too long Māori have disproportionately suffered poorer health outcomes due to a health system not designed to deliver to them. On average Māori die seven years younger than other populations and this is a situation that no one in New Zealand should accept. Progress has been swift; we've already worked to ensure the interim Māori Health Authority has identified $22 million in areas identified for funding to support Māori health services. With the Māori Health Authority recently receiving public backing from organisations like the Cancer Society Hāpai te Hauora the New Zealand Nurses Organisation the Royal Australian College of Surgeons the Mental Health Foundation and many more we know come 1 July we can start delivering better health outcomes to our Māori whānau.Rawiri Waititi: Does she stand by her statement on wealth tax that I won't allow it to happen as Prime Minister." or her more recent statement when she was asked about the wealth tax that "We have not worked on our tax policy for 2023."?Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I stand by all my statements.Rawiri Waititi: Was she made aware that her Government knows nothing about the amount of tax paid by higher net-worth Kiwi individuals?Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: As Minister Parker set out fulsomely both in his answers in the House but also in his speech that he gave last week it is clear that we relative to other countries we would compare ourselves to do not have the same data that you would expect us to have on the nature of tax paid in New Zealand. Alongside work we've done to create more transparency around these issues my view is that by ensuring IRD have the ability to gather that information all parties in this House—indeed New Zealanders—will be better off by having greater transparency and more information.Rawiri Waititi: Is she aware that 2 percent of New Zealand controls 40 percent of our total wealth and is that the equal society that you want as Prime Minister?Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: You'll already see reflected in the policy that we have implemented as a Government a view that we could see and should see more of a progressive tax system given the fact that we introduced a new top tax rate for those earning over $180000 or more. At the same time you have seen us increase tax credits for families on Working for Families you've seen us introduce the winter energy payment create the child payment that we have through Best Start increase Government support for those on benefits—all of those have been efforts to ensure that we have a fairer society and that all New Zealanders can flourish."
5. Question No. 5—HousingSHANAN HALBERT (Labour—Northcote) to the Minister of HousingQuestion No. 5—Housing5. SHANAN HALBERT (Labour—Northcote) to the Minister of Housing: What action has the Government recently taken to enable housing?Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister of Housing): Last week the Government announced that around 400 infrastructure projects in the Auckland suburbs of Mount Roskill Māngere Tāmaki Ōranga and Northcote will receive funding from the Government's $3.8 billion Housing Acceleration Fund announced in March 2021. This new funding will directly enable up to 16000 new homes on Crown-owned land—including public affordable and market homes—and create capacity for an extra 11000 homes on surrounding privately owned land. The projects being funded include three waters infrastructure including water main renewal and sewerage and stormwater system upgrades as well as flood protection footpath and road improvements and site decontaminations.Shanan Halbert: What further action is the Government taking to enable more housing in other parts of the country?Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: Yesterday those applicants invited to progress to the negotiation stage of the Government's $1 billion contestable Infrastructure Acceleration Fund were notified. This will unlock new housing development across the country in the short to medium term. Thirty-five projects are being progressed through the fund which could unlock between 25000 to 35000 additional homes pending agreement of the final proposals. There are 14 proposals for developments in New Zealand's major urban centres—the tier 1 councils of Auckland Hamilton Tauranga Wellington and Christchurch—and the remaining 21 are in other areas throughout the country. Almost one-third of the applications going forward to the next stage are proposals that are co-led with Māori or have Māori as key partners.Shanan Halbert: How will this investment in infrastructure improve the supply of housing?Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: Decades of under-investment in housing infrastructure needed has created the national housing crisis that we are facing today. Investments of this scale in water transport and community infrastructure are vital to increase the pace at which we can unlock new homes where they are critically needed. Creating funding certainty for this additional infrastructure also works in tandem to deliver the infrastructure needed for intensification under the Government's National Policy Statement for Urban Development and the medium-density residential standards. It also allows the Government to continue with its public house build progress continuing to progress to date—such as the 9000 public houses and 3425 additional transitional houses we've already delivered—the largest delivery in many decades.
