Sitting suspended from 1.03 p.m. to 2 p.m. VISITORS Wales—Senedd Cymru SPEAKER: Tēnā rā tātou katoa. The House is resumed. Members, I am sure you would all wish to welcome James Evans, member of the Senedd Cymru, the Welsh Parliament, who is present in the gallery. ORAL QUESTIONS QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS Question No. 1—Education 1.TEANAU TUIONO (Green) to the Minister of Education: Does she stand by her comments that teachers' pay and conditions are "not good enough"? Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Prime Minister) on behalf of the Minister of Education: I am going to answer this on behalf of the Minister of Education. Perhaps before I do so, by way of explanation, on her way to the House just now the Minister of Education was hit in the head by a camera in the lobby and is on her way to seek some medical treatment for that. So that is why I'm answering the question on her behalf. On behalf of the Minister of Education, yes I want all of our teachers to feel valued in their mahi and as educational practitioners. Teanau Tuiono: I hope the Minister of Education is well soon. Why does she think teachers are gathering outside the Minister of Finance's electorate office today? Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: There are negotiations under way about teachers' pay and conditions. It is not unusual for teachers to make their views during these processes publicly known, as the former Minister of Education has reminded me on occasion in the past few days. The Government is absolutely committed to working with teachers to resolve the issues that they are raising, and we believe that the best place to do that is around the bargaining table. Teanau Tuiono: Has she had any conversations with the Minister of Finance to reprioritise spending to allow teachers to have a pay offer that is in line with inflation? Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: This Government's track record when it comes to teacher pay and conditions is one of prioritising those matters when it comes to Budget considerations. Significant additional investment has been made in our teaching workforce during the tenure of this Government. I'm confident that we'll continue to do that. Teanau Tuiono: Why has there been no formal collective agreement offer put forward for secondary school teachers since October 2021? Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: As I've indicated before, my expectation as the Minister of Education, on behalf of the Minister, is that the teacher unions and the Ministry of Education will bargain in good faith to get to the point where the teacher unions can put an offer in front of their membership for ratification. Teanau Tuiono: Does she agree with the Post Primary Teachers Association that there is a shortage of qualified secondary school teachers? Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Yes, there is evidence to suggest that there is a shortage of teachers in New Zealand. Over a long period of time we have not trained enough teachers. Teanau Tuiono: Will her Government improve the offer to prevent further strike action and give our teachers the pay and conditions they deserve? Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: As I've previously indicated, that is a matter for bargaining, and the best place to so that bargaining is around the bargaining table. Question No. 2—Prime Minister 2. CHRISTOPHER LUXON (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all of his Government's statements and actions? Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Prime Minister): Yes. Christopher Luxon: Does he know how many times Stuart Nash offered private oral briefings to donors or other parties with a commercial interest in Cabinet information? Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: As I indicated on the way to the House this morning, I've asked the Cabinet secretary to review Stuart Nash's communications with donors. The advice I've had from the Cabinet Office is that that will take around two months, and I will await the outcome of that review before making any further decisions or comment on it. Christopher Luxon: Is he confident Stuart Nash's decisions on forestry, including the decision to exclude most of Hawke's Bay from the inquiry into slash, were not affected by his relationship with donors from the forestry sector? Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The decision around the terms of reference for the inquiry into the review on forestry—on land use—were decisions of the whole Cabinet. The decision was made at the time to limit that to some of the land where there was clear evidence that forestry slash had had a significant impact and there had been significant erosion. An independent review panel has been appointed to do that review. That was all signed off by the Cabinet as a whole and I am confident that we will get a robust, independent outcome from that review. Christopher Luxon: Is he confident Stuart Nash's decisions on fisheries, including the issue of cameras on fishing boats, were not affected by his relationship with donors from the fisheries sector? Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I note that those particular donors didn't want cameras on fishing boats and Stuart Nash has consistently been an advocate for them. Christopher Luxon: What steps has he taken, if any, to ensure all of Stuart Nash's written and electronic communications with donors or anyone else with a commercial interest in Cabinet information have been preserved for the inquiry into Mr Nash. Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I think the member probably should have listened to my primary answer. That is something that I have asked the Cabinet Office to review. SPEAKER: I'll get the member to ask the question again. Christopher Luxon: What steps has he taken, if any, to ensure all of Stuart Nash's written and electronic communications with donors or anyone else with a commercial interest in Cabinet information have been preserved for the inquiry into Mr Nash? Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: As I indicated in my primary answer, I have today asked the Cabinet Office to review all such communications between Stuart Nash and those donors, and I will await the outcome of that review before making any further comment or decision on the matter. Christopher Luxon: Has he asked Stuart Nash why his Facebook account appears to have been deleted last night? Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: No. Christopher Luxon: When were staff in the Prime Minister's office—either his or the former Prime Minister's—first made aware of the email Stuart Nash sent to donors divulging confidential Cabinet information? Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: In terms of my office, it was at some point yesterday afternoon, I don't have the exact time of that. I did ask this morning—or last night—for a review to identify whether the office had in any way been aware of that communication prior to that. My understanding is that in 2021, Stuart Nash's then ministerial office consulted the office of the then Prime Minister on an Official Information Act request release where that email had been identified as part of that release and had been identified as being outside the scope of the review. The investigations on that matter that I have undertaken since then indicate that neither the Prime Minister of the time nor the Prime Minister's chief of staff of the time were made aware of that. Christopher Luxon: How can Kiwis believe they're getting a fair hearing from this Government when Labour donors get special access to ministerial decision-making? Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I reject the premise—I don't agree with that assertion. I do agree that Stuart Nash has behaved inappropriately here, and he has faced a consequence for that; quite a serious consequence for that. David Seymour: How can he be confident that no other Minister, including from New Zealand First, have behaved in the same way as Stuart Nash, effectively operating as lobbyists within this Government's Cabinet? Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: If the member wants to go down a road of, basically, requiring the communications between every Minister and every political donor to be vetted and reviewed, that could go back a long, long way. And if that's what the member is asking for, it would be a very, very, very big inquiry. I have seen no evidence to suggest that any Minister in this Government, other than the questions raised about Stuart Nash yesterday, have anything to answer for in that regard. David Seymour: Does that include the New Zealand First Ministers whose party was associated with a large fund named the New Zealand First Foundation, given that the Prime Minister has no idea who contributed to that or what their interests were? Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: That is a matter currently before the courts; it's not something that I can comment on. Christopher Luxon: Is he confident that Stuart Nash, as a Minister, declared all actual and perceived conflicts of interest arising from any donations he received from the sectors he was responsible for? Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I can confirm that all of Stuart Nash's donations, to the best of my knowledge, have been publicly declared and transparently so, and that any conflicts of interest that he had were registered with the Cabinet Office using the usual process. Christopher Luxon: Is he confident that none of his other Ministers have undisclosed conflicts of interest between donations they have received and their portfolio responsibilities? Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Every candidate for Parliament declares their donations, and that is made publicly available. Every Minister, on an annual basis, goes through a process with the Cabinet Office of identifying any conflicts of interest, whether that relates to donors or other conflicts of interest. That is a process that's been longstanding under successive Governments, and I have confidence in that process. Question No. 3—Arts, Culture and Heritage 3. ANAHILA KANONGATA'A-SUISUIKI (Labour) to the Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage: What progress has been made to lift artists' incomes? Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage): In line with our free-trade agreement with the UK, last year we announced that the Government was establishing an artists' resale royalty scheme. This week, I'm pleased that we're delivering on that commitment and introducing a bill to the House that will lift incomes for visual artists, support them beyond the current spike in the cost of living, and ensure they're properly recognised for their contribution to our economy and culture. Today represents a huge milestone in a journey that began 15 years ago. Anahila Kanongata'a-Suisuiki: Why is this next step important? Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: Artists have some of the lowest median incomes in New Zealand and have limited opportunities to benefit from their work on an ongoing basis. Currently, if an artist's reputation grows and their art attracts a higher price on the secondary market, the artist does not receive any of the profit and recognition of their intellectual property, hard work, or success. This bill changes that and will ensure more money in the pocket for artists whereby a 5 percent royalty is collected every time an artist's work is resold on the secondary art market. Anahila Kanongata'a-Suisuiki: What evidence has she seen that shows this will make a difference for visual artists? Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: More than 80 countries, including Australia, the UK, and all EU nations, have a similar royalty scheme in place for their artists, and it's time for New Zealand to join. Australia put a similar scheme in place over a decade ago, and from June 2010 to April 2022, A$11 million has been generated in royalties for visual artists. I'm confident that Aotearoa New Zealand and our visual artists will reap the benefits of such a scheme. Anahila Kanongata'a-Suisuiki: How will the scheme be inclusive of Māori and Pacific artists? Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: New Zealand is a unique country with a diverse artistic community, including our rich and vibrant Māori and Pacific arts community. In its definition of visual art, this bill acknowledges that unique context by making specific reference to the visual artworks of Māori and Pacific peoples. I've heard through engagement that artworks by some groups, including Māori, Pacific, and female artists, are more likely to be sold privately. The bill does provide the option for those involved in private resales to pay a royalty voluntarily, if they want to. By enabling private sales to opt in voluntarily, we have sought to ensure that as many artists as possible can benefit from this scheme, including Māori and Pacific. Question No. 4—Justice 4. NICOLA WILLIS (Deputy Leader—National) to the Minister of Justice: Does she agree with the Minister of Finance's May 2020 statement in relation to the Government's consideration of options to offer rent relief for commercial tenants hit by COVID-19 disruption that "We're looking actively at what we do in terms of the Property Act to be able to support a fairer resolution there to ensure there is some remission", and what advice, if any, did she seek about policy options in relation to these matters? Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN (Minister of Justice): On the first part of the question, yes, in the context it was made. On the second part of the question, the previous Minister of Justice, the Hon Andrew Little, received advice from the Ministry of Justice about policy options in relation to these matters, the dates and titles of which are: on 28 March 2020, COVID-19 options relating to commercial leases; 3 April 2020, Advice on commercial lease issues in the Property Law Act; 17 April 2020, A note on considering the court's powers to intervene on commercial property issues; 29 Apr 2020, A note on moratorium on cancellation of commercial leases; 30 Apr 2020, Funding for arbitration for commercial lease rent disputes; 4 May 2020, Note on strengthening commercial lease proposals to better protect small landlords. I have not sought any advice on this matter since becoming the Minister of Justice. Nicola Willis: Can she confirm that on 3 June 2020, the Cabinet Economic Development Committee, with power to act from Cabinet, agreed to amend the Property Law Act 2007 in order to change the rent obligations facing commercial tenants? Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: I can confirm on 3 June 2020 the Cabinet Economic Development Committee, with power to act from Cabinet, did make a decision to include the decision to amend the Property Law Act and to provide $20 million to support parties to access in a timely and cost-effective manner through a Government subsidy provided for streamlined arbitrations at a rate of $6,000 per arbitration. Nicola Willis: Why, when the Cabinet agreed to a series of legislative changes, did the Government not follow through with them? Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: There were a range of decisions that the Cabinet did make in regards to these matters. These decisions have all been proactively released, but I note that in total nine decisions were made across a broad range of areas, and these concluded in the COVID-19 Response (Management Measures) Legislation Bill, which received Royal assent on 2 November 2021. Hon Michael Woodhouse: Point of order. The question was very clear. It didn't ask whether or not Cabinet had made decisions; it asked why a decision that was made was not followed through on, and that was not addressed in the answer. SPEAKER: I'll give the member an additional—because it partially addressed it but didn't quite nail it. The member can have another question. Nicola Willis: Thank you. Why did Ministers withdraw support for a number of the minuted decisions agreed to by the Cabinet Economic Development Committee in relation to arbitration of commercial lease disputes, and is she satisfied personal interests did not influence their decision making? Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: To the latter question, no. Hon Andrew Little: What difference does the Minister think there is between a Cabinet committee considering an issue and then requiring that decision to be ratified by Cabinet with a different make-up from that committee— Chris Bishop: The power to act—it had the power to act. Nicola Willis: They had power to act. Chris Bishop: You were in—had power to act. Hon Andrew Little: —including representatives from a coalition partner? Hon Grant Robertson: Point of order, Mr Speaker. Mr Speaker, you know, there are very important and sensitive matters being dealt with today, and you have been very consistent in your ruling about interjections on questions. We had several of them continually in that question. SPEAKER: That doesn't matter; what matters is that supplementaries should be heard in silence, and that's my expectation. The Minister can answer the question. Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: If the member wants to ask a specific question about a specific decision that was made— SPEAKER: No, you're answering the Hon Andrew Little's question. Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: Oh. Ha, ha! Mr Speaker— SPEAKER: Did you want to ask it again? Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: Yeah, sure. Please repeat the question. Hon Andrew Little: Happy to oblige, Mr Speaker. To the Minister: what difference does the Minister think it makes when a Cabinet committee considers an issue, and, on reporting to Cabinet, has that issue considered by a different range of people, including coalition partners? Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: A Cabinet decision is one that is made, of course, by all of the Cabinet members after a fulsome discussion. Nicola Willis: Why, when Cabinet authorised the Cabinet Economic Development Committee with the power to act—and it invited the Minister of Justice to issue drafting instructions to the parliamentary counsel to give effect to a number of policy decisions relating to commercial rent relief—did the Minister not introduce that legislation? Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: Look, on this particular specific question: if the member wants to put a specific question in writing— Nicola Willis: It's very specific, Minister. Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: Yes, it is very specific, and the member will be well aware that there were a range of decisions taken at that time. So if you do have a specific question, I would welcome that specific question to be put into writing, and I'll be happy to respond. Nicola Willis: Point of order, Mr Speaker. My question was very specific. It was about why legislation was not introduced, given the instruction of the Economic Development Committee that the Minister of Justice drafted. I think that is quite specific. SPEAKER: Yep. It's not about specificity. It's about the fact that the question was answered. Nicola Willis: Did the Minister for Small Business raise concerns about the proposals contained in Cabinet minute DEV (20)/100, and if so, what were those? Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: As the member will be well aware, I was not the Minister of Justice at that time. Again, if she would like to put a specific question in writing, I would be happy to provide a written response to that member. Nicola Willis: Point of order, Mr Speaker. Prior to coming to the House, I reviewed your rulings on this because my question was transferred to this Minister, and I was aware that she wasn't in the Cabinet that had made these decisions. You have ruled that Ministers are answerable to the House for decisions taken in their portfolios since the commencement of the Labour Government in 2017. The Minister should have come to the House prepared to answer these questions. She is accountable to the New Zealand public. Hon Grant Robertson: Speaking to the point of order. The Minister has, as you've been listening, answered questions that relate to a period of time in which she was not in Cabinet, and she's been doing that right through this period. Nicola Willis: Why didn't you answer them? Hon Grant Robertson: I don't know; it's a point of order, you can take your own— SPEAKER: Points of order, and speaking to points of order, are heard in silence. Hon Grant Robertson: As I said, you would have noted that the Minister has been answering the questions that have been put so far about matters when she was not a Minister—and has answered those questions. She also, in her primary answer, read out a very long and extensive list of policy advice that was created. The expectation that a Minister could come and answer the very specific questions that the member has been putting on each and every one of those bits of advice is beyond what we'd expect of any— Chris Bishop: It was on notice! Hon Grant Robertson: It was beyond what we'd expect of any Minister. Hon Member: When do they lose a supplementary question? SPEAKER: Who was that? Hon Member: Not me. SPEAKER: That's two. One, two—won't lose count. Right. To the point of order: yes, I am very aware of the rulings that I have made. In this instance, the Minister has not attempted to not answer the question. The Minister has actually addressed the question. It is up to the House and the public to judge the quality of that answer. And now we'll have both Chris Bishop and the Hon Grant Robertson stand, withdraw, and apologise. Chris Bishop: I was waiting for you to go first. I withdraw and apologise. Hon Grant Robertson: I withdraw and apologise. Nicola Willis: Is she satisfied that all Ministers properly declared and managed personal interests that could have been seen to have influenced Cabinet decision-making on these matters? Hon Grant Robertson: Point of order. That is not the responsibility of this Minister; that is the responsibility of the Prime Minister. SPEAKER: Well, the question has been asked, and as everyone knows, I have allowed questions whether they're out of order or not. If it's the Minister's answer that she doesn't have responsibility, then that's the answer. Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: I do not have ministerial responsibility for that particular question. Question No. 5—Immigration CAMILLA BELICH (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker—[Interruption] SPEAKER: In silence, please. Thank you. 5. CAMILLA BELICH (Labour) to the Minister of Immigration: What recent reports has he seen about the uptake of the Recovery Visa? Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister of Immigration): Late last month, I announced the establishment of a new Recovery Visa to help bring in workers to support the cyclone and flooding recovery. I'm pleased to announce that we have seen impressive uptake of the visa since then, with over 600 applications approved within the first month, 161 of these applicants have now arrived in the country, and more are expected over the coming days and weeks. I can also confirm that the average processing time is just four days—well within our target processing time of one week. We know how important it is to ensure that we have workers available for the cyclone and flooding recovery, especially in light of tight international labour conditions, and it's great to see the Recovery Visa supporting this. Camilla Belich: What is the criteria for the Recovery Visa? Hon MICHAEL WOOD: The Recovery Visa is for workers who come to New Zealand for up to six months to work in a role that supports the North Island recovery from extreme weather events in January and February 2023. This support can include providing emergency response; immediate clean-up; assessing risk or loss; supporting infrastructure building and housing stabilisation and/or repair, including planning functions; and work that directly supports the recovery, such as producing relevant materials for roading rebuild, transport drivers, and the like. The application process is