Pae Ora (Healthy Futures) Bill — Second Reading
Rurawhe AdrianDEPUTY SPEAKER: Members this debate is interrupted and set down for resumption next sitting day. The House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. tomorrow.Debate interrupted.The House adjourned at 9.56 p.m.
Henare Peeni; Salesa JennyAPPROPRIATION (2020/21 CONFIRMATION AND VALIDATION) BILLThird ReadingHon PEENI HENARE (Minister of Defence) on behalf of the Minister of Finance: I move That the Appropriation (2020/21 Confirmation and Validation) Bill be now read a third time.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is that the motion be agreed to.Motion agreed to.Bill read a third time.
Little AndrewHon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Health): Thank you Madam Chair. I thank the member Elizabeth Kerekere for her questions. I'm just looking round to see whether my colleague the Hon Ayesha Verrall is here—she's not. On the second of the member's questions in relation to any possible rainbow strategy or pathways to healthcare for gender diverse people I can say that has been a priority piece of work for this Government and in particular for Dr Verrall. We have stepped up particularly in relation to gender-affirming surgery—we're now seeing a commitment to that that we hadn't seen for a long time. So a record number of procedures performed last year we've been having a little bit of difficulty getting traction this year but the numbers of cases being considered and candidates for those procedures entering the appropriate therapeutic pathways those numbers are increasing which I hope will be encouraging to the member. On the member's first question about the Human Rights Commission report on the access by disabled people to support and care during the COVID pandemic I want to acknowledge that report and the findings of that report that reflected that there has been difficulty for disabled people and their whānau supporters and carers to make sure that they're getting good information and in some cases good care. I can say to the member that even before the report had concluded and the recommendations were evident changes were already being made. I think in fairness to those who have been running the COVID response a lot was done very quickly and I think that might justify some haste. And you know far from ideal practices in the early stages but I think—as I understand from the member—the justified concern about the latter stages particularly last year when we then had another nationwide lockdown in August and then with Delta that put a lot of pressure particularly on the northern part of the motu. And then the Omicron outbreak that I think caused a lot of concern and anxiety. By that stage we ought to have had effective communications or channels in place that we didn't harness. I'm confident now that those issues have been addressed that we now have good engagement with representatives of the disabled community and they are making sure that when it comes to putting together strategies and practices that we're doing better by that community than we have in the past.
SpeechDr ELIZABETH KEREKERE (Green): Kia ora koutou. My first question is: we note that the recommendations of the Human Rights Commission report on the access to care for disabled people to health and support services—we noticed those recommendations are very very similar to the ones in the report from January 2021 so we're just wanting to hear from the Minister of Health about how you plan to address those recommendations.And our second question is: given the discrimination faced by people with diverse genders sexualities and sex characteristics in the health sector and the lack of a rainbow strategy proposed in the Pae Ora legislation how does the Minister propose to provide pathways to gender-affirming healthcare to dealing with the issues of gender-normalising surgery faced by intersex infants and a range of other healthcare issues that although they might be addressed in some of the locality plans—how does that connect up with needing to access services which are only available in certain places? Kia ora.
Reti ShaneDr SHANE RETI (National): Thank you Madam Chair. Thank you Minister for those answers. A quick question: what was the comparator for pay equity with nurses? Which profession which career was the comparator? As I recall with the TerraNova case I believe Corrections was the comparator but I'd just be interested to know what the comparator is for that pay equity.A further sequence of a few questions: how does he explain a D" investor confidence rating from the Treasury in the Ministry of Health which he leads—the worst rating the ministry has ever had? My third question then would be: how many fulltime-equivalents are predicted with the health reforms? So on day one we know that it's a straight transfer from those in DHBs to Health New Zealand. I understand that. What is the future prediction of fulltime-equivalents under the proposed health reforms?My fourth question becomes: how does he explain—other than COVID which can be a convenient excuse for a whole range of things and some I understand are legitimate; some I wonder that they're just a convenient excuse—delays in implementation of the safer nursing accord the CCDM model—the Care Capacity Demand Management model? I'd be interested to know some answers to that.And then finally in this tranche: what is his plan to reduce waiting lists which have ballooned both due to legitimate COVID reasons but actually leading up to February 2020 when we started to go into lockdown the waiting lists were substantially increasing anyway? So I'm looking for a plan for that. Thank you."
Reti ShaneDr SHANE RETI (National): Thank you Madam Chair. It's a pleasure to speak to the annual review of the health enterprises and to address the DHBs the Ministry of Health and the number of agencies that as have been described came in front of us. I have a number of questions which I'll ask in the first tranche.First of all we were interested in the financial position of DHBs. And so the first question is: what is likely to be the collective deficit of all DHBs at the end of the financial year with and without the Holidays Act—we were very concerned with the Holidays Act—and will any ongoing deficit simply be absorbed at the end of the financial year by the Crown? So a question there around collective DHB deficits.We had a lot of interesting discussion around health workforce and this second question talks to pay equity and the concern that this seems to have stalled. It's a question to the Minister around what is the progress on pay equity and certainly around the point of discussion around purported back-pay agreements.The third question which extends health workforce is the grave concern I have around the aged residential care workforce which is breaking in front of our eyes. Should a pay equity agreement proceed it's been explained to me that the delta between what aged and residential care nurses get and what DHB nurses get could start at about $22000 and go up to $30000. Should this be the case there are several questions: does the Minister acknowledge that this is an urgent risk for us right now? And if pay equity for DHBs does proceed along those lines what does he think will happen to aged residential care nurses if there's that big a difference between the aged residential care sector and DHBs? And then thirdly what is his plan to address pay parity between the DHB sector and aged residential care community nursing and primary care nursing?My fourth substantive question will be: will Pharmac provide and administer cancer medicines to children who are newly diagnosed with cancer in the public hospital system for free? There is an ongoing question we have.Then last question I have in this tranche and we did scrutinise the cancer agency Te Aho o Te Kahu and so the question becomes: what is his response to the recent damning report comparing the access to chemotherapeutics between Australia and New Zealand and the 18 preparations that are funded in Australia but not in New Zealand. What is his response to that? Has he had any response to Pharmac and how do we address it? Those are my questions in the first tranche.
SpeechHon KRIS FAAFOI (Minister of Immigration): Quick-fire answers to those first to Mr Menéndez March. In terms of convention refugees the acceptable standard of health process isn't applied and in terms of post-study work visa holders that have expired since the border's been closed no there hasn't been any consideration with that. In terms of why we looked at working holiday visas if you look at the kind of sectors that we wanted to assist first the likes of horticulture and hospitality and tourism they've traditionally hired a large number of working holiday visas. The profile of working holiday visas are kind of obviously younger people which we believed were more likely to travel as opposed to any other cohort other than working holiday visas.To Mr McDowall we hope that once we open up to non - visa waiver countries we'll be able to process those visa applications in under 20 days. And to Erica Stanford when we took that Cabinet paper through the multiplier of 1.5 was based on what we knew and that was on those people who would be eligible and in the country and that's why that multiplier was used.I think as I've said in this House during question time it's very difficult to understand exactly the number of dependants or a partner for someone who has applied as an individual for a temporary work visa because obviously they're not putting that on the application for a temporary work visa. That was something that was made clear by the officials when we put that piece of advice to Cabinet together. The best estimate we had at the time in terms of a lockdown number was what we knew was in country for eligible temporary work visa. We've obviously been watching that closely because it is nigh on impossible to go through the number of people who are eligible—110000 in total—and understand what dependants or what partnership status they may have.What we knew at the time was that we wanted to make sure we were supporting those temporary work visa holders in New Zealand who were either skilled scarce or settled and also making a commitment to them and also guaranteeing for the employers that are hiring those workers who obviously were feeling the pressure of the borders being closed that things would not get worse and that we would secure the workforce of those temporary work visa holders who were eligible. Again we believe 110000 eligible work visa holders onshore but a lot of those applicants had partners and dependants offshore that we had almost no information on because they obviously weren't part of an application when that individual first put their temporary work visa application in.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Order! Members our time with the Minister of Immigration has ended. Members the Minister of Health is now available for one hour to respond to members' questions.