a streamlined, high-trust model to ensure that Immigration New Zealand can support applications as efficiently as possible. Camilla Belich: What workers have been arriving on a Recovery Visa so far? Hon MICHAEL WOOD: There have been a very wide variety of workers who've come in since the Recovery Visa opened for applications. Labourers, cleaners, and carpenters are the most common types of occupation represented amongst applicants, but we've also seen insurance professionals, construction project managers, and fencers coming in as well. Camilla Belich: Are there domestic recruitment efforts under way to complement securing of migrant labour through the Recovery Visa? Hon MICHAEL WOOD: Yes; it is very important that we take a cohesive approach to the labour market. I'm advised by the Minister for social development that there are efforts under way to ensure, along with international recruitment, that New Zealanders are taking up employment opportunities presented by the recovery, as well as helping individuals to be redeployed as necessary. This includes activating Enhanced Taskforce Green, and using the Ministry of Social Development's employment-focused case management services, which this Government has built up over recent years through products such as the Flexi-wage, to help businesses retain staff to support the ongoing response. Question No. 6—Education 6. NICOLE McKEE (ACT) to the Minister of Education: How many students will be without their normal classroom teachers today due to the teachers' strike? Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance) on behalf of the Minister of Education: Schools are required to remain open if they are able to do so. Schools are not required to tell the Ministry of Education if they are open for onsite learning, supervision, or fully closed. However, as of 11 a.m. yesterday morning, 69 secondary schools had self-reported that they would be staying open for instruction, and 52 have reported that they would be closed with no supervision. Nicole McKee: Does she stand by her statement, "I want every kid at school every single day," and, if so, how many teaching days have already been lost due to teacher-only days? Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: On behalf of the Minister, in response to the first part of the question, yes. Nicole McKee: Does she think it is acceptable that the Ministry of Education doesn't hold any data on teaching days that have been lost, considering the number of bureaucrats has increased by 55 percent since 2017? Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: It is law that schools are required to be open a certain number of half days a year, and the Ministry of Education, no doubt, has the expectation that they will do that. That is the information they are focused on. Nicole McKee: Does the Minister trust principals to run their schools, and, if she does, why won't she allow them to reward excellent teachers with higher pay? Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: On behalf of the Minister, yes, I do trust principals. Question No. 7—Justice 7. Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National) to the Minister of Justice: Does she agree with the Minister for the Prevention of Family and Sexual Violence, who said, "I know what causes violence in this world and it's white cis men", and are those comments consistent with the Government's justice policy? Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN (Minister of Justice): While I don't have ministerial responsibility, of course, for another Minister's statements, as Minister Davidson has said herself, those aren't those aren't the words that she would ordinarily use. My answers are "No" and "No". Hon Paul Goldsmith: What does she think has driven the more-than-doubling in the number of serious assaults resulting in injury in New Zealand since her Government took office—as indicated by police data on the victims of crime released last week? Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: We're seeing an increased reporting of crime. This is a positive element that we've invested in to ensure that we are having a more fulsome understanding of the entire environment that crime operates in the system. Hon Paul Goldsmith: So is she saying the increase in reporting of victimisations is all down to people calling the police more often? Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: No, I'm not saying that. I'm saying that that's what the victims survey report is saying. Hon Paul Goldsmith: Does she think it's helpful for Government Ministers to blame one group in society for causing violence when the years this Government has been in power have seen such a damaging upsurge in violence in our communities? Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: I don't think that anybody in this House would dispute, for example—and as the victims survey showed—that men cause more violent harm to people within our community than others. I don't think, however, that it was helpful that race was brought into that discussion. I do think that this House has a collective responsibility to ensure that there is a minimisation of harm within our communities, and that's something that this side of the House has actively put resource into—just this week, passed two bills that have been introduced to respond to gang violence. That's what this side of the House is focused on. Hon Paul Goldsmith: And does the Minister understand why comments alleging just one category of people commit violence could be seen to diminish the experiences of many victims of crime; and if so, does she think the Minister for the Prevention of Family and Sexual Violence should apologise for—and not just clarify—her comment? Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: I don't have responsibility for another person's statements or otherwise. I do think, as I said, that we have a collective responsibility. And this is what this House has shown time and time again, whether that's through investment in our police enforcement officers, whether that's through the numerous programmes that we have invested in to capture people at both ends of the spectrum, or whether that's through the legislation that we're bringing through the House right now to tackle organised criminal violence. We're focused on the issues that matter to New Zealanders most: that's keeping New Zealanders safe. Hon James Shaw: Does she think that people with a history of violence should be allowed to be members of Parliament? Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: I don't, of course, have ministerial responsibility for that question. Question No. 8—Justice 8. VANUSHI WALTERS (Labour—Upper Harbour) to the Minister of Justice: What new legislative tools have been progressed to combat organised crime? Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN (Minister of Justice): Last night and this morning, the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Amendment Bill and the Criminal Activity Intervention Legislation Bill passed through the House. These two bills provide a range of new and important legislative tools for law enforcement agencies to tackle organised crime, respond to criminal offending, and to go after gang profits and their assets. Vanushi Walters: How will these new tools help police seize illegally obtained assets? Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: Under the new provisions in the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act, if it's shown that an associate of an organised criminal group couldn't have funded their assets legitimately, they'll be required to prove to the court how they came to possess them, or face having them frozen. New powers will also give law enforcement greater reach to seize assets from overseas-based criminals and block criminals from being able to hide illegal funds, for example, in their KiwiSaver accounts. We're going after gang leaders and the facilitators of organised crime and hitting them, of course, where it hurts the most—that's in their back pockets—giving police more powers to take their properties, cars, bikes, and, of course, their bling. Vanushi Walters: How will these new tools help police respond to gang offending? Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: Gang violence and intimidation is intolerable and leaves our communities feeling distressed. The Criminal Activity Intervention Legislation Bill, passed this morning, delivers practical and targeted measures for police to continue to keep our communities safe. Anyone caught discharging a firearm to intimidate others, such as during a drive-by shooting, faces up to five years in prison. Police will also have more powers to search for and seize weapons during times of gang conflict. The new laws also target dangerous and intimidating driving, money-laundering, and the moving of large amounts of money to facilitate offending by gangs. Coupled with the changes to the criminal proceeds recovery regime, we are making it harder for gangs and for their leaders to benefit financially from crime. Vanushi Walters: How do these changes sit within the Government's wider response to organised crime? Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: This Government has a strong record in combating organised crime, gangs, and drug use, including removing unlawful firearms off the street, actually progressing firearm prohibition orders, when the other side failed miserably, delivering nearly 1,700 additional police officers and investing in officers—more officers focused on serious and organised crime. We've delivered these law changes at a time when police have just reached a major milestone of more than 30,000 charges laid in Operation Cobalt, which focuses on disrupting unlawful gang behaviour. This follows Operation Tauwhiro, which led to 1,800 firearms being seized from organised criminal groups. Question No. 9—Environment No. 9 JOSEPH MOONEY (National—Southland) to the Minister for the Environment: Why was the majority of Hawke's Bay excluded from the ministerial inquiry into forestry slash and land use, which was announced following Cyclone Gabrielle? Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): The inquiry is into the slash and other woody debris / sediment issues in the Tai Rāwhiti, Gisborne, and Wairoa districts. The issues are different in those districts. Tai Rāwhiti is very steep and highly erodible. About 25 percent of the North Island's most severely eroding land is found in this district. Steep hill country in that district accounts for 71 percent of the land, and most of those problems do relate to pine forestry practices that go back to Cyclone Bola. The issues in most of the rest of the Hawke's Bay area are different. Many members have been there; they will have seen that the woody debris issues in and around Hastings are mainly as a consequence of the river banks having been eroded, and the willows having been— Simeon Brown: Has the Minister been there? Hon DAVID PARKER: Yes, I have; have you? The huge flood events that came down those rivers pulled out all of the willows. The willows then banked up against bridges; the stopbanks then broke. The willows and the floodwaters then cleaned up orchards, shelter belts, and those issues are very serious but they are different in nature to the mainly pine forest-related erosion in the Tai Rāwhiti and Wairoa areas. Joseph Mooney: Does he have concerns about the integrity of the ministerial inquiry in forestry slash and land use in light of one of the three ministerial inquiry panel members standing down yesterday, acknowledging that he had compromised his independence on the same day as Stuart Nash, one of the sponsoring Ministers for the inquiry, was dismissed? Hon DAVID PARKER: Yes. Mr Bayfield made a mistake in being in—he was approached to help the Hawke's Bay Regional Council resolve a lot of the post-flood issues. He admits he unwisely entered into employment negotiations as to whether he would take that role. In the end, he decided not to but, in the meantime, he had created the impression that his duties as a commissioner in the inquiry could have been brought into conflict. He rightly, under