Stanford EricaERICA STANFORD (National—East Coast Bays): Thank you Madam Chair. I wanted to just go down a slightly different route and ask the Minister some questions around the 2021 resident visa. In the paper he took to Cabinet the figures that he used—that Cabinet eventually settled on—were 110000 applications representing 165000 people. That's a multiplier of 1.5. There isn't a single person in Immigration New Zealand who will tell you that a resident application represents 1.5 people. In the history of this country it's always been around 2.2 2.3. I want to know why the Minister didn't use that multiplier.Because what's happened is as predicted the numbers have blown out. We are already well over the 165000 that he took to Cabinet—we're at 187500 people included. And by the time you extrapolate that out we're going to have an extra 60000 people getting their residence. Now the reason that this is important is that this represents obviously a lot more than the Cabinet signed off even though it was an approximate figure. But I'd say approximate doesn't account for an extra 60000 people.I want to know where the Minister got the advice to use 1.5 given that that has never been an indicator of people to applications in the past. I want to know what work he did in that because there are a lot of people who are now including their partners and dependents offshore who—especially in terms of those dependents what work did he do in terms of finding out how many dependents offshore would likely be included in this? Because they're all going to have to go to school.And I want to know what work the Minister did in figuring out the amount of people that are going to be able to get this visa and then potentially how many offshore will be using our school system. That matters because there are so many more people included than the Minister ever took to Cabinet ever talked publicly about. I want to know the reasons for not using a multiplier that Immigration New Zealand has traditionally always used in the past and I want to know what work he's done on those offshore children who are now going to be turning up to our schools.
Menéndez March RicardoRICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): Thank you Madam Chair. And I appreciate the Minister Kris Faafoi's comments regarding wanting to push forward the review of the acceptable standards of health. I'd be keen to seek just clarification on the answer he gave regarding convention refugees and just more specifically whether the acceptable standards of health policy is applied to convention refugees to screen them from potentially accessing any type of visa. I also would like clarification as to how trans people are impacted by the acceptable standards of health policy if he's got any insights on that. Additionally I'd be keen to also get an understanding of what he perceives to be the outcome of people coming in who were on post-study work visas who were kept away because of the pandemic and they understood the sacrifice they had to make. But now that they're coming here—the ones who have managed to come and whose visas haven't expired—some of them have given feedback to me that for example they only have a couple of months left on their visa. And again considering that almost 20000 visas were replaced those working holiday visa holders I would want to know whether any consideration has been given or is going to be given around extending the visas of those people on post-study work visas so that they're able to set foot back in Aotearoa and to find employment in a way that is safe for them and also that works for employers as well.Dr JAMES McDOWALL (ACT): Thank you Madam Chair. I'd like to ask the Minister when people from non - visa waiver countries can in theory re-enter the country how long will it actually take for their visas to be processed and will people in New Zealand with family members offshore in this situation see their loved ones before Christmas? Furthermore the Government has often spoken about the need to focus on high-quality tourists" and given the staged reopening of the border does that mean that non - visa waiver people—does the Minister believe that those people are low-quality?"
Stanford EricaERICA STANFORD (National—East Coast Bays): Thank you Madam Chair. I want to ask the Minister some questions around the very slow border reopening that we have this year and also the wait times for all visa categories that have blown out. I want in particular to draw the Minister's attention to some of the written questions that I asked and the answers indicating that his spend in Immigration has increased by 50 percent since 2017. He's spending an extra $150 million more. He's employed 500 more staff yet 100 fewer staff are processing visas than there were in 2017 and only processing a third of what they were pre-pandemic yet visa processing times have increased. A permanent resident visa took 20 days. It's now taking 180 days. A visitor visa 21 days; now five months—just to give you two examples.How can it be that a Minister is spending 50 percent more $150 million more has 500 more staff only processing a third of what we were doing pre-pandemic and yet we still have to wait till October because the Prime Minister has again yesterday said in her post-Cabinet stand up that the reason for the slow border opening is the fact that Immigration is unable to process visas? How can it be that he's doing all of these things and yet we're still not able to open our borders until October and our wait times have blown out so significantly?Dr JAMES McDOWALL (ACT): Thank you Madam Chair. I think I'll just get straight to it. Starting with the Accredited Employer Work Visa scheme can the Minister say with absolute certainty that the scheme will launch on 4 July 2022? Furthermore does the Minister think that the scheme will help fill staff shortages in hospitality and tourism with reports that it could take at least 18 months to make up for the jobs lost during the pandemic and that 60000 New Zealanders could be heading offshore and with one employer stating Filling those roles with New Zealanders is absolutely great; there's just not the interest."?"
McKee NicoleNICOLE McKEE (ACT): Minister just going back to the hate speech law thank you for your answers to my questions. I just wonder if you could answer whether or not hate speech is going to come back in this term of the Government before the 2023 election.And further to the honourable member Paul Goldsmith's questions to you about delays I also have one regarding the delays: during the recent court safety legislation bill that was passed in the last sitting block it was discovered that nearly 30 of our courts do not have access to audiovisual equipment in order to be able to conduct judicial proceedings remotely. So just wondering when you're talking about what it is that we need to do to get rid of this backlog is there any indication that these courts will be able to operate remotely to be able to get that backlog down?Hon KRIS FAAFOI (Minister of Justice): Thanks for the two questions. To the first one Cabinet hasn't made final decisions yet so I don't want to pre-empt that; that would be rather career limiting. But as I say the intention is still there to make sure we respond to the royal commission of inquiry recommendations.There was a debate during the kind of final passages of that bill around audiovisual link (AVL) systems. The genesis of that debate didn't necessarily lie in fact. The numbers that were being bandied around from my understanding—is those are courtrooms that have fixed AVL facilities within them. But a rather large majority of those that was being said that they don't have any AVL actually have portable monitors that can be used in different spaces within a courthouse and that they do have a capacity. I don't have the numbers on me. I think it's as little as nine may have little or no AVL facilities at all but a vast majority of our courthouses and other facilities that we use that require AVL do have it. It might not be fixed it's mobile but they certainly have the ability to hold audiovisual link proceedings in order to make sure that it's as efficient as possible.
Waititi RawiriRAWIRI WAITITI (Co-Leader—Te Paati Māori): Thank you Mr Chair. Minister we've diddle-daddled around this subject for a while now. We're talking about the Māori electoral option and we just want some hard answers tonight on the electoral option. As we know the last electoral option was in 2018; the next one will be 2024. So the voting preference for Māori will be 2026 which like I said is an eight-year lockout. We've talked about suffrage and I've heard suffrage mentioned in this House quite a bit lately but this actually doesn't reflect suffrage does it? That Māori are locked out for an eight-year lockout on the roll of their choice.The other part of this is that I believe this is probably one of the most racist laws of the electoral law here in New Zealand. We've got the Māori roll and we've got the general roll and so why is it called the general roll"? Because it makes the Māori roll the "other". And then we call it the "general elections" which actually really solidifies that particular way of thinking. So the Māori roll and the Pākehā roll makes sense to me. Māori roll and non-Māori roll—that makes sense to me.So I have a private member's bill that will remove these barriers. Will he adopt the key changes in my bill by allowing Māori to change between the Māori and general rolls at any time? For suffrage in local and central elections change the requirement to redraw electoral boundaries to a set date two years after each general election? Set a legislative requirement that if someone stipulates they are Māori when enrolling but doesn't choose an electoral roll they are automatically placed on the Māori electoral roll. Change the name of the general electorate district to "non-Māori" or to "Pākehā roll"—simple.So the three questions that follow Minister is that: do you agree that our electoral system locks tangata whenua out from fully participating in our democracy? Does he support a Tiriti-centric Aotearoa? To that end will the Minister commit to supporting my member's bill and will he vote for continued breaches of Te Tiriti o Waitangi and the marginalisation of tangata whenua?"