discussions with the chair of the inquiry, the Hon Hekia Parata, thought that that was untenable to continue. As a consequence, he stood down. In his place, Mr Dave Brash is being appointed and he will complete the inquiry. Joseph Mooney: Did the Minister of Forestry declare any potential conflict of interest when the exclusion of the majority of Hawke's Bay from the ministerial inquiry was discussed in Cabinet? Hon DAVID PARKER: No, but I can inform the House that the driver for the ambit of the inquiry being the Wairoa and Tai Rāwhiti districts was driven by me. There's also a written record of that, because I personally wrote the draft terms of reference. Joseph Mooney: Would he consider it appropriate for sponsoring Ministers of a ministerial inquiry to have declared any potential conflicts of interest to the Cabinet Office? Hon DAVID PARKER: Yes, but I'm not aware of there being anything untoward in that regard, in this event. Joseph Mooney: Why did the Government's language about the inquiry change from initially talking about forestry slash and land use, to simply referring to land use? Hon DAVID PARKER: I have the terms of reference in front of me, and I will read out the first paragraph, which says, "The purpose of the Inquiry is to describe the history of land uses associated with the mobilisation of woody debris (including forestry slash) and sediment in the Tairāwhiti/Gisborne District and Wairoa District, and to make recommendations about the further work needed to address the land use impacts"— Hon Member: He didn't even read the first paragraph. Hon DAVID PARKER: It's in the first paragraph; it's also repeated throughout. I'm happy to table the terms of reference if the member has not managed to read them yet. Question No. 10—Health (Māori Health) 10. ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa) to the Associate Minister of Health (Māori Health): What progress is he making to address inequities for Māori with mental health and addiction needs? Hon PEENI HENARE (Associate Minister of Health (Māori Health)): This Government launched free kaupapa Māori primary mental health and addiction services. This is part of the wider five-year Access and Choice roll-out and allows for a bespoke approach to helping our tāngata whaiora. So far, 29 kaupapa Māori service providers in approximately 60 locations have been stood up across the country to support our whānau. I've personally seen the difference these services are making on the ground and in communities, and it's changing lives and reaching many who have previously been considered hard to reach. Earlier this month, an independent interim evaluation into the Māori Access and Choice programme highlights the programme's procurement and workforce and its dedication to achieving equitable outcomes for tāngata whaiora. I'm proud of the commitment from this Government in giving our Māori providers a chance to look after our whānau. Had we not supported tailored approaches or invested in this way, we would not have been set up to pivot and respond to mental wellbeing issues in smaller communities across our country. Arena Williams: How does the report address inequities for Māori with mental health and addiction needs? Hon PEENI HENARE: The initial findings of the report speaks to the procurement phase. The interim evaluation highlighted the programme's success at improving equity for tāngata whaiora. This was done by using innovative approaches through bespoke procurement processes such as video submissions using te reo Māori and tikanga Māori. This new approach gave smaller providers a chance to apply for funding for services that work in their communities. The evaluation also pointed to the kaupapa Māori primary and mental health and addiction workforce and how dedicated they are in achieving equitable outcomes for Māori. Between 2021 and 2022 alone, the programme delivered 53,000 sessions and more than 4,100 people were seen in the month of December alone. Many of these services simply did not exist before this Government's Wellbeing Budget in 2019. The number of services in locations will only increase as the roll-out continues, and, in the last month, thanks to the launch of a new website, wellbeingsupport.health.nz, tāngata whaiora and whānau can search for nearest providers by using their address or location. Arena Williams: Can the Minister share some feedback on how the Māori mental health kaupapa is working? Hon PEENI HENARE: Earlier this month, I visited Kaikohe's Whakaoranga Whānau Recovery Hub, a community-led centre for people with mental health and addiction issues. There I heard first-hand the impacts drugs, alcohol, and violence has had on those seeking support, and their whānau. I heard from a man who had taken up meth at a young age and been in and out of prison and was at risk of losing his kids. He is now meth-free and is taking his tamariki to school and working to have permanent custody. A woman who started injecting drugs at the age of 12 has got the help she needed, through the support and manaakitanga of the staff at Whakaoranga Whānau, and is now—I'm proud to say—drug-free and employed in her first job. Arena Williams: What else is the Minister doing to support Māori whānau with mental health and addiction needs? Hon PEENI HENARE: Through Te Aka Whai Ora, we launched a project together with Te Rōpū Matua, which is a collective of hauora Māori providers in Te Tai Rāwhiti, to deliver mental wellbeing services to our Tai Rāwhiti whānau who have been impacted by the cyclone. We have almost reprioritised half a million to go towards the cyclone recovery to support mental health initiatives to help uplift the spirit of those communities with targeted campaigns, resources, training, and rongoā Māori services. There is more to do, but I will commend this Government for being brave in investing in these systems that work for Māori and communities right across our country. Question No. 11—Immigration 11. Dr JAMES McDOWALL (ACT) to the Minister of Immigration: What is the total minimum investment value of Investor I and II applications that are currently with immigration officers, and how many immigration officers are currently responsible for processing those applications? Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister of Immigration): I'm advised that as of 28 March, the total value of allocated Investor 1 applications is $1.18 million, and the total value of allocated Investor 2 applications is $238 million across 118 Investor 1 and 80 Investor 2 visas. There are 14 fulltime-equivalents currently allocated to process these applications. Dr James McDowall: Given the scheme closed in July last year, why is his Government not doing everything it can to process those visas and secure that investment—in the billions—and why is he so against getting that funding into New Zealand businesses? Hon MICHAEL WOOD: I certainly reject the assertion at the end of the member's question. I note that across the 2022 year, 152 Investor I applications were approved and 115 Investor II applications were approved, and that as of October last year we introduced the new Active Investor Plus category, which is aimed at attracting more investment into New Zealand and more active investment that will actually drive jobs and growth rather than just the passive investment that was a feature of the old system. Dr James McDowall: Is he satisfied with his new investor visa scheme, which in the 6 months since it launched has potentially cost New Zealand businesses $1.7 billion of lost investment when compared to the same time period under the previous scheme, given the Government hasn't approved a single Active Investor Plus visa? Hon MICHAEL WOOD: The member's assertion in his question is an entirely hypothetical one. I am satisfied that the Active Investor Plus category is now beginning to attract applications and that as they make their way through the systems, they will support Kiwi businesses to grow, because they will direct investment into areas what will actually deliver jobs and growth across the different regions of New Zealand. Question No. 12—Police 12. Dr EMILY HENDERSON (Labour—Whangārei) to the Minister of Police: What recent announcements has the Government made on supporting the safety of front-line police and communities? Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Minister of Police): Earlier today, the Prime Minister and I announced the roll-out of a state-of-the-art toolset to help keep front-line police safe and communities safe across New Zealand. The Tactical Response Model (TRM) is a safety system created to ensure police officers are trained, equipped, and supported to keep themselves safe. Using Police intelligence, risk assessments will be made earlier. The model will strengthen decision making and critical thinking skills while under pressure. Offender prevention teams will also be rolled out to every district, along with two-person tactical dog teams. It's critical that we give front-line police a higher level of protection without changing New Zealand's community policing model. Dr Emily Henderson: What are the main components of this initiative, and how is it different from armed response teams? Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: The Tactical Response Model is a safety system. It is made up of three elements, including training, deployment, and capability. Each of these elements are important in their own right, but we have seen from the evaluation that we get a greater impact when they work together as a system. The TRM staff will not be generally armed and they will not be on community patrols, like armed response teams were. The underlying principle of a tactical response model is a commitment to retain our community policing service. Staff will wear standard police uniform, drive standard police vehicles, and Police remains a generally unarmed service. Dr Emily Henderson: How is the model delivered and what evaluations on its effectiveness have taken place? Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: The model is delivered with the front-line officer at the very centre. It focuses fundamentally on the officer having the equipment, the training, and the cognitive response under pressure to be able to make the right decision in critical incidents. The model provides further support through deployment and the additional intelligence capacity that is focused on identifying and managing those persons who present the greatest risk to hurting our front-line staff. Last year, a successful trial of the TRM was completed in four police districts: Northland, Counties Manukau, Waikato, and Central. A formal evaluation of the model showed that it worked and that each component produced safety benefits, but the greatest impact happened when it operated as a combined safety system. Dr Emily Henderson: Why is this training so important? Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: Every day, we hear that police officers are being called to deal with potentially dangerous and risky situations, so they need to keep themselves as safe as possible. It's critical to give front-line police a higher level of protection without changing New Zealand's community policing approach, which we strongly believe is effective and appropriate for our country. Resolving incidents safely and reducing the risk to everyone involved is the goal. I'm looking forward to seeing the Tactical Response Model roll out to the remaining eight police districts to enhance the safety of police staff as well as the communities that they serve. POINTS OF ORDER Urgent Debate Declined—Hon Stuart Nash, Removal as Minister CHRISTOPHER LUXON (Leader of the Opposition): Point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek leave for the business of the House to be suspended so that a debate can take place on the dismissal by the Prime Minister of the Hon Stuart Nash as a Minister, and for the time for the debate—moved by me—to be in accordance with that of a debate in a matter of urgent public importance, as set out in Appendix A of Standing Orders. SPEAKER: Leave has been sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is objection.