McKee NicoleNICOLE McKEE (ACT): Thank you Mr Chair. Minister I would like to ask you a set of questions about hate speech laws thanks. Is it still the Government's intention to introduce amendments to hate speech laws before the next election? Of course a lot of the country are waiting to see what the intent of this Government is.If so does he intend to take any further papers to Cabinet? And if you do intend to take papers to Cabinet when can we expect clarification about Cabinet's direction or decision on whether to continue with hate speech laws in this term of Government? Thank you.
Goldsmith PaulHon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): Thank you Mr Chair. My pleasure to speak on this debate and inquiry as it were into Justice—the billions of dollars that the Government spends on our behalf in order to keep New Zealanders safe. Now there are a number of issues we want to work with the Minister on to get a better understanding from. Of course a lot of New Zealanders are very concerned about the rise in violent crime that we've seen across communities of New Zealand over the last few years with a more than 20 percent increase in violent crime. And of course all New Zealanders are well aware of the appearance of young kids ram-raiding and running amok in our cities in the small hours of the night.So the obvious question to ask the Minister is: what is the plan if anything to restore law and order to our streets and our nights to hold those young offenders—repeat young offenders—who are stealing cars driving them through windows into malls stealing stuff and driving away? What is the plan to hold them to account in some way more effectively than inviting them to a group conference repeatedly? And what is the plan to ensure that they are caught and held to account and that the people who are just trying to run their businesses and stay safe are kept safe and that their businesses are not trashed on a regular basis and so that New Zealanders can feel safe in their communities and their homes?When I look at the Government and its justice approach given this situation given the violence on our streets given the rise in violent crime what is the one message that the Government seems to be sending? Well actually that we're too tough on the criminals. And that's why their legislative priority is to do away with the three-strikes legislation aimed at holding our most serious repeat offenders to account. So given what's going on all around the country the rise in violent crime why is it this Government's message that the priority for the legislation is the fact that we are too tough on criminals and we need to reduce and do away with the three-strikes legislation? And related to that is well what actually is the plan to deal with the rise in violent crime in our communities right here right now?
Kuriger Barbara; O'Connor Damien; Rurawhe AdrianBARBARA KURIGER (National—Taranaki - King Country): Thank you Mr Chair. Look we got some good long expanded answers there but they weren't really to the questions that I asked. There were two questions that I specifically asked and it was the first one about mental health. And we had a good description about what happens on-farm but the question I asked: the drivers around workforce pressures the speed scale and coordination of regulatory change; whether the Government felt some responsibility in all of that. And the second one was around methane inhibitors. I actually asked—I know there's a whole lot of things going on out there but I asked what work the Minister had been doing around regulations that allowed those methane inhibitors that we currently can't use into the country. Thank you.Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Minister of Agriculture): Very briefly thank you Mr Chair. On the methane inhibitors look there is an issue of definition of them. And the methane inhibitors used offshore have usually—or some of the ones that have been deemed effective—been fed on a regular basis during the day to animals that are housed indoors. But actually there's an unknown outcome from feeding it for pasture-based systems. So therefore if you were to feed a larger volume of that in one hit—whether that would then result in residues in the meat or the milk that would then block us. So officials are working very carefully as to the definition of it under the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Act whether it's a fertiliser or whether it's a veterinary medicine.So those are tricky issues and we do have to move more quickly—although I suggest that actually the investigation of those technologies in the pasture-based systems have to be fully tested. They are being tested I understand in South America—unclear results. We'll have the advantage of that knowledge when we move through to start the testing here. But I don't know how long but I'll have to say like dicyandiamide we have to ensure that when we use it we don't put our exports at risk.Can I come back to the regulations one? Look I think we've given the primary sector plenty of notice around methane around our commitment—in 1997 in fact we committed to include agriculture in our emissions reduction obligations. It's taken us a while to get there; we're getting there working with the industry around water. Clearly we put some water regulations out there; we've listened we've adjusted them. So there's still some time and I think most people are working through to adapt to the new requirements which is better water outcomes lower nutrient wastage—and I think they are good outcomes that enable us to stand proud in the world market and say that actually we're running the best farming systems in the world.CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Members our time with the Minister of Agriculture has ended. The Minister of Justice is now available for 30 minutes.
Annual Review Debate — Primary Industries
Mooney JosephJOSEPH MOONEY (National—Southland): Thank you Mr Chair. Minister I just want to ask you a question about whether you and your Government have turned your mind to food security. Now the World Bank has noted fertiliser prices have surged in March up nearly 20 percent globally since January 2022 and almost three times higher than a year ago. High fertiliser prices pose serious threats to food security as they will impact food production in the next production cycle. In fact last month the heads of the World Bank Group International Monetary Fund United Nations World Food Programme and the World Trade Organization called for urgent action on food security. They said the world is shaken by compounding crises and the World Bank estimates that for each 1 percent point increase in food prices 10 million people are thrown into extreme poverty. The rise in food prices is exacerbated by a dramatic increase in the cost of natural gas a key ingredient in nitrogenous fertiliser. And I note that surging fertiliser prices along with significant increases in global supplies have important implications for food production in most countries. They've called on the international community to urgently support vulnerable countries including by increasing agricultural production. Only yesterday Edmonds flour in New Zealand advised that due to poor wheat-growing conditions in the South Island this year they're no longer able to source enough New Zealand - grown wheat for Edmonds flour but thankfully they've been able to get it from Australia. So my question is: has the Minister turned his mind to food security? Is he turning his mind to how to support the farm industry both for our economy for our food security and for our obligations to provide food to other countries?
Cameron MarkMARK CAMERON (ACT): Thank you Mr Chair. Minister if I may I just want to touch on what the aforementioned member Barbara Kuriger was talking about—methane mitigation. I believe that $23.52 million has been spent on methane mitigation. Where is it in terms of it being commercially available? I think Barbara Kuriger alluded to the fact that so much of that technology is currently locked offshore notwithstanding Minister that the public—i.e. the farming public—is weighing in on an emissions trading scheme or He Waka Eke Noa. Arguably many in the industry will see that as a guillotine or a noose scenario as that technology is not commercially available. We know we've got short-term gas in terms of its rate of decay and its emissions and we seem to be as the rural sector front-footing that conversation.Minister if I can and the question I do pose to you is: when do you see it being commercially available given that a Minister outside of Cabinet but in Government has said that he agreed with your statements when asked by me in select committee that the national herd size didn't need to be reduced? You and I agreed. He then agreed and then flip-flopped on that position. So is it not a case that we have a tax before technology and this is a back-to-front conversation?
Tuiono TeanauTEANAU TUIONO (Green): Thank you Mr Chair. My question to the Minister is really based around the work that he should be doing if he's not doing around helping our rural communities and our farming communities adapt to climate change and in their farming practices as well. And I would like him to reflect on that on the recent New Zealand SeaRise report that came out which indicated that actually time was even shorter than we thought. The time that we thought we had we don't have. So my question is around about that urgency because one of the things that I've noticed about this House in my short time here is that we're easily distracted we're easily unfocused. Some of us have been distracted and unfocused and focusing on the Groundswell when actually we should have been focusing on the sea swell.So in that context I wonder if the Minister could also focus on that new urgency: whether he will ramp up plans to help our rural communities farming communities to transition to regenerative agriculture and to organics as well because we can't wait—Napier can't wait. At the latest they say 20 years but the earliest in 10 years it'll be hitting Ōwhiro Bay out there on the coast Nelson Napier as well so action is urgent.And on that I wanted him to reflect on the place of organics in that as well. One of the things that I do like about organics if you're going to get into those international markets you've got to measure up. And with measurements—and when you can look at those kinds of baselines things that they require in order for you to get into those markets—it actually makes it a lot easier because you can use that data to actually see while they're doing things. And on that could he talk to us a little bit about where the state of the Organic Products Bill is at? Any ideas around the support policies that will be needed to support those producers and growers and also other related aspects? Thank you.
Salesa JennyCHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Members that concludes our one-hour debate on Housing. We now move on to Agriculture and we have the Minister the Hon Damien O'Connor in the chair to answer questions for 30 minutes.
Bishop Chris; Woods MeganCHRIS BISHOP (National): What were the 1681 new employees at Kāinga Ora doing in the last 4½ years since September 2017 if they were not engaging with the community of Wood Street to try and build housing here which everyone in the street including the former local MP supports?Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister of Housing): What those increased employees are doing is finally building some public houses in this country. Actually what I invite the member to have a look at—a very detailed look at—is the cost of construction per employee under the previous National Government of Housing New Zealand compared to what it is at Kāinga Ora. It is of magnitudes different in terms of the much less cost. Of course Kāinga Ora has also had to hire more tenancy managers because we've added to our housing stock not decreased it as the previous Government did.
Bishop Chris; Woods MeganCHRIS BISHOP (National): Oh right well I thought the time was up but given we have extra time I have a very simple question for the Minister which is more of a local matter which is: when will there be housing built on the land in Wood Street Wainuiōmata which the Government said would be built on in mid-2019 and here we are in May 2022 and not a single house has been built on the land.Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister of Housing): Happy to take a call and address that. We are working through with the locals on that. Of course it was opposed by the then local MP for Hutt South Chris Bishop before he was voted out who led a community against having transitional and public housing on the land at Wood Street. So that kind of thing isn't helpful. But we have seen a number of National Party MPs opposing having public housing built in their communities so it comes as no surprise to me that we get this from a party when they get the Treasury benches: they flog off public housing.
Bishop ChrisCHRIS BISHOP (National): I thank the Minister for her answer. On a related note which actually touches on the area of Porirua but also my own area in Lower Hutt is the whole issue of what is the Government policy when it comes to growing the community housing sector. The charge that some would accuse the Government of is the view that to grow social housing in New Zealand or grow community housing the Government's position seems to be that it has to be Kāinga Ora only. And actually as many members in the House will know we have a whole range of different community housing providers up and down the country—typically closer to their tenants by dint of their smaller scale their nimbleness—who provide a fantastic service for the communities that they look after including a range of wraparound support mechanisms some of which Kāinga Ora doesn't provide.The question for the Minister is: what is current Government policy when it comes to growing the community housing sector by way of capital grants for example? Because there would be a view expressed by some that one of the most effective ways the Government could provide new houses in New Zealand—the new social houses community houses in particular—is not just to provide money for Kāinga Ora to expand and I note in saying that that Kāinga Ora built one net new house in the last quarter but actually to provide money to the community housing so they can grow. And it's not a binary either it's not Kāinga Ora can never build and can never expand—clearly they are going to have a role to play they are the country's biggest landlord. The issue is whether or not the Crown with its large funding base and its large resources can do more to help the community housing sector grow. And so the question for the Minister is whether or not the Government is looking at that and what its Government policy actually is towards the community housing sector?
Woods MeganHon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister of Housing): I'll quickly address that question. The Infrastructure Funding and Finance Act certainly is a tool that is going to be useful in a number of situations. Discussions are currently under way with councils that are interested in using this tool but it is inherently a new approach and it is one that has to be worked through with care. One of the things I think that the previous Government—one of the legacies that we had to deal with is I think there was a belief that this was a tool that would enable the funding of infrastructure in areas where it was not suitable. So for example it's my understanding there was an understanding that this could be a tool that could be used in Porirua to address the vast infrastructure work that was required to get any form of density and intensification in there. When we looked at that as a tool we did not see it as a suitable tool for that area. What we wanted to do was ensure that we were building back in a way that allowed existing communities to stay in their neighbourhoods and for that to be in an affordable way. So the infrastructure funding and financing tool certainly is an important part of the tool kit but as I said in my opening remarks there is no simple single fix for us to address housing and that includes infrastructure. And we've found like most areas of housing policy there was way more work to do from what we were left